684

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 684-690

Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame structure using SAP 2000

P. Poluraju,
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg, KL University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA. rajupolup@gmail.com

P. V. S. Nageswara Rao
B.Tech Student, Dept. of Civil Engg, KL University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA. pvsnageswararao@gmail.com ABSTRACT: The Buildings, which appeared to be strong enough, may crumble like houses of cards during earthquake and deficiencies may be exposed. Experience gain from the recent earthquake of Bhuj, 2001 demonstrates that the most of buildings collapsed were found deficient to meet out the requirements of the present day codes. In last decade, four devastating earthquakes of world have been occurred in India, and low to mild intensities earthquakes are shaking our land frequently. It has raised the questions about the adequacy of framed structures to resist strong motions, since many buildings suffered great damage or collapsed. To evaluate the performance of framed buildings under future expected earthquakes, a non-linear static pushover analysis has been conducted. To achieve this objective, G+3 building was analysed. The results obtained from this study show that properly designed frame will perform well under seismic loads. KEYWORDS: Non-linear Static procedure; non-linear hinge properties, pushover analysis; reinforced concrete frame. INTRODUCTION The recent earthquakes including the last Algerian earthquake in which many concrete structures have been severely damaged or collapsed, have indicated the need for evaluating the seismic adequacy of existing buildings. In particular, the rehabilitation of older concrete structures in high seismicity areas is matter of growing concern, since structures venerable to damage must be identified and an acceptable level of safety must be determined. To make such assessment, simplified linear-elastic methods are not adequate. Thus, the structural engineering community has developed a new generation of design and seismic procedures that incorporate performance based structures and is moving away from Simplified linear elastic methods and towards a more non-linear technique. Recent interests in the development of performance based codes for the design or rehabilitation of buildings in seismic active areas show that an inelastic procedure commonly referred to as the pushover analysis is a viable method to assess damage vulnerability of buildings. Basically, a pushover analysis is a series of incremental static analysis carried out to develop a capacity curve for the building. Based on the capacity curve, a target displacement which is an estimate of the displacement that the design earthquake will produce on the building is determined. The extent of damage experienced by the structure at this target displacement is considered representative of the damage experienced by the building when subjected to design level ground shaking. Many methods were presented to apply the nonlinear static pushover (NSP) to structures. These methods can be listed as: (1) the capacity spectrum method (CSM) (ATC, [1]), (2) the displacement coefficient method (DCM) (FEMA-356 [2], (3) modal pushover analysis (MPA), [3]. The approach has been developed by many researchers [4, 5] with minor variation in computation procedure. Since the behaviour of reinforced concrete structures may be highly inelastic under seismic loads, the global inelastic performance of RC structures will be dominated by plastic yielding effects and consequently the accuracy of the pushover analysis will be influenced by the ability of the analytical models to capture these effects. In general, analytical models for the pushover analysis of frame structures may be divided into two main types: (1) distributed plasticity (plastic zone) and (2) concentrated plasticity (plastic hinge). Although the plastic hinge approach is simpler than the plastic zone, this method is limited to its incapacity to capture the more complex member behaviour that involve severe yielding under the combined actions of compression and bi-axial bending and buckling effects. In this paper, are presented the results of pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frames designed according to the IS1893:2002. Pushover Methodology A pushover analysis is performed by subjecting a structure to a monotonically increasing pattern of lateral loads, representing the inertial forces which would be experienced by the structure when subjected to ground shaking. Under incrementally increasing loads various structural elements may yield sequentially. Consequently, at each event, the structure experiences a loss in stiffness. Using a pushover analysis, a characteristic non-linear force displacement relationship can be determined. Element Description of SAP2000 In SAP2000, a frame element is modelled as a line element having linearly elastic properties and nonlinear forcedisplacement characteristics of individual frame elements are modelled as hinges represented by a series of straight line segments. A generalized force-displacement characteristic of a non-degrading frame element (or hinge properties) in SAP2000 is shown in Figure 1. Point A corresponds to unloaded condition and point B represents yielding of the element. The ordinate at C corresponds to nominal strength and abscissa at C corresponds to the deformation at which significant strength degradation begins. The drop from C to D represents the initial failure of the element and resistance to lateral loads beyond point C is usually unreliable. The residual resistance from D to E allows the frame elements to sustain gravity loads. Beyond point E, the maximum deformation capacity, gravity load can no longer be sustained.

#020410352 Copyright 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved

Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame structure using SAP 2000 Hinges can be assigned at any number of locations (potential yielding points) along the span of the frame element as well as element ends. Uncoupled moment (M2 and M3), torsion (T), axial force (P) and shear (V2 and V3) force-displacement relations can be defined. As the column axial load changes under lateral loading, there is also a coupled P-M2-M3 (PMM) hinge which yields based on the interaction of axial force and bending moments at the hinge location. Also, more than one type of hinge can be assigned at the same location of a frame element. There are three types of hinge properties in SAP2000 [6]. They are default hinge properties, user-defined hinge properties and generated hinge properties. Only default hinge properties and user-defined hinge properties can be assigned to frame elements. When these hinge properties (default and user-defined) are assigned to a frame element, the program automatically creates a new generated hinge property for each and every hinge. Default hinge properties could not be modified and they are section dependent. When default hinge properties are used, the program combines its built-in default criteria with the defined section properties for each element to generate the final hinge properties. The built-in default hinge properties for steel and concrete members are based on ATC-40 [2] and FEMA-273 [1] criteria. User-defined hinge properties can be based on default properties or they can be fully user-defined. When user-defined properties are not based on default properties, then the properties can be viewed and modified. The generated hinge properties are used in the analysis. They could be viewed, but they could not be modified.

685

with time. Tracking this motion at every time step to determine structural design requirements is judged impractical. For nonlinear method it is easier and more direct to use a set of lateral displacement as a design condition for a given structure and ground motion, the displacement is an estimate of the maximum expected response of the building during ground motion. Typical seismic demand Vs. Capacity is shown in Fig 2a & 2b

Fig 2. Typical seismic demand Vs. Capacity (a) Safe Design (b) Unsafe Design Performance: Once a capacity curve and demand displacement is defined, a performance check can be done. A performance verifies that structural & non-structural components are not damaged beyond the acceptable limits of performance objectives for the forces and displacement implied by the displacement demand. Description of frame structure The G+3 building is considered in this study. This structure is designed according to Indian Code IS1893:2002 and is located in Zone III. The material Properties are M20Grade concrete, Fe 500 steel for the yield strength of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. The plan layout is shown in fig 3. The typical floor height is 3.5m and the details of beams and columns are shown in table1. The mass calculations of the stories and centre of mass are shown in table 2. The Pushover loads as per IS 1893 are shown in table 3.

Fig1. Concrete Hinge Capacity: The overall capacity of a structure depends on the strength and deformation capacities of the individual components of the structure. A Pushover analysis 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 a predetermined limit is reached. Pushover capacity curves approximate how structure behaves after exceeding the elastic limits. Demand (Displacement): Ground motions during an earthquake produce complex horizontal displacement patterns in structure that may vary

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 684-690

686

P. Poluraju and P. V. S. Nageswara rao Modelling Approach The general finite element package SAP 2000 has been used for the analyses. A three-dimensional model of each structure has been created to undertake the non-linear analysis. The Existing model and loading structure shown in fig 4. Beams and columns are modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity at the start and the end of each element. SAP 2000 provides default-hinge

Fig 3a. Plan of frames at 1234

Fig 3b. Elevation of frames at 1234 Table 1 Specifications Beam column 230300mm 230350mm (Corner columns) (End beams) 230350mm(Remain) 230300mm (Remain) Table 2 Masses at different floor levels Height in m Mass in KN-s2/m 15.450 11.950 8.450 4.950 0.750 42.66 47.88 47.88 48.94 44.82

Table 3 Pushover loads (As per IS 1893) Height in m 15.450 11.950 8.450 4.950 Qi KN 234.545 144.490 72.246 27.590 Fig 4. Existing model and loading structure Properties and recommends PMM hinges for columns and M3 hinges for beams as described in FEMA-356.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 684-690

Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame structure using SAP 2000 Pushover Analysis After assigning all properties of the models, the displacement controlled pushover analysis of the models are carried out. The models are pushed in monotonically increasing order until target displacement is reached or structure loses equilibrium; whichever occurs first. For this purpose, target displacement at roof level and number of steps in which this displacement must be defined. In this study, target displacement is taken 4% of building height. Pushover curve is a base shear force versus roof displacement curve. The peak of this curve represents maximum lateral load carrying capacity of the structure. The initial stiffness of the structure is obtained from the tangent at pushover curve at zero load level. The collapse is assumed when structure losses its 75% strength and corresponding roof displacement is called maximum roof displacement. It is a plot drawn between base shear and roof displacement. Performance point and location of hinges in various stages can be obtained from pushover curve as shown in Fig.5. The range AB is elastic range, B to IO is the range of immediate occupancy IO to LS is the range of life safety and LS to CP is the range of collapse prevention. The Different Building performance levels are shown in table 4. Fig.5 Different Stages of Plastic hinge

687

When a hinge reaches point C on its force-displacement curve that hinge must begin to drop load. The way load is dropped from a hinge that has reached point C is that the pushover force (base shear) is reduced until the force in that hinge is consistent with the force at point D. As the force is dropped, all elements unload, and the displacement is reduced. Once the yielded hinge reaches the Point D force level, the pushover force is again increased and the displacement begins to increase again. If all the hinges are within the CP limit then the structure is said to be safe. However, depending upon the importance of structure the hinges after IO range may also need to be retrofitted.

Table 4 Different Performance levels in Building Building Performance Levels Collapse Prevention Level Overall Damage Severe Little residual stiffness and strength, but load bearing Columns and walls function. Large permanent drifts. Some exits blocked. Infills and unbraced Parapets failed or at incipient failure. Building is near collapse Life Safety Level Moderate Some residual Strength and stiffness left in all stories. Gravity-load-bearing elements function. No Out-of-plane failure of walls or tipping of parapets. Some permanent drift. Damage to partitions. Building may be beyond economical repair. Immediate Occupancy Level light No permanent drift. Structure substantially retains original Strength and stiffness. Minor cracking of facades, partitions, and ceilings as well as structural elements. Elevators can be restarted. Fire protection operable. Operational Level Very light No permanent drift; structure substantially Retains original strength and stiffness. Minor cracking of facades, partitions, and ceilings as well as structural elements. All Systems important to normal operation are functional. Negligible damage occurs. Power and other utilities are available, possibly from

General

Nonstructural Components

Extensive damage.

Falling hazards mitigated but many architectural, mechanical, and electrical systems

Equipment and contents are generally secure, but may not operate due to mechanical

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 684-690

688

P. Poluraju and P. V. S. Nageswara rao

Results and Discussions The resulting pushover curve for the G+3 building is shown in fig 6. The curve is initially linear but start to deviate from linearity as the beams and columns undergo inelastic actions. When the building is pushed well into the inelastic range, the curve become linear again but with a smaller slope. The curve could be approximated by a bilinear relationship. A target displacement of 2.3210^3m for G+3 Building, the base shear of the structure was 2185.0847 KN.

Fig 8 Deformed shape of the frame at Step-0

Fig 6. Pushover Curve From the figure 7 it is obvious that the demand curve tend to intersect the capacity curve near the event point B, which means an elastic response and the security margin is greatly enhanced. Therefore, it can be concluded that the margin safety against collapse is high and there are sufficient strength and displacement reserves.

Fig 9 Deformed shape of the frame at step 1

Fig 7. Capacity-Demand Curve for G+3 building. Plastic hinges mechanisms Plastic hinges formation for the building mechanisms have been obtained at different displacement levels. The hinging patterns are plotted at different levels in figures 8 to16. Plastic hinges formation starts with beam ends and base columns of lower stories, then propagates to upper stories and continue with yielding of interior intermediate columns in the upper stories. But since yielding occurs at events B, IO and LS respectively, the amount of damage in the building will be limited.

Fig.10 Deformed shape of the frame at step 2

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 684-690

Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame structure using SAP 2000

689

Fig 11.Deformed shape of the frame at step-3

Fig.14 Deformed shape of the frame at step-5

Fig.12 Deformed shape of the frame at step-6

Fig.15 Deformed shape at step-7

Fig.13 Deformed shape of the frame at step-4

Fig.16 Deformed shape at step-8

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 684-690

690

P. Poluraju and P. V. S. Nageswara rao

CONCLUSIONS The performance of reinforced concrete frames was investigated using the pushover Analysis. These are the conclusions drawn from the analyses: 1. The pushover analysis is a relatively simple way to explore the non-linear behaviour of Buildings 2. The behaviour of properly detailed reinforced concrete frame building is adequate as Indicated by the intersection of the demand and capacity curves and the distribution of Hinges in the beams and the columns. Most of the hinges developed in the beams and few in the columns but with limited damage 3. The causes of failure of reinforced concrete during the earthquake may be attributed to the quality of the materials 4. The results obtained in terms of demand, capacity and plastic hinges gave an insight into the real behaviour of structures. 5. It must be emphasized that the pushover analysis is approximate in nature and is based on static loading. As such it cannot represent dynamic phenomena with a large degree of accuracy. It may not detect some important deformation modes that may occur in a structure subjected to severe earthquakes, and it may exaggerate others. Inelastic dynamic response may differ significantly from predictions based on invariant or adaptive static load patterns, particularly if higher mode effects become important. 6. Thus performance of pushover analysis primarily depends upon choice of material models included in the study.

7. It would be desirable to study more cases before reaching definite conclusions about the behaviour of reinforced concrete frame buildings. REFERENCES [1] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete Buildings, California, 1996; Vols. 1 and 2. [2] Federal Emergency Federal Agency, FEMA-356.Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington DC, 2000. [3] Chopra AK, Goel RK, Report No PEER 2001/03, A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for buildings: Theory and preliminary evaluation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley, California. 2001 [4]. Fajfar P, Fishinger, 1988, M. N2-A Method for nonlinear seismic analysis of regular buildings, Proc. 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, 5:111-16. [5] Fajfar P, Gaperesic P, 1991, The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25:31-46. [6] CSI, SAP 2000, Ver. 10.07, integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures INC; 2006.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 684-690