PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF R.C.C.

BUILDINGS

Dissertation

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement

For the degree of
Master of Technology (CIVIL)
(Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design)
NIRMA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

By
DARJI RAMKRISHNA V.
(03MCL03)

Guide
SHRI. S. P. PUROHIT

Civil Engineering Department

Ahmedabad - 382 481

May 2005
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Major Project entitled “Performance Based Analysis of R.C.C.
Building” submitted by Mr. Ramkrishna V Darji (03MCL03), towards the partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of Master of Technology (CIVIL) in
field of Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design (CASAD) of Nirma University of
Science and Technology is the record of work carried out by him under my supervision and
guidance. The work submitted has in my opinion reached a level required for being accepted
for examination. The results embodied in this dissertation, to the best of my knowledge have
not been submitted to any other university or institution for award of any degree or diploma.

Shri. S. P. Purohit Prof G. N. Patel

Guide, Head,
Senior Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department
Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Technology
Institute of Technology, Nirma University
Nirma University Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad

Dr. H. V. Trivedi
Director,
Institute of Technology
Nirma University
Ahmedabad

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a matter of great pleasure, that I am submitting my thesis “Performance based Analysis

of R.C.C Buildings”. This thesis is a part of my terminal curriculum. At this moment, I would
like to thank my Guide Shri S.P Purohit, who has helped me throughout my preparation of
the thesis. I was fortunate to have a guide of such a high academic standard who was always
there to solve my problems and difficulties during my thesis work. I think without his
academic and moral help, the thesis would not have been, what it is today.

I would also thank Prof. G N Patel, Head of Civil Engineering Department, and Dr. H V
Trivedi, Director, Nirma Institute of Technology for their constant support that has helped
me to take right decisions and to make a good and appealing thesis.

During my thesis work, my visit to IIT- Kanpur to attend “Earthquake Engineering Review
Workshop” has helped me immensely. In this regard, I would thank the workshop co-
coordinator Dr. K.K. Bajpai for his expert guidance in the related subject.

Thanks to Mr. Praful Suthar, who has given me drawings and details of existing buildings
on which I have worked during my thesis. I would also thank to our Lab Administrators Ms.
Deepa .A. Singhvi and Mr. Ingle Virendrasinh U. who helped me during my thesis
preparation in the lab. They helped me solve the problems in the lab as also to the problems
in the software’s that were required for concerned work.

At the end, I would thank Almighty. I would thank my family and friends, their constant
support and their expectations from me have helped me to work hard and to move forward in
my goal.

Darji Ramkrishna V.
(03mcl03)

ii
 ABSTRACT

Earthquakes are known to produce one of the most destructive forces on earth. It can be
originated number of natural or human induced events and causes loss of life and property and
shakes the moral of the people. Earthquake cannot be stopped but people can be prevented
from them, as earthquakes don’t kill human beings but the buildings do.

A historical approach of building design is using “factor of safety” to account for uncertainty
in Earthquake demand and building capacity, because of lack of knowledge on earthquake
demand. Also the seismic design of building structures is based on the concept of increasing
the resistance capacity of the structures against earthquakes by employing, shear walls, braced
frames or MR frames.

In the past decade, India has seen major earthquakes of the world, recently one being Bhuj
earthquake 2001. The building which appeared to be strong enough, found crumbled during
Bhuj earthquake. During this earthquake, most buildings were found deficient to meet the
requirement the present day codal provisions. To avoid major disasters, existing building can
be retrofitted to strengthen them. But before that building should be analyzed for their
strength and performance. The seismic design should be such that it prevents loss of life,
ensure continuity and minimize damage to the property.

Performance Based Seismic Engineering is the modern approach to earthquake resistant

design. It is an attempt to predict the buildings with predictable seismic performance. In one
sense, it is limit-states design extended to cover complex range of issues faced by earthquake
engineers.

The thesis is an attempt to understand the basic fundamentals and procedures of Performance
Based Analysis of R.C.C. buildings. The analysis was performed on new as well as existing
R.C.C. buildings and the performance of buildings in future earthquake was obtained. The
software used for performing Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover Analysis) is ETABS 8.11.

iii
Two kinds of new R.C.C. buildings were taken for analysis: G+4 and G+10 to cover the
broader spectrum of low rise & high rise building construction. Different modeling issues
were incorporated through eight various models for G+4 and G+10 R.C.C. building. Also,
parametric study of infill walls in terms of its location was done in G+4 R.C.C. building
models. Out of eight models, five models were of G+4 building and three of G+10 building.

An existing building selected for its performance study in future earthquake was Shivshakti
Apartment, located at Vasna, Ahmedabad. It’s a G+4 residential building constructed about
12 years back in 1993 without lift core and a water tank at its top. An existing building has
already suffered an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 (Bhuj Earthquake, 2001). The performance
of an existing building was thought to be obtained by once without consideration of infill
contribution and twice, with consideration of infill contribution. Hence, two G+4 R.C.C.
building models were developed and analyzed for Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover
Analysis) to obtain its performance for future predicted earthquake.

Number of results obtained through the Nonlinear Static Analysis were studied and
conclusions were made. Also, the sequence of formation of hinges at different stages to define
its overall performance were studied. Comparisons between different developed building
models in term of displacement were plotted and influence of storey drift were also plotted.

iv
 INDEX

Certificate i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
Index v
List of Figures viii
List of Tables xi

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background 2
1.3 Objective of work 3
1.4 Scope of the work 3
1.5 Organization of Report 4

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General 6
2.2 Nonlinearity 6
2.3 Analysis methods 7
2.4 Methods of obtaining performance point 9
2.5 Building performance 12
2.6 Limitations of pushover analysis 14

Chapter 3 FUNDAMENTALS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction 15
3.2 Demand and Capacity 15
3.3 The Pushover Analysis 17
3.4 The pushover analysis procedure 19
3.5 Capacity Spectrum Method 20
3.6 Performance Point 22
Chapter 4 SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF
BUILDINGS
4.1 Introduction 24
4.2 Modeling of building 25
4.3 Defining Static load case 26
4.4 Defining Response Spectrum case 26
4.5 Performing Linear Static and Dynamic analysis 27
4.6 Defining Frame nonlinear hinge property 27
4.7 Defining Static Nonlinear cases 29
4.8 Performing pushover analysis 34
4.9 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve 35
4.10 Obtaining performance point 37
4.11 Evaluation of building at performance point 38

Chapter 5 ANALYSIS OF 2D/3D FRAME

5.1 Introduction 40
5.2 Modeling of the frame 40
5.2.1 Frame Nonlinear Hinges 40
5.2.2 Static Nonlinear Cases 42
5.3 Results of pushover analysis of 2D frame 44
5.4 Results of pushover analysis of 3D frame 50

Chapter 6 ANALYSIS OF NEW R.C.C. BUILDINGS

6.1 Introduction 55
6.2 Modeling of G+4 Building 55
6.2.1 G+4 model without infill 56
6.2.2 G+4 with infill as membrane wall with GF 57
as soft storey
6.2.3 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut with GF 58
as soft storey
6.2.4 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut without 59
 soft storey
6.2.5 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut at 60
periphery only.
6.3 Modeling of G+10 Building 60
6.3.1 G+10 model without infill 60
6.3.2 G+10 with infill as membrane wall 62
6.3.3 G+10 with infill as equivalent strut 62
6.4 Static Linear, Dynamic and Response Spectrum 63
Analysis and Design
6.5 Frame Nonlinear Hinge Property 64
6.6 Static Nonlinear cases 65

Chapter 7 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING BUILDING

7.1 Introduction 67
7.2 Evaluating structural details of existing buildings 68
7.3 Modeling of an existing buildings 68
7.4 Assigning Frame Nonlinear Hinge Property 70
7.5 Load cases 71
7.6 Nonlinear Static Load cases & Analysis of existing 72
building

Chapter 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 74

Chapter 9 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK 97

Appendix-I 101
Appendix-II 104
Appendix-III 108
Annexure 1 110
References 157
 List of Figures

Fig. No. Description Page No.

2.1 Geometric Nonlinearity, P-∆ Effect 7

2.2 Material Nonlinearity 7
2.3 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve 9
2.4 Obatining Performance Point by adding strength to system 11
2.5 Obtaining performance point by enhancing ductility to system 11
2.6 Obtaining performance point by adding damping or isolation to 12
system
3.1 Response Spectral Conversion 21
3.2 Performance point evaluation by procedure A 23
4.1 Default Hinge Types 28
4.2 Frame moment hinge property 28
4.3 Moment rotation curve 28
4.4 Static Nonlinear case in ETABS 31
4.5 Static Nonlinear case in SAP 31
4.6 Ideal Pushover Curve 35
4.7 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum curve 36
4.8 Construction of Single Demand Spectrum (variable damping) 39
curve
5.1 2D and 3D frame model 40
5.2 Default moment hinge property 41
5.3 Nonlinear hinges in 2D and 3D frame 41
5.4 Lateral loading in 2D frame 42
5.5 PUSH1 case for 2D and 3D frame 43
5.6 PUSH2 case for 2D and 3D frame 44
5.7 Pushover curve of 2D frame in SAP 44
5.8 Hinge formation of 2D frame in SAP 45
5.9 Pushover curve of 2D frame in ETABS 47
5.10 Hinge formation of 2D frame in ETABS 47
5.11 BMD of 2D frame at the end of pushover analysis ETABS 49
5.12 BMD of 2D frame at the end of pushover analysis SAP 50
5.13 Pushover curve of 3D frame in ETABS 50
5.14 Hinge formation of 3D frame in ETABS 52
5.15 Pushover curve of 3D frame in SAP 52
5.16 Hinge formation of 3D frame in SAP 54
6.1 Plan of new building models 55
6.2 Elevation of G+4 bare frame model 56
6.3 Lateral loading pattern 57
6.4 G+4 model with infill as membrane wall 58
6.5 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut 59
6.6 Lateral loading in G+4 model having diagonal strut 59
6.7 G+4 with strut at GF also 60
6.8 Elevation G+10 bare frame 61
6.9 G+10 building with infill as membrane wall 62
6.10 G+10 with infill as diagonal strut 63
6.11 Response Spectrum Curve of IS 1893-2002 (part I) 63
6.12 Nonlinear hinges in beams, columns and diagonal strut 64
6.13a PUSH1 case for G+4 model 65
6.13b PUSH2 case for G+4 model 66
7.1a Plan of existing building 69
7.1b 3D model of existing building 69
7.2 Model having equivalent strut 70
7.3a Typical shear force deformation curve to model shear hinges 71
7.3b Frame hinge property data for beam B1a on both the ends 71
7.4 Lateral load in X-direction 72
7.5a PUSH1 case for existing building 73
7.5b PUSH2 case for existing building 73
7.5c PUSH3 case for existing building 73
8.1 Pushover Curve of G+4 bare frame (w/o infill walls) 74
 8.2 Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 bare frame 75
8.3 Hinge formation at performance point G+4 bare frame 76
8.4 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum curve for G+4 with wall 77
8.5 Hinge formation G+4 with wall at performance point 78
8.6 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 with 79
equivalent strut
8.7 Hinge formation G+4 with strut at performance point 80
8.8 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 with strut 81
at periphery
8.9 Hinge formation G+4 with strut at periphery at performance 82
point
8.10 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 with strut 83
at GF also.
8.11 Hinge formation G+4 with strut at GF also 83
8.12 Displacement of each G+4 model of first mode 84
8.13 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+10 without 85
infill
8.14 Hinge formation G+10 without infill at performance point 87
8.15 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum curve of G+10 with strut 87
8.16 Hinge formation G+10 with strut at performance point 88
8.17 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum curve of G+10 with wall 89
8.18 Hinge formation G+10 with wall at performance point 90
8.19a Pushover curve for X-dirn. 91
8.19b Pushover curve for Y-dirn. 91
8.20a Capacity Spectrum Curve X-dirn. 91
8.20b Capacity Spectrum Curve Y-dirn. 91
8.21 Hinge formation Existing building without strut X-dirn at 93
performance point
8.22 Hinge formation Existing building without strut Y-dirn at 93
performance point
8.23a Storey drift in X dirn. 94
8.23b Storey drift in Y dirn. 94
8.24a Pushover curve X-dirn. 94
8.24b Pushover curve Y-dirn. 94
8.25a Capacity Spectrum Curve X-dirn 96
8.25b Capacity Spectrum Curve Y-dirn 96
 List of Tables

Table No. Description Page No.

5.1 Tabular format of pushover curve from SAP for 2D frame 46

5.2 Tabular format of Pushover curve from ETABS for 2D 48
frame
5.3 Tabular Format of Pushover curve in ETABS for 3D frame 51
5.4 Tabular format of pushover curve in SAP for 3D frame 53
6.1 Geometric Property of frame and live loads on slab 56
6.2 Geometrical properties of frame and loading on slabs 61
7.1 Column dimensions 68
8.1 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 bare frame (w/o 76
infill walls)
8.2 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with wall 78
8.3 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with Strut 80
8.4 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with strut at 81
periphery
8.5 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with strut at GF 84
also
8.6 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 without infill 86
8.7 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 with strut 88
8.8 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 with wall 89
8.9 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing Building 92
without strut in X-dirn.
8.10 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing building 92
without strut Y-dirn.
8.11 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing building 95

xi
 with strut X-dirn.
8.12 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing building 95
with strut Y-dirn.

xii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Earthquakes are known to produce one of the most destructive forces on earth. It cause
damage to man made structures, like Buildings, Chimneys, Towers and Public Infrastructures
like, Bridge and Roads, Dams and Irrigation structures, Water supply and Sewerage systems,
Telecommunications systems, Power Plants Industries, Life line systems etc. The earthquakes
are also known to cause landslides, liquefaction, slope-instability and damage to earth and
rack structures. It causes loss of life and property and shakes the moral of people.

The earthquake can be originated by a number of natural or human induced events. The
natural events may be including meteoric impact, volcanic activity and tectonic activity. The
majority of earthquakes originate in the vicinity of boundary between crustal tectonic plates
by the release of stresses and deformation accumulated as a result of relative movement of
plates. Rate of average relative displacement along faults can vary from a few millimeters a
year to about 100mm/yr. There are many other human activities that can cause ground
motions similar to those of natural earthquakes. These activities can be characterized as
paraseismic influences, such as, underground explosions, underground shocks from mine
explosions, over ground explosions, like quarries, shocks due to pile driving traffic vibrations,
industrial activities and machine vibrations. The earthquakes are unpreventable and
unpredictable. Because of unpredictable nature of earthquake, the design and construction of
structures to with stand the effect of earthquake is the only course of action of ground.

The complete protection against earthquakes of all size is not economically feasible for most
type of structures. The seismic Design should be such that it prevents loss of life, ensure
continuity, and minimize damage to property. The design philosophy established considering
this aspect is-
- The structure should withstand moderate earthquake ground motions, which may
be expected to occur at the site during the service life of structure with damage

1
 within acceptable limits. Such earthquake can be characterized as Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE).
- The structure should not collapse when subjected to severe ground motion that
could possibly occur at the site. Such an earthquake depicts maximum potential of
site and is characterized as Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) or Maximum
Considered Earthquake.

Seismic analysis methods of the structures can be characterized as, Seismic coefficient
method and Dynamic Analysis. Seismic coefficient method is an equivalent static analysis
considering a design seismic coefficient. The design seismic coefficients include factors such
as importance factor, soil-foundation factor, response reduction factor and zone factor. In
order to simplify the methods of analysis for determining earthquake effects on structures,
codes of practice recommend seismic-coefficient method. Dynamic analysis can be
characterized as, Response Spectrum analysis for linear structures, Time history analysis for
linear or non-linear Structures and Frequency domain method.

1.2 Background

Once the earthquake hits, it’s too late to protect your homes and belongings. But there are
ways to limit future earthquake damage. The causalities from the earthquakes suffered during
the last decade has made it necessary to control and access buildings that have been
constructed without any regard to appropriate seismic design characteristics. Thus, in recent
years there has been an extensive examination of performance of structures during an
earthquake using performance based techniques. The most used method to evaluate
performance of structures is Nonlinear Static Analysis widely known as Pushover Analysis.

Performance based seismic engineering is the modern approach to earthquake resistance

design. The promise of performance-based analysis is to produce structures with predictable
seismic performance. Performance based engineering is not new. Automobiles, Airplanes, and
turbines have been designed and manufactured using this approach for many decade. But the
applications of the same to the buildings were limited. Generally in such applications one of
more full-scale prototypes of the structure are built and subjected to extensive testing. The

2
design and manufacturing process is then revised to incorporate the lessons learned from the
experimental evaluations. What makes performance-based analysis of buildings different is
that, each building designed by this process is virtually unique and the experience obtained is
not directly transferable to buildings of other type, size, and performance objectives. In order
to utilize performance-based analysis effectively and intelligently, one need to be aware of the
uncertainties involved in both structural performance and seismic hazard estimations

Every structural system is designed to have a seismic capacity that exceeds the anticipated
seismic demand. A key requirement of any meaningful performance based analysis is the
ability to assess seismic demands and capacities with a reasonable degree of certainty.

1.3 Objective of work

As mentioned above, each building need to access for its seismic capacity and characteristic
performance of building is required to understand. Hence, performance based analysis is
essential for the buildings to understand its behavior and response during earthquake. The
main objective of study is to perform performance based analysis i.e. to obtain performance
levels of buildings for the future earthquake. Also to understand its collapse mechanism in
case of extensive damage. In addition to above, the building is to be accessed for additional
strength requirement. The strength to the building can be imparted by appropriate amount of
retrofitting and restrengthening. Because of the involvement of large set of parameters,
manual calculations is very complex and unmanageable, and hence, use of establish software
is essential. The software like ETABS 8.11 and SAP 2000 Nonlinear, which are capable of
performing performance based analysis were employed.

1.4 Scope of the work

The scope of work include broadly two parts of performance based analysis, firstly analysis of
a new building which has to met specific performance level in future earthquake and
secondly, analysis and assessment of an existing building which had suffered an earthquake in
past, and its performance level in future earthquake.

3
In view to fulfill the above outlined objective of work, following work was defined.

• Selection of an appropriate structural layout for new as well as an existing R.C.C.

building.
• Carryout Static Nonlinear Analysis (Pushover Analysis) for R.C.C. building.
• Generate pushover curve (Base Shear-Roof Displacement) for R.C.C. building.
• Obtain Demand curve by converting Response Spectrum into ADRS (Acceleration
Displacement Response Spectrum) format.
• Superposition of Capacity curve and Demand Curve to obtain performance point for a
specific level of earthquake.
• Evaluation of building performance with reference to performance point.
• Understanding the collapse mechanism of different structural members of a R.C.C.
building.
• Suggesting an appropriate measure for restrengthening or retrofitting of the R.C.C.
building.

1.5 Organization of Report

The report may be viewed as divided into nine chapters. First chapter summarized the
introductory part.

In the second chapter, the literature review of the various technical papers, books and journals
are dealt with. This includes the specific points from technical papers, books, journals and
reports by Applied Technical Council (ATC-40) and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA-273).

Chapter Three is the fundamental of Nonlinear Static Analysis, which includes the basics of
Demand and Capacity, procedure for performing Pushover analysis and Evaluating
Performance point.

4
Fourth chapter highlights the use of software and its implementations for Nonlinear Static
Analysis. However, in fifth chapter, to ensure the correct implementation of software, an
introductory problem of 2D/3D frame for pushover analysis was solved using the softwares.

Chapter Six contains the pushover analysis of new R.C.C. building with eight different
models addressing modeling issues. Seventh chapter includes analysis of an existing R.C.C.
building named Shivshakti Apartment at Vasna, Ahmedabad for its expected performance to
the future predicted earthquake.

Chapter Eight elaborates in depth, the results of the various models of new as well as an
existing R.C.C. building. The comparison, assessment and discussion of results has been
critically mentioned.

Finally, chapter Nine is the Conclusion and Further Scope of work.

5
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General

Literature survey is essential to review the work done in the area of performance based
engineering. To take up the specific need to perform the analysis, the literature like technical
papers, journals and books need to be referred. The prime important in the review was to
understand the analysis and different concept of performance based engineering.

2.2 Nonlinearity

As it is required to know the ultimate capacity of building, the analysis is essential to be

carried out up to the plastic zone. The nonlinearities in RCC members can be geometric as
well as material. Both of these become more important at higher deformations.

E.D. Thomson, A.J. Carr and P.J. Moss [1] describes Geometric nonlinearity as a change in
the elastic load-deformation characteristics of the structure caused by the change in the
structural shape due to large deformation. It appears when the deflections of the structure are
large enough to cause significant changes in the geometry of the structure, requiring the
equilibrium equations to be formulated for the deformed configuration. These geometric
nonlinearities can become significant in frames, which are displaced laterally due to seismic
movements or by wind loads. The interaction between the gravity load induced axial forces in
the columns and the lateral displacements give rise to moments and forces in addition to those
determined in a common “first order” analysis. This additional effect is commonly referred as
P-∆ effects, where “P” refers to the gravity loading and “∆” the lateral displacements.

6
 Fig 2.1 Geometric Nonlinearity, P-∆ Effect

Concrete and steel are the two constituents of RCC. Since concrete and steel are both strongly
nonlinear materials, the material nonliinearity of RCC is a complex combination of both [2].

Fig 2.2 Material Nonlinearity

2.3 Analysis methods

The various methods available for nonlinear analysis as described by Yogendra Singh [3] are
Code Procedure, Demand Capacity Ratio, Capacity Spectrum Method, Secant Method, and
Time History Analysis. The most basic nonlinear analysis procedure is the complete nonlinear
time history analysis. However, this method has difficulty in selection of design time history,
as the codes give design response spectrum and not the design time history. Further, this
method is considered to be too complex and impractical for general uses.

7
M J N Priestley [4] has given two more methods which are N2 method and direct
displacement-based design. In N2 method, an estimate of seismic displacement demand is
found by response spectrum analysis of a single degree of freedom bilinear mode,
representing the first elastic mode of the structure. This displacement demand is compared
with the results of pushover analysis of a multi degree of freedom representation of the
structure. The displacement-based design is the forced based approach with the addition of a
displacement check to ensure that the acceptable performance is achieved in the design
earthquake.

Farzed Naem [5] considers Capacity Spectrum Method, a most popular method. The method
is also known as Nonlinear Static Procedure, Nonlinear Pushover Analysis or simply
Pushover analysis method. In a technical literature, Farzed Naem [5] has described pushover
analysis techniques in various points

• Push-over analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the building is

subjected to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., inverted triangular or uniform).
• The intensity of the lateral load is slowly increased and the sequence of cracks,
yielding, plastic hinge formations, and failure of various structural components is
recorded.
• Push-over analysis can provide a significant insight into the weak links in seismic
performance of a structure.
• A series of iterations are usually required during which, the structural deficiencies
observed in one iteration, are rectified and followed by another.
• This iterative analysis and design process continues until the design satisfies pre-
established performance criteria.
• The performance criterion for push-over analysis is generally established as the
desired state of the building given roof-top or spectral displacement amplitude.

ATC 40 [6] describes Pushover analysis as a basic tool for the performance based seismic
design of the building structures. By pushover analysis the base shear versus the top
displacement curve of the structure, usually called capacity curve, is obtained. The basic
demand and capacity parameter for the analysis is the lateral displacement of the building.

8
The generation of capacity curve defines the capacity of the building uniquely for an assumed
force distribution and displacement pattern.

Fig. 2.3a Pushover Curve Fig. 2.3b Capacity Spectrum Curve

The Capacity Spectrum Method compares the capacity spectrum of the structure and demand
spectrum of earthquake ground motion using visual graphic procedure. This visual graphic
procedure is easy to understand for the seismic performance of the structures existing or to be
designed.

2.4 Methods of obtaining performance point

No building can be pushed to eternity without failure. Performance point is where the Seismic
Capacity and the Seismic Demand curves meet. If the performance point exists and damage
state at that point is acceptable, the building satisfies the push-over criterion. If not, the
building is required to alter to satisfy the pushover criteria.

According to ATC 40 [6], the location of performance point must satisfy two relationships:

1) The point must lie on the capacity spectrum curve in order to represent the structure at
a given displacement, and
2) The point must lie on a spectral demand curve, reduced from the elastic, 5 percent
damped design spectrum that represents the nonlinear demand at the same structural
displacement.

9
ATC 40 [6] considers the determination of performance point, a trial and error method that
searches for satisfaction of the above two specified criteria.

There are three methods of obtaining performance point given in ATC-40 [6]. They are:
Procedure A, Procedure B, Procedure C

Procedure A is more transparent and most direct application of the methodology. It is truly
iterative, but is formula based and easily can be programmed into a spreadsheet. It is more an
analytical method than a graphical method. It is the best method for beginners as it is most
direct and easiest to understand.

Procedure B is also an analytical method but is simpler than Procedure A. simplification is

introduced in the bilinear modeling of the capacity curve that enables a relatively direct
solution for the performance point with little iteration. It assumes that not only the initial
slope of bilinear representation of capacity curve remains constant, but also the post yield
slope remains constant.

Procedure C is graphical method and is most convenient for hand analysis. It is not
particularly convenient for spreadsheet programming. It is the least transparent application of
the methodology.

Farzed Naem [7] gives some solution if the performance point doesn’t exist. There are three
solutions.

• Add Strength or Stiffness or both to the building: As shown in fig. one of the reasons
for not getting performance point is that the demand is more and capacity is less.
Adding strength or stiffness to the building raises the capacity of the building and
subsequently the capacity curve of the building which intersects the demand curve.

10
 Fig. 2.4 obtaining performance point by adding strength to system

• Enhance System Ductility: Enhancing ductility in the building will increase the
capacity of building to resist more loads in nonlinear range. As shown in Fig. 2.5 the
capacity spectrum of this building will be elongated as it will be able to deform more
under the constant load.

Fig. 2.5 obtaining performance point by enhancing ductility to system

• Reduce Seismic Demand by adding Damping or Isolation: Adding damping will

reduce the demand as there will be more energy dissipation. This will bring down the
demand curve as shown in Fig. 2.6

11
 Fig. 2.6 obtaining performance point by adding damping or isolation to system

2.5 Building performance

ATC 40 [6] also gives guidelines regarding Performance Objectives. Performance Objective
specifies the desired seismic performance of the building. It includes consideration of damage
states for several levels of ground motion. Performance level describes a limiting damage
condition which may be considered satisfactory for a given building and a given ground
motion. Target performance level is specified independently. Structural performance levels
are given names and number designations while nonstructural performance levels are given
names and letter designations.

Performance of building can be evaluated by combination of evaluation of Structural

performance and Nonstructural performance. Farzed Naem [5] has describes this
performance levels in brief.

Structural performance levels are defined as:

Immediate Occupancy (SP-1): limited structural damage with the basic vertical and lateral
force resisting system retaining most of their pre-earthquake characteristics and capacities.

Damage Control (SP-2): a placeholder for a state of damage somewhere between Immediate
Occupancy and Life Safety.

12
Life Safety (SP-3): significant damage with some margin against total or partial collapse.
Injuries may occur with the risk of life-threatening injury being low. Repair may not be
economically feasible.

Limited Safety (SP-4): a placeholder for a state of damage somewhere between Life Safety
and Structural Stability.

Structural Stability (SP-5): substantial structural damage in which the structural system is on
the verge of experiencing partial or total collapse. Significant risk of injury exists. Repair may
not be technically or economically feasible.

Not considered (SP-6): placeholder for situations where only non-structural seismic
evaluation or retrofit is performed.

Non-Structural performance levels are defined as:

Operational (NP-A): non-structural elements are generally in place and functional. Back-up
systems for failure of external utilities, communications and transportation have been
provided.

Immediate Occupancy (NP-B): non-structural elements are generally in place but may not be
functional. No back-up systems for failure of external utilities are provided.

Life Safety (NP-C): considerable damage to non-structural components and systems but no
collapse of heavy items. Secondary hazards such as breaks in high-pressure, toxic or fire
suppression piping should not be present.

Reduced Hazards (NP-D): extensive damage to non-structural components but should not
include collapse of large and heavy items that can cause significant injury to groups of people.

Not considered (NP-E): non-structural elements, other than those that have an effect on
structural response, are not evaluated.

13
2.6 Limitations of pushover analysis

Structural Engineers Association of Califonia [8] has recommended some limitations of

Pushover analysis in its volume Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. It
says that the current state of knowledge and available technology is such that the ability to
accurately predict the earthquake performance of a specific building subjected to a defined
earthquake ground motion is quite limited, and subject to a number of uncertainties. Principal
sources of these uncertainties include:

• Definition of the ground motion including, intensity, duration, phasing, and frequency
content,

• Analysis of the distribution of deformations and stresses produced in the structure in

response to the ground motion,

• Knowledge of the actual configuration, strengths, deformations, and energy absorption

and dissipation capacities of the structure in its as-constructed and maintained
condition, and

• Determination of specific damage to structural and nonstructural components, in

response to defined ground motions.

14
Chapter 3 FUNDAMENTALS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction

There are various elastic and inelastic methods, available for analysis of existing concrete
buildings. Elastic analysis methods include code static lateral force procedures, code dynamic
lateral force procedures and elastic procedures using demand capacity ratio. The most basic
inelastic analysis method is the complete nonlinear time history analysis. Other simplified
nonlinear analysis methods includes the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) that uses the
intersection of the capacity (pushover) curve and a reduced response spectrum to estimate
maximum displacement; the displacement coefficient method that uses pushover analysis and
a modified version of the equal displacement approximation to estimate maximum
displacement; and the secant method that uses a substitute structure and secant stiffness [12].

Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover Analysis) provides a particularly rigorous treatment of

the reduction of seismic demand for increasing displacement. It is an attempt to explicitly
address the nonlinear behavior of the structure.

The Capacity Spectrum Method, a nonlinear static procedure that provides a graphical
representation of the global force-displacement capacity curve of the structure and compares it
to the response spectra representation of the earthquake demands, is a very useful tool in the
evaluation and retrofit design of existing concrete building. The graphical representation
provides a clear picture of how a building responds to earthquake ground motion, and it
provides an immediate and clear picture of how various retrofit strategies, such as adding
stiffness or strength, will impact the building’s response to earthquake.

3.2 Demand and Capacity

The key elements of a performance-based design procedure are demand and capacity.
Demand is a representative of the earthquake ground motion. Capacity is a representation of

15
the structure’s ability to resist the seismic demand. The performance is dependent on the
manner that the capacity is able to handle the demand.

Determination of three primary elements: capacity, demand (displacement) and performance

are required for Nonlinear Static (Pushover) Analysis. Each of these is briefly described
below [6].

Capacity:
The overall capacity of a structure depends on the strength and deformation capacities of the
individual components of the structure. In order to determine capacities beyond the elastic
limits, some form of nonlinear analysis, such as the pushover procedure, is required. This
procedure uses a series of sequential elastic analysis, superimposed to approximate a force-
displacement capacity diagram of the overall structure. The mathematical model of the
structure is modified to account for reduced resistance of yielding components. A lateral force
distribution is again applied until additional components yield. This process is continued until
the structure becomes unstable or until a predetermined limit is reached.

Demand:
Ground motion during an earthquake produce complex horizontal displacement patterns in the
structures. It is impractical to trace this lateral displacement at each time-step to determine the
structural design parameters. The traditional design methods use equivalent lateral forces to
represent the design condition. For nonlinear methods it is easier and more direct to use a set
of lateral displacements as the design condition. For a given structure and ground motion, the
displacement demand is an estimate of the maximum expected response of the building during
the ground motion.

Performance:
Once, a capacity curve and demand displacement, are defined, a performance check can be
done. A performance check verifies that structural and nonstructural components are not
damaged beyond the acceptable limits of the performance objective for the forces and
displacements implied by the displacement demand.

16
3.3 The Pushover Analysis

As described previously, it is a technique by which a computer model is subjected to lateral

load of certain shape. The intensity of lateral load is increased and the sequence of failure is
recorded.

For meaningful pushover analysis the most important considerations are summarized as
commandments [7]. There are ten of such commandments which are briefly described below:

1) Do not underestimate the importance of the loading or displacement shape function:

The loading or displacement shape function is selected to represent the predominant

dynamic mode shape of the building. Quit often, the inverted triangular shape is used. It is
important to keep load shape function constant during the push.

2) Know your performance objective before you push the building.

Since the objective of pushover analysis is to access the status of building and its
components in damaged state, it is important to understand the specific performance
objectives desired for the building. Performance objective like collapse prevention, life
safety or immediate occupancy can be translated in terms of: given set of design spectra
and specific limit states acceptable for various structural components when subjected to
the seismic demand embodied in these design spectra.

3) If it is not designed, it cannot be pushed.

E, A and I are not sufficient. As pushover analysis is a strong function of force-

displacement characteristics of individual members, the connections, initial stiffness, yield
moment and post yield behavior is also to be taken care of.

4) Do not ignore Gravity loads.

17
Inclusion and exclusion of gravity load can have a effect on the shape of pushover curve
and member yielding and failure sequence. Due to the unsymmetric distribution of
positive and negative reinforcement in R/C beams, gravity load delays the onset of
yielding and cracking in the beams, resulting in a stiffer structure at lower magnitude of
base shear.

5) Do not push beyond the failure unless and otherwise you can model the failure.

To understand the complete collapse mechanism of system, modeling of elements failing

initially are most important, though it is complex.

6) Pay attention to the rebar development and lap lengths.

For R/C members of existing building, it is very important to note the development
lengths, when calculating the member capacities. If inadequate development lengths are
present, the contributing steel area should be reduced to account for this inadequacy.

7) Do not ignore the shear failure mechanisms.

If shear capacity of structural members is not sufficient to permit the formation of flexural
plastic hinge, shear failure will precede the formation of plastic hinge at the end of
members.

8) P-∆ effect may be more important than you think.

For large lateral displacement and large axial force in columns, P-∆ effect becomes
increasingly significant.

9) Do not confuse the push over with real earthquake loading.

The push-over load is monotonically increased while earthquake loading continually

change in amplitude and direction during the duration of earthquake ground motion.

18
 Moreover, pushover loads and structural response are in phase while earthquake excitation
and building response are not necessarily in phase.

10) Three-Dimensional buildings may require more than a planar push.

For a building with strong asymmetry in plan, a planar (Two Dimensional) push over
analysis may not suffice. For such cases a 3D model of the building must be constructed
and subjected to pushover analysis.

3.4 The Pushover Analysis Procedure

The ATC 40 [6] provides detailed guidelines about how to perform a nonlinear static
pushover analysis. The most important parts of this method are the construction of the
Capacity Spectrum and the design Response Spectra and finding of the point of intersection of
the capacity and the response spectra. The intersection defines the performance level of the
structure for the design earthquake. The following procedure is based on the ATC 40
procedure.

• Form the analytical model of the nonlinear structure.

• Set the performance criteria, like drift at specific floor levels, limiting plastic hinge
rotation at specific plastic hinge points, etc.

• Apply the gravity load and analyze for the internal forces.

• Assign the equivalent static seismic lateral load to the structure incrementally. There is
guideline how to distribute loads between different floor levels. This is either based on
the current code specified load or equivalent static load computed based on modal
analysis.

• Select a control point (usually at the top floor) to watch displacement.

19
• Apply the lateral load gradually using incremental iteration procedure.

• Draw the “Base Shear vs. Controlled Displacement” curve. This is called “pushover
curve”.

• Convert the pushover curve to the Acceleration-Displacement Response-Spectra

(ADRS) format. This is called capacity spectrum.

• Obtain the equivalent damping based on the expected performance level.

• Get the design Response Spectra for different levels of damping and adjust the spectra
for the nonlinearity based on the damping in the Capacity Spectrum.

• The capacity spectrum and the design response spectra can be plotted together when
they are expressed in the ADRS format.

• The intersection of the capacity spectrum and the response spectra defines the
performance level. If the performance level satisfies the design, the design is okay,
otherwise adjustment to the structures is required.

3.5 Capacity Spectrum Method

The point at which the capacity curve intersects the reduced demand curve represents the
performance point at which capacity and demand are equal.

To convert a spectrum from the standard Sa (Spectra Acceleration) vs. T (Time) format found
in the buildings codes to ADRS format, it is necessary to determine the value of Sdi (Spectral
Displacement) for each point on the curve, Sai, Ti. This can be done with the equations [9]:

Sdi = Ti2/4∏2 Sai g

20
Standard demand response spectra contain a range of constant spectral acceleration and a
second range of constant spectral velocity, Sv. Spectral acceleration and displacement at
period Ti are given by:

Sai g = 2∏/Ti Sv

Sdi = Ti/2∏ Sv

Fig. 3.1 Response Spectral Conversion.

The capacity spectrum can be developed from the pushover curve by a point by point
conversion to the first mode spectral coordinates. Any point Vi (Base Shear), δI (Roof
Displacement) on the capacity curve is converted to the corresponding point Sai, Sdi on the
capacity spectrum using the equations.

Sai = Vi/(Wα1)

Sdi = δi/(PF1 φ1,roof)

Where α1 and PF1 are the modal mass coefficient and participation factors for the first natural
mode of the structure respectively. φ1,roof is the roof level amplitude of the first mode.

The damping that occurs when the structure is pushed into the inelastic range can be viewed
as a combination of viscous and hysteretic damping. Hysteretic damping can be represented
as equivalent viscous damping. Thus, the total effective damping can be estimated as:

21
βeff = λβ0 + 0.05

where β0 is the hysteretic damping and 0.05 is the assumed 5% viscous damping inherent in
the structure. The λ factor is the modification factor to account for the extent to which the
actual building hysteresis is well represented by the bilinear representation of the capacity
spectrum. The term β0 can be calculated using:

β0 = ED/(4Π Eso)

where ED is the energy dissipated by damping and Eso is the maximum strain energy.

To account for the damping, the response spectrum is reduced by reduction factors SRA and
SRV which is given by

SRA = 1/BS = (3.21-0.68ln(βeff))/2.12

SRV = 1/BL = (2.31-0.4ln(βeff))/1.65

The elastic response spectrum (5% damped) is thus reduced to a response spectrum with
damping values greater than 5% critically damped.

3.6 Performance Point

In pushover curve a point on the curve defines a specific damage state for the structure, since
the deformation for all components can be related to the global displacement of the structure.
By correlating this capacity curve to the seismic demand generated by a specific earthquake or
ground shaking intensity, a point can be found on the capacity curve that estimates the
maximum displacement of the building the earthquake will cause. This defines the
performance point.

22
There are three procedures described in ATC-40 to find the performance point. The most
transparent is the Procedure A. To find the performance point using Procedure A the
following steps are used:

1. A 5% damped response spectrum appropriate for the site for the hazard level required
for the performance objective is developed and converted to ADRS format.
2. The capacity curve obtained from the nonlinear analysis is converted to a capacity
spectrum using the above given equations.
3. A trial performance point Sapi, Sdpi is selected. This may be done using the equal
displacement approximation as shown in Fig. 3.2
4. The reduced demand spectrum is plotted together with the capacity spectrum.
5. If the reduced demand spectrum intersects the capacity spectrum at Sapi, Sdpi or if the
intersection point Sdp is within 5% of Sdpi, then this point represents the performance
point.
6. If the intersection point does not lie within acceptable tolerance (5% of Sdpi or other)
then select another point and repeat steps 4 to 6. The intersection point obtained in
step 5 can be used as starting point for the next iteration.

Fig 3.2 Performance Point Evaluation by Procedure A

23
Chapter 4 SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF
BUILDINGS

4.1 Introduction

The nonlinear analysis of a structure is an iterative procedure. It depends on the final

displacement, as the effective damping depends on the hysteretic energy loss due to inelastic
deformations, which in turn depends on the final displacement. This makes the analysis
procedure iterative. A simple iterative method, such as Newton-Raphson Method can be used
in conjunction with a method for solution of linear equations of equilibrium, to perform step-
by-step analysis. Difficulty in the solution is faced near the ultimate load, as the stiffness
matrix at this point becomes negative definite due to instability of the structure becoming a
mechanism.

Some nonlinear computer program like DRAIN-2DX is available which is able to perform
pushover analysis directly with no iteration required. The other software available to perform
nonlinear static (pushover) analysis are ETABS, SAP, ADINA, SC-Push3D. Out of these
software two softwares were available at departmental computer laboratory namely ETABS
version 8.11 and SAP 2000.

Extended Three Dimensional Buildings Systems (ETABS) and Structural Analysis Program
(SAP) are the products of Computer and Structures, Inc. These are the commercial windows
finite element program that works with complex geometry and monitors deformation at all
hinges to determine ultimate deformation. It has built-in defaults for ACI 318 material
properties and ATC-40 and FEMA 273 hinge properties. Also it has capability for inputting
any material or hinge property. Both the software are more or less similar, but some of the
features are distinct in them. SAP 2000 is the general software, which can be used to analysis
any structure whereas ETABS 8.11 deals with the buildings only.

24
4.2 Modeling of building

Modeling of any structure in software is very crucial for performing any type of analysis
using software. A small mistake in modeling can change the final analysis results drastically.

Modeling of the structure in the software includes, creating grid system, adding the structural
elements as per the drawing, defining the structural properties and assigning those structural
properties to the respective structural elements.

Getting started with the modeling, firstly the grid lines are to be specified. The reasons for
specifying grid system to the model are:

• The view in the model occurs at each defined primary grid line in the model.
• Structural objects are added on the basis of grid line definition in the model.
• Easy to draw the objects in the model.
• Easy identification of specific locations in the grid system.

The spacing of the grid lines are specified along global axes X, Y and Z. By default, software
considers Z axis as vertical axis and X and Y are two horizontal axes. Also there are local
axes 1, 2 and 3 for each structural element. Axis 1 is along the length of the element and axis
2 and axis 3 are the axis perpendicular to the axis 1.

The two options available to the software for defining grid systems are Uniform Grid Spacing
and Custom Grid Spacing. Uniform grid spacing option specifies number of grid lines of
uniform spacing in each direction while custom grid spacing allows defining nonuniformly
spaced grid lines in two horizontal directions.

After defining grid system, storey data is to be defined. The similar two options are available
for defining storey data. Simple Storey data, which defines the number of storey and typical
storey height that is used for all storey height and Custom Storey Data, which allows defining
storey heights of nonuniform height.

25
The structural properties of any structural elements are Material Property and Geometric
Property. Material Property defines the mass density, weight, modulus of elasticity strength
of material, modulus of elasticity and poisons ratio. Geometric Property defines the cross
sectional dimension and if the material property is concrete, it also defines the reinforcement
details. Each of the properties is to be named and same is to be assigned to the respective
structural elements.

4.3 Defining Static load case

The model is to be created and the properties are to be assigned. The software calculates and
apply Dead Load automatically while Live load is to be applied to each floor as per IS 875-
Part I. The other load cases required to be define are Lateral loads in two different horizontal
(X and Y) directions. These lateral loads are required while carrying out Nonlinear Static
Analysis. The shape functions of lateral loads are very important for Nonlinear Static
Analysis. Quit often, the inverted triangular shape is used. It is achieved by applying
maximum load at the top of the structure which subsequently reduces to zero at the bottom.
The magnitude of the applied lateral force is not important but the direction of application of
loads is important. The maximum load is taken as unity at the top and the load at intermediate
floor levels are to be found out by using principles of similarity of triangles.

4.4 Defining Response Spectrum case

For earthquake analysis, Response Spectrum Cases is to be defined as the software doesn’t
supports IS 1893-2002. The response spectrum given in IS 1893-2002 for 5% damping is to
be defined and same is to be used for performing Response Spectrum Analysis. The modal
combination options available with the software are Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC),
Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS), Absolute Method (ABS) and General Modal
Combination (GMC) method. Modal combination produces a single, positive result for each
direction of acceleration. These directional values are combined to produce a single, positive
result. There are two options available for the directional combination: SRSS and ABS.

26
4.5 Performing Linear Static and Dynamic analysis

The analysis options available are Dynamic analysis and P-∆ analysis. Dynamic analysis
includes static analysis also. The parameters which are required to define are Number of
modes and type of analysis (Eigenvalue analysis and Ritz-Vector Analysis). While
performing Dynamic analysis, the analysis window provides some important information like
Number of modes found, frequency of each mode, time period of each mode and modal
participation factor. Once the analysis is performed successfully, the results like deformations,
shear forces, bending moments of each element can be displayed or listed for each load cases
and load combinations cases defined.

4.6 Defining Frame nonlinear hinge property

Frame nonlinear properties are used to define nonlinear force-displacement and/or moment
rotation behavior that can be assigned to discrete locations along the length of frame elements.
These nonlinear hinges are only used during static nonlinear analysis. For all other types of
analysis, these hinges are rigid and have no effect on the linear behavior of element.

Following are the hinge types:

Uncoupled hinge types are the Axial P, Shear V2, Shear V3, Torsion T, Moment M2 and
Moment M3. The suffix 2 and 3 indicates the local axes direction i.e shear V2 is the shear
along local axis 2. These hinges can exist in the same frame hinge property, but there is no
interaction between them. The interacting P-M2-M3 frame hinge type is a coupled hinge. It
can exist with uncoupled shear hinges but cannot exist with uncoupled axial or moment
hinges.

There are three types of hinge properties in the software: Default hinge property, User defined
hinge property and generated hinge property. Only default hinge property and user defined
hinge property can be assigned to the frame elements. When a default or user defined hinge
property is assigned to any frame element, it will automatically creates a new generated hinge
property for each hinge.

27
Default hinge properties cannot be modified. They also can not be viewed because the default
properties are section dependent. The default properties can not be fully defined by the
program until the section that they apply to is 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 should be viewed. Fig. 4.1 shows the default hinge properties
available with the software.

Fig. 4.1 Default Hinge Types

Fig. 4.2 Frame moment hinge property Fig. 4.3 Moment Rotation curve

Fig. 4.2 and Fig. 4.3 shows the default properties for M3 hinges. Point A is the starting point.
Default hinge uses yield moment and yield rotation for scaling. Point B shows yield condition

28
of the hinge. Point C is the ultimate condition of the hinge. It is 25% more than the yield
Moment. The corresponding rotation is the ultimate rotation. After reaching to ultimate
yielding hinge suddenly the moment degrades and reaches to point D having some residual
strength (moment). For default hinge property the residual strength is taken as the 20% of the
yield strength. Point E is the final deformation under residual strength. Similar kind of hinge
properties is available for Shear and Axial-Moment Interaction hinge. These properties are as
per ATC-40 and FEMA 273.

User-defined hinge properties can be either based on default properties or they can be fully
user-defined. When user-defined properties are based on default properties, the hinge
properties can not be viewed because the default properties are section dependent. When user-
defined properties are not based on default properties, then the properties can be viewed and
modified.

Only the generated hinge properties are actually used in the analysis. They can be viewed, but
they can not be modified. Generated hinge properties have an automatic naming convention of
LabelH#, where Label is the frame element label, H stands for hinge, and # represents the
hinge number. For each element, the program starts with hinge number 1 and increments the
hinge number by one for each consecutive hinge assigned to the frame element. For example,
the generated hinge property name F23H2 refers to the second hinge assigned to frame
element F23.

4.7 Defining Static Nonlinear cases

Pushover analysis is a powerful feature available with the software. In addition to performing
pushover analysis for performance-based seismic design, this feature can be used to perform
general static nonlinear analysis and the analysis of staged (incremental) construction. For
performing such analysis, Static Nonlinear cases are to be defined.

As shown in Fig. 4.4 and Fig. 4.5 for defining the Static Nonlinear Cases (Pushover Cases)
requires the understanding of following points:

29
Options:

Options area is used control the pushover analysis. The analysis can be Forced Controlled or
Displacement Control.

Push to Load Level Defined by pattern option button is used to perform a forced control
analysis. The analysis applies the full load value defined by the sum of all loads specified in
the Load Pattern box. This option is used for applying gravity load to the structure.

The Push To Displ. Magnitude option button is used to perform a displacement- controlled
analysis. The load combination specified in the Load Pattern is applied but its magnitude is
increased or decreased as necessary to keep the control displacement increasing in magnitude.
This option is useful for applying lateral load to the structure or for any case where the
magnitude of the applied load is not known in advance. The control displacements are
Monitored Displacement and Conjugate Displacement.

The Monitored Displacement is a single displacement component at a single point that is

monitored during a static nonlinear analysis. The monitored degree of freedom and the
monitored point location are all given default values by ETABS; the values can be easily
replaced. The default value for the monitored point is a point located at the top of the structure.
The default monitored degree of freedom is UX; other available directions are UY, UZ, RX,
RY, and RZ.

30
 Fig. 4.4 Static Nonlinear case in ETABS

Fig. 4.5 Static Nonlinear case in SAP

For the most meaningful pushover curve, it is important to choose a monitored displacement
that is sensitive to the applied load pattern. For example, one should not typically monitor
degree of freedom UX when the load is applied in direction UY.

31
The conjugate displacement is a weighted sum of all displacement degrees of freedom in the
structure: each displacement component is multiplied by the load applied at that degree of
freedom, and the results are summed. The conjugate displacement is usually the most
sensitive measure of displacement in the structure under a given specified load.

When performing a displacement-controlled static nonlinear analysis, it is usually

recommended that you use the conjugate displacement unless a displacement in the structure
that monotonically increases during the analysis is identified.

Generally, two static nonlinear cases are defined, one for gravity load and other for lateral
load. Firstly the analysis is carried out by applying gravity load and then the second analysis,
using lateral load in load pattern, starts at the end of the previous case. To start the current
case from the end of previous case, Start from Previous Case option is used.

The static nonlinear analysis can be controlled by specifying the Minimum Saved Steps,
Maximum Null Steps, Maximum Total Steps, Maximum Iteration Steps, Iteration Tolerance
and Event Tolerance.

Member Unloading Method:

Member unloading method is used to handle the hinges that drop load. When hinge unloads,
the load that hinge was carrying has to be removed and to be distributed it to the rest of the
structure. The software provides three different methods to solve this problem of hinge
unloading. Hinge unloading occurs whenever the stress-strain (force-deformation or moment-
rotation) curve shows a drop in capacity.

Unload Entire Structure: when the hinge reaches negative slope portion of stress-strain, the
applied load is continued to increase. If this results in increased strain (decreased stress) the
analysis proceeds. If the strain tries to reverse, the load on the whole structure reverses, until
the hinge is fully unloaded to the next segment on the stress-strain curve. Other parts of the
structure may now pick up the load that was removed from the unloading hinge.

This method is the most efficient of the three methods available, and is usually the first
method to try. It generally works well if hinge unloading does not require large reductions in
the load applied to the structure. It will fail if two hinges compete to unload, i.e., where one

32
hinge requires the applied load to increase while the other requires the load to decrease. In this
case, the analysis will stop with the message "UNABLE TO FIND A SOLUTION", in which
case other two methods should be used.

Apply Local Redistribution: This method is similar to the first method, except that instead of
unloading the entire structure, only the element containing the hinge is unloaded. When a
hinge is on a negative-sloped portion of the stress-strain curve and the applied load causes the
strain to reverse, the program applies a temporary, localized, self-equilibrating, internal load
that unloads the element. This causes the hinge to unload. Once the hinge is unloaded, the
temporary load is reversed, transferring the removed load to neighboring elements. This
method will fail if two hinges in the same element compete to unload, i.e., where one hinge
requires the temporary load to increase while the other requires the load to decrease. In this
case, the analysis will stop with the message "UNABLE TO FIND A SOLUTION".

Restart Using Secant Stiffness: This method is quite different from the first two. Whenever
any hinge reaches a negative-sloped portion of the stress-strain curve, all hinges that have
become nonlinear are reformed using secant stiffness properties, and the analysis is restarted.
This method is similar to the approach suggested by the FEMA 273 guidelines, and makes
sense when performing pushover analysis where the static nonlinear analysis represents cyclic
loading of increasing amplitude rather than a monotonic static push.

Geometric Nonlinearity Effect:

Three options are available for considering geometric nonlinearity in the problem.

1. None: All equilibrium equations are considered in the undeformed configuration of the
structure.
2. P-delta: The equilibrium equations take into partial account the deformed
configuration of the structure. Tensile forces tend to resist the rotation of elements and
stiffen the structure, and compressive forces tend to enhance the rotation of elements
and destabilize the structure. This may require a moderate amount of iteration.
3. P-delta and Large Displacements: All equilibrium equations are written in the
deformed configuration of the structure. This may require a large amount of iteration

33
The large displacement option is used for cable structures undergoing significant deformation;
and for buckling analysis, particularly for snap-through buckling and post-buckling behavior.

For most other structures, the P-delta option is adequate, particularly when material
nonlinearity dominates.

Load Pattern:

The distribution of load applied on the structure for a given static nonlinear case is defined as
a scaled combination of one or more of the following:

• Any static load case.

• Uniform acceleration acting in any of the three global directions. The force at each
joint is proportional to the mass tributary to that joint and acts in the specified
direction.
• A modal load for any eigen or Ritz mode. The force at each joint is proportional to the
product of the modal displacement, the modal circular frequency squared (w2), and the
mass tributary to that joint, and it acts in the direction of the modal displacement.

The load combination for each static nonlinear case is incremental, i.e., it acts in addition to
the load already on the structure if starting from a previous static nonlinear case.

Active Structure:

Active Structure option is required to set for Stage Construction. If the whole structure is to be
analyzed without stage construction, active structure is to be set to only one stage “ALL” and
the check labeled Loads Apply to Added Elements Only should not be checked. This option is
available with ETABS 8.11 only. SAP 2000 doesn’t provide this option.

4.8 Performing pushover analysis

Before carrying pushover analysis, linear Static and Dynamic analysis is to be performed.
Dynamic analysis gives the frequency and time period of each mode and also the mode
participation factor which are useful in performing Nonlinear Static Analysis.

34
While analysis proceeds, the analysis window is created which shows step by step progress of
analysis. The summary of the cases defined and the progress of iteration steps during
nonlinear analysis is displayed. Once the analysis is complete, a LOG file is created which
gives all the details of analysis and hinge formation for each step.

4.9 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve

The static pushover curve is the single force-displacement curve obtained from a static
nonlinear analysis. The ideal pushover curve is shown in Fig. 4.6. A-B range is the linear
range, B-C is the nonlinear range which includes different performance levels such as IO, LS
and CP. Point C indicates the ultimate failure after which the residual strength remains
indicated by point D. Point E is the final displacement under residual strength.

Fig. 4.6 Ideal Pushover Curve

Fig. 4.7 shows various parameters need to be defining for getting pushover curve and capacity
spectrum curve. On upright top corner, the static nonlinear case is selected for which the
pushover curve is to be displayed. If the plot type is Resultant Based Reaction Vs Monitored
Displacement, the Damping Parameters and Demand Spectrum option becomes inactive. As
the plot type is changed to capacity spectrum, four type of curves are displayed in the
displayed area. Each curve on the plot type area is having some color code which can be
changed. The default color for each curve are green for Capacity spectrum curve, red curve
for demand spectrum curve, yellow for single demand spectrum curve and grey is the constant
period line.

35
 Fig. 4.7 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve

The currently displayed pushover curve can be display in tabular format from file menu
provided at the top of the window. If the displayed curve is Resultant Base Reaction Vs
Monitored Displacement, then the displayed tabular format includes, Base Reaction,
Monitored Displacement and the number of hinges beyond the certain control points (B, IO,
LS, CP, C, D and E). If the currently displayed curve is in ADRS format, the displayed table
includes the information regarding Effective period, Effective Damping, Spectral coordinates
of capacity curve, Spectral coordinates of single modified demand spectrum curve, the scaling
factor used for converting the force-displacement curve to the ADRS format, PFPhi and
Alpha. The edit box in the Additional Notes For Printed Output area is used to include the
additional notes required to be included in the output.

Damping Period and Demand Spectra Parameters

When the Capacity Spectrum option is chosen as the Plot Type on the Pushover Curve form,
the Demand Spectrum and Damping Parameters areas of the form become active. The shape
of demand spectra with 5% damping is controlled by the values input in the seismic
coefficient Ca, and seismic coefficient Cv edit box. Checking show the family of demand

36
spectra box in demand spectrum area overlays a family of demand spectra on the capacity
curve in ADRS format. The family of curves can include up to four demand-spectra curves,
each with a different effective damping ratio, βeff. By default, the software plots curves with
βeff = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2. The damping ratios for any of the four curves can be changed by
editing the value in one of the four Damping Ratios, βeff edit boxes. The values input into the
βeff edit boxes must be between 0 and 1, inclusively. A value of 0, or a blank edit box, means
to omit that demand spectrum curve.

Checking Show Single Demand Spectra (Variable Damping) displays the demand spectra as
single curve. The method of constructing single demand spectra is similar to the Procedure B
in ATC 40 except that the software does not make the simplifying assumption that post yield
stiffness remains constant.

Check the Show Constant Period Lines At check box to display lines of constant period.
These lines appear as radial lines on the capacity spectrum plot. By default the program plots
lines for T = 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 seconds. The periods for any of the four curves can be changed
by editing the value in one of the four associated edit boxes. A value of 0, or a blank edit box,
means to omit that period line.

In the Damping Parameters area, the value of Inherent/Additional Damping is to be provided.

The value input into this box must be between 0 and 1, inclusively. The default value is 0.05.
The β0 term is automatically included by the ETABS analysis method, and the 5% inherent
viscous damping term can be specified in the Inherent/Additional Damping edit box as 0.05.
If there is additional viscous damping provided in the structure, perhaps by viscous dampers
that are not specifically included in the model, and then this damping should also be included
in the Inherent/Additional Damping edit box. Thus if the damping inherent in the structure is
assumed to be 5% of critical damping, and dampers which provide an additional 7% of
critical damping are assumed to be added to the structure (although they are not actually in the
model), then the value input in the Inherent/Additional Damping edit box should be 0.12,
since 0.05 + 0.07 = 0.12.

37
Structural Behavior type/Kappa Factor is also available. The Structural Behavior types A, B
and C defaults to the value defined for those structural behavoiur types in ATC 40. The User
Defined Kappa Factor option allows the user to input other kappa (k) values.

4.10 Obtaining performance point

The intersection of the single demand spectra curve and capacity curve is the performance
point. The single demand spectrum (variable damping) curve is constructed by doing the
following for each point on the ADRS pushover curve:

1. Draw a radial line through the point on the ADRS pushover curve. This is a line of
constant period.
2. Calculate the damping associated with the point on the curve based on the area under
the curve up to that point.
3. Construct the demand spectrum, plotting it for the same damping level as associated
with the point on the pushover curve.
4. The intersection point of the radial line and the associated demand spectrum represents
a point on the Single Demand Spectrum (Variable Damping) curve.

Fig.4.8 Construction of Single Demand Spectrum (variable damping) curve.

38
The software shows performance point in two units. There are four boxes below the displayed
area in the pushover curve window. First box displays the coordinate of the cursor when it is
positioned in the plot area. Second box shows the Performance point in base shear Vs
monitored displacement coordinate. Third box shows the performance point in spectral
acceleration Vs spectral displacement coordinate and fourth box shows the effective period
and effective damping at the performance point.

4.11 Evaluating of building at performance point

The step by step nonlinear hinge formation for a static nonlinear analysis can be displayed
graphically in the software. Once the hinge yields, it is shown as a colored dot with the color
indicating the maximum amount of plastic deformation that has occurred. Different color
notation is given at each stage of the hinge formation.

39
Chapter 5 ANALYSIS OF 2D/3D FRAME

5.1 Introduction

As the building undergoes upto the plastic zone, the nonlinear static analysis should be carried
out to understand its behavior. To evaluate the same, a problem of simple 2D and 3D frame
was taken for nonlinear static analysis. The column and beams for 2D and 3D frame were
230X230mm in size as shown in Fig 5.1. The support condition was assumed to be fixed at
base.

Fig 5.1 2D and 3D frame model

5.2 Modeling of the frame

The model was created, element properties were assigned and support conditions were given
fixed in both the softwares. The plastic hinges were added to the model at a location where
there was the probabilities of formation of plastic hinges during nonlinear analysis.

5.2.1 Frame Nonlinear Hinges

For the above-mentioned example only moment hinge was considered, as only lateral load
was applied the shear and axial forces were overruled. The properties of the moment hinges
are shown in Fig 5.2. Table shows the moment and rotation values of the graph.

40
 Fig 5.2 Default Moment hinge property

While adding the hinge properties the relative distance for the location of hinge has to be
specified. The relative distance zero indicates the location of the hinge at the starting point of
the member with the required plastic hinge length. Fig. 5.3shows the hinges in the portal
frame. The hinges in columns were located at zero relative distance while for beams, the
hinges were at relative distance zero and one i.e. at both the ends of beams.

Fig 5.3 Nonlinear Hinges in 2D and 3D frame

The static load cases needs to be defined in the model for the analysis. Two load cases were
defined namely Dead load case and Lateral load case.

41
 Fig 5.4 Lateral Loading in 2D Frame

Under the lateral load cases the unit load was applied in the X-dir. at the top of the portal
frame. For pushover analysis, the value of the lateral load can be taken as unity as the
direction of applied lateral load is important and not the magnitude, and hence lateral load of
one kN was applied at the top of the frame.

5.2.2 Static Nonlinear Cases

Static Nonlinear Cases are very important in pushover analysis as a simple mistake in
defining pushover cases can change the result drastically.

42
 Fig. 5.5 PUSH1 case for 2D and 3D frame

As shown in the Fig 5.5 and fig 5.6, two pushover cases were defined. In the PUSH1 case
only dead load case was considered in the load pattern. As the load was known (gravity load)
and the structure was expected to be able to support the load, the Force Control was used.
Member unloading method was unloading entire structure, geometrically nonlinearity was
included as P-∆ and load was applied to the added elements. In PUSH2 case the load control
was conjugate displacement control and only lateral load case was considered in load pattern.
Geometrically nonlinearity was same as in PUSH1 case and the analysis starts from the end of
PUSH1 cases.

Before carrying our pushover analysis, Static and Dynamic analysis had been carried out and
then nonlinear analysis was done.

43
 Fig 5.6 PUSH2 case for 2D and 3D frame

5.3 Results of pushover analysis of 2D frame

Fig 5.7 shows the pushover curve of a portal frame analyzed in SAP. The units of force and
displacement were kN and Meter.

Fig 5.7 Pushover Curve of 2D frame in SAP

The analysis was controlled up to the displacement of 140mm. It is clear from the Fig 5.7 that
portion AB of pushover curve shows linearity up to 16 kN and displacement corresponding to

44
that base reaction is 7x10-3 m. The portion BC shows positive slope up to 70x10-3 m and
onwards slope decreases.

The table 5.1 shows the co-ordinate of the pushover curve for all steps. It also shows the step
increment in the formation of hinges. In the first step, all the four hinges were in A-B range.
As the analysis progressed, the base shear increased and hence the hinges were going into the
nonlinear range. In the subsequent steps, the hinges moved from linear range to nonlinear
range, till the full development of the plastic hinge.

Fig 5.8 Hinge Formation of 2D frame in SAP

The different stages of the hinges formation can also be shown diagrammatically. Different
color codes are allotted for the different stages of the hinge formation. Fig 5.8 shows the
hinges in step 8. From table it can be seen that the three hinges were in LS-CP range and one
hinge was in C-D range. The same has been seen in the Fig 5.8. Yellow color shows the C
range and light blue color indicates the LS range.

45
 Table 5.1 Tabular format of pushover curve from SAP for 2D frame
Steps Displacement Base A- B- IO- LS- CP- C- D- >E Total
shear B IO LS CP C D E
0 1.559E-06 0.0000 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
1 0.007 15.5101 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2 0.0208 27.9372 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
3 0.0348 28.4387 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
4 0.0488 28.9408 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4
5 0.0628 29.4417 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
6 0.0700 29.7013 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4
7 0.0700 23.1562 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4
8 0.0710 24.3533 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4
9 0.0741 26.1537 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4
10 0.0757 26.4818 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4
11 0.0833 26.7130 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4
12 0.0833 21.7659 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4
13 0.0874 23.4497 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4
14 0.0970 23.6921 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4
15 0.0970 5.2857 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
16 0.1192 5.2185 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
17 0.1192 3.7655 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
18 0.1194 4.0301 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
19 0.1200 4.3913 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
20 0.1205 4.4644 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
21 0.1267 4.4457 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
22 0.1267 1.9812 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
23 0.1275 2.1225 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
24 0.1275 0.0759 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
25 0.1292 0.3445 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
26 0.1308 0.3394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
27 0.1308 -0.3957 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
28 0.1400 -0.4234 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

46
Fig 5.9 shows the pushover curve of a portal frame analyzed in ETABS

Fig 5.9 Pushover Curve of 2D Frame in ETABS

The pushover curve in ETABS was slightly different than that obtained in SAP. The
difference was not noted on curve but the difference was highlighted in the tables. As
mentioned earlier, in SAP the eights stages showed three hinges in LS-CP range and one
hinge in C-D range. ETABS differs little on this point as it showed one hinge in D-E range
and three hinges in LS-CP range. Fig 5.10 shows the difference as the color of the hinge is
different as that in SAP.

Fig 5.10 Hinge Formation of 2D Frame in ETABS

47
Table shows the points of pushover curve in tabular form. The values of the base shear and
displacement at every stages was different. Comparing the step number 8, base shear was
higher in SAP results as compared to the ETABS.

Table 5.2 Tabular format of Pushover curve from ETABS for 2D frame
Steps Displacement Base A- B- IO- LS- CP- C- D- >E Total
shear B IO LS CP C D E
0 1.559E-06 0.000 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
1 0.0095 19.1314 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2 0.00126 23.0931 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3 0.0198 29.1096 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
4 0.0338 29.6257 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4
5 0.0478 30.1417 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
6 0.0618 30.6577 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4
7 0.0707 30.9862 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4
8 0.0707 23.5245 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4
9 0.0720 25.0642 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4
10 0.0754 27.1173 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4
11 0.0760 27.2453 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4
12 0.0819 27.4250 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4
13 0.0819 21.5983 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4
14 0.0866 23.5295 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4
15 0.0966 23.7687 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
16 0.0966 5.4128 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
17 0.1151 5.3340 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
18 0.1151 3.6773 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
19 0.1153 3.9362 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
20 0.1161 4.4265 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4
21 0.1163 4.4598 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
22 0.1223 4.4344 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
23 0.1223 3.1405 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
24 0.1233 3.5546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

48
 25 0.1274 3.5372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
26 0.1274 -0.5378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
27 0.1400 -0.5917 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Additional information about bending moment was also taken for better understanding. The
bending moment diagram of the 2D frame is shown in the Fig 5.11 In the diagrams from
ETABS, the bending moment was zero at the location of hinge as the full plasticity of hinges
was developed. The moment was transferred to the center of the beam and thus the bending
moment at the center of the beam was maximum. Same was the case with the bending
moments in SAP, however the value of bending moment differed in the results of both the
software.

Fig 5.11 BMD of 2D frame at the end of pushover analysis ETABS

49
 Fig 5.12 BMD of 2D frame at the end of pushover analysis SAP.

5.4 Results of pushover analysis of 3D frame.

The pushover curve of the 3D frame analysis in ETABS is shown in Fig 5.13. The analysis
continued till the displacement reaches 140 mm as the analysis was displacement controlled.
From the curve, it can be seen that the analysis was in linear range up to the base shear of 220
kN.

Fig 5.13 Pushover Curve of 3D Frame in ETABS

50
 Table 5.3 Tabular Format of Pushover curve in ETABS for 3D frame
Step Displacement Base A-B B- IO- LS- CP- C-D D-E >E Total
Force IO LS CP C
0 1.559E-06 0.000 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
1 0.0095 38.2346 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
2 0.0126 46.1415 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
3 0.0198 58.1487 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 12
4 0.0338 59.1309 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 12
5 0.0478 60.1132 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 12
6 0.0618 61.0954 4 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 12
7 0.0707 61.7206 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 12
8 0.0707 46.7971 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 12
9 0.0720 49.8723 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 12
10 0.0754 53.9663 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 12
11 0.0760 54.2200 4 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 12
12 0.0819 54.5583 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 12
13 0.0819 42.9049 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 12
14 0.0866 46.7508 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 12
15 0.0966 47.1934 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 12
16 0.0966 10.4817 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
17 0.1151 10.2583 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
18 0.1151 6.9450 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
19 0.1153 7.4618 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
20 0.1161 8.4394 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
21 0.1163 8.5055 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 12
22 0.1223 8.4334 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 12
23 0.1223 5.8456 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 12
24 0.1233 6.6702 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12
25 0.1274 6.6207 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12
26 0.1274 -1.5292 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12
27 0.1400 -1.6819 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

51
The above table provides detailed understanding of the formation of plastic hinges. Consider
the step 8, four hinges were in A-B range, six hinges were in LS-CP range and two hinges
were in D-E range. The deform shape in pushover analysis step 8 with the color code is
shown in Fig 5.14.

Fig 5.14 Hinge Formation in 3D Frame ETABS

Fig shows the pushover curve of 3D frame analysis in SAP. The difference in the pushover
curve obtained from ETABS and SAP is seen from the figure. This difference is more
highlighted in the table shown below.

Fig 5.15 Pushover Curve of 3D Frame in SAP

52
 Table 5.4 Tabular format of pushover curve in SAP for 3D frame
Steps Displacement Base A- B- IO- LS- CP- C- D- >E Total
shear B IO LS CP C D E
0 1.559E-06 0.0000 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
1 0.0089 36.0985 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
2 0.0201 57.8139 4 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 12
3 0.0341 58.7731 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 12
4 0.0481 59.7323 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 12
5 0.0621 60.6915 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 12
6 0.0724 61.3940 4 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 12
7 0.0724 46.4604 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 12
8 0.0735 49.1855 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 12
9 0.0770 53.2651 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 12
10 0.0789 54.0046 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 12
11 0.0865 54.4315 4 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 12
12 0.0865 43.1444 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 12
13 0.0911 46.9580 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 12
14 0.0969 47.2129 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 12
15 0.0969 10.4003 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 12
16 0.1196 10.1247 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
17 0.1196 6.8090 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
18 0.1199 7.4118 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
19 0.1206 8.2369 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
20 0.1211 8.3990 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
21 0.1265 8.3333 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 12
22 0.1265 3.4043 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 12
23 0.1275 3.7222 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 12
24 0.1275 -0.3710 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 12
25 0.1291 0.1157 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 12
26 0.1351 0.0864 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12
27 0.1351 -1.5909 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12
28 0.1400 -1.6942 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12

53
The deformed shape for pushover cases is shown in Fig 5.16. It shows the deformed shape at
step 8, in which four hinges were in A-B portion, six hinges were in LS-CP portion and two
hinges were in D-E portion.

Fig. 5.16 Hinge Formation in 3D Frame SAP

54
Chapter 6 ANALYSIS OF NEW R.C.C. BUILDING

6.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with the analysis of new R.C.C. building. As mentioned in previous
chapter, SAP 2000 and ETABS 8.11 both these software performs Nonlinear Static Analysis
(Pushover Analysis). SAP 2000 is general purpose software, which deals with all kind of
structure and ETABS 8.11 is particularly for building systems. As the performance based
analysis of buildings were to be carried out, we had stick to the ETABS 8.11. Two kind of
R.C.C. buildings were taken for analysis: G+4 and G+10. Eight different types of model to
simulate real field problem were developed. The different types of models also reveals
influence of modeling issues to overall analysis of the building. Out of eight models five
models of G+4 building and three were G+10 building. In all the models, the support
condition was assumed to be fixed and soil condition was assumed as medium soil.

6.2 Modeling of G+4 building

The five model for G+4 building were; bare frame (without infill), having infill as membrane
wall except at ground floor, replacing infill as a equivalent strut in previous model,
considering equivalent strut at ground floor and having strut at periphery only. The parametric
study of infills was done by analyzing all these five models.

Fig. 6.1 shows the plan of G+4 building. It was a symmetric structure with respect to both the
horizontal directions. It was 4 bay in X-direction and 3 bay in Y-direction, each of 5m in
length. All the slabs were considered as shell element of 150mm thickness.

Fig. 6.1 Plan of new building models

55
6.2.1 G+4 model without infill

The model was the bare frame having beams, columns and slabs. The geometric property
assigned to all the beams and columns and loading on slabs are listed in Table 6.1. All
structural members were of M25 grade concrete and Fe415 steel. The slabs were considered
as rigid floor diaphragm.

Table 6.1 Geometric Properties of frame and live loads on slab

Floor Column size Beam size Live load on
(mm) (mm) slab (kN/m2)

GF 230x600 230x500 2
1st floor 230x600 230x500 2
2nd floor 230x500 230x450 1.5
3rd floor 230x500 230x450 1.5
4th floor 230x450 230x450 1.5

As per the general practice followed in field, the column and beam sizes were reduced going
from GF to 4th floor, also the live loads were reduced as per IS: 875. Fig 6.2 shows the
elevation of the building model. The storey height was 3m and the support condition at base
was assumed to be fixed.

Fig 6.2 Elevation of G+4 bare frame model

56
The lateral load was applied in X-direction. The lateral load profile applied through out the
height of the building is inverted triangular shape [7]. The unit load was applied at the top of
the column which was reduced to zero at the base. The lateral load was applied at the junction
of outer beams and columns as shown in Fig. 6.3.

Fig. 6.3 Lateral Loading Pattern

6.2.2 G+4 with infill membrane wall with GF as soft storey

The model incorporates infill wall as a membrane element. The property of membrane
element is such that it has only inplane stiffness and outplane stiffness is voids. The infill
walls were provided below all the beams except the first floor beams. The thickness of wall
was 115mm. The material properties of masonry infill wall are listed below:

Modulus of Elaticity : 3500 kN/m2

Density : 20 kN/m3
Poissons ratio : 0.17

57
 Fig. 6.4 G+4 model with infill as membrane wall

The geometrical properties of beams and columns and loading were same as considered in
bare frame. The reduction of size of the columns and beams are clearly observed from the Fig.
6.4

6.2.3 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft storey

In the case of an infill wall located in a lateral load-resisting frame the stiffness and strength
contribution of the infill has to be considered. Non-integral infill frame subjected to lateral
load behaves like diagonally braced frame. An infill wall can be replaced by an equivalent
compression only strut in the analysis model.

In this model, the equivalent compression strut was modeled in place of membrane wall
having material property same as membrane wall. Fig. 6.5 shows the elevation of the model
with strut. The ends of diagonal struts were released for moments and shears in all the
directions, to make it as a pinned joint. The thickness of the strut was same as the thickness of
membrane wall. The equivalent width should be taken as one third of the diagonal length of
strut. The width of strut was calculated as 1.67m.

58
 Fig. 6.5 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut

The dot at the end of strut as shown in Fig. 6.4 represents the end releases. In ETABS 8.11
this released hinges are provided at one end only. As shown in Fig. 6.6, the orientation of the
diagonal strut was such that it takes only axial compressive load under lateral loading.

Fig. 6.6 Lateral loading in G+4 model having diagonal strut

6.2.4 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut without soft storey

Fig. 6.7 shows the elevation of G+4 with strut at ground floor also. All the properties and
loading conditions were same as G+4 with strut having soft storey. This model were created
and analyzed to see the effect of soft storey and failure mechanism in case of soft storey.

59
 Fig. 6.7 G+4 with strut at ground floor also.

6.2.5 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut at periphery only

In this model the struts were modeled at periphery only. The box like effect was anticipated
having more stiffness at outer frame of the building and lesser stiffness at inside frame. The
property of elements, loading on slabs and support condition were kept same as previous
models.

6.3 Modeling of G+10 Building

Three models of G+10 R.C.C. Buildings were created in ETABS, addressing modeling issues.
One was bare frame, second model was having infills as membrane wall and third model was
having infills as equivalent diagonal strut.

6.3.1 G+10 model without infill

Fig. 6.8 shows the elevation of G+10 model without infill. The storey height was kept
constant as 3m.

60
 Fig. 6.8 Elevation G+10 bare frame

The geometrical properties are listed in Table 6.2. The concrete grade was M25 and steel
grade was considered as Fe415. All the slabs were 150mm thick. Rigid floor diaphragm
action was considered during analysis.

Table 6.2 Geometrical properties of frame and loading on slabs

Floor Column size (mm) Beam size (mm) Live load on slab
(kN/m2)
GF 230x900 230x650 2
1st floor 230x900 230x650 2
2nd floor 230x900 230x650 2
3rd floor 230x750 230x650 2
4th floor 230x750 230x650 2
5th floor 230x750 230x650 2
6th floor 230x550 230x650 2
7th floor 230x450 230x450 2
8th floor 230x450 230x450 1.5
9th floor 230x450 230x450 1.5
10th floor 230x450 230x450 1.5

61
6.3.2 G+10 building with infill as membrane wall

Fig. 6.9 shows the elevation of G+10 with infill as membrane wall. The thickness of the
masonry infill wall was 115mm. The material property of masonry was kept same as G+4
with infill as membrane wall model. The walls were provided at all the internal as well as
external panels of the building at all the floors except ground floor. The geometrical property
of beams and columns and loading on slabs were kept same as in the bare frame. The size
reduction of columns at different storey is seen from the Fig. 6.9

Fig. 6.9 G+10 building with infill as membrane wall

6.3.3 G+10 with infill as equivalent strut.

The model consists of diagonal strut in place of membrane walls as shown in Fig. 6.10. Every
wall of the previous model was replaced by an equivalent diagonal strut. The thickness of
strut was kept same as the thickness of wall and the width was taken as one third of the
diagonal length of strut. The ends of strut were released for moments, shear and tortion to
make it as pinned jointed.

62
 Fig. 6.10 G+10 with infill as diagonal strut

6.4 Static Linear, Dynamic and Response Spectrum Analysis and Design.

Once the model was created, the static, dynamic and response spectrum analysis was
performed. Performing dynamic analysis gives no. of modes, time period for each mode and
mode participation factor. Response Spectrum Curve as shown in Fig. 6.11 for 5% damping
and medium soil as per IS 1893 2002 (part I) was assigned to the software as ETABS doesn’t
support IS 1893 2002 (part I).

Fig. 6.11 Response Spectrum Curve of IS 1893 2002 (part I)

63
The Response Spectrum Analysis was carried out in X-dirn only considering PGA as 0.1g.
The results obtained were member forces for each static and response spectrum load case.

As it is a new R.C.C. building model, the design was carried out as per IS 456 2000. All the
sections were found safe for the applied forces.

6.5 Frame Nonlinear Hinge Property

Nonlinear hinge properties are most essential part of Pushover analysis, because they ensure
Nonlinear Static Analysis of buildings. Nonlinear hinges were added to beams, columns and
diagonal struts. From the analysis it was concluded that the probable location of hinge
formations in beams are at the ends. Also the governing forces in beams are Shear force and
Bending Moments and thus, default Moment (M3) hinges and Shear (V2) hinges were added at
relative distance zero and one, i.e. at both the ends. The columns were provided with default
Axial Moment Interaction (PMM) hinges at base as column undergoes the interaction of axial
force and biaxial moments. Hinges are shown in Fig. 6.12. The diagonal strut takes only axial
compression load. Also the material property for diagonal strut is masonry, thus default axial
hinge property cannot be assigned to strut. The failure load for the strut was estimated and
nonlinear axial property was explicitly defined. The failure load calculation of diagonal strut
is described in Appendix I.

Fig. 6.12 Nonlinear hinges in beams, columns and diagonal strut

64
6.6 Static Nonlinear Cases

Static Nonlinear Cases were to be defined for performing Nonlinear Static Analysis. For
analysis of all the models, two nonlinear cases were defined namely PUSH1 and PUSH2.

First nonlinear case was PUSH1 for gravity loads. It is load controlled as the magnitude
applied gravity load case was known. The displacement of 1st node of top storey was
monitored for analysis. Member unloading method used was Unload Entire Structure.
Geometric Nonlinearity was also considered in analysis. Fig 6.13 shows the Static Nonlinear
Case defining for both the cases.

PUSH2 was considers lateral loads and it was displacement controlled as applied lateral load
was not known. The analysis starts at the end of PUSH1 analysis. Member unloading Method
and Geometric Nonlinearity were taken same as in PUSH1 case.

Fig. 6.13a PUSH1 case for G+4 model

65
Fig. 6.13b PUSH2 case for G+4 model

66
Chapter 7 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING BUILDING

7.1 Introduction

The chapter deals with the performance based analysis of an existing building. The building
taken as a case study was Shivshakti Apartment, located at Vasna, Ahmedabad. It is G+4
residential building without lift core and having water tank at top. The typical storey height is
2.75m.The year of construction of Shivshakti apartment is 1993 and it has undergone one
earthquake. The selection of existing building was with an intention of finding capacity of
building which has suffered an earthquake and to check its safety against future earthquake.
Each floor is having six flats almost equal in its construction.

7.2 Evaluating Structural details of an existing building

Typical slab details, terrace slab details, column and foundation details were the three
structural drawings available for Shivshakti apartment.

The concrete grade for beams and slabs were M15 and reinforcement was Fe415. All the
beams were 115mm thick and 400 mm depth unless other wise specified. All the slabs were
115mm thick. Due to symmetry of building in plan the details of beams were same on the
either side of the axis of symmetry. The sizes of beams of typical slab are tabulated in
Appendix II.

The concrete grade of columns were M20 upto 1st floor and and then it was reduced to M15
from 1st floor to 4th floor. Also the sizes of columns were reduced. Table 7.1 shows the
column size in each floor.

67
 Table 7.1 Column dimensions
3rd Column No. C7,C8,
floor C11,C13,
C16
to 4th CONC MIX M150
floor SIZE 9”x9”
VERT REIN 4-12 φ
RINGS 6φ@6”cc
2nd Column No. C16 C1,C2, C4,C7,C8
floor C11,C13
CONC MIX M150 M150 M150
to 3rd SIZE 9”x12” 9”x9” 9”x9”
floor VERT REIN 6-12 φ 6-12 φ 4-12 φ
RINGS 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc
1st Column No. C16 C1,C2, C4,C7,C8
floor C11,C13
CONC MIX M150 M150 M150
to 2nd SIZE 9”x15” 9”x9” 9”x9”
floor VERT REIN 6-12 φ 6-12 φ 4-12 φ
RINGS 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc
Parki Column No. C16 C1,C2 C11,C13 C4,C7 C8
ng to CONC MIX M200 M200 M200 M200 M200
SIZE 9”x161/2” 9”x15” 9”x12” 9”x9” 9”x9”
1st VERT REIN 6-16 φ 6-12 φ 4-16 φ 6-12 φ 4-12 φ
floor RINGS 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc
Upto Column No. C16 C1,C11 C2 C4,C13 C7 C8
parkin CONC MIX M200 M200 M200 M200 M200 M200
SIZE 9”x24” 9”x18” 9”x161/2” 9”x15” 9”x12” 9”x9”
g slab VERT REIN 6-16 φ 6-16 φ 6-16 φ 4-12 φ 4-16 φ 6-12 φ
RINGS 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc 6φ@6”cc

7.3 Modeling of an Existing Building

After evaluating the structural details, modeling of an existing building was done in ETABS.
Two different models were created in the software: a bare frame and frame having infill as
equivalent strut. The material properties and geometrical properties of structural elements
were defined in to the software. The modulus of elasticity for beams and columns were
reduced to 50% and 70% respectively, to incorporate the effect of cracking [6]. The
orientation of columns was provided and the beam offsets were also given as per the
drawings. The Plan and 3D view of building are shown in Fig. 7.1. The grid lines were
formed at each location of columns. Typical storey height was taken as 2.75m and base storey
height was taken as 4.04m which includes 1.29m of foundation depth. The beams were
created as per the location in drawing and corresponding properties of beams and columns

68
were assigned. All the slabs were 100mm thick and the slabs were taken as Rigid Floor
Diaphram.

Fig. 7.1a Plan of existing building Fig. 7.1b 3D model of existing building

Two water tanks were modeled at the top of the building. Columns at the location of water
tank were extended to the top of tank. The bottom slab of tank was 100mm thick and water
load was calculated considering tank full and applied as area load on the base slab.

Above property was kept same for both the models. In second model, equivalent compression
strut was provided to consider the effect of infill walls. The properties of equivalent strut are
given in Appendix I. The location of infill walls were selected from the drawing. The strut
was provided only where there are the beam column junctions as shown in Fig. 7.2. Rest all
the places the load of the wall was calculated and applied to the beams below it.

69
 Fig. 7.2 Model having equivalent Strut
7.4 Assigning Frame Nonlinear Hinge Property

For pushover analysis, nonlinear hinges were to be provided to the frame structural elements.
All the beams were provided with default moment (M3) hinge and user defined shear hinge at
both the ends. All the columns were provided with user defined shear hinges at top of column,
and ground floor columns were provided with default PMM hinge at the base. The size of
beams, columns and the reinforcement provided were provided into the software. Depending
upon this data the program will calculate the yield moments and corresponding displacement
which is used for nonlinear static analysis.

Regarding shear hinges, as the software doesn’t have the data for stirrups, the actual yield
shear calculated by default shear hinges cannot be used for analysis. Depending upon the
longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups provided in each beam, the yield shear strength and
corresponding displacement were calculated at both the ends. This value was used for
defining the force deformation curve. The frame nonlinear hinge property data of shear hinges
for B1a is shown in Fig. 7.3. The ultimate shear strength (Vu) was taken as 5% more than
yield shear strength (Vy) and residual shear strength was taken as 20% of the yield shear
strength for modelling of the shear hinges. Similarly maximum shear deformation was taken
as 15 times the yield deformation. The values were taken as per ETABS manual
recommendations.

70
Fig. 7.3a Typical Shear force deformation Fig. 7.3b Frame hinge property data
curve to model shear hinges for beam B1a on both ends

7.5 Load cases

Four load cases were defined, Dead load, Live Load, LateralX and Lateral Y. Dead loads
were considered by the software automatically, Live load were applied on the slab as 2 kN/m2
at typical floor slab and 1.5 kN/m2 at roof. Also the water load on the base slab of water tank
was considered under live load. The lateral loads were applied at the outer column and beam
junctions. These loads were applied in both (X &Y) the horizontal directions. Inverted
triangular pattern were implemented while applying lateral loading i.e. unit load at top floor
and zero load at the base.

71
 Fig 7.4 Lateral Load in X-direction

7.6 Nonlinear Static Load Cases & Analysis of Existing building

Before carrying out nonlinear analysis, nonlinear static load cases were to be defined. Three
load cases were defined one having gravity load pattern (PUSH1), second having lateral load
pattern in X dirn (PUSH2) and third having lateral load pattern in Y dirn (PUSH3). Unloading
method used was ‘Unload Entire Structure’ and geometric nonlinearity was also considered.
PUSH1 case was load controlled, PUSH2 and PUSH3 case was displacement controlled and
was considered started at the end of PUSH1 case.

72
 Fig. 7.5a PUSH1 case for existing building Fig. 7.5b PUSH2 case for existing building

Fig. 7.5c PUSH3 case for existing building

Static linear and dynamic analysis was performed before performing pushover analysis. Once
the pushover analysis is performed, the software creates a LOG file which contains all the
details of the iterations and steps involved into the pushover analysis. The LOG file created
for analysis of bare frame existing building is shown in Annexure 1.

73
Chapter 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of New Building Models.

Various building models were developed and pushover analysis was performed. The results
obtained after Nonlinear Static analysis are, Pushover curve (Base Shear Vs Roof
Displacement), Capacity Spectrum Curve (ADRS Format), Performance Point, Tabular
format of Pushover curve, Tabular format of Capacity Spectrum curve, Storey Drift, Bending
moment diagram, Shear force diagram and deformation shape for each step. Variety of results
were obtained & critically discussed, are included in this chapter, however, the bending
moment diagram shear force diagram and deformation diagram for each step of analysis is not
mentioned.

G+4 Building model

G+4 building model without infill walls

Pushover curve obtained for G+4 building model without infill walls i.e. bare frame is as
shown in Fig. 8.1. The ultimate base shear the building can take before failure is around 6200
kN and the corresponding roof displacement is 280mm.

Fig. 8.1 Pushover Curve of G+4 bare frame (w/o infilll walls)

74
The capacity spectrum curve of the same model is shown in Fig. 8.2. Red curve in the Fig. 8.2
shows the response spectrum curve for various damping values. The Response Spectrum
curves are governed by the values of Coefficient of Acceleration (Ca) and Coefficient of
Velocity (Cv). For getting the response spectrum curve as per IS:1893-2002 (part I), the value
of Ca and Cv were calculated and assigned to the software. The values of Ca and Cv for all
type of soils are given in Appendix-III. For medium soil and Zone 3, Ca is 0.16 and Cv is 0.22.

Fig. 8.2 Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 bare frame

In Fig. 8.2, the black curve is the capacity spectrum curve, red curves are response spectrum
curve for various damping ratios and green curve is Single Demand Spectra. The intersection
point of Single Demand Spectra with the Capacity Spectrum Curve is the performance point.
The base shear at performance point is 1647 kN and corresponding displacement is 470 mm.
Table 8.1 shows the step wise base shear, corresponding roof displacement and number of
hinges formed in different nonlinear ranges.

75
 Table 8.1 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 bare frame (w/o infill walls)

The pushover analysis was including six steps. It has been observed that, on subsequent push
to building, hinges started forming in beams first. Initially hinges were in B-IO stage and
subsequently proceeding to IO-LS and LS-CP stage. On further pushing of buildings the
hinges formed initially, moved to higher stage of hinge property. At performance point, where
the capacity and demand meets, out of 340 assigned hinges 172 were in A-
B stage, 68, 88, and 10 hinges are in B-IO, IO-LS and LS-CP stages respectively. From Fig.
8.3 it is evident that building has good capacity to resist future earthquake as demand seen
less. As at performance point, hinges were in LS-CP range, overall performance of building is
said to be Life Safety to Collapse Prevention. Also it has been observed that, at ultimate
capacity of building hinges formed were in columns which were located inside the buildings.
At ultimate load, columns capacity exhausted and analysis stopped. Hinges formation are
shown in Fig. 8.3

Fig. 8.3 Hinge formation at performance point

76
G+4 building model with infill wall

In this model, the infill walls were modeled as membrane element with in-plane stiffness and
no out of plane stiffness. From Fig. 8.4, the ultimate base shear before failure is around 10800
kN which is almost double as compared to bare frame structure, and corresponding
displacement is 160mm which is less as compared to bare frame structure as it is having high
stiffness because of the presence of infill walls. The drop in the pushover curve indicates the
failure of some of the member, which suddenly reduces the applied load to the structure.

Fig. 8.4 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve for G+4 with wall

Tabular format of pushover curve is shown in Table 8.2. As mentioned above, the drop in the
pushover curve comes at step 3 where two hinges are reaching to its failure stage. Because the
G+4 building model do not have infill walls at ground floor and rest of all upper storey infill
walls, it has anticipated a large displacement and formation of hinges (yielding of members)
at ground floor to first floor level. The same has been observed from the result. This is typical
soft storey phenomenon of the building. Refer Fig. 8.5. At performance point, the base shear
was 5090 kN and corresponding roof displacement 16 mm.

77
 Table 8.2 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with wall

It has been observed that the hinge formation starts from the lower storey because of the soft
storey phenomena. Hinges started forming in column first and then subsequently to the beams
of first floor. Initially the hinges were in B-IO stage. As analysis proceeds, the yielding of
column occurs. In step two, out of 640 hinges 588 hinges are in A-B range, 32 and 18 hinges
are in B-IO and LS-CP range respectively, while 2 hinges are in C-D range. The failure of
these two hinges which were in C-D range in step two, occurs in step three as it moves to the
D-E range. The analysis continues and the loads from those two failed hinges were
redistributed to the other hinges. The graphical representation of hinge formation at the step of
performance point is shown in Fig. 8.5. As at performance point of building only one hinged
has formed at column and of stage B-IO only, overall performance of building is of
Immediate Occupancy stage and hence, the building can be occupied immediately in
predicted earthquake level.

Fig. 8.5 Hinge Formation G+4 with wall at performance point

78
G+4 Building Model with Equivalent Strut

In the model, the infills were provided as equivalent compression only strut. The pushover
curve and capacity spectrum curve is shown in Fig. 8.6. The performance point obtained in
this case is almost 1.5 times higher than that obtained in bare frame model and lesser by half
than model having infills as membrane wall, which is sufficient to understand that G+4
building model with membrane wall is stiffer compared to G+4 building model with
equivalent strut.

Fig. 8.6 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 with equivalent strut

The pushover analysis includes five steps. It has been observed and as tabulated in Table 8.3,
initially the axial hinges have formed into the strut and were in A-B range, up to second step
of analysis. In step three, out of 968 hinges assigned, 902 hinges were in A-B range, 63 in B-
IO while 3 hinges were in D-E range. Interesting point was that, the subsequent formation of
hinges has not taken place. The reason was the brittle property of masonry strut. There was no
hinge formation in columns, while the beams closer to the strut which were failing, started
showing hinge formation at later stages because of the redistribution of the forces. At the
performance point, three axial hinges were in D-E range, which indicates that there was a
failure of strut under the expected earthquake demand.

79
 Table 8.3 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with Strut

Fig. 8.7 shows the hinge development at performance point.

Fig. 8.7 Hinge formation G+4 with strut at performance point

G+4 Building Model with Strut at periphery

The model simulates kind of building which has only peripheral brick masonry infills and
internally temporary partitions like in offices/halls etc. It has been observed that performance
drops compared to previous G+4 model because overall stiffness and capacity of building is
less. At performance point the base shear and corresponding displacement was 2045 kN and
190mm respectively.

80
Fig. 8.8 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 with strut at periphery

Table 8.4 shows the tabular format of pushover curve. In this case, it was observed that the
failure member was strut. The reason for the failing of strut was same as described in previous
model.
Table 8.4 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with strut at periphery

The analysis includes four steps. It has been observed that on subsequent push to building
hinges started forming in strut first. Initially hinges were in B-IO range but it doesn’t
subsequently proceeds to further stage. From Table 8.4, at first step, out of 832 assigned
hinges, 786 hinges were in A-B range and remaining 46 hinges were in B-IO range which was
mostly in struts up to third floor and in the beams of first floor. In step two the sudden failure
of one strut occurs because of the brittle property of the failing member. The graphical
representation of hinges formation is shown in Fig. 8.9. At performance point one hinge was
seen in D-E range.

81
 Fig.8.9 Hinge formation G+4 with strut at periphery at performance point

G+4 Building Model with Strut also at Ground Floor

As seen in earlier models that infills not at GF shows prominently the soft storey phenomenon
i.e. large displacement at that level. This model is developed to remove soft storey
phenomenon, to understand how infills at GF helps in overall performance of the building.
The results are shown in Fig. 8.10. The pushover curve and capacity spectrum curve is
compared for G+4 with strut having soft storey and G+4 with strut at Ground floor.

82
 Fig. 8.10 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 with strut at GF also.

The stiffness of building is much higher in this model as compared to other model. Table 8.5
shows the failure member is strut. Also it has seen that, strut fails at much higher steps of
analysis. Fig. 8.11 shows the graphical representation of hinge formation at performance
point.

Fig. 8.11 Hinge formation G+4 with strut at GF also

From Fig. 8.11 it was observed that, no member has gone up to its yielding capacity at
performance point.

83
 Table 8.5 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with strut at GF also.

A plot which can readily distinguish the performance of each model developed is as shown in
Fig. 8.12, which a plot of displacement Vs Storey level. The plot helps in understanding the
influence of stiffness on overall control of displacement of the building. As bare frame
doesn’t has infill, building displacement is proportionally varies from low level to high level,
but models with wall, with strut, with strut at periphery show the sudden variation of stiffness.
As GF doesn’t have much stiffness, displacement is large and all upper storeys have more of
less same displacement because stiffness is almost same.

Displacement in Y-dirn

6
bareframe
5
Storey Level

4 with wall
3
with strut
2
1 with strut at GF
0 also
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 with strut at
periphery
Displacement

Fig. 8.12 Displacement of each G+4 model of first mode

84
G+10 building Model

The other new building was G+10 building model. Three models of G+10 building namely,
G+10 building without infill, G+10 building with infill as strut and G+10 building with
membrane wall, were developed. With these models parametric studies were not done as it
was included with G+4 building models. Results for all the G+10 building models were
obtained and discuss here.

G+10 Building Model without infill

Fig. 8.13 shows the pushover curve and capacity spectrum curve of G+10 building model
without infill.

Fig. 8.13 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+10 without infill

The maximum roof displacement of the building is 640mm and corresponding failure load is
6400 kN. The base shear at performance point was around 1463 kN and corresponding
displacement 110 mm. Comparing it with G+4 building model without infill, there was not
much difference in base shear but the displacement at performance point of this model was
doubled. The reason is, as the height of building is more; the overall stiffness of building
under lateral loading reduces, which increase the lateral displacement of the building under
applied lateral load. The performance point was in linear range and hence the building was
found safe against predicted earthquake. Table 8.6 shows the number of hinges at different
steps.

85
 Table 8.6 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 without infill

The pushover analysis includes 15 steps. It has been observed that on subsequent push to
building, hinges started forming in beams first. There was subsequent development of hinges
proceeding from IO-LS and LS-CP stage because of the ductile behavior of structure under
lateral loading. From Table 8.6 the base shear at failure was around 6370 kN and
corresponding roof displacement 633mm. At ultimate failure stage, out of 1260 assigned
hinges, 940 hinges were in A-B range, 36, 42, and 210 hinges were in B-IO, IO-LS, and LS-
CP range, respectively, while 2 hinges were in C-D range and 30 hinges were in D-E range. In
columns the hinges started forming in later stages and it remains in LS-CP range till failure
while 30 hinges which failed at final step, were the hinges of beams of 2nd floor to 4th floor.
The reason for column not being failed was the strong column weak beam concept used while
modeling. The graphical representation of hinge formation at performance point is shown in
Fig. 8.14. It shows that when demand equals the capacity, 36 hinges were in LS-CP range and
none of the hinges of the building was in failure stage. Thus, the overall building is safe and
its overall performance said to be in Life Safety level.

86
 Fig. 8.14 Hinge formation G+10 without infill at performance point

G+10 with infill as equivalent strut

The model was created by providing equivalent strut from first floor to top floor. The
pushover curve and capacity spectrum curve is shown in Fig. 8.15

Fig. 8.15 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum curve of G+10 with strut

87
 Table 8.7 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 with strut

The graphical representation of hinge formation is shown in Fig. 8.16

Fig. 8.16 Hinge formation G+10 with strut at performance point

G+10 with wall

In the model, the infill wall was modeled as membrane wall. The lateral stiffness of the
building was increases by providing infills as membrane wall. The base shear at performance
point was higher than that of previous two models. Fig. 8.17 shows the pushover curve and
capacity spectrum curve for G+10 with wall.

88
 Fig. 8.17 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum curve of G+10 with wall

The failure load for the model was 18000 kN and corresponding displacement 108 mm. The
base shear at performance point was 9102 kN and corresponding displacement 34mm. As
there was a soft storey phenomenon, the failure members were column at ground floor. The
behavior of the building under lateral loading was similar to that of G+4 building model with
infills as membrane wall.

Table 8.8 shows the tabular format of pushover curve. There were 4 steps of analysis. The
base shear was much higher compared to previous two models. Under lateral push, initially
the hinges were started forming in columns in B-IO range. Subsequently these hinges have
gone into higher ranges and the beams of first floor started showing hinge formation at later
stage.

Table 8.8 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 with wall

Fig. 8.18 shows the hinges formation at step 2. There were about 48 hinges in B-IO range. All
these hinges were formed at base, which reflects the soft storey phenomenon of the model.

89
 Fig. 8.18 Hinge formation G+10 with wall at performance point

Existing Building

Two models were created for an existing building, with infill walls and without infill walls.
The pushover curve, capacity spectrum curve and hinge formations of each model are shown
below:

Existing Building without infill walls

The building was analysed for lateral loading in both the horizontal directions. Fig. 8.19
shows the pushover curve in X and Y-direction. As the stiffness was more in Y-direction the
base shear at failure was more as compared to that in X direction. The capacity spectrum
curve are shown in Fig. 8.20

90
 Fig. 8.19a Pushover curve for X-dirn. Fig. 8.19b Pushover curve in Y-dirn.

The base shear at performance point for loading in X-dirn. was 370 kN and corrsoponding
displacement 99mm. In case of lateral loading in Y-dirn., the base shear at performance point
was 492 kN which is more as compared to that in X-dirn, and corresponding displacement 68
mm, which was less as compared to that in X-dirn. The reason is, as the dimension of building
along Y-dirn is more, the lateral stiffness along Y-dirn was more as compared to X-dirn.
which resists more lateral load with less displacement.

Fig. 8.20a Capacity Spectrum Curve X-dirn. Fig. 8.20b Capacity Spectrum Curve Y-dirn.

Table 8.9 shows the hinge development of structure under lateral loading in X-dirn.

91
 Table 8.9 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing Building without strut in X-dirn.

There were 12 steps of analysis in X-dirn. and 11 steps of analysis in Y-dirn. Table 8.9 and
8.10 shows the hinge formation of Existing building without strut in X and Y direction
respectively. In both the cases, initially the hinges started forming in beams and subsequently
hinges were formed into columns. From table 8.9, for loading in X-dirn, at performance point,
out of 831 assigned hinges, 770 hinges were in linear range, 33 were in B-IO range, 25 were
in IO-LS range and 3 hinges were in LS-CP range. Thus the overall building was considered
to be in Life Safety level in case of predicted earthquake in X-dirn. The graphical
representation of hinge formation at performance point of existing building without strut X-
dirn. and Y-dirn. is shown in Fig. 8.21 and Fig. 8.22 respectively.

Table 8.10 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing building without strut Y-dirn

In case of loading in Y-dirn., from table 8.10, in step 4 the base shear was 477.527 kN and
two hinges were failed i.e. in above E stage. These hinges were the shear hinges in beams B5b
and B6b. Shear failure in the beams was not considered as the total failure of the building and

92
hence the analysis proceeded. Further, in step 5, the base shear was reduced as redistribution
of the forces occurs. From step 6 the base shear was increases again till the failure, as other
adjacent members have started resisting the distributed load.

Fig. 8.21 Hinge formation Existing building without strut X-dirn. at performance point

Fig. 8.22 Hinge formation Existing building without strut Y-dirn. at performance point

The comparison of storey drift at various storey level, was made for first four modes for
lateral loading in X-dirn. and in Y-dirn., as the first three modes of vibrations are most vital.
In case of lateral loading in X-dirn., the storey drift for first mode was high and it reduces up
to third mode. It was reversed in case of loading in Y-dirn., where storey drift for first mode

93
was less and increases up to third mode. Fig 8.23 shows the storey drift in X and Y direction
for first four modes. From the Fig. 8.23, first three modes were considered as flexural mode
and forth mode was the combination of flexural and torsional mode.

storey drift Y for mode shapes

storey drift X for modes shapes
5
5
4
Storey Level

mode1 mode1

Storey Level
4
3 mode2 3 mode2
2 mode3 2 mode3
1 mode4 1 mode4
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Storey Drift Storey Drift

Fig. 8.23a Storey drift in X dirn. Fig. 8.23b Storey drift in Y-dirn.

Existing Building with infills as equivalent strut.

Fig. 8.24 and Fig. 8.25 shows the Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve respectively.

Fig. 8.24a Pushover curve X-dirn. Fig. 8.24b Pushover curve Y-dirn.

The failure load in case of strut in X-dirn., was 360 kN and corresponding displacement was
22mm. Table 8.11 shows the hinge development in various stages. Initially the hinges started
developing in strut and subsequently failed at later stage. From table 8.11, at step 3, three
hinges were failed. These hinges were axial hinges in the strut. As it is a brittle failure, the
displacement at the time of failure was very less. In further steps, the unloading of the

94
structure took place and on reapplying the load, the forces were distributed to the adjacent
member. After redistribution, before the total failure, six hinges were failed which has
exhausted the capacity of building to take more load and hence the analysis stopped.

Table 8.11 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing building with strut X-dirn.

The analysis of lateral loading in Y-dirn. has 15 steps. Tabular format of pushover curve for
models having lateral loading in Y-dirn. was shown in Table 8.12. Initially in step one, there
were 19 hinges in B-IO range. Step 2 has 23 hinges in B-IO range and in further steps the
displacement remains constant with very little increase in base shear, and no change in hinge
development.

Table 8.12 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing building with strut Y-dirn.

95
Fig. 8.25 shows the capacity spectrum curve for both the models. The performance point was
not obtained for both the directions because the failure load and corresponding displacement
was very less.

Fig. 8.25a Capacity Spectrum Curve X-dirn. Fig. 8.25b Capacity Spectrum Curve Y-dirn.

96
Chapter 9 CONCLUSION AND FURTHER SCOPE OF WORK

Nonlinear Static Analysis was performed on various new R.C.C building models and also on
an Existing building models. Various results were obtained after performing the analysis.
After detailed study of the results and behavior of buildings during analysis, the following
conclusions were made.

New RCC Buildings

• Different building model developed based on different modeling aspects showed

distinct modeling effect on overall results of the building.

• As new building has designed for an earthquake forces prior to nonlinear analysis its
performance was found satisfactory, overall.

• G+4 building model without infill has an overall performance in Life Safety to
Collapse Prevention.

• G+4 building model with infill as membrane wall has an overall performance in
Immediate Occupancy level.

• G+4 building model with infill as equivalent strut has an overall performance in
Collapse Prevention level.

• G+4 building model with infill as equivalent strut at periphery has an overall
performance in Collapse Prevention level.

• G+10 building model without infill has an overall performance in linear range i.e.
below Immediate Occupancy level.

97
 • G+10 building model with infill as membrane wall has an overall performance in Life
Safety to Collapse Prevention level.

• It has been observed that for majority of the building model developed, performance
point lies in nonlinear range except G+10 building model without infills.

• It has been observed that, building models without infill was shown flexure (moment-
M3) hinge formation, while building models with infill wall as membrane element
shown axial moment interaction (PMM) hinge formation. i.e. for bare frame beams
were yielded first while for infill as membrane element columns were yielded first.

• However, for building models with equivalent strut shown axial hinges formation in
strut because of brittle property assigned to strut members.

• In case of building models without infills at GF, soft storey effect has been seen
remarkably.

• The nature and characteristics of pushover curve and capacity spectrum curve obtained
for all building models were comparable to the literature.

• Plot of displacement Vs storey level promptly indicate effect of stiffness on

displacement control.

Existing Building

• Pushover curve for an existing building in X-dirn. and Y-dirn. were more or less same
in nature but different in magnitude.

• It has been observed that capacity of an existing building is more in Y-dirn. compared
to other, as it has more stiffness about that direction.

98
 • An existing building made without considering infill wall shows its performance in
LS-CP range, i.e. building is called safe against predicted earthquake.

• Even though an existing building is safe for predicted earthquake, some of the
members which yielded extensively need an immediate attention - either retrofit or
restrengthen.

• The building model of an existing building with infill as equivalent strut shows no
performance point as failure of the members occurs at very less load i.e. capacity of
the building is less compared to expected demand.

• It has been also observed that, story drift is an essential measure for evaluating the
response of building.

• It has been observed that for an existing building overall performance is largely
depends on the modeling of an existing building.

Future Scope of Work

Looking to the work done in present thesis following work can be taken as future scope of
work related to this topic

• Effect of location and thickness variation of infill panels on overall behavior of the
building.

• Estimation of retrofitting and restrengthening for an existing building.

• Parametric study of performance based analysis for new as well as an existing building
for different levels of an earthquake.

• Developing and validating pushover curve after retrofitting and restrengthening an

existing building.

99
 • Safe collapse mechanism – Ductility aspect for new as well as an existing building

However, area of performance based analysis of R.C.C. building is still open to include
various allied parameters to study.

100
 Appendix-I

MODELING OF INFILL WALLS

For lateral load resisting frame, the stiffness of infill wall and strength contribution has to be
considered. Non-integral infill frame subjected to lateral load behaves like a diagonally braced
frame. Hence, appropriately, infill wall can be replaced by an equivalent compression only
strut in the analysis model.

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF MASONRY

The modulus of elasticity of masonry is calculated from the formula given below:

Em = 750 f m
where, fm = Compressive strength of brickwork

Brick masonry walls are commonly constructed in India using cement mortar of 1:6 and
bricks (first or second class) of size 210 x 110 x 60 mm. So, compressive strength (fm) of brick
masonry constructed in India will be 1.85 N/mm2 for first class bricks) and 1.65 N/mm2 for
second class bricks [15]. For calculation of the strut parameter here fm has been taken as 1.65
N/mm2 to be on conservative side.
So, all the strut should be modelled with modulus of elasticity, Em=750×1.65 N/mm2
=1237.5 MPa

EQUIVALENT WIDTH OF STRUT

The key to the equivalent diagonal strut approach lies in determination of effective width of
the equivalent diagonal strut. For solid walls width of equivalent diagonal strut (w) can be
taken as one third of the diagonal length (d) of the infill wall [19].
w=d/3

101
FAILURE PROPERTIES OF STRUT

The equivalent struts has to be modeled with axial hinges, which has brittle load-deformation
relation only for compression. Fig. 1 shows a typical load-deformation relation for the axial
hinge in strut. R and ∆y represent the yield load and the yield deformation, respectively, of the
strut.

IO, LS, CP
Load

∆y
Deformation

Fig. 1 A typical stress-strain relation for axial hinges in equivalent struts.

Lower of the failure loads corresponding to the following failure modes is taken as the
strength(R) of the masonry infill.

I. Local crushing of the masonry at one of the compression corners of the infill wall.
II. Shear cracking along the bed-joints of the bricks.

I. Crushing failure

The diagonal load causing local crushing (Rc) is given by the following equation [15]
Rc = α c t sec θ f m

102
The length of contact at the column (αc) at the compression diagonal corner is calculated
using the following formula.
αc π
=
h 2λ h
Here λ is the relative stiffness of the infill to the frame. It can be expressed as

Emt sin 2θ
λ= 4
4 Ec I c h '

Here,
Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete in the column
h = Height of column (between centrelines of beams)
h' = Clear height of infill wall
Ic = Moment of inertia of the column section (Lowest of the two Columns)
l = Length of beam (between centrelines of columns)
t = Thickness of infill wall
θ = Slope of the infill diagonal to the horizontal = tan −1 (h / l )

II. Shear failure

Shear failure load Rs can be estimated by a relation which is obtained from simple and non-
dimensional curve. Following relationship of Rs proposed [15].
RS
= 1.65(l '/ h ')0.6 (λ h ) −0.05( l '/ h ')0.5
f 'bs ht

Where, f bs′ = The bond shear strength between the masonry and mortar. It is varies from 0.24
MPa for low strength mortar to 0.69 MPa for high strength mortar [15]. Again to be in
conservative side f bs′ is taken as 0.24 for the calculation.

Lower of Rc and Rs is the axial strength (R) of the equivalent strut. Yield deformation (∆y) is
to be calculated using the following formula.
R R×d
∆y = =
 AE  w × t × E
 
 d 

103
 Appendix-II

MODELING OF SHEAR HINGES

Shear hinge is modeled as per the force deformation curve shown in Fig. 2. It is assumed to be
symmetric for positive and negative shear forces.

Shear strength (V)

Vu = 1.05Vy
Vy

Residual
0.2 Vy Shear Strength

∆y 1.5∆y ∆m=15∆y
Shear deformation (∆)

Fig. 2 Typical shear force-deformation curves to model shear hinges

Yield shear strength (Vy) is calculated by adding strength of the shear reinforcement (Vsy) to
the shear strength of the concrete section (Vc). Shear resistance carried by shear reinforcement
(Vsy) as per clause 40.4 of IS456:2000 is
d
Vsy = 0.87 f y Asv
sv
Where, fy = yield stress of the transverse reinforcement
Asv = Total cross sectional area of one stirrup considering all the legs
d = effective depth
Sv = Spacing between two stirrup

104
The shear strength in existing construction is calculated by the following expression

Vy = Vc + Vsy

Shear resistance taken by the concrete (Vc) is calculated from IS 456:2000

Vc = τcbd

Where b = width of beam

d = effective depth of beam.

Yield deformation (∆y) is to be calculated using the following formula [15].

Yield shear strength R R×l

∆y = = =
Shear stiffness  GAeff  G × 0.75 Ag
 
 l 
Where G = Shear modulus of the reinforced concrete section
= E/(2(1+µ) E = Modulus of Elasticity of reinforced concrete section
= 9317 N/mm2 = 22360 N/mm2
µ = Poissions ratio
= 0.2

The excel worksheet as shown in Table 1 list all calculations in detail.

105
 Appendix-III

CALCULATION OF Ca AND Cv

An Elastic Response Spectrum, for each earthquake hazard level of interest at a site is based
on the site seismic coefficients Ca and Cv. The seismic coefficient Ca represents the effective
peak acceleration (EPA) of the ground. A factor of about 2.5 times Ca represents the average
value of peak response of a 5 % damped short period system in the acceleration domain. The
seismic coefficient Cv represents 5 % damped response of a 1-second system and when
divided by period defines acceleration response in the velocity domain.

Fig. 3 Construction of a 5 % damped Elastic Response Spectrum

The Response Spectrum for 5 % damping given in IS:1893:2002(part I) is shown in Fig 4

108
 2.5Ca
3
2.5

Spectral Acceleration
Type I (Rock, or
2 Hard Soil)

coefficient (Sa/g)
Cv/T
Type II (Medium
1.5
Soil)
1 Ca Type III (Soft Soil)
0.5
0
0 2 4 6
Period(s)

Fig. 4 Response Spectrum Curve of IS 1893 2002 (part I)

Coefficient of acceleration (Ca) = Z

Coefficient of velocity (Cv) = 2.5*Ca*TS
For Zone III (Rock, or Hard Soil)
Ca = 0.16 T = 0.4
Cv = 2.5*0.16*0.4=0.16
The value of Ca and Cv is calculated for all the zones for considering soil conditions. These
values of Ca and Cv are tabulated in Table-2.

Table-2 Coefficient of Acceleration and Coefficient of Velocity

Seismic coefficient,Ca
Soil Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
(0.10) (0.16) (0.24) (0.36)
Type I 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36
Type II 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36
Type III 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36
Seismic coefficient,Cv
Type I 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36
Type II 0.1375 0.22 0.33 0.495
Type III 0.1675 0.268 0.402 0.603

109
 Annexure 1

Program ETABS Version8.080 File:shivshakti apartment having tie beam y-dirn.LOG

B E G I N A N A L Y S I S 2005/04/09 15:08:34

MAXIMUM MEMORY BLOCK SIZE (BYTES) = 15.862 MB

E L E M E N T F O R M A T I O N 15:08:34

NUMBER OF JOINT ELEMENTS FORMED = 106

NUMBER OF SPRING ELEMENTS FORMED = 0
NUMBER OF FRAME ELEMENTS FORMED = 718
NUMBER OF SHELL ELEMENTS FORMED = 22
NUMBER OF CONSTRAINTS FORMED = 5

REDUCTION OF CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRAINTS:

NUMBER OF
CONSTRAINT MASTER DOF BEFORE REDUCTION = 15
COUPLED CONSTRAINT/RESTRAINT MASTER DOF = 0
CONSTRAINT MASTER DOF AFTER REDUCTION = 15

E Q U A T I O N S O L U T I O N 15:08:35

TOTAL NUMBER OF EQUILIBRIUM EQUATIONS = 1227

APPROXIMATE "EFFECTIVE" BAND WIDTH = 78

NUMBER OF EQUATION STORAGE BLOCKS = 1

MAXIMUM BLOCK SIZE (8-BYTE TERMS) = 93759
SIZE OF STIFFNESS FILE(S) (BYTES) = 737.301 KB

NUMBER OF EQUATIONS TO SOLVE = 1227

NUMBER OF STATIC LOAD CASES = 5
NUMBER OF ACCELERATION LOADS = 6
NUMBER OF NONLINEAR DEFORMATION LOADS = 0

E I G E N A N A L Y S I S 15:08:36

NUMBER OF STIFFNESS DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 1227

NUMBER OF MASS DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 79
NUMBER OF EIGEN MODES SOUGHT = 12
NUMBER OF RESIDUAL-MASS MODES SOUGHT = 0
NUMBER OF SUBSPACE VECTORS USED = 16

RELATIVE CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE = 1.00E-07

FREQUENCY SHIFT (CENTER) (CYC/TIME) = .000000
FREQUENCY CUTOFF (RADIUS) (CYC/TIME) = .000000

110
 NUMBER OF EIGEN MODES FOUND = 12
NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PERFORMED = 9

R E S P O N S E - S P E C T R U M A N A L Y S I S 15:08:37

NUMBER OF SPEC ANALYSES PERFORMED = 1

J O I N T O U T P U T 15:08:37

G L O B A L F O R C E B A L A N C E R E L A T I V E E R R O R S

PERCENT FORCE AND MOMENT ERROR AT THE ORIGIN, IN GLOBAL COORDINATES

LOAD FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
DEAD 1.74E-14 2.39E-14 1.21E-13 3.27E-14 2.71E-16 3.68E-15
LIVE 4.04E-14 4.77E-14 1.74E-13 2.07E-13 4.89E-15 5.19E-14
LATERALX 3.25E-11 2.93E-12 1.44E-13 2.84E-12 4.32E-11 1.86E-11
LATERALY 9.74E-13 6.16E-11 1.04E-13 8.40E-11 1.15E-12 2.68E-11
DUMMY 7.60E-14 1.03E-14 1.54E-13 9.94E-14 6.07E-14 5.39E-14

MODE FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
1 4.97E-07 4.33E-06 2.72E-13 6.28E-06 7.26E-07 2.80E-06
2 1.64E-06 5.40E-06 1.41E-15 6.71E-06 2.04E-06 2.87E-06
3 1.49E-07 1.53E-05 1.06E-13 2.21E-05 2.18E-07 9.83E-06
4 4.52E-05 0.000298 2.71E-13 0.000432 6.40E-05 0.000218
5 0.000111 0.000649 1.08E-13 0.000806 0.000131 0.000467
6 4.01E-05 0.000305 1.68E-13 0.000435 5.37E-05 0.000254
7 6.23E-05 1.14E-05 1.40E-13 1.34E-05 7.04E-05 4.54E-05
8 5.93E-06 2.73E-07 1.27E-13 3.19E-07 5.96E-06 3.81E-06
9 5.62E-05 1.29E-06 1.88E-13 1.90E-06 6.40E-05 4.13E-05
10 0.003426 0.002291 5.76E-11 0.003455 0.004847 0.003790
11 0.000315 0.000381 2.12E-11 0.000614 0.000479 5.04E-06
12 0.001720 0.000596 3.12E-12 0.000924 0.002456 0.001580

SPEC FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
RSPECTRU 3.51E-05 0.000204 2.59E-13 0.000254 4.14E-05 0.000146

E L E M E N T J O I N T - F O R C E O U T P U T 15:08:37

NUMBER OF JOINT ELEMENTS SAVED = 106

NUMBER OF FRAME ELEMENTS SAVED = 718
NUMBER OF SHELL ELEMENTS SAVED = 22

E L E M E N T O U T P U T 15:08:38

A N A L Y S I S C O M P L E T E 2005/04/09 15:08:38

Program ETABS Version 8.080 File:hivshakti apartment having tie beam y-dirn.LOG

111
C E N T E R S O F R I G I D I T Y 15:08:40

Program ETABS Version 8.080 File:hivshakti apartment having tie beam y-dirn.LOG

N O N L I N E A R S T A T I C A N A L Y S I S 2005/04/09 15:08:57

MAXIMUM MEMORY BLOCK SIZE (BYTES) = 15.862 MB

NONLINEAR STATIC CASE = PUSH1

CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS CASE = 0

LOAD CONTROL TYPE = FORCE

METHOD TO USE WHEN HINGES DROP LOAD = UNLOAD
TYPE OF GEOMETRIC NONLINEARITY = P-DELTA
SAVE POSITIVE INCREMENTS ONLY = YES

MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAVED STEPS = 1

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAVED STEPS = 200
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF NULL STEPS = 50
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TOTAL STEPS = 200
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 10

RELATIVE FORCE CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE = 0.000100

RELATIVE EVENT TOLERANCE = 0.010000

STAGE NUMBER = 1
ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS ACTIVE = YES
CHANGES TO ELEMENTS IN STRUCTURE = NONE

STEP 0

STEP 1, INCREMENT = 1.000000, SUM = 1.000000, MAX = 1.000000

Unbalance/tolerance = 4.426481, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 1, INCREMENT = 1.000000, SUM = 1.000000, MAX = 1.000000

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.062588, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 1

TOTAL NUMBER OF CONVERGED STEPS SAVED = 1

TOTAL NUMBER OF CONVERGED STEPS NOT SAVED = 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF NULL STEPS = 0
----------
TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL STEPS = 1

TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS CONVERGED = 2

TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS DISCARDED = 0
FOR CONVERGED STEPS ONLY:
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 2.00

112
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 2

TIME FOR INITIALIZING ANALYSIS = 0.28

TIME FOR CONTROLLING ANALYSIS = 2.01
TIME FOR FORMING STIFFNESS MATRIX = 0.08
TIME FOR SOLVING STIFFNESS MATRIX = 0.33
TIME FOR CALCULATING DISPLACEMENTS = 0.00
TIME FOR DETERMINING EVENTS = 0.03
TIME FOR UPDATING STATE = 0.11
----------
TOTAL TIME FOR THIS ANALYSIS = 2.84

N O N L I N E A R S T A T I C A N A L Y S I S 15:09:12

NONLINEAR STATIC CASE = PUSH2

CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS CASE = PUSH1

LOAD CONTROL TYPE = CONJUG DISP

METHOD TO USE WHEN HINGES DROP LOAD = UNLOAD
TYPE OF GEOMETRIC NONLINEARITY = P-DELTA
SAVE POSITIVE INCREMENTS ONLY = YES

MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAVED STEPS = 10

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAVED STEPS = 200
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF NULL STEPS = 50
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TOTAL STEPS = 200
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 10

RELATIVE FORCE CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE = 0.000100

RELATIVE EVENT TOLERANCE = 0.010000

STAGE NUMBER = 1
ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS ACTIVE = YES
CHANGES TO ELEMENTS IN STRUCTURE = NONE

STEP 0

STEP 1, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.100000, MAX = 0.100000

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.218765, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 1

STEP 2, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.200000, MAX = 0.200000

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.439041, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 2

STEP 3, INCREMENT = 0.009402, SUM = 0.209402, MAX = 0.209402

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.441001, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 4, INCREMENT = 0.044153, SUM = 0.253554, MAX = 0.253554

Frame 429, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

113
Frame 433, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.567774, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 5, INCREMENT = 0.024171, SUM = 0.277726, MAX = 0.277726

Frame 428, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 432, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.564325, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 6, INCREMENT = 0.011128, SUM = 0.288854, MAX = 0.288854

Frame 436, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.571913, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 7, INCREMENT = 0.008235, SUM = 0.297089, MAX = 0.297089

Frame 437, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.579297, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 8, INCREMENT = 0.006808, SUM = 0.303897, MAX = 0.303897

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.582488, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 9, INCREMENT = 0.007586, SUM = 0.311484, MAX = 0.311484

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.586487, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 10, INCREMENT = 0.011066, SUM = 0.322550, MAX = 0.322550

Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47

Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.591740, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 11, INCREMENT = 0.013541, SUM = 0.336091, MAX = 0.336091

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.593348, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 12, INCREMENT = 0.006042, SUM = 0.342133, MAX = 0.342133

Frame 307, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 311, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 429, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 433, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 437, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.594190, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

114
STEP 13, INCREMENT = 0.007133, SUM = 0.349267, MAX = 0.349267

Frame 422, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 425, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.592399, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 14, INCREMENT = 0.006272, SUM = 0.355539, MAX = 0.355539

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.589894, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 15, INCREMENT = 0.012080, SUM = 0.367619, MAX = 0.367619

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.578716, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 16, INCREMENT = 0.008849, SUM = 0.376468, MAX = 0.376468

Frame 428, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 432, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 436, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.573024, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 17, INCREMENT = 0.014987, SUM = 0.391454, MAX = 0.391454

Frame 306, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 310, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.585454, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 18, INCREMENT = 0.014442, SUM = 0.405896, MAX = 0.405896

Frame 315, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 425, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.599566, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 19, INCREMENT = 0.013026, SUM = 0.418922, MAX = 0.418922

Frame 314, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.600457, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 20, INCREMENT = 0.008275, SUM = 0.427197, MAX = 0.427197

Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

115
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.602775, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 21, INCREMENT = 0.013845, SUM = 0.441041, MAX = 0.441041

Frame 422, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.602011, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 22, INCREMENT = 0.008214, SUM = 0.449256, MAX = 0.449256

Frame 439, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.603237, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 23, INCREMENT = 0.027389, SUM = 0.476644, MAX = 0.476644

Frame 311, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.650981, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 24, INCREMENT = 0.009186, SUM = 0.485830, MAX = 0.485830

Frame 303, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 307, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.654782, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 25, INCREMENT = 0.008503, SUM = 0.494333, MAX = 0.494333

Frame 424, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 439, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.654156, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 26, INCREMENT = 0.021201, SUM = 0.515534, MAX = 0.515534

Frame 300, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.647576, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 27, INCREMENT = 0.009482, SUM = 0.525017, MAX = 0.525017

Frame 315, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.649046, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 28, INCREMENT = 0.014161, SUM = 0.539178, MAX = 0.539178

Frame 310, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 424, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81

116
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.654077, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 29, INCREMENT = 0.005941, SUM = 0.545119, MAX = 0.545119

Frame 306, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.655917, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 30, INCREMENT = 0.008362, SUM = 0.553482, MAX = 0.553482

Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.660791, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 31, INCREMENT = 0.008534, SUM = 0.562016, MAX = 0.562016

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.669968, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 32, INCREMENT = 0.028078, SUM = 0.590093, MAX = 0.590093

Frame 314, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.773206, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 33, INCREMENT = 0.053590, SUM = 0.643683, MAX = 0.643683

Frame 185, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 189, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 303, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.173504, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 33, INCREMENT = 0.053590, SUM = 0.643683, MAX = 0.643683

Frame 185, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 189, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 303, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.010422, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 34, INCREMENT = 0.027217, SUM = 0.670900, MAX = 0.670900

Frame 300, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.090243, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 8

STEP 35, INCREMENT = 0.029403, SUM = 0.700303, MAX = 0.700303

Frame 317, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.206787, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 8

STEP 36, INCREMENT = 0.053472, SUM = 0.753775, MAX = 0.753775

117
Frame 184, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 188, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.581096, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 8

STEP 37, INCREMENT = 0.009793, SUM = 0.763568, MAX = 0.763568

Frame 302, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 317, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.594012, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 38, INCREMENT = 0.065887, SUM = 0.829456, MAX = 0.829456

Frame 302, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.146098, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 38, INCREMENT = 0.065887, SUM = 0.829456, MAX = 0.829456

Frame 302, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.000464, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 39, INCREMENT = 0.069879, SUM = 0.899334, MAX = 0.899334

Frame 193, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.605409, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 40, INCREMENT = 0.024027, SUM = 0.923362, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 178, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 185, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 47
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.673853, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 10

STEP 41, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.923362, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 178, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded

Frame 184, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 185, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 185, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 188, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 189, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 193, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 300, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 300, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 302, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 302, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 303, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 303, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 306, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 306, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 307, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 307, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded

118
Frame 310, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 310, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 311, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 311, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 314, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 314, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 315, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 315, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 317, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 317, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 422, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 422, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 424, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 424, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 425, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 425, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 428, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 428, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 429, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 429, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 432, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 432, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 433, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 433, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 436, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 436, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 437, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 437, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 439, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 439, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 42, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.823362, MAX = 0.923362

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.890961, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 11

119
STEP 43, INCREMENT = -0.084105, SUM = 0.739256, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.046947, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 43, INCREMENT = -0.084105, SUM = 0.739256, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.003254, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 44, INCREMENT = -0.036067, SUM = 0.703189, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.090311, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 45, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.703189, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 47 to 137
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 72

STEP 46, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.803189, MAX = 0.923362

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.860597, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 46, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.803189, MAX = 0.923362

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.005358, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 47, INCREMENT = 0.080883, SUM = 0.884072, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.171740, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 47, INCREMENT = 0.080877, SUM = 0.884066, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.002286, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 48, INCREMENT = 0.011105, SUM = 0.895172, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.037751, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 49, INCREMENT = 0.008066, SUM = 0.903238, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

120
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.065888, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 50, INCREMENT = 0.004565, SUM = 0.907803, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.078525, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 51, INCREMENT = 0.005271, SUM = 0.913074, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 47
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.092956, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 52, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.913074, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 46 to 55
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 53, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.913074, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 83

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 55 to 65

121
STEP 54, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.913074, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 65 to 83

STEP 55, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.913074, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 56, INCREMENT = -0.073108, SUM = 0.839966, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 101
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.340946, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 57, INCREMENT = -0.093201, SUM = 0.746765, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.127023, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 58, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.746765, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 59, INCREMENT = 0.026794, SUM = 0.773559, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 101
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.147740, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 60, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.873559, MAX = 0.923362

Unbalance/tolerance = 2.431444, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 60, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.873559, MAX = 0.923362

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.005777, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 61, INCREMENT = 0.028998, SUM = 0.902557, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 72
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

122
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.205612, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 62, INCREMENT = 0.004298, SUM = 0.906855, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47

Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.209128, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 63, INCREMENT = 0.007577, SUM = 0.914433, MAX = 0.923362

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.225597, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 64, INCREMENT = 0.008939, SUM = 0.923372, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.242705, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 65, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.923372, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 47 to 65
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 66, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.923372, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

123
STEP 67, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.823372, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.052921, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 68, INCREMENT = -0.037086, SUM = 0.786286, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 118
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.058021, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 69, INCREMENT = -0.020439, SUM = 0.765847, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 109
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.063359, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 70, INCREMENT = -0.035446, SUM = 0.730401, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.081592, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 71, INCREMENT = -0.088822, SUM = 0.641579, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.329407, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 72, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.641579, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 73, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.741579, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.279973, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 74, INCREMENT = 0.019834, SUM = 0.761413, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 119
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.285125, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 75, INCREMENT = 0.075634, SUM = 0.837047, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.590806, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 76, INCREMENT = 0.023838, SUM = 0.860885, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.624342, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

124
STEP 77, INCREMENT = 0.042936, SUM = 0.903821, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.685276, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 78, INCREMENT = 0.005482, SUM = 0.909303, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.694212, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 79, INCREMENT = 0.006122, SUM = 0.915424, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.701880, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 80, INCREMENT = 0.006396, SUM = 0.921820, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 424, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 119
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 82
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.706247, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 81, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.921820, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 424, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 82 to 109
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 47 to 56
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

125
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 82, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.921820, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 83, INCREMENT = -0.021018, SUM = 0.900802, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Ruptured

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.715711, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 84, INCREMENT = -0.097530, SUM = 0.803272, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 134
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.324402, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 84, INCREMENT = -0.097460, SUM = 0.803342, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 134
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.020721, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 85, INCREMENT = -0.020321, SUM = 0.783021, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 118
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.051106, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 86, INCREMENT = -0.024046, SUM = 0.758975, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 118
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.103935, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 87, INCREMENT = -0.066346, SUM = 0.692629, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.552386, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 88, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.692629, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

126
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 89, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.792629, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.087570, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 89, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.792629, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.009626, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 90, INCREMENT = 0.073673, SUM = 0.866302, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 56

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.513041, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 91, INCREMENT = 0.012198, SUM = 0.878500, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.537827, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 92, INCREMENT = 0.023999, SUM = 0.902499, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 81

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.608383, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 93, INCREMENT = 0.009283, SUM = 0.911781, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 74

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 56
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.618372, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 94, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.911781, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

127
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 95, INCREMENT = -0.013283, SUM = 0.898498, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 37

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.633260, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 96, INCREMENT = -0.024117, SUM = 0.874381, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Ruptured

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.691426, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 97, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.874381, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 37 to 46

STEP 98, INCREMENT = 0.031884, SUM = 0.906265, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 74

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 47
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 91
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.809063, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 99, INCREMENT = 0.002763, SUM = 0.909028, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 81

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.810630, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 100, INCREMENT = 0.005872, SUM = 0.914900, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 46

128
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.816113, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 101, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.914900, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 102, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.814900, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 2.648358, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 102, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.814900, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.011330, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 103, INCREMENT = -0.038194, SUM = 0.776705, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 18

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.265399, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 104, INCREMENT = -0.032974, SUM = 0.743732, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 8

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.490395, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 105, INCREMENT = -0.019355, SUM = 0.724377, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 118
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.570864, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

129
STEP 106, INCREMENT = -0.048943, SUM = 0.675434, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.120191, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 106, INCREMENT = -0.048943, SUM = 0.675434, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.001494, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 107, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.675434, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 108, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.775434, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.691860, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 108, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.775434, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.006269, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 109, INCREMENT = 0.080179, SUM = 0.855613, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 81

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.096067, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 109, INCREMENT = 0.080178, SUM = 0.855612, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 81

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.003220, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 110, INCREMENT = 0.013173, SUM = 0.868785, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 82

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.030924, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 111, INCREMENT = 0.024271, SUM = 0.893056, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.130664, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 112, INCREMENT = 0.012445, SUM = 0.905501, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 74

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 100
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45

130
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 80
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.151079, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 113, INCREMENT = 0.005387, SUM = 0.910889, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 74
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.159399, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 114, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.910889, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 46 to 26
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 115, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.910889, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 26 to 19

STEP 116, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.910889, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 117, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.810889, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 2.032055, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 117, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.810889, MAX = 0.923372

131
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.006795, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 118, INCREMENT = -0.047453, SUM = 0.763435, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 127
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.416577, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 119, INCREMENT = -0.016613, SUM = 0.746822, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 10

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.472953, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 120, INCREMENT = -0.010772, SUM = 0.736050, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 8

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.495579, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 121, INCREMENT = -0.026966, SUM = 0.709085, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 118
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.641008, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 122, INCREMENT = -0.039160, SUM = 0.669925, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 74
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.972760, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 123, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.669925, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 124, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.769925, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 2.959159, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 124, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.769925, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.011378, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 125, INCREMENT = 0.078812, SUM = 0.848737, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 81

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.373240, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 125, INCREMENT = 0.078811, SUM = 0.848736, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 81

132
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.004105, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 126, INCREMENT = 0.008633, SUM = 0.857369, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 81
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.017691, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 127, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.857369, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 74 to 56

STEP 128, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.857369, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 129, INCREMENT = -0.090913, SUM = 0.766456, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Ruptured

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.563277, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 129, INCREMENT = -0.090913, SUM = 0.766456, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Ruptured

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.004569, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 130, INCREMENT = 0.079057, SUM = 0.845512, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 55

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.073079, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 130, INCREMENT = 0.079057, SUM = 0.845512, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 55

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.002724, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 131, INCREMENT = 0.013082, SUM = 0.858594, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 37

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 73
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.073899, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 132, INCREMENT = 0.028453, SUM = 0.887046, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 100
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.616150, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 133, INCREMENT = 0.001888, SUM = 0.888934, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 90

133
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.617413, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 134, INCREMENT = 0.006379, SUM = 0.895313, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 302, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 424, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 81
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.631320, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 135, INCREMENT = 0.005198, SUM = 0.900511, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 302, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.645441, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 136, INCREMENT = 0.009459, SUM = 0.909970, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 424, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 82
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 82
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 82
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 64
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 100
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.690201, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 137, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.909970, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 302, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded

Frame 302, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 424, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 424, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

134
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 138, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.809970, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 2.061396, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 138, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.809970, MAX = 0.923372

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.006746, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 139, INCREMENT = -0.063427, SUM = 0.746542, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 9

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.689540, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 140, INCREMENT = -0.011688, SUM = 0.734855, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 9

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.709625, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 141, INCREMENT = -0.015827, SUM = 0.719028, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 127
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.743469, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 142, INCREMENT = -0.014275, SUM = 0.704753, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 117
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.768932, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 143, INCREMENT = -0.040973, SUM = 0.663779, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.996750, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

STEP 144, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.663779, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +DE to +CD, Facet 50

STEP 145, INCREMENT = -0.010105, SUM = 0.653674, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 117
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.010839, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 145, INCREMENT = -0.010105, SUM = 0.653674, MAX = 0.923372

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 117
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.000324, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 12

135
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONVERGED STEPS SAVED = 12
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONVERGED STEPS NOT SAVED = 108
TOTAL NUMBER OF NULL STEPS = 25
----------
TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL STEPS = 145

TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS CONVERGED = 139

TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS DISCARDED = 25
FOR CONVERGED STEPS ONLY:
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 1.16
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 2

TIME FOR INITIALIZING ANALYSIS = 2.81

TIME FOR CONTROLLING ANALYSIS = 14.72
TIME FOR FORMING STIFFNESS MATRIX = 8.50
TIME FOR SOLVING STIFFNESS MATRIX = 49.16
TIME FOR CALCULATING DISPLACEMENTS = 1.21
TIME FOR DETERMINING EVENTS = 2.82
TIME FOR UPDATING STATE = 7.93
----------
TOTAL TIME FOR THIS ANALYSIS = 87.15

N O N L I N E A R S T A T I C A N A L Y S I S 15:10:39

NONLINEAR STATIC CASE = PUSH3

CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS CASE = PUSH1

LOAD CONTROL TYPE = CONJUG DISP

METHOD TO USE WHEN HINGES DROP LOAD = UNLOAD
TYPE OF GEOMETRIC NONLINEARITY = P-DELTA
SAVE POSITIVE INCREMENTS ONLY = YES

MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAVED STEPS = 10

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAVED STEPS = 200
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF NULL STEPS = 50
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TOTAL STEPS = 200
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 10

RELATIVE FORCE CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE = 0.000100

RELATIVE EVENT TOLERANCE = 0.010000

STAGE NUMBER = 1
ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS ACTIVE = YES
CHANGES TO ELEMENTS IN STRUCTURE = NONE

STEP 0

STEP 1, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.100000, MAX = 0.100000

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.739635, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 1

STEP 2, INCREMENT = 0.083027, SUM = 0.183027, MAX = 0.183027

136
Frame 484, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.246572, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 2, INCREMENT = 0.083026, SUM = 0.183026, MAX = 0.183026

Frame 484, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.033470, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 2

STEP 3, INCREMENT = 0.009326, SUM = 0.192352, MAX = 0.192352

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.052005, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 4, INCREMENT = 0.006033, SUM = 0.198385, MAX = 0.198385

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.054114, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 5, INCREMENT = 0.005389, SUM = 0.203775, MAX = 0.203775

Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.068000, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 6, INCREMENT = 0.003889, SUM = 0.207664, MAX = 0.207664

Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.074422, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 7, INCREMENT = 0.019641, SUM = 0.227305, MAX = 0.227305

Frame 472, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 479, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 499, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.081497, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 8, INCREMENT = 0.012627, SUM = 0.239932, MAX = 0.239932

Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.097090, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 9, INCREMENT = 0.003358, SUM = 0.243290, MAX = 0.243290

Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.097010, Iteration 1 converged

137
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 10, INCREMENT = 0.027565, SUM = 0.270856, MAX = 0.270856

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.215942, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 11, INCREMENT = 0.005701, SUM = 0.276556, MAX = 0.276556

Frame 609, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 620, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 9
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.217936, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 12, INCREMENT = 0.003604, SUM = 0.280160, MAX = 0.280160

Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 9
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.217242, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 13, INCREMENT = 0.003618, SUM = 0.283778, MAX = 0.283778

Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.217050, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 3

STEP 14, INCREMENT = 0.005105, SUM = 0.288883, MAX = 0.288883

Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.217440, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 15, INCREMENT = 0.007663, SUM = 0.296546, MAX = 0.296546

Frame 609, Hinge 1, Dof V2: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 620, Hinge 1, Dof V2: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.218880, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 16, INCREMENT = 0.005845, SUM = 0.302392, MAX = 0.302392

Frame 501, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.205548, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 17, INCREMENT = 0.003097, SUM = 0.305488, MAX = 0.305488

138
Frame 609, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 2
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.206096, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 4

STEP 18, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.305488, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 472, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded

Frame 479, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 484, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 499, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 501, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 609, Hinge 1, Dof V2: Unloaded
Frame 620, Hinge 1, Dof V2: Unloaded
Frame 620, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Unloaded
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 19, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.205488, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.537200, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 20, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.105488, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.268964, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 20, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.105488, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.046534, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 21, INCREMENT = -0.031599, SUM = 0.073889, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 609, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 2

139
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.093170, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 22, INCREMENT = 0.090293, SUM = 0.164182, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 609, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.567989, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 23, INCREMENT = -0.054491, SUM = 0.109691, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 609, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Ruptured

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.786123, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 24, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.209691, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.383175, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 24, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.209691, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.042049, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 25, INCREMENT = 0.092313, SUM = 0.302004, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 620, Hinge 1, Dof V2: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 620, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 9
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 11
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.516218, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 26, INCREMENT = 0.000705, SUM = 0.302709, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 620, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 2
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.516186, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

140
STEP 27, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.302709, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 620, Hinge 1, Dof V2: Unloaded

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 28, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.202709, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.117909, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 28, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.202709, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.033531, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 29, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.102709, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.596861, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 30, INCREMENT = -0.026626, SUM = 0.076083, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 620, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.639244, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 31, INCREMENT = 0.088362, SUM = 0.164445, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 620, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.163358, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 31, INCREMENT = 0.088362, SUM = 0.164445, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 620, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.032595, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

141
STEP 32, INCREMENT = -0.053321, SUM = 0.111124, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 620, Hinge 2, Dof V2: Ruptured

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.172926, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 33, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.211124, MAX = 0.305488

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.836935, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 34, INCREMENT = 0.087540, SUM = 0.298664, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.347092, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 34, INCREMENT = 0.087540, SUM = 0.298664, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.040121, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 35, INCREMENT = 0.002227, SUM = 0.300890, MAX = 0.305488

Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 45
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.039765, Iteration 1 converged

142
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 36, INCREMENT = 0.004608, SUM = 0.305498, MAX = 0.305498

Frame 484, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 486, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 499, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 501, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.041244, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 5

STEP 37, INCREMENT = 0.003176, SUM = 0.308674, MAX = 0.308674

Frame 479, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.041972, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 38, INCREMENT = 0.005770, SUM = 0.314444, MAX = 0.314444

Frame 472, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.045109, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 39, INCREMENT = 0.012251, SUM = 0.326694, MAX = 0.326694

Frame 487, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.060465, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 40, INCREMENT = 0.004689, SUM = 0.331384, MAX = 0.331384

Frame 498, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.063051, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 41, INCREMENT = 0.012418, SUM = 0.343802, MAX = 0.343802

Frame 487, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 498, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.082486, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 42, INCREMENT = 0.031438, SUM = 0.375240, MAX = 0.375240

Frame 362, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 531, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 532, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.221164, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 43, INCREMENT = 0.019725, SUM = 0.394965, MAX = 0.394965

Frame 497, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

143
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.284868, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 44, INCREMENT = 0.005981, SUM = 0.400946, MAX = 0.400946

Frame 488, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.289911, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 45, INCREMENT = 0.013892, SUM = 0.414837, MAX = 0.414837

Frame 489, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.319404, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 6

STEP 46, INCREMENT = 0.034021, SUM = 0.448858, MAX = 0.448858

Frame 377, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 463, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 466, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.495196, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 47, INCREMENT = 0.008447, SUM = 0.457305, MAX = 0.457305

Frame 494, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.506506, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 48, INCREMENT = 0.011592, SUM = 0.468897, MAX = 0.468897

Frame 350, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 357, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.521277, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 49, INCREMENT = 0.042195, SUM = 0.511092, MAX = 0.511092

Frame 472, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 479, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.721000, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 50, INCREMENT = 0.008359, SUM = 0.519450, MAX = 0.519450

Frame 470, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 477, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.728731, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 7

STEP 51, INCREMENT = 0.056700, SUM = 0.576150, MAX = 0.576150

Frame 462, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 467, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.257921, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 51, INCREMENT = 0.056700, SUM = 0.576150, MAX = 0.576150

144
Frame 462, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 467, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.001949, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 8

STEP 52, INCREMENT = 0.043731, SUM = 0.619880, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 531, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 532, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.323586, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 8

STEP 53, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.619880, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 350, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded

Frame 357, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 362, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 377, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 462, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 463, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 466, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 467, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 470, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 472, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 472, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 477, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 479, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 479, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 484, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 486, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 487, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 487, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 488, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 489, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 494, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 497, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 498, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 498, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 499, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 501, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 531, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 531, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 532, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 532, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

145
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 54, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.519880, MAX = 0.619880

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.955925, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 55, INCREMENT = -0.061245, SUM = 0.458635, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.200590, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 55, INCREMENT = -0.061245, SUM = 0.458636, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.019801, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 56, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.458636, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36

Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54

STEP 57, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.558636, MAX = 0.619880

Unbalance/tolerance = 1.962270, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 57, INCREMENT = 0.100000, SUM = 0.558636, MAX = 0.619880

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.028539, Iteration 2 converged

Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 58, INCREMENT = 0.046969, SUM = 0.605605, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 532, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.414373, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 59, INCREMENT = 0.005238, SUM = 0.610843, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 9

146
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 37
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 11
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 55
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.422652, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 60, INCREMENT = 0.002488, SUM = 0.613331, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 362, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 532, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 11
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.421887, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 61, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.613331, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 362, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded

Frame 532, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 532, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 62, INCREMENT = -0.022203, SUM = 0.591128, MAX = 0.619880

147
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 82
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.451773, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 63, INCREMENT = -0.100000, SUM = 0.491128, MAX = 0.619880

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.481263, Iteration 1 converged

Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 64, INCREMENT = -0.007358, SUM = 0.483769, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 11
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.482622, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 65, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.483769, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 66, INCREMENT = 0.059336, SUM = 0.543106, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 141
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.559302, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 67, INCREMENT = 0.063163, SUM = 0.606268, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 531, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 2.666684, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 67, INCREMENT = 0.063162, SUM = 0.606267, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 531, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.030396, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 68, INCREMENT = 0.004410, SUM = 0.610677, MAX = 0.619880

Frame 532, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 532, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 36
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 37
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 55
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47

148
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.040013, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 69, INCREMENT = 0.009213, SUM = 0.619890, MAX = 0.619890

Frame 362, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 377, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 463, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 466, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 472, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 488, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 497, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 531, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.100319, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 9

STEP 70, INCREMENT = 0.006250, SUM = 0.626140, MAX = 0.626140

Frame 350, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 357, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 462, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 470, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 472, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 479, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 479, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 489, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 494, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 499, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 501, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.128791, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 10

STEP 71, INCREMENT = 0.004482, SUM = 0.630622, MAX = 0.630622

Frame 467, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 477, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 484, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 486, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 487, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Frame 488, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Frame 498, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.142497, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 10

STEP 72, INCREMENT = 0.006446, SUM = 0.637068, MAX = 0.637068

Frame 497, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Frame 498, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.167447, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 10

149
STEP 73, INCREMENT = 0.004628, SUM = 0.641695, MAX = 0.641695

Frame 487, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment -BC, Facet 1

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.179809, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 10

STEP 74, INCREMENT = 0.007800, SUM = 0.649496, MAX = 0.649496

Frame 473, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2

Frame 480, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 2
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.215769, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 10

STEP 75, INCREMENT = 0.008831, SUM = 0.658327, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.258215, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 10

STEP 76, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.658327, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 350, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded

Frame 357, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 362, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 377, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 462, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 463, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 466, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 467, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 470, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 472, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 472, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 473, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 477, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 479, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 479, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 480, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 484, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 486, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 487, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 487, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 488, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 488, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 489, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 494, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 497, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 497, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 498, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 498, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 499, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 501, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 531, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 531, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 532, Hinge 1, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 532, Hinge 2, Dof M3: Unloaded
Frame 625, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

150
Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 629, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 633, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 641, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 645, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 77, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.658327, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 56

STEP 78, INCREMENT = -0.095597, SUM = 0.562730, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 82

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.795741, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 79, INCREMENT = -0.056778, SUM = 0.505952, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.231870, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 79, INCREMENT = -0.056778, SUM = 0.505952, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.016026, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 80, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.505952, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 81, INCREMENT = 0.057782, SUM = 0.563734, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 46

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.879475, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 82, INCREMENT = 0.057395, SUM = 0.621129, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 10

151
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.959761, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 83, INCREMENT = 0.011051, SUM = 0.632180, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.951177, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 84, INCREMENT = 0.005632, SUM = 0.637812, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.948278, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 85, INCREMENT = 0.003903, SUM = 0.641715, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.941884, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 86, INCREMENT = 0.003553, SUM = 0.645268, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 46
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.936966, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 87, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.645268, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 47 to 46

STEP 88, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.645268, MAX = 0.658327

152
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 89, INCREMENT = -0.073571, SUM = 0.571697, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 117
Unbalance/tolerance = 1.260656, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 89, INCREMENT = -0.073571, SUM = 0.571697, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 117
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.049666, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 90, INCREMENT = -0.037552, SUM = 0.534144, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 82

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.322947, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 91, INCREMENT = -0.013512, SUM = 0.520633, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 64

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.379759, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 92, INCREMENT = -0.050709, SUM = 0.469924, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 2.490724, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 92, INCREMENT = -0.050709, SUM = 0.469924, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +CD to +DE, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.015716, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 93, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.469924, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Segment +DE, Changed Facet from 46 to 137
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 94, INCREMENT = 0.079110, SUM = 0.549034, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 45

Unbalance/tolerance = 10.045360, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 94, INCREMENT = 0.079110, SUM = 0.549034, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 45

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.011293, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 95, INCREMENT = 0.052913, SUM = 0.601947, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 19

153
Unbalance/tolerance = 4.398796, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 95, INCREMENT = 0.052913, SUM = 0.601947, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 19

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.011271, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 96, INCREMENT = 0.001463, SUM = 0.603410, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 10

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.007970, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 97, INCREMENT = 0.035034, SUM = 0.638443, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 9
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 55
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 2.819562, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 97, INCREMENT = 0.035034, SUM = 0.638443, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10

Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 9
Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 54
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 55
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.003224, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 98, INCREMENT = 0.003029, SUM = 0.641472, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 10
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.033041, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 99, INCREMENT = 0.003973, SUM = 0.645445, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 46

Frame 636, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +BC to +CD, Facet 54
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +BC, Facet 47
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.101368, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

154
STEP 100, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.645445, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 626, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

Frame 627, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 630, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 631, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 632, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 634, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 635, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 637, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 640, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 642, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 643, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 644, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 646, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 647, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded
Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Unloaded

STEP 101, INCREMENT = .000000, SUM = 0.645445, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 628, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 74

STEP 102, INCREMENT = -0.073916, SUM = 0.571529, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 108
Unbalance/tolerance = 2.053920, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 102, INCREMENT = -0.073916, SUM = 0.571529, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 648, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 108
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.008429, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 103, INCREMENT = -0.048175, SUM = 0.523353, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 82

Unbalance/tolerance = 3.037441, Iteration 1 did not converge!

STEP 103, INCREMENT = -0.048175, SUM = 0.523354, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 638, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 82

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.004733, Iteration 2 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 104, INCREMENT = -0.004845, SUM = 0.518509, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Yielded, Segment +DE, Facet 82

Unbalance/tolerance = 0.028920, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

STEP 105, INCREMENT = -0.011368, SUM = 0.507141, MAX = 0.658327

Frame 639, Hinge 1, Dof PMM: Changed Segment from +DE to +EF, Facet 82

155
Unbalance/tolerance = 0.202403, Iteration 1 converged
Saved as Output Step 11

TOTAL NUMBER OF CONVERGED STEPS SAVED = 11

TOTAL NUMBER OF CONVERGED STEPS NOT SAVED = 80
TOTAL NUMBER OF NULL STEPS = 14
----------
TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL STEPS = 105

TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS CONVERGED = 109

TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS DISCARDED = 14
FOR CONVERGED STEPS ONLY:
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 1.20
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PER STEP = 2

TIME FOR INITIALIZING ANALYSIS = 2.73

TIME FOR CONTROLLING ANALYSIS = 11.14
TIME FOR FORMING STIFFNESS MATRIX = 6.03
TIME FOR SOLVING STIFFNESS MATRIX = 35.54
TIME FOR CALCULATING DISPLACEMENTS = 0.92
TIME FOR DETERMINING EVENTS = 2.13
TIME FOR UPDATING STATE = 6.10
----------
TOTAL TIME FOR THIS ANALYSIS = 64.59

A N A L Y S I S C O M P L E T E 2005/04/09 15:11:45

156
 References

1. E.D. Thomson, A.J. Carr and P.J. Moss, “P-Delta Effects in the Seismic Response of
Ductile Reinforced Concrete Frames”, Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
New Zealand, November 1991.

2. Iftekhar Anam and Zebun Nessa Shorna, “Nonlinear Properties of Reinforced

Concrete Structures”

3. Yogendra Singh, Earthquake Resistant Design and Retrofitting of Reinforced

Concrete Buildings, “Push Over Analysis of RC Buildings”, July 2003.

4. M J N Priestley, “Performance Based Seismic Design”

5. Farzad Naeim, Hussain Bhatia, Roy M. Lobo. “Performance Based Seismic

Engineering” Seismic Design Handbook.

6. ATC-40 - “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings”, Applied

Technology Council, November 1996.

7. Farzed Naem, “All you want to know about Pushover Analysis”, Technical lecture

8. Structural Engineers Association of California, “Performance Based Seismic

Engineering of Buildings”, April 1995.

9. FEMA-273 - “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”,

Federal Emergency Management Agency, October 1997.

10. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, “US-Japan workshop on

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete
Building Structures”, September 1999.
11. Ashraf Habibullah. “Basic Practical Structural Dynamics” – Technical Report.

157
12. P. C. Varghese, “Advanced Reinforced Concrete Design”, Text Book, New Delhi
2002.

13. L. P. Ye “Capacity-Demand Curve”

14. Jiaru Qian and Jilin Zhou, “Full-range pushover analysis of RC frame”,

15. Sivaji C V., “Evaluation of Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Building”, M. Tech

Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, 2004 Chennai, India.

16. Sunnesh Kumar N.S, T. P. Somasundaran, “Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of

Reinforced Concrete Building Frames using Pushover Analysis”

17. SAP 2000 manual, “Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of
Structures”, Computer and Structure Inc. Berkeley, USA.

18. ETABS User’s Manual, “Integrated Building Design Software”, Computer and
Structure Inc. Berkeley, USA

19. Code and Commentary on IS:1893-2002 (Part1) IITK-GSDMA-EQ05-V2,

158