CHAPTER 4

IMPROVEMENT OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR STEPPED

IRREGULAR FRAMES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

As discussed in Chapter 2, the fundamental period of the stepped building cannot be

accurately estimated using the empirical formula given in design codes for regular

buildings. This chapter presents a modification to the code equation to estimate the

fundamental period of stepped buildings, based on modal analysis of 78 stepped building

frame.

An evaluation study of existing pushover analysis methodologies on their applicability

to stepped building is presented here, and it is shown there methods fail to predict the

base shear, roof displacement capacity and target displacement for stepped building

accurately. Similar results also observed in literature (Athanassiadou, 2008). This

chapter attempts to develop an improvement to the pushover analysis procedure for

stepped buildings by proposing a new load pattern and an empirical equation for target

displacement.

A fixed lateral load pattern is developed using the properties of the first three elastic

modes. The resulting pushover curve and the hinge distribution in the stepped buildings

are found to be in close agreement with the nonlinear time history analysis results.

A modification to the displacement coefficient method (FEMA 356) is proposed based

on dynamic analysis results of 78 stepped building frames.

85
4.2 ESTIMATION OF FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD FOR STEPPED
BUILDING

As explained in the Section 2.2, most of the design codes (IS 1893:2002, ASCE 7:2005,

EC 8:2004) recommend dynamic analysis for irregular buildings including stepped

buildings, with the base shear scaled up to the value corresponding to the fundamental

period as per the code specified empirical formulas. These formulas, however, have been

developed for regular buildings and are a function of building height only. For example,

the fundamental natural period of vibration, in seconds, of a moment resisting frames

without brick infill as per IS 1893:2002 is given by:

T = 0.075h0.75 (4.1)

For a stepped building, the height is not constant. It varies from one side to the other side

of the frame. The building height at the lower side is likely to under-estimate the actual

time period, and consequently over-estimates the base shear. Conversely, if we consider

the overall building height, we will get an unconservative estimate of the base shear.

Table 3.2 (Chapter 3) shows that generally the fundamental period decreases with the

increased irregularity when the overall building height is the same. Most of the stepped

buildings are high-rise multi-storeyed and their period fall in the constant velocity region

of the response spectrum, where the spectral acceleration value is very sensitive to the

fundamental period (Fig. 4.1). A slight reduction in the fundamental period in this region

results in a considerable increase in the design base shear. In this study, an attempt has

been made to improve the code-based empirical equation for estimating the fundamental

period to make it useful for the stepped building.

86
 3.0

Spectral Acceleration/g...
Stepped Frame
2.0

Regular Frame

1.0

0.0
0 1 2 3
Period (s)

Fig. 4.1: Shift in time period and spectral acceleration due to stepped irregularity (design
spectrum, IS 1893)

In a stepped building, both mass and stiffness decrease with decreasing regularity index

(η). Reduction of mass reduces the building fundamental period, whereas reduction of

stiffness increases the fundamental period. So, the fundamental period does not have a

monotonic relation with the regularity index. Ratio of the fundamental period of stepped

frame (T) to that of similar regular frame without step (Tref) obtained from the modal

analysis of 78 stepped frames with varying regularity indices, height and number of bays

are plotted and shown in Fig. 4.2. It is seen that the building fundamental period depends

on the building height and its regularity index. Number of bays has only minor effect on

the building fundamental period (Fig. 4.3).

Based on a polynomial fit for these data, the following correction to the code empirical

formula for building fundamental period is proposed for stepped buildings:

87
 T = 0.075h 0.75 × κ (4.2)

T
κ= = [1 − 2(1 − η )(2η − 1)] for 0.6 ≤ η ≤ 1.0 (4.3)
Tref

where h = overall building height (in m) and η = regularity index

1.1

0.9
κ = T/Tref

0.8

0.7

0.6 T/Tref
Curve fit (T/Tref)

0.5
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Regularity Index (η)

Fig. 4.2: Variation of time period ratio with regularity index

Fig. 4.2 shows that the correction factor (κ) initially decreases with decreasing regularity

index (i.e., increasing irregularity) and it shows minimum value of correction factor when

the regularity index (η) reaches 0.75 and then it increases with decreasing regularity

index. It is to be noted that the correction factor in Eq. 4.3 is based on the stepped

88
building frames with regularity index ranging from 0.6 to 1.0, which generally covers the

stepped buildings encountered in practice.

1.00

0.90

0.80
κ = T/Tref

0.70
η = 0.98
η = 0.89
0.60
η = 0.76

0.50
3 4 5 6
Number of bays

Fig. 4.3: Variation of time period ratio with number of bays

The correction factor calculated using Eq. 4.3 matches closely with the exact value

obtained from the modal analysis results. Fig. 4.4 presents the correlation between the

predicted correction factor using Eq. 4.3 and the actual time period ratio obtained from

the modal analysis. The average ratio of predicted to actual correction factor for 78

samples is 0.993 and the correlation coefficient between the actual and predicted

correction factor is found to be 0.96.

89
 1.0

0.9
Predicted (T/Tref )

0.8

0.7
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Actual (T/T ref )

Fig. 4.4: Correlation between ‘predicted’ and ‘exact’ correction factor (κ)

4.3 LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION FOR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF

STEPPED BUILDINGS

To accurately evaluate the inelastic response of the structure, the prescribed earthquake

load profiles must be able to describe the actual dynamic force profiles which produce

maximum design values (peak values of inter-storey drift, story shear, and member

forces). However, it is difficult to accurately predict such earthquake load profiles

because various load profiles can develop during the nonlinear time history response of a

structure. In particular, the earthquake load profiles of high-rise buildings with

irregularity are complicated by the effect of higher dynamic modes.

Since it is difficult to predict inelastic load profiles, most studies have focussed on the

prediction of elastic load profiles of structures. Generally, conventional modal

90
combination methods, such as the square root of square sum (SRSS) and complete

quadratic combination (CQC) are used to address the effect of higher dynamic modes in

the response spectrum analysis of a structure. These modal combination methods can

predict the absolute maximum value of each design parameter by combining the

maximum responses of dynamic modes.

In the present study, potential earthquake load profiles for the nonlinear pushover

analysis of stepped buildings were developed, based on SRSS combination. The basic

concept is taken from the upper-bound load profile proposed by Jan et. al. (2004). A

study was performed to investigate the effect of higher dynamic modes in elastic time

history responses of stepped building frames.

The differential equations governing the response of a multi-story building subjected to

an earthquake ground acceleration ug (t ) are given by:

[m]{u} + [c]{u} + [k ]{u} = −[m]{1}ug (t ) (4.4)

where {u} is the floor displacement vector relative to the ground, [m] , [c ] , and [k ] are

the mass, classical damping, and lateral stiffness matrices of the system.

The solution of the above differential equation governing the response of a MDOF

system to an earthquake ground motion can be expressed, using the mode superposition

method, as:

N
{u (t )} = ∑ {φ n }qn (t ) (4.5)
n =1

{φ } [ m]{1} D (t )
T

qn (t ) = Γ n Dn (t ) = n T (4.6)
{φn } [ m]{φn }
n

91
where q n (t ) is the modal coordinate, Γn is the modal participation factor of the nth mode

and Dn (t ) is governed by the following equation of motion for a SDOF system, with nth

mode natural period Tn and damping ratio ξ n , subjected to ug (t ) :

 + ( 4π T ) ξ D + ( 2π T )2 D = −u ( t )
D (4.7)
n n n n n n g

Dn can be alternatively obtained from elastic spectrum of the earthquake under

consideration for the nth mode natural period.

Now, the equivalent static forces can be expressed as:

N N
{ F( t )} = [ k ]{u( t )} = ∑ [ k ]{φn } qn ( t ) = ∑ ( 2π T ) [ m]{φn } qn ( t )
2
n (4.8)
n =1 n =1

Since the periods in the building structure are widely spaced, the SRSS modal

combination rule is used to determine peak response and the equivalent static force at jth

storey (refer Fig. 4.5), whereby:

2 2
F j = ⎡( 2π T1 ) m1, j φ1, j q1 ⎤ + ⎡( 2π T2 ) m2, j φ2, j q2 ⎤ + ...
2 2
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ (4.9)

Since { F } is a spatial vector and increases monotonically from zero, Eq. 4.9 can simply

be expressed as:

2 2 2
⎛m φ ⎞ ⎛m φ q ⎞ ⎛m φ q ⎞
F j = ⎜ 1, j 2 1, j ⎟ + ⎜ 2, j 2 2, j 2 ⎟ + ⎜ 2, j 2 2, j 3 ⎟ + ... (4.10)
⎝ T1 ⎠ ⎝ T2 q1 ⎠ ⎝ T3 q1 ⎠

92
 FN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fj
.
.
.
F2
F1

Fig. 4.5: Lateral distribution of equivalent static force

4.3.1 Higher-mode Contributions

The load distribution presented in Eq. 4.10 is the combination of responses from all the

associated modes. A study has been carried out to check how many modes have

significant contribution to the peak response. In order to analyse the higher-mode

contribution, a set of 20 earthquake ground motions were chosen and applied to the 23

designed stepped frames. The details of the selected ground motions design frames have

been explained in Chapter 3.

As shown in Eq. 4.10, the contribution of a higher mode in comparison with the

fundamental mode can be expressed as a ratio of qi q1 . Figs 4.6 to 4.8 show the ratios

obtained for 2nd, 3rd and 4th modes as a function of the fundamental time period.

93
 40
R
S1
30
S2
S3
q2 /q1 (%)
20

10

0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fundamental Period, T 1 (s)

Fig. 4.6: The second-mode contribution ratio as a function of fundamental period

40

R
30
S1
S2
q3 /q1 (%)

20 S3

10

0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fundamental Period, T 1 (s)

Fig. 4.7: The third-mode contribution ratio as a function of fundamental period

94
 40

R
30
S1
S2
q4 /q1 (%)
20 S3

10

0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fundamental Period, T 1 (s)

Fig. 4.8: The fourth-mode contribution ratio as a function of fundamental period

From these figures, it can be seen that in addition to the first mode the 2nd mode

contribution is significant and to some extent the 3rd mode also contributes the structural

response. The 2nd mode contribution is 10% to 40% of the fundamental mode while the

3rd mode contribution is 1% to 10% of the fundamental mode. The contribution from 4th

and higher modes to the structural response is very little and can be ignored. It is also

clearly seen that higher mode contribution increase in significance when the stepped

irregularity increases (maximum in the case of S3 and least in the case of R). The plot of

cumulative mass participation for regular (R) frames and stepped (S3) frames are shown

in Fig. 4.9. Modal analysis results for 23 designed stepped frames with varying

irregularity and height show that 90% of the total mass participates in first three modes

and considering these three modes alone can be sufficient as given in Indian Standard

IS 1893 (2002) for response spectrum analysis.

95
 Cum. Mass Participation (%)...
100

90

80

70
0 1 2 3 4
No. of modes

(a) Regular buildings

Cum. Mass Participation (%)...

100

90

80

70
0 1 2 3 4
No. of modes

(b) Stepped (S3) buildings

Fig. 4.9: Cumulative mass participation for first three modes

A plot of the lateral load distribution for a 15 storey stepped frame (S4-15) as per

Eq. 4.10 considering only first mode along with combinations of first two, three and four

modes is presented in Fig. 4.10. This figure shows that after third mode, the load shape

96
is almost stationary and there is no significant effect on the load profile from fourth and

higher modes.

15

12

9
Storey

6
First four modes

3 First three modes

First two modes
First mode only
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Load Ratio

Fig. 4.10: Lateral load distribution for a typical stepped frame

4.3.2 Proposed Load Distribution for Pushover Analysis of Stepped Building

From the study presented in the previous section (Section 4.3.1) it is clear that the

contribution of the first three modes need to be accounted for in the elastic response of

the stepped buildings. Hence, these three modes are considered to calculate the proposed

lateral load distribution for pushover analysis of stepped building. Considering the first

three modes, Eq. 4.10 can be expressed as:

2 2 2
⎛m φ ⎞ ⎛m φ q ⎞ ⎛m φ q ⎞
F j = ⎜ 1, j 2 1, j ⎟ + ⎜ 2, j 2 2, j 2 ⎟ + ⎜ 2, j 2 2, j 3 ⎟ (4.11)
⎝ T1 ⎠ ⎝ T2 q1 ⎠ ⎝ T3 q1 ⎠

97
Linear time history analyses were carried out for all the 23 designed stepped frames

subjected to 20 earthquake ground motions and the distribution of mean of the storey

shear was calculated. Figs 4.11 to 4.13 present the comparison of the proposed load

profile with the mean story shear profile obtained from linear time history analysis for

three typical stepped frames. The figures show that the proposed lateral load profile

fairly matches closely with the storey shear profile.

15

12
Storey level

Storey Shear
6 (elastic THA)
Proposed
3 Profile

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Fraction of base shear

Fig. 4.11: Comparison of the proposed load profile with the mean storey shear profile for
Frame S1-15

98
 15

12

Storey level
9
Storey Shear
6 (elastic THA)
Proposed
Profile
3

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Fraction of base shear

Fig. 4.12: Comparison of the proposed load profile with the mean storey shear profile for
Frame S2-15

15

12
Storey level

9
Storey Shear
6 (elastic THA)
Proposed
Profile
3

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Fraction of base shear

Fig. 4.13: Comparison of the proposed load profile with the mean storey shear profile for
Frame S3-15

99
Figs 4.14 to 4.16 present the comparison of the proposed lateral load profiles with some

of the existing load profiles available for pushover analysis. FEMA 356 recommends the

adoption of two load profiles: (i) uniform distribution or adaptive distribution and (ii)

triangular distribution or fundamental mode shape or design code specified load

distribution for equivalent static analysis. In the present study, the following load

profiles are studied and compared:

(i) uniform distribution (UNI)

(ii) triangular distribution (TRI)

(iii) fundamental mode shape (Mode-1)

(iv) profile recommended in Indian standard IS 1893:2002 for equivalent static

analysis (parabolic)

(v) proposed profile based on Eq. 4.11

15

12

9
Storey

6 UNI
TRI
Mode-1
3
IS-1893
Proposed
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Load Ratio

Fig. 4.14: Comparison of the proposed lateral load profile with other existing load
profiles for pushover analysis of Frame S1-15

100
 15

12

9
Storey
UNI
6
TRI
Mode-1
3 IS-1893
Proposed
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Load Ratio

Fig. 4.15: Comparison of the proposed lateral load profile with other existing load
profiles for pushover analysis of Frame S2-15

15

12

9
Storey

UNI
6 TRI
Mode-1
3 IS-1893
Proposed

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Load Ratio

Fig. 4.16: Comparison of the proposed lateral load profile with other existing load
profiles for pushover analysis of Frame S3-15

101
These three figures show that, compared to the existing lateral load profiles the proposed

profile, adds more loads in the lower storeys and reduces load in the upper stories. The

mass and stiffness of the stepped buildings get reduced at the upper floors compared to

the lower floors. The reduced mass and reduced stiffness are both responsible for

attracting less seismic forces at the upper floors compared to similar regular buildings

without steps. This is reflecting in proposed lateral load profile. Studies carried out on

other frames with different heights and bays shown similar trends

4.4 ESTIMATION OF TARGET DISPLACEMENT FOR STEPPED

BUILDINGS

Estimating seismic demands at low performance levels, such as life safety and collapse

prevention, requires explicit consideration of inelastic behaviour of the structure, but

many investigations show that simplified equations based on pushover analysis have led

to good estimates of displacement demands for buildings at the roof level (target

displacement). However, such satisfactory predictions of seismic demands are mostly

restricted to low- and medium-rise regular buildings. A comparative evaluation of all the

methods available for estimating target displacement from pushover analysis shows that

all of these procedures (except capacity spectrum method) perform well for regular

building frames when compared with the results of nonlinear time history analysis.

However, except for UBPA, none of these procedures works for buildings with stepped

irregularity.

The present study attempts to develop an improvement to the displacement coefficient

method of FEMA 356 for its application to the stepped buildings as this method is the

102
most popular in practice. Recalling Eq. 2.2 (Chapter 2) the expected maximum roof

displacement of a building (target displacement) under the selected seismic ground

motion for a particular performance level as per displacement coefficient method

(FEMA 356) may be expressed as:

Teq2
δ t = C 0 C1C 2 C 3 S d = C 0 C1C 2 C 3 Sa (4.12)
4π 2

Here, the coefficient C0 is to relates spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF

system to the exact roof displacement of a building system (MDOF), C1 relates the

inelastic displacements to displacements calculated for linear elastic response, C2

represents the effect of pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness degradation and strength

deterioration and C3 represents the P-∆ effects.

From the above definitions of the coefficients, it is clear that the change in building

geometry will affect C0 significantly whereas it is likely to have very little influence on

the other factors. As per FEMA 356, the values of C0 factor for shear buildings depend

only on the number of storeys and the lateral load pattern used in the pushover analysis.

Table 4.1 presents the values of C0 provided by the FEMA 356 for shear buildings.

Table 4.1: Values of C0 factor for shear building as per FEMA 356

Number of storeys Triangular Load Pattern Uniform Load Pattern

1 1 1
2 1.2 1.15
3 1.2 1.2
5 1.3 1.2
10+ 1.3 1.2

103
Generally, stepped buildings have 5 or more storeys in practice and the C0 factor, as per

FEMA 356, is constant for buildings with 5 or more storeys (Table 4.1). Fig. 4.17 shows

the values of C0 factor for shear building as per FEMA 356.

1.4

1.2
C0

Triangular Load Pattern

1.0
Uniform Load Pattern

0.8
5 10 15 20
Number of Storeys

Fig. 4.17: Values of C0 factor for shear building as per FEMA-356

To assess the validity of the values of C0 factor given in FEMA 356, linear time history

analysis of 78 stepped frames has been carried out for 20 earthquake ground motions,

scaled for PGA = 0.36g. The mean value of the maximum roof displacement of each

frame and the mean value of spectral displacement of corresponding equivalent SDOF

system for all the 20 earthquakes are calculated. The equivalent period (Teq) can be

generated from the base shear versus roof displacement curve (pushover curve) obtained

using the proposed load profile (Eq. 4.11). The elastic spectral displacement

corresponding to this period is calculated directly from the response spectrum

104
representing the seismic ground motion under consideration for a specified damping ratio

(5%). Details of the selected ground motion are presented in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 (in

Chapter 3). Figs 4.18 to 4.21 show the results obtained for different stepped frames: R

(η = 1.0), S1 (0.80<η<0.93), S2 (0.66<η<0.85) and S3 (0.61<η<0.76). Results for five

height categories in each of these four types of frames are shown here. Figs 4.18 to 4.21

also show two lines representing the C0 values given by FEMA 356 for triangular load

pattern (C0 =1.3) and uniform load pattern (C0 =1.2).

1.00
15-Storey
Spectral displ. (m) eq. SDOF model...

12-Storey
10-Storey
0.75
8-Storey
6-Storey
C0 = 1.2
0.50
C0 = 1.3

0.25

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Roof displ. (m) exact MDOF model

Fig. 4.18: Correlation of time history response for R frames (η = 1.0)

105
 1.00
15-Storey

Spectral displ. (m) eq. SDOF model...

12-Storey
10-Storey
0.75
8-Storey
6-Storey
C0 = 1.2
0.50
C0 = 1.3

0.25

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Roof displ. (m) exact MDOF model

Fig. 4.19: Correlation of time history response for S1 frames (0.80 < η < 0.93)

1.00
15-Storey
Spectral displ. (m) eq. SDOF model...

12-Storey
10-Storey
0.75
8-Storey
6-Storey
C0 = 1.2
0.50
C0 = 1.3

0.25

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Roof displ. (m) exact MDOF model

Fig. 4.20: Correlation of time history response for S2 frames (0.66 < η < 0.85)

106
 1.00

Spectral displ. (m) eq. SDOF model...

15-Storey
12-Storey
0.75 10-Storey
8-Storey
C0 = 1.2
0.50 C0 = 1.3

0.25

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Roof displ. (m) exact MDOF model

Fig. 4.21: Correlation of time history response for S3 frames (0.61 < η < 0.76)

It is clear from these figures that, for most of the cases, C0 does not match with the

FEMA prescribed values. For regular frame (R), the deviation is less but as the

irregularity increases the deviation tends to increase. Also, for the lower storey frames the

deviation from the FEMA values is less compared to the higher storey frames. This

indicates that the ratio of elastic roof displacement for an exact MDOF frame to the

elastic spectral displacement for equivalent SDOF system increases with the increase in

the number of storeys (building height) and with decrease in regularity index (i.e.,

increase of irregularity).

These results clearly show that FEMA specified values for C0 may work for low-rise

regular buildings but for high-rise regular buildings and all stepped buildings the FEMA

values are much less than the actual values.

107
A study was taken up to check the effect of number of bays on the C0 value. Fig. 4.22

presents the variation of C0 value with respect to number of bays when height and

regularity index is constant. This figure shows that C0 factor has hardly any dependence

on the bay numbers.

2.2

2.0
C0 factor..

1.8

1.6 h = 36m; η = 0.82

h = 54m; η = 0.73
1.4
3 4 5 6 7
Number of Bays

Fig. 4.22: Variation of C0 factor with respect to number of bays

It can be observed from Figs 4.18 to 4.21 that C0 factor is actually a function of regularity

index (η) as well as building height (h) and the FEMA approach for constant C0 values

for all the high-rise building (with 5 or more storeys) is not correct. Similar conclusions

can be drawn from Figs 4.23 and 4.24 that present the variation of C0 value with respect

to frame height and regularity index respectively.

108
 2.2

1.9

C0 Factor
1.6

1.3
R-Type S1-Type
S2-Type S3-Type
1.0
15 30 45 60
Building Height (m)

Fig. 4.23: Variation of C0 factor with respect to frame height

2.2

2.0

1.8
C0 Factor

1.6
6-Storey 8-storey
1.4 10-storey 12-storey
15-storey 18-storey
1.2
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Regularity Index

Fig. 4.24: Variation of C0 factor with respect to regularity index

109
4.4.1 Proposed C0 factor for Stepped Building

It is seen from the previous discussion that the C0 factor for stepped building is a function

of building height and irregularity index. Based on the time history analysis results for 78

stepped frames, a nonlinear regression analysis has been carried out and the following

empirical equation has been arrived at for calculating the value of C0 factor.

⎛ h ⎞
C0 = 1.5 + 0.5η ( 1 − η ) ⎜ − 0.4 ⎟ (4.13)
⎝ 10 ⎠

where η = regularity index and h = building height (in m).

Fig. 4.25 presents the correlation between the C0 factor calculated using Eq. 4.13 and the

actual C0 factor obtained from the time history analysis. The average ratio of predicted to

actual C0 factor for 78 samples is 1.001 with a correlation coefficient between actual and

predicted C0 factor is 0.95.

2.2
Predicted C 0 from proposed equation..

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Actual value of C 0 factor

Fig. 4.25: Correlation between ‘predicted’ and ‘exact’ value of C0 factor

110
Figs 4.26 and 4.27 present three dimensional plots of C0 factor as a function of as a

regularity index and building height as obtained from time history analysis and the

proposed equation respectively. The equation reflects a smoothened surface.

C0

Re g
u la r i
t y In ht ( m)
de x He ig

Fig. 4.26: Variation of actual C0 factor with of building height and regularity index

C0

Re
g ula
r it
yI
nd t ( m)
e x He igh

Fig. 4.27: Variation of predicted C0 factor with of building height and regularity index

111
4.5 PROPOSED PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Summarised below are a series of steps to be followed for the proposed pushover analysis

procedure for stepped buildings.

i. Perform an eigenvalue analysis and find out the natural periods and mode shapes

of the structure.

ii. Use the elastic response spectrum of the selected earthquake to determine the 2nd

mode and 3rd mode contribution ratio, ( q2 q1 ) and ( q3 q1 ) respectively, as given

by the following expression:

qn Γ n Dn
=
q1 Γ1 D1

where Γn (n = 1, 2 and 3) is the modal participation factor and Dn (n = 1, 2 and

3) is the displacement obtained from the elastic displacement response spectrum

for nth mode period.

iii. Determine the later load distribution (height-wise) for pushover analysis using

the following equation for equivalent static force at jth storey:

2 2 2
⎛m φ ⎞ ⎛m φ q ⎞ ⎛m φ q ⎞
F j = ⎜ 1, j 2 1, j ⎟ + ⎜ 2, j 2 2, j 2 ⎟ + ⎜ 2, j 2 2, j 3 ⎟
⎝ T1 ⎠ ⎝ T2 q1 ⎠ ⎝ T3 q1 ⎠

where Tn (n = 1, 2 and 3) is the natural frequency for the nth-mode.

iv. Determine the target roof displacement as given by the following relationship:

Teq2
δ t = C 0 C1C 2 C 3 S d = C 0 C1C 2 C 3 Sa
4π 2

where C0 = 1.5 + 0.5η ( 1 − η ) ⎛⎜ ⎞

h
− 0.4 ⎟ and all other coefficients are to be
⎝ 10 ⎠

calculated as per FEMA-356.

112
 v. The seismic demands of a given structure are determined by pushover analysis

with a lateral load profile {Fj } , and the forces are monotonically increased until

the target displacement δ t is reached or a collapse mechanism developed.

4.6 PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

PROCEDURE

All the 23 designed frames with varying irregularity and height were analysed using the

proposed pushover analysis procedure and other alternative procedures available in

literature (refer Sections 2.5 and 2.7, Chapter 2). The pushover analysis results are then

compared with the nonlinear time history (NLTHA) analysis results for 20 selected

earthquake ground motions. The details of the time history analysis parameters, including

the input ground accelerations, are explained in Section 3.5 (Chapter 3). All of these

records are scaled for various PGA levels ranging from 0.18g to 0.72g. The main purpose

of increasing the PGA is to force the structural collapse and to get an envelope for the

base shear versus roof displacement curve up to the collapse.

4.6.1 Pushover Curve

Figs 4.28 to 4.38 present the comparison of typical pushover curves using the proposed

lateral load profile and some of the existing load profiles available for pushover analysis,

i.e., uniform (UNI), fundamental mode shape (Mode 1) and load profile for upper bound

pushover analysis (UBPA). Figs 4.28 – 4.31 pertain to 15-storey frames of types R, S1,

S2 and S3. Similarly, Figs 4.32 – 4.35 pertain to 10-storey frames (R, S1, S2 and S3),

while Figs 4.36 – 4.38 correspond to 6-storey frames (R, S1 and S2).

113
 750

600
Base Shear (kN)
450

300

UNI Mode 1
150
UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.28: Pushover curve for 15 storey regular frame (R-15, η = 1)

750

600
Base Shear (kN)

450

300

UNI Mode 1
150 UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.29: Pushover curve for 15 storey stepped frame (S1-15, η = 0.96)

114
 750

600
Base Shear (kN)
450

300

UNI Mode 1
150 UBPA Proposed
NLTHA Series6
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.30: Pushover curve for 15 storey stepped frame (S2-15, η = 0.89)

750

600
Base Shear (kN)

450

300

150 UNI Mode 1

UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.31: Pushover curve for 15 storey stepped frame (S3-15, η = 0.78)

115
 600

450

Base Shear (kN)

300

UNI Mode 1
150
UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.32: Pushover curve for 10 storey regular frame (R-10, η = 1)

600

450
Base Shear (kN)

300

150 UNI Mode 1

UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.33: Pushover curve for 10 storey stepped frame (S1-10, η = 0.91)

116
 600

450
Base Shear (kN)

300

150 UNI Mode 1

UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.34: Pushover curve for 10 storey stepped frame (S2-10, η = 0.77)

600

450
Base Shear (kN)

300

150
UNI Mode 1
UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.35: Pushover curve for 10 storey stepped frame (S3-10, η = 0.69)

117
 400

300
Base Shear (kN)

200

100 UNI Mode 1

UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.36: Pushover curve for 6 storey regular frame (R-6, η = 1)

400

300
Base Shear (kN)

200

100 UNI Mode 1

UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.37: Pushover curve for 6 storey stepped frame (S1-6, η = 0.84)

118
 400

300
Base Shear (kN)

200

100
UNI Mode 1
UBPA Proposed
NLTHA TRI
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Roof Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.38: Pushover curve for 6 storey stepped frame (S2-6, η = 0.69)

Pushover curves for triangular load profile are found to be similar to that corresponding

to the Mode 1 load pattern. The figures also present the base shear versus roof

displacement envelop obtained from nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA)

As discussed in Section 2.5.2 (Chapter 2), FEMA 356 recommends the use of two lateral

load patterns (uniform distribution and code-based distribution or fundamental mode

shape or storey shear distribution from response spectrum analysis) with an intention to

bound the range that may occur during actual dynamic response. The above figures

(Figs 4.28 - 4.30, 4.32 - 4.33 and 4.36) show that for regular building (η = 1.0) and less

irregular stepped buildings (η ≥ 0.9) the two load patterns from FEMA 356 (uniform

distribution and fundamental mode shape) indeed represent the upper bound and the

119
lower bound of the nonlinear time history analysis results. But this assumption does not

hold good for stepped frames with less regularity index (i.e., highly irregular frames).

The results shown in Figs 4.31, 4.34, 4.35, 4.37 and 4.38 reveal that the two load patterns

recommended by FEMA 356 cannot bound the solution for the stepped building with less

regularity index (η ≤ 0.8).

Time history envelops show greater strength and stiffness than that predicted by the

pushover analysis using uniform load pattern for stepped building with less regularity

index. This is due to the fact that the earthquake forces at the upper storeys are less

compared to the lower storeys due to the relatively lesser mass and lesser stiffness at that

level. The proposed load distribution, which has more load intensity at the lower part of

the frame compared to the upper part, reflect the time history analysis results most

closely. It can be seen through Figs 4.28 to 4.38 that pushover analysis with the proposed

lateral load profile can predict the results that match best with the NLTHA results.

4.6.2 Pushover Curve Error Index

“Pushover curve error index” (EPC) is introduced as a measure of the discrepancy

between the pushover analysis and nonlinear time history analysis in terms of base shear

versus roof displacement relation. It is numerically simple and very efficient to define the

difference between the ordinates of a pushover curve and the base shear versus roof

displacement envelop obtained from the nonlinear time history analysis for the same

structural model and based on a similar concept due to standard error of displacement

profile (Menjiver, 2004).

120
Consider the pushover curve S0 – S4 and the set of envelop points obtained from

nonlinear time history analysis D1 – D5 in Fig. 4.39. The coordinates of the vertical

projection of each time history analysis point on the pushover curve are calculated by

linear interpolation between neighbouring pushover points.

80

D4
60
S3 d4
Y Values

D1 S2 d3 D5
40
d1 d2 D3 S4

D2
20
S1 YD2

S0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
X Values

Fig. 4.39: Definition of pushover curve error index

Points with no projections (like D5 in Fig. 4.39) are ignored. The pushover curve error

index (EPC) is calculated using the following equation:

2
1 N
⎛d ⎞
EPC = ∑1 ⎜ Y i ⎟ (4.14)
N ⎝ Di ⎠

where di is the vertical projection of the ith time history analysis point on the pushover

curve, YDi is the Y-coordinate of ith time history analysis point and N is the total number

121
of points considered. A value of pushover curve error index approaching to zero implies

high accuracy in the pushover analysis results (proximity to the time history analysis

results). Table 4.2 presents the pushover curve error index for different frames for various

load patterns used in pushover analysis. The table shows that proposed profile predicts

results with more accuracy compared to the other existing lateral load profiles.

Table 4.2: Pushover curve error index

IS-1893
FRAME UNI TRI MODE-1 UBPA Proposed
distribution
R-15 0.18 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.08
S1-15 0.16 0.25 0.13 0.24 0.17 0.10
S2-15 0.15 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.19 0.11
S3-15 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.08
R-10 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.31 0.18 0.08
S1-10 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.32 0.23 0.09
S2-10 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.30 0.22 0.10
S3-10 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.23 0.11
R-6 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.31 0.17 0.09
S1-6 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.33 0.21 0.11
S2-6 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.32 0.20 0.08
Mean Error 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.28 0.20 0.09

4.6.3 Maximum Roof Displacement at Collapse

The maximum displacement undergone by the building frame at collapse is obtained

from pushover analysis with different load pattern and compared with the mean value of

the maximum displacements undergone by the same structure in nonlinear time history

analysis for 20 different earthquake ground motions. Figs 4.40 to 4.51 show the

122
differences between time history analysis and the pushover analysis in terms of maximum

displacement undergone by the frame at collapse.

S3-15

UNI S2-15

S1-15

R-15

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.40: Difference in maximum roof displacement between nonlinear time history
analyses and pushover analysis with uniform load pattern for 15 storey frames

S3-15

S2-15
Mode 1
S1-15

R-15

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Difference (%)

Fig. 4.41: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with fundamental mode shape as load pattern for 15 storey frames

123
 S3-15

UBPA S2-15

S1-15

R-15

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.42: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with UBPA load pattern for 15 storey frames

S3-15

S2-15
Proposed
S1-15

R-15

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.43: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with proposed load pattern for 15 storey frames

124
 S3-10

UNI S2-10

S1-10

R-10

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.44: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with uniform load pattern for 10 storey frames

S3-10

Mode 1 S2-10

S1-10

R-10

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.45: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with fundamental mode shape as load pattern for 10 storey frames

125
 S3-10

S2-10
UBPA
S1-10

R-10

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.46: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with UBPA load pattern for 10 storey frames

S3-10

S2-10
Proposed
S1-10

R-10

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.47: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with proposed load pattern for 10 storey frames

126
 S2-6

UNI
S1-6

R-6

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.48: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with uniform load pattern for 6 storey frames

S2-6

Mode 1
S1-6

R-6

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.49: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with fundamental mode shape as load pattern for 6 storey frames

127
 S2-6

UBPA S1-6

R-6

-50 -30 -10 10 30 50

Difference (%)

Fig. 4.50: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with UBPA load pattern for 6 storey frames

S2-6

Proposed S1-6

R-6

-40 -20 0 20 40
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.51: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with proposed load pattern for 6 storey frames

These figures show that uniform (UNI) and UBPA load patterns almost always under-

estimate the maximum displacement the structure undergoes before collapse. However,

for tall stepped frames (S3-15), both of these load patterns overestimate the maximum

128
displacement capacity. The load pattern corresponding to the fundamental mode shape

(Mode-1) and uniform (UNI) load pattern result in a good estimation of maximum

displacement for frames with less irregularity or less height (difference within 20% for R,

S1 and S2 type frames), while the UBPA load pattern shows a very high variation from

the mean time history analysis results for almost all the cases (difference is up to 50%).

The figures show that the proposed load pattern estimates the maximum roof

displacement of stepped frames for any height category with less than 10% error.

4.6.4 Base Shear Capacity

Similarly, the base shear capacity values of the frame estimated by pushover analysis

with different load patterns are compared with the mean value of base shear capacity of

the same structure as obtained from nonlinear time history analysis. Figs 4.52 to 4.63

show the differences between time history analysis and the pushover analysis in terms of

maximum displacement undergone by the frame at collapse.

S3-15
UNI
S2-15

S1-15

R-15

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.52: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with uniform load pattern for 15 storey frames

129
 S3-15

S2-15
Mode 1
S1-15

R-15

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.53: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with fundamental mode shape as load pattern for 15 storey frames

S3-15

S2-15

UBPA S1-15

R-15

-50 0 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.54: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with UBPA load pattern for 15 storey frames

130
 S3-15

S2-15
Proposed
S1-15

R-15

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.55: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with proposed load pattern for 15 storey frames

S3-10

S2-10
UNI
S1-10

R-10

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.56: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with uniform load pattern for 10 storey frames

131
 S3-10

S2-10
Mode 1
S1-10

R-10

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.57: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with fundamental mode shape as load pattern for 10 storey frames

S3-10

S2-10

UBPA S1-10

R-10

-50 0 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.58: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with UBPA load pattern for 10 storey frames

132
 S3-10

S2-10
Proposed
S1-10

R-10

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.59: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with proposed load pattern for 10 storey frames

S2-6

UNI S1-6

R-6

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.60: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with uniform load pattern for 6 storey frames

133
 S2-6

Mode 1 S1-6

R-6

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.61: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with fundamental mode shape as load pattern for 6 storey frames

S2-6

S1-6
UBPA
R-6

-50 0 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.62: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with UBPA load pattern for 6 storey frames

134
 S2-6
Proposed
S1-6

R-6

-50 -25 0 25 50
Difference (%)

Fig. 4.63: Difference between nonlinear time history analyses and pushover analysis
with proposed load pattern for 6 storey frames

The figures show that the estimation of base shear capacity using UBPA load pattern is

the poorest among all others. It highly over-estimates the base shear capacity (up to

30%). It can be noticed from Figs 4.53, 4.57 and 4.61 that the pushover analysis with

load profile corresponding to the fundamental mode shape always underestimates the

base shear capacity as expected by FEMA 356. Similarly, as per FEMA 356, pushover

analysis with uniform load profile (UNI) should give the upper bound of the base shear

capacity. Figs 4.52, 4.56 and 4.60 show that pushover analysis with uniform load pattern

is unable to predict the upper bound of the base shear capacity for frames with more

irregularity (S2 and S3 types). However, uniform load pattern represents the upper bound

estimation of the base shear capacity for the frames with less irregularity (R and S1

types). The proposed load profile performs better than other lateral load profiles studied

here for all the building frames. It slightly underestimates the base shear capacity (with a

variation up to 10%), which is conservative.

135
4.6.5 Estimation of Target Displacement

Target displacement was calculated for all the building frames studied here using

displacement coefficient method (FEMA 356), capacity spectrum method (ATC 40),

modal pushover analysis (MPA), modified modal pushover analysis (MMPA), upper

bound pushover analysis (UBPA) and proposed method for 0.36g design spectrum and

compared with the mean displacement demand obtained from nonlinear time history

analysis for 20 earthquake ground motion with normalised PGA = 0.36g. FEMA 356 and

ATC 40 estimates are based on the triangular load pattern. Different methods of target

displacement estimation procedures are explained in detail in Chapter 2. Table 4.3

presents the estimated values of target displacement (mm) for each frame and Table 4.4

shows the ratio of ‘estimated (pushover analysis)’ and ‘exact (nonlinear time history

analysis)’ value of target displacements.

Table 4.3: Estimated value of target displacement (mm)

Frame FEMA-356 ATC-40 MPA MMPA UBPA Proposed NLTHA

R-15 227 442 235 232 280 279 272
S1-15 183 434 209 205 253 267 265
S2-15 150 427 172 169 235 244 239
S3-15 127 408 137 133 220 203 197
R-10 174 309 182 179 195 203 189
S1-10 140 319 148 145 168 174 177
S2-10 104 297 112 108 164 145 138
S3-10 95 276 101 97 152 164 156
R-6 163 276 171 169 166 193 183
S1-6 139 228 143 138 134 168 157
S2-6 92 126 103 101 102 163 149

136
 Table 4.4: Ratio of ‘estimated’ and ‘exact’ value of target displacement

Frame FEMA-356 ATC-40 MPA MMPA UBPA Proposed

R-15 0.83 1.63 0.86 0.85 1.03 1.03
S1-15 0.69 1.64 0.79 0.77 0.95 1.01
S2-15 0.63 1.79 0.72 0.71 0.98 1.02
S3-15 0.64 2.07 0.70 0.68 1.12 1.03
R-10 0.92 1.63 0.96 0.95 1.03 1.07
S1-10 0.79 1.80 0.84 0.82 0.95 0.98
S2-10 0.75 2.15 0.81 0.78 1.19 1.05
S3-10 0.61 1.77 0.65 0.62 0.97 1.05
R-6 0.89 1.51 0.93 0.92 0.91 1.05
S1-6 0.89 1.45 0.91 0.88 0.85 1.07
S2-6 0.62 0.85 0.69 0.68 0.68 1.09
Average 0.75 1.66 0.81 0.79 0.97 1.04
COV (%) 15.91 20.67 13.06 13.62 13.89 2.99

It can be seen from Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 that the displacement coefficient method

(FEMA-356), modal pushover analysis (MPA), and modified modal pushover analysis

(MMPA) always underestimate the target displacement whereas capacity spectrum

method (ATC-40) overestimates the target displacement for all the cases studied here.

The capacity spectrum method (ATC-40) estimates target displacement that has the

largest deviation from the nonlinear time history analysis. Estimation of target

displacement using upper bound pushover analysis (UBPA) is closest among all the

existing methods. The proposed method estimates target displacement very close to the

time history analysis result (average ratio =1.04) with a coefficient of variation of 3%. An

interesting observation here is that all the methodologies studied here (except capacity

137
spectrum method of ATC 40) result in reasonably accurate estimation of target

displacement for regular frames. However, for the stepped frame, all of these methods

except upper bound pushover analysis failed to give accurate estimation.

4.6.6 Distribution of Hinges at Collapse

Distribution of hinges at collapse is one of the important outputs of pushover analysis. It

reveals the possible failure mechanism for the structure. The pattern of hinge formation is

solely dependant to lateral load profile used in the pushover analysis. Fig. 4.64 presents

the hinge distribution in a typical stepped frame (S2-15) as obtained from pushover

analysis with conventional triangular load pattern and that with the proposed lateral load

pattern. This figure also presents the hinge distribution for the same frame obtained from

time history analysis. The figure clearly shows that, in pushover analysis, when triangular

load pattern is used, all of the column hinges are concentrated at the upper floors near the

steps, while the beam hinges are well distributed. It cannot predict the possible failure

mechanism at the ground floor columns, which is indicated in the time history analysis

results. Since triangular load pattern has more lateral force intensity at the upper storey

level, the flexural demand in the upper floor columns reach their capacity much before

the ground floor columns. However, the proposed load pattern reveals the possibility of

hinges forming in the ground floor columns also, as proved by the time history analysis.

The same can be observed from displacement and drift profile of stepped frames at

collapse. Figs 4.65 to 4.70 present the displacement and drift profile at collapse for three

15 storey stepped frames (S1-15, S2-15 and S3-15) as obtained from pushover analysis

with different lateral load pattern along with mean displacement and drift profile obtained

from the time history analysis.

138
(a) Pushover analysis using Triangular (b) Pushover analysis using proposed
load pattern load pattern

(c) Time history analysis for Elcentro (d) Time history analysis for Loma
ground motion Prieta ground motion

Fig. 4.64: Distribution of hinges at collapse for 15 storey stepped frame (S2-15)

139
 15

12

Storey Level
9

6 Mode-1
TRI
IS-1893
3 Proposed
NLTHA

0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Storey Displacement (m)

Fig. 4.65: Displacement profile at collapse for 15 storey stepped frame (S1-15)

15

12

Mode-1
Storey Level

9 TRI
IS-1893
Proposed
6 NLTHA

0
0 1 2 3 4
Inter-storey Drift (%)

Fig. 4.66: Inter storey drift profile at collapse for 15 storey stepped frame (S1-15)

140
 15

12

Storey Level
9

6 Mode-1
TRI
IS-1893
3
Proposed
NLTHA
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Storey Displacemenet (m)

Fig. 4.67: Displacement profile at collapse for 15 storey stepped frame (S2-15)

15

12

Mode-1
Storey Level

9 TRI
IS-1893
Proposed
6
NLTHA

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Inter-storey Drift (%)

Fig. 4.68: Inter storey drift profile at collapse for 15 storey stepped frame (S2-15)

141
 15

12

Storey Level
9

6 Mode-1
TRI
IS-1893
3
Proposed
NLTHA
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Storey Displacement (m)
Fig. 4.69: Displacement profile at collapse for 15 storey stepped frame (S3-15)

15

12

Mode-1
Storey Level

9 TRI
IS-1893
6 Proposed
NLTHA

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Inter-storey Drift (%)
Fig. 4.70: Inter storey drift profile at collapse for 15 storey stepped frame (S3-15)

142
These figures clearly show that inter storey drifts for the upper storeys are comparatively

less for stepped frames. This is due to the fact that the upper storeys, with less relative

stiffness and mass, attract relatively less force during the earthquake ground motion. The

proposed load profile is able to accurately capture this behaviour.

4.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This Chapter begins by proposing an empirical formula (modification of the existing code

formula for regular RC framed building) to calculate fundamental time period of stepped

building, as a function of regularity index based on statistical analysis. The proposed

equation estimates fundamental periods of stepped frames that match fairly close to the

modal analysis results.

This Chapter then presents an evaluation of existing lateral load profiles for pushover

analysis of stepped frames. The results show that the lateral load patterns recommended

in FEMA-356 cannot always represent the upper and lower bound of the pushover curve

for the stepped building. These load patterns also fail to predict the hinge distribution,

inter-storey drift profile for stepped building. A lateral load profile, appropriate for

stepped building frames, is proposed for use in pushover analysis. This load profile

includes the properties of first three elastic modes and performs better than the existing

load profiles for the stepped buildings.

Evaluation of the target displacement estimation procedures shows that the displacement

coefficient method given in FEMA-356 always under-estimates the target displacement

compared to nonlinear time history analysis whereas capacity spectrum method (ATC-

40) always over-estimates. Other alternative methods are mostly complicated and time-

143
consuming and these methods do not perform satisfactorily for stepped buildings. An

empirical formula (modification of existing FEMA 356 displacement coefficient method

for regular RC framed building) is proposed to estimate the ‘target displacement’ in

stepped building frames based on nonlinear regression analysis. This formula generates

values of the target displacement that are in close agreement with the nonlinear time

history analysis results.

The proposed pushover analysis procedure for RC stepped frames has been carried out

for 23 frames with different irregularities and heights. The results have been validated by

nonlinear time history analysis, using twenty earthquake ground motions. The results

obtained show consistently good performance in comparison with the existing methods of

pushover analysis.

144