PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS

TALL BUILDING AND MIDDLE EAST PROJECTS

L&T ECC DIVISION
MANAPAKKAM
CHENNAI-600 089
 PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS
CONTENTS

Title Page No
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 2
1.2 Need for Performance Based Analysis 3
1.3 Objectives of the Present Study 3

2.METHODOLOGY OF PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS

2.1 General 5
2.2 Performance Levels and Ranges 5
2.2.1 Immediate Occupancy Performance Level 6
2.2.2 Damage Control Performance Range 6
2.2.3 Life Safety Performance Level 7
2.2.4 Limited Safety Performance Range 7
2.2.5 Collapse Prevention Performance Level 7
2.2.6 Structural Performance Not Considered 8
2.3 Seismic Hazard Levels 10
2.3.1 Deterministic Method 10
2.3.2 Describing the Earthquake Level is Probabilistic
Method 10
2.4 Performance Objectives 11
2.5 Calculation of Target Displacement 12

3.MODELLING OF STRUCTURE
3.1 General 17
3.2 Modelling of members 17
3.2.1 Modelling of Slabs 17
3.2.2 Modelling of Beams and Columns 18
3.2.3 Modelling of Infill Walls 18
3.2.4 Modelling of Shear Wall 20
3.2.5 Modelling of Appendages 21
3.2.5.1 Staircases 21
3.2.5.2 Water Tank 21
3.2.5.3 Cantilever Slabs 21
3.2.6 Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation 21
3.2.7 End offsets and rigid zone factors 22
3.3 Modelling of Material Properties 24
3.3.1 Concrete Properties 24
3.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Properties 24
 3.3.3 Material Damping 24
3.3.4 Modal Damping 25
3.3.5 Viscous Proportional Damping 25
3.4 Determination of Eccentricity 25
3.4.1 Determination of Centre of Rigidity 25
3.4.2 Determination of Centre of Mass 29
3.4.3 Static Eccentricity 29
3.4.4 Design Eccentricity 29
3.5 Modelling Non-Linear Properties and its Calculation 30
3.5.1 Material Nonlinearity 30
3.5.2 Geometric Nonlinearity 31
3.5.2.1 P-Delta 31
3.5.2.2 Large Displacement 32
Development of moment curvature
3.6
relationship for beam 32

4.PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction 43
4.2 Methodology of Pushover Analysis 43
4.3 Results from Pushover Analysis 44
4.3.1 Performance point 44
4.3.2 Displacement Ductility 46
4.3.3 Interstorey Drift & Plastic Hinge Formation 46

5.TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

5.1 Introduction 48
5.2 Types of Dynamic Analysis 48
5.2.1 Linear Dynamic Analysis 48
5.2.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis 49
5.3 Methodology of Time History Analysis 49
5.3.1 Acceleration Time Histories 50
5.3.2 Evaluation of nonlinear static analysis 51
Comparison between pushover analysis and Time History
5.4
Analysis 52

6.EXAMPLES
Performance Based Analysis of 2D RC Frame without
6.1
Infill Action 55
6.1.1 Description of Structure 55
6.1.2 Results and Discussion 56
6.1.2.1 Base Shear 57
6.1.2.2 Performance Point 58
 6.1.2.3 Interstorey Drift 59
6.1.2.4 Plastic Hinge Pattern 61
Pushover and Time-history Analyses of 2D RC Frame with
6.2
Infill Action 63
6.2.1 Effect of Infill Action 63
6.2.2 Detail of Frame Structure 63
6.2.3 Modelling Aspects 65
6.2.4 Analysis 69
6.2.4.1 Pushover Analysis 69
6.2.4.2 Time History Analysis 70
6.2.5 Results and Discussion 71

7.CONLCUSIONS
7.1 General 74
7.2 Conclusion from Example-1 74
7.3 Conclusion from Example-2 75
7.4 Scope for Further Work 75

8.REFERENCES 77
 LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table Title
No.
2.1 Building Performance levels (FEMA356) 9
2.2 Earthquake Levels (FEMA 356) 11
2.3 Selection of Performance Objectives 12
2.4 Values for Modification Factor C0 13
2.5 Values for Effective Mass Factor Cm 14
2.6 Values of Modification Factor C2 14
3.1 Effective Second Moment of Area for Beams and Columns 16
3.2 Type of Fixity and Location for Column Bases 21
3.3 Cross-sectional, Material and Reinforcement details 36
3.4 Equation for η, k1 and k2 39
3.5 Calculation of Values η, k1 and k2 39
6.1 Column Dimensions and Area of Longitudinal Reinforcement 57
6.2 Input Earthquake Ground Motions 58
6.3 Dimensions of beams and columns 65
6.4 Column and Beam Reinforcement Details (mm2) 65
6.5 Calculation of Plastic Hinge Length and its Location 67
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
Title Page No
No
2.1 Performance-based Analysis Procedure 5
2.2 Performance Levels 10
3.1 A Typical Panel of an Infill Frame 19
3.2 Shear Wall Model using Area Elements 20
3.3 Typical Beam Column Joint without Offset and its Deflected
22
Profile
3.4 Typical Beam Column Joint with Offset and its Deflected Profile 22
3.5 Rigid Zone Factor Calculation 23
3.6 3D Model of the Structure 27
3.7 3D Model with bottom of First Storey Column Fixed 27
3.8 Calculation of (θz)x 27
3.9 Calculation of (θz)y 28
3.10 Calculation of (θz)z 28
3.11 Flow Chart for Calculating Moment Curvature Relationship for a
33
Strain Value in the Extreme Compression Fibre
3.12 Actual Moment Curvature Relationship 34
3.13 Idealised Moment Curvature Relationship 35
3.14 Cross-Section Considered for Generating M-Φ Curve 36
3.15 Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete 37
3.16 Stress block for Concrete Section 38
3.17 Calculation of Moment 40
3.18 Calculation of curvature 41
3.19 Moment Curvature Relationship generated for the Sample Section 41
4.1 Static Approximation in the Pushover Analysis 43
4.2 Base Shear Vs. Roof Displacement 45
4.3 Determination of Performance Point 45
5.1 Steps involved in Nonlinear Time-History Analysis 52
5.2 Typical Acceleration Time-History Record 53
6.1 6-Storey Frame with Dimensions 56
6.2 Pushover Curve of 6 Storey Frame 59
6.3 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Design Basis Earthquake 60
6.4 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Maximum Considered
60
Earthquake
6.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios 61
6.6 Interstorey Drift Ratios from Time – history Analysis 61
6.7 Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level 63
6.8 Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level 63
6.9 Plastic Hinge Pattern at Last Step from Pushover Analysis 64
6.10 Typical Floor Plan and Sectional Elevation of the Building 66
6.11 G+3 Storey 2D Frame Modelling for Pushover Analysis 69
6.12 SAP Model of Frame (G+3 stories) with Infill Used for
69
Time History Analysis
Figure
Title Page No
No
6.13 2D Model showing Typical Hinge Formation in Infill of a G+3
70
Storey Frame, using Pushover Analysis.
6.14 2D Model showing Typical Hinge Formation in Infill of a G+3
71
Storey Frame using Time History Analysis
6.15 Comparison of Variation of Fundamental Time Period using
72
Time History Analysis.
6.16 Comparison of Variation of Roof Displacement using
72
Time History Analysis.
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

Av Shear area in mm2

(CR)x Co-ordinate of center of rigidity along X-axis
(CR)y Co-ordinate of center of rigidity along Y-axis
(θz)x Rotation about Z due to unit load along X in radian
(θz)y Rotation about Z due to unit load along X in radian
(θz)z Rotation about Z due to unit load along X in radian
a End offset in m
Acol Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column in mm2
Ast Area of tension reinforcement in beam in mm2
b Width of the beam in mm
bi Width in a direction perpendicular to the applied force
BSO Basic Safety Objective
C0 Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF
system to the roof displacement of the building MDOF system.
C1 Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement to
displacement calculated for linear elastic response
C2 Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape,
stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement
response
C3 Modification factor to represent increased displacement due to dynamic P-
effect
Cm Effective mass factor
CMx Co-ordinate of center of mass along X-axis
CMy Co-ordinate of center of mass along X-axis
d Diagonal length of the panel (center line) in m
d’ Effective cover of beam in mm
Db Depth of beam (cross-sectional dimension) in mm
DBE Design Basis Earthquake
Dc Depth of column (cross-sectional dimension) in mm
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete in N/mm2
edi Design eccentricity
Em Modulus of elasticity of infill material in N/mm2
Es Modulus of Elasticity of steel N/mm2
esi Static eccentricity
esix The static eccentricity along X direction
esiy The static eccentricity along Y direction
f’m Compressive strength of infill in N/mm2
fc Compressive stress in concrete in N/mm2
fck Characteristic compressive strength of concrete cube in N/mm2
fs Tensile stress in steel in N/mm2
G Shear modulus
G Acceleration due to gravity in m2/sec
H Depth of beam or column cross-section in mm
h Length of column (along center line) in m
h’ Height of infill panel in m
hi Height of floor i measured from base in m
I Moment of inertia of the cross section in mm4
Ie Effective second moment of area in mm4
Ig Gross moment of area in mm4
k Neutral axis depth factor
k Constant = 550 as per IS 1905
kd Assumed neutral axis depth in mm
kd’ Final neutral axis depth in mm
Ke Effective lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction under
consideration
Ki Initial lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction under
consideration
l Length of beam (along center line) in m
L Full length in m
L’ Length of infill panel in m
lb Length of the beam
Lb Distance of plastic hinge in beam measured from the centerline of column in
mm
lc Length of the column.
Lc Distance of plastic hinge in column measured from the centerline of beam in
mm
Lf Flexible length in m
Lp Plastic hinge length in m
M Moment in kNm
m Modular ratio between steel and concrete.
MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake
N Mean return period in years
N Number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the
masses are loads
p Probability of exceedance of a certain earthquake level in a specified period
Pi Axial force in the column in ith storey in kN
Qi Design lateral force at floor i in kN
R Ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength
R Strength of infill wall corresponding to any strain level
r Rigid zone factor in m
Rc Strength corresponding to corner crushing failure
Rs Strength corresponding to shear cracking failure
Ru Ultimate strength of infill which is the lower value of Rc and Rs
Sa Spectral Acceleration in m2/sec
t Period in years
Te Effective fundamental time period of the building in the directions under
consideration in sec
Ti Elastic fundamental time period of structure in the direction under
consideration in sec
Ts Characteristic period of the response spectrum in sec
VB Design seismic base shear in kN
Vy Yield strength in kN
W Effective seismic weight in kN
w Width of equivalent strut
Wi Seismic weight of floor i in kN
x Distance from the free end of the beam in m
xi Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the X direction
from the reference point in m
yi Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the Y direction
from the reference point in m
Z Zone factor
Ratio of post-yield stiffness to effective elastic stiffness
Relative horizontal displacement of two adjacent floors in m
m Maximum displacement in m
t Target displacement in m
y Yield deformation in m
Displacement ductility demand
∆ Deflection at the free end in m
Φ Curvature of beam section in rad/mm
Φh Diameter of the stirrup in mm
α Mass coefficient
β Stiffness coefficient
ε0 Strain corresponding to peak stress
εc Strain in the extreme compression fibre in concrete
εs Strain at each level of reinforcement
εu Ultimate strain
ε Αxial strain in the strut
φ Diameter of pile
η Ratio between strains
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ATC Applied Technology Council

BSO Basic Safety Objective
CP Collapse Prevention
DBE Design Basis Earthquake
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
IO Immediate Occupancy
IS Indian Standard
LDP Linear Dynamic Procedure
LS Life Safety
MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake
MDOF Multi Degree of Freedom
NDP Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure
NSP Nonlinear Static Procedure
NTHA Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
RC Reinforced Concrete
SDOF Single Degree of Freedom
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

While conventional limit-states design is typically a two-level design approach

having concern for the service-operational and ultimate-strength limit states for a
building, performance-based design can be viewed as a multi-level design approach that
additionally has explicit concern for the performance of a building at intermediate limit
states related to such issues as occupancy and life-safety standards. With the emergence
of the performance-based approach to design, there is a need to develop corresponding
analysis tools.
There is a hierarchy of structural analysis appropriate for performance based
analysis of structures. Each higher level procedure provides a more accurate method of
the actual performance of a building subjected to earthquake loads, but requires greater
effort in terms of data preparation, time and computational efforts.
1. The Linear Static Procedure is suitable only for regular buildings which
respond primarily within the elastic range.
2. The Linear Dynamic Procedure is able to model irregular buildings but is also
suitable for buildings which respond primarily within the elastic range.
3. The Non-linear Static Procedure can evaluate buildings loaded beyond the
elastic range but is unable to fully capture the dynamics of response,
especially higher mode effects.
4. The Non-linear Dynamic Procedure is the most complete form of analysis,
modeling both dynamic effects and inelastic response. However it is sensitive
to modeling and ground motion assumptions.
This report explains the performance based evaluation of reinforced concrete
frames by two advanced analysis techniques, Non-linear Static Procedure and Non-linear
Dynamic Procedure. Pushover analysis is a simplified, static, nonlinear procedure in
which a predefined pattern of earthquake loads is applied incrementally to frameworks
until a collapse mechanism is reached. Nonlinear dynamic procedure is the time-history
method of analysis through which both inelastic behaviour and earthquake induced

2
actions changing with time can be accounted. It is a step by step analysis of the
dynamical response of a structure to a specified loading that may vary with time.

1.2 NEED FOR PERFORMANCE -BASED ANALYSIS

Earthquakes in recent years have emphasized the need for performance-based

seismic analysis. An essential element in many seismic evaluations is the determination
of ultimate inelastic response of the structure. Performance-based methods require
reasonable estimates of inelastic deformation or damage in structures which are better
quantities to assess damage than stress or forces.
The performance based analysis is based on quantifying the deformation of the
members and the building as a whole, under the lateral forces of an earthquake of a
certain level of seismic hazard. Existing codes are based on elastic analysis which has no
measure of the deformation capability of members or of building. The performance based
analysis gives the analyst more choice of ‘performance’ of the building as compared to
the limit states of collapse and serviceability in a design based on limit state method.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The objectives of the study were

1. To carry out performance based analysis of 2D RC frame by pushover analysis.
2. To make a comparison of the parameters obtained from pushover analysis with
that of time-history analysis.
3. To develop moment-curvature relationship for reinforced concrete members.
4. To study the effect of infill on seismic performance of frame.

3
4
 CHAPTER-2
METHODOLOGY OF PERFORMANCE-BASED ANALYSIS

2.1 GENERAL

Performance-based seismic analysis requires that the engineer should complete

the tasks indicated in the flowchart shown in Figure 2.1.

Define Performance Level

Define Earthquake Hazard Level

Select Performance Objective

Develop Preliminary Design

Analyze the Structure

Evaluate the Seismic Performance

Figure.2.1. Performance-based Analysis Procedure

The following sections summarize recommendations for performance level,

earthquake hazard level and performance objective within the context of performance-
based analysis. Since two types of nonlinear analyses methods i.e. nonlinear pushover
and nonlinear time-history are to be described in separate chapters they are not discussed
here.

2.2 PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND RANGES

The desired condition of the structure after a range of ground shakings, or

building performance level, is decided by structural engineer. The building performance

5
level is a function of the post event conditions of the structural and non-structural
components of the structure. The performance levels as per FEMA 356 are as follows:
a) Immediate Occupancy
b) Life Safety
c) Collapse Prevention
2.2.1 Immediate Occupancy Performance Level (S-1)

• Structural Performance Level S-1, Immediate Occupancy, means the post-

earthquake damage state in which only very limited structural damage has
occurred.
• The basic vertical-and lateral-force-resisting systems of the building retain nearly
all of their pre-earthquake strength and stiffness.
• In the primary concrete frames, there will be hairline cracking. There may be a
few locations where the rebar will yield, but the crushing of concrete is not
expected.
• The transient drift will be about 1%, with negligible permanent drift.
• In the brick infill walls, there will be minor cracking and minor spalling of plaster.
• The risk of life-threatening injury as a result of structural damage is very low, and
although some minor structural repairs may be appropriate, these would generally
not be required prior to reoccupancy.

2.2.2 Damage Control Performance Range (S-2)

• Structural Performance Range S-2, Damage Control, means the continuous range
of damage states that entail less damage than that defined for the Life Safety
level, but more than that defined for the Immediate Occupancy level.
• Design for Damage Control performance may be desirable to minimize repair
time and operation interruption; as a partial means of protecting valuable
equipment and contents; or to preserve important historic features when the cost
of design for Immediate Occupancy is excessive.
• Acceptance criteria for this range may be obtained by interpolating between the
values provided for the Immediate Occupancy (S-1) and Life Safety (S-3) levels.

6
2.2.3 Life Safety Performance Level (S-3)

• Structural Performance Level S-3, Life Safety, means the post-earthquake damage
state in which significant damage to the structure has occurred, but some margin
against either partial or total structural collapse remains.
• Some structural elements and components are severely damaged, but this has not
resulted in large falling debris hazards, either within or outside the building.
• In the primary concrete frames, there will be extensive damage in the beams.
There will be spalling of concrete cover and shear cracking in the ductile
columns.
• The transient drift will be around 2%, with 1% being permanent.
• In the brick infill walls, there will be extensive cracking and some crushing. But
the walls are expected to remain in place.
• The transient drift will be about 0.5%, with 0.3% being permanent. Injuries may
occur during the earthquake; however, it is expected that the overall risk of life-
threatening injury as a result of structural damage is low.
• It should be possible to repair the structure; however, for economic reasons this
may not be practical.
• While the damaged structure is not an imminent collapse risk, it would be prudent
to implement structural repairs or install temporary bracing prior to re-occupancy.

2.2.4 Limited Safety Performance Range (S-4)

• Structural Performance Range S-4, Limited Safety means the continuous range of
damage states between the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention levels.
• Design parameters for this range may be obtained by interpolating between the
values provided for the Life Safety (S-3) and Collapse Prevention (S-5) levels.

2.2.5 Collapse Prevention Performance Level (S-5)

• Structural Performance Level S-5, Collapse Prevention, means the building is on

the verge of experiencing partial or total collapse.

7
 • Substantial damage to the structure has occurred, potentially including significant
degradation in the stiffness and strength of the lateral-force-resisting system, large
permanent lateral deformation of the structure, and to a more limited extent
degradation in vertical-load-carrying capacity. However, all significant
components of the gravity load-resisting system must continue to carry their
gravity load demands.
• In the primary concrete frames, there will be extensive cracking and formation of
hinges in the ductile elements.
• There will be about 4% inelastic drift, transient or permanent.
• There will be extensive cracking and crushing in the brick infill walls. Walls may
dislodge due to out-of-plane bending.
• There will be 0.6% inelastic drift, transient or permanent. Significant risk of
injury due to falling hazards from structural debris may exist.
• The structure may not be technically practical to repair and is not safe for
reoccupancy, as aftershock activity could induce collapse.

2.2.6 Structural Performance Not Considered (S-6):

• Some owners may desire to address certain nonstructural vulnerabilities in a

rehabilitation program-for example, bracing parapets, or anchoring hazardous
materials storage containers-without addressing the performance of the structure
itself. Such rehabilitation programs are sometimes attractive because they can
permit a significant reduction in seismic risk at relatively low cost.

The performance levels for the non-structural components are Operational (N-A),
Immediate Occupancy (N-B), Life Safety (N-C) and Hazards Reduced (N-D). When the
performance of the nonstructural components is neglected while addressing the design of
the building structure, the non-structural performance level is referred to as Not
Considered (N-E). The notations of the nonstructural performance levels are alphabetic
with a prefix N.
As mentioned before, that a building level is a combination of the structural
performance levels and the nonstructural performance levels. The various combinations

8
are expressed in the form of the matrix given below. The notations of the building
performance levels are numeric-alphabetic, where the number corresponds to the
structural performance level and the alphabet corresponds to non-structural performance
level.

Table 2.1 Building Performance levels (FEMA356)

Nonstructural S–1 SP – 2 SP – 3 SP – 4 SP – 5 SP – 6
Performance Immediate Damage Life Limited Collapse Not Considered
Levels Occupancy Control Safety Safety Prevention
N–A 1–A 2–A NR NR NR NR
Operational Operational
N–B 1–B 2–B 3–B NR NR NR
Immediate Immediate
Occupancy Occupancy
N–C 1–C 2–C 3–C 4–C 5–C 6–C
Life Safety Life
Safety
N–D NR 2–D 3–D 4–D 5–D 6–D
Hazards
Reduced
N–E NR NR 3–E 4–E 5–E No
Not Collapse rehabilitation
Considered Prevention

(NR-Not Recommended)
It can be observed from the above table that for the three building performance
levels of Operational (1-A), Immediate Occupancy (1-B) and Life Safety (3-C), due
regard has to be given to both structural and nonstructural performance levels. For the
building performance level of Collapse prevention, the performance of the nonstructural
component can be neglected. A more common way of representing standard structural
performance levels is shown in Figure 2.2.

9
 Figure2.2 - Performance Levels

2.3. SEISMIC HAZARD LEVELS

In the performance based analysis, seismic hazard level (or earthquake hazard
level or simply, earthquake level) refers to the level of ground motion. The earthquake
level can be described by two types of methods,
a) Deterministic method
b) Describing the earthquake level is the probabilistic method.

2.3.1 Deterministic method

The engineering characteristic of the shaking at a site due to an earthquake are

represented through response spectra or ground motion time histories. A response
spectrum provides the special acceleration of a single degree of freedom system for a
range of time periods. This is frequently used in the traditional approach of seismic
design. A suite of ground motion acceleration time histories can be used in a linear or
nonlinear time history analysis. The important features of an acceleration time history are
the peak ground acceleration and the duration of the ground motion (total or bracketed).
The seismic zones of IS 1893: 2002 were developed from seismic intensity levels of past
earthquakes. This is a deterministic method of quantifying the earthquake level at site.

2.3.2 Describing the earthquake level is the probabilistic method

An earthquake level is associated with a probability of occurrence. Assuming a
nominal probability distribution of the earthquake levels at a site, the probability of

10
exceedance (p) of a certain earthquake level in a specified period (t in years) is related to
the mean return period (N, in years) by the following equation
−t
N= (2.1)
ln(1 − p)
Thus, a set of values of p and t or a value of N can describe an earthquake level.
Usually the design life of a building is 50 years. Based on selected values of p for t = 50
years, five earthquake levels can be defined for a site.
In IS 1893:2002, the zone factor Z corresponds to the maximum considered
earthquake (MCE). As mentioned earlier, the values of Z were evaluated based on a
deterministic method. It cannot be directly related to the definitions given in Table. A
simplistic method was adopted to define the design basis earthquake (DBE). The DBE is
defined as ½ MCE and hence, Z/2 is substituted in place of Z. A partial load factor of 1.5
is applied to DBE in the load combinations.

Table.2.2. Earthquake Levels (FEMA 356)

Earthquake levels p t N Approximate Remarks
(years) (years) N (years)
Serviceability earthquake – 1 50% 50 72 75 Frequent
Serviceability earthquake – 2 20% 50 224 225 Occasional
Design basis earthquake 10% 50 475 500 Rare
Maximum considered earthquake – 1 5% 50 975 1000 Very rare
10% 100 949
Maximum considered earthquake – 2 2% 50 2475 2500 Extremely
10% 250 2373 rare

2.4. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

A performance objective is the pairing of a building performance level and a

seismic hazard level. If the objective includes two building performance levels under two
earthquake levels, then it is a dual level performance objective. Similarly there can be
multiple level performance objectives. A basic safety objective (BSO) satisfies the dual

11
requirement of Life Safety under DBE and Collapse Prevention under MCE
(combinations k+p in below table.2.1.1). The aim of BSO is to have a low risk of life
threatening injury during a moderate earthquake (as defined by DBE) and to check the
collapse of the vertical load resisting system during a severe earthquake (as defined by
MCE)
Table.2.3 Selection of Performance Objectives

Earthquake levels Probability Target building performance level

of Operational Immediate Life Collapse
exceedance Occupancy Safety Prevention
in a period
Serviceability 50% in
a b c d
earthquake – 1 50 years
Serviceability 20% in
e f g h
earthquake – 2 50 years
Design basis 10% in
earthquake (DBE) 50 years i j k l

Maximum considered 2% in 50
earthquake – 2 years m n 0 p
(MCE)

2.5. CALCULATION OF TARGET DISPLACEMENT

The target displacement i.e. the maximum displacement the structure is expected
to undergo during a design event is now calculated. The target displacement is calculated
as per the following equation of FEMA 356.
2
T
δ t = C 0 C1 C 2 C 3 S a e 2 g ----- (2.2)
4π
C0 is Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF
system to the roof displacement of the building MDOF system. The values of C0 are
tabulated in FEMA 356 and are included in Table 2.4.

12
 Table 2.4 Values for Modification Factor C01

Shear Buildings2 Other Buildings

No of Stories Triangular Load Uniform Load
Any Load Pattern
Pattern Pattern
1 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 1.2 1.15 1.2
3 1.2 1.2 1.3
5 1.3 1.2 1.4
10+ 1.3 1.2 1.5
1. Linear interpolation shall be used to calculate intermediate values.
2. Buildings in which, for all stories, interstory drift decreases with increasing height

C1 is a modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement to

displacement calculated for linear elastic response and is given by

C1 = 1.0 for Te Ts

----- (2.3)
= [1.0+(R-1) Ts/Te]/R for Te<Ts
----- (2.4)
Te is the effective fundamental time period of the building in the directions under
consideration and is defined as per the following equation,
Ki
Te = Ti
Ke

----- (2.5)

Where Ke is effective lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction

under consideration, Ki is initial lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction
under consideration and Ti is elastic fundamental time period of structure in the direction
under consideration in sec.
Ts is characteristic period of the response spectrum, defined as the period
associated with the transition from the constant acceleration segment of the spectrum. R

13
is ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength and is obtained from
equation,
R = Sa/(Vy/W) .Cm
----- (2.6)

Vy is yield strength calculated using results of the NSP for the idealized nonlinear
force displacement curve developed for the building. W is the effective seismic weight
and Cm is the effective mass factor from Table 2.5. Alternatively, Cm is taken as the
effective model mass calculated for the fundamental mode using an Eigen value analysis
shall be permitted.

Table2.5 Values for Effective Mass Factor Cm1

No of Concrete Concrete Concrete Steel Steel Steel other

Stories Moment Shear Pier Moment Concentric Eccentric
Frame Wall Spandrel Frame Braced Braced
Frame Frame
1-2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
3 or 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0
more
1. Cm shall be taken as 1.0 if the fundamental period, T is greater than 1.0 second.

C2 is modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape,

stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement response and
shown in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Values of Modification Factor C2

Structural T 0.1 second3 T Ts second3

Performance Framing Framing Framing Framing
Level Type 11 Type 22 Type 11 Type 22
Immediate
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Occupancy
Life Safety
1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0
Collapse
1.5 1.0 1.2 1.0
Prevention
1. Structures in which more than 30% of the story shear at any level is resisted by any combination of the
following components, elements, or frames: ordinary moment-resisting frames, concentrically-braced

14
frames, frames with partially-restrained connections, tension-only braces, unreinforced masonry walls,
shear-critical, piers, and spandrels of reinforced concrete or masonry.
2. All frames not assigned to Framing Type 1.
3. Linear interpolation shall be used for intermediate values of T.

C3 is modification factor to represent increased displacement due to dynamic P-

effect. For buildings with positive post-yield stiffness, C3 shall be set equal to 1.0. For
buildings with negative post-yield stiffness, values of C3 shall be calculated using
equation. = Ratio of post-yield stiffness to effective elastic stiffness, where the
nonlinear force-displacement relation shall be characterized by a bilinear relation.

C3 = 1.0 + (| | (R-1)3/2)/Te

----- (2.7)

Sa – Response Spectrum acceleration at the effective fundamental period and

damping ratio of the building in the direction under consideration.
g – Acceleration of gravity.

15
16
 CHAPTER 3
MODELLING OF STRUCTURES

3.1 GENERAL

For any detailed structural analysis, development of computational model is a

must. Modelling of a structure means modelling of all its members and its material
property. The members are connected so that it will represent the actual load flow path.
The model should accurately represent mass distribution, strength, stiffness and
deformability. The different types of computational models are three dimensional model,
two dimensional model, lumped ass model and soil structure interaction model. This
chapter gives an overall idea about the three dimensional computational modelling
aspects of reinforced concrete structures, which is used for both linear and non-linear
analysis.

3.2 MODELLING OF MEMBERS

3.2.1 Modelling of Slabs

Conventionally reinforced concrete slabs are not modeled for analysis of regular
structures. Instead its load contribution is transferred to the adjacent beams as equivalent
trapezoidal and triangular loads. But in-plane stiffness of reinforced concrete slabs is very
large. So its effect should be modeled, especially when lateral load analysis (wind or
seismic) is carried out. It is assumed that slabs are rigid in its plane. This in-plane rigidity
of slab is modelled by assigning rigid diaphragm behaviour in that plane by connecting
all the column beam joints in that floor. In SAP and ETABS, diaphragm constraint is
used for modelling in-plane rigidity where as in STAAD master-slave is used.

But in the case of slabs with large aspect ratio, especially in the case of flat slabs,
the in-plane bending of slabs under lateral loads will be too high to be neglected. The in-
plane bending of slabs generate chord forces. The chord forces should be calculated by
dividing the slab into finite elements. The size of each element will depend on the stress
gradient generated in slab under lateral loading.

17
3.2.2 Modelling of Beams and Columns

• The beams and columns are modeled as frame elements. The joints are considered
to be rigid.
• For linear analysis, modulus of elasticity of the material, cross-sectional
dimension and length of the member should be defined.
• For non-linear analysis, in addition to this load versus deformation has to be
modeled. Hence here reinforcement details should also be added.
• Since concrete cracks under loading, full cross section of the concrete member is
not available to resist deforming forces. Hence the effective cross sectional area
should be considered. The values taken from ATC 40 as shown in Table 3.1 can
be used. These factors are important since moment distribution to the members
meeting at a joint will depend on the relative stiffness of the members.

Table 3.1 Effective Second Moment of Area for Beams and Columns

Frame Element Cross-sectional shape Ieff

Rectangular 0.5Ig
Beams T-Beam 0.7Ig
L-Beam 0.6Ig
Columns 0.7Ig

3.2.3 Modelling of Infill Walls

Infill walls are non-structural elements in a building. The walls are built for
partition purpose after the construction of frames. No gap is expected between a wall and
the bounding columns. Figure 3.1 shows a typical panel of an infilled frame. Any gap
between the top of the wall and the soffit of the beam above is expected to be packed
with mortar. The dead loads of the slabs are carried by the beams to the supporting
columns and hence, it is not transferred to the wall. The live load also will not cause
substantial deflection of the beam for the load to be transferred to the wall. Hence the
infill wall is not considered to be gravity load bearing and is not designed. But infill walls
are modeled to incorporate its stiffness contribution in the lateral direction. Finite element
modelling of infill although rigorous is time consuming to develop. Hence an
approximate method based on equivalent strut is adopted.

18
 Strut is a compression member similar to frame element. It will carry only axial
compressive forces. Hence both the ends of the strut are assigned pin connection or it can
be modeled as truss member.

Figure 3.1 A Typical Panel of an Infilled Frame

Here
l’ = length of infill panel
h’ = height of infill panel
l = length of beam (along center line)
h = length of column (along center line)
d = diagonal length of the panel (center line)

The properties of infill that should be assigned to equivalent strut while modelling
it for linear analysis are modulus of elasticity (equation 3.1), cross-sectional dimension of
the equivalent strut and the diagonal length of infill panel.

E m = kf m' (3.1)

Here
Em = modulus of elasticity of infill material

19
 f’m = compressive strength of infill
k = 550 (IS: 1905)

In the case of non-linear analysis, deformations are expected to go beyond the

elastic range. Hence it is necessary to model the non-linear load versus deformation
behaviour of infill also. Since struts are modeled to carry only axial compressive forces,
the axial force versus deformation behaviour of infill has to be modeled. Calculation of
cross-sectional dimension, non-linear modelling and a comparative study of few 2D
frames with and without infill modelling are explained in detail in section 3.7 of this
chapter.

3.2.4 Modelling of Shear Walls

Shear walls are structural elements primarily designed to resist lateral loads. It is
modelled using area elements. It is then meshed into finite elements based on the stress
gradient. If shear walls are meant for lateral load resistance only, it can be modelled using
membrane elements. But if it is for resisting both lateral and gravity loads, it has to be
modelled using shell elements. A typical SAP model of a G+1 3D structure with shear
wall is shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Shear Wall Modelled using Area

Elements

20
3.2.5 Modelling of Appendages

3.2.5.1 Staircases

Staircases connect successive floors. Conventionally staircases are not modeled.

Instead load is applied on the supporting structures at both ends. But when the stiffness of
the structure is very less, then the stiffness contribution of staircase will become
significant. In such cases, staircases can be modeled using inclined truss member or
inclined beam member.

3.2.5.2 Water Tanks

Water tanks on the floor slabs are not conventionally modeled along with the
structure. Instead the support reaction obtained from the supports of water tanks are
applied as point loads or as uniformly distributed loads on the columns or beams of the
main structure.

3.2.5.3 Cantilever Slabs

Cantilever slabs are also not modeled with the main structure. Instead its mass
contribution is applied as lumped mass on the supporting elements.

3.2.6 Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation

In conventional analysis, fixed or hinged condition is assigned to the column base,

based on the soil property and type of footing. The type of fixity and the location for
conventionally used footings are explained in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Type of Fixity and Location for Column Bases

Types of footing Type of fixity and location

If on hard strata, column ends are fixed at top of the footing
Isolated
If on soft strata, column ends are hinged at bottom of the footing
Combined If adequately restrained at column base, fixity can be assigned.
Raft Column ends are fixed at top of the raft
Single pile Column end fixed at a depth of 5φ -10φ from the top of the pile cap
Multiple pile Column end fixed at top of the pile cap

φ is the diameter of pile.

21
3.2.7 End Offsets and Rigid Zone Factor (Beam-column joints)

Frame elements are modeled as line elements along their centers

connected at joints. Since members have finite size, it will overlap at joints (e.g. beam
and column). This will be significant when the member cross section is very large. This
can lead to over estimation of deflections and bending moments in the elements due to
more length than the actual. To avoid this overlapping, we have to provide offsets at
joints. The offset values are selected such that one member will flush with the face of the
other member. Figure 3.3 shows a typical beam column joint before giving offset and
corresponding deflected profile. Figure 3.4 shows the joint with offsets and the
corresponding deflected profile.

Figure 3.3 Typical Beam Column Joint without Offset and its Deflected Profile

Column end offset

Beam end offset

Figure 3.4 Typical Beam Column Joint with Offset and its Deflected Profile

22
 The junction of beam is modeled using rigid zone factor. Rigid zone factor is
defined as the fraction of offset which should be considered as rigid for bending and
shear deformation. Three types of zones are defined.

• Non-rigid zone with a rigid zone factor equal to 0

• Fully rigid zone with a rigid zone factor equal to 1.
• Partially rigid zone with a rigid zone factor varying from 0 to 1.

Conventionally a rigid zone factor of 0.5 is assumed which will make the initial
half length of offset rigid. The mathematical significance of rigid zone factor is explained
using equation 3.2 and Figure 3.5.

a P
ra x

Lf
L

Figure 3.5 Rigid Zone Factor Calculation

`

L = full length
Lf = L – ra = flexible length
a = end offset
r = rigid zone factor (r can be any value from 0 to 1)
P = loading on the beam.
x = distance from the free end of the beam.
∆ = deflection at the free end

Lf L L L
Px 2 Px 2 f
P P
∆= dx + dx + dx + dx (3.2)
0
EI Lf
EI 0
GA v Lf
GA v

E = Young’s modulus of elasticity

23
 I = Moment of inertia of the cross section
G = Shear modulus
Av= Shear area

Since the initial length “ra” is rigid 2nd and 4th terms of the above equation
becomes zero.

3.3 MODELLING OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Material properties of members are required to model the stiffness, as well as the
strength of the members. The Young’s modulus of elasticity (Ec) of concrete is calculated
using equation 3.3 as given in IS: 456-2000.

E c = 5000 f ck (3.3)

Here
fck =Characteristic compressive strength of concrete cube in MPa.

3.3.1 Concrete Properties

• Cube compressive strength, fck
• Modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec
3.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Properties
• Yield strength of steel
• Modulus of Elasticity of steel, Es
3.3.3 Material Damping
• Material damping is a property of the material and affects all analysis cases.
• Additional damping may be specified in each analysis case.
• Damping has such a significant affect upon dynamic response. Hence care should
be taken in defining your damping parameters.
• Damping values of 5% and 2% are considered conventionally for concrete and
steel structures respectively.

24
3.3.4 Modal Damping
• The material modal damping is stiffness weighted.
• It is used for all response spectrum and modal time history analysis.
3.3.5 Viscous Proportional Damping
• This damping is used for direct integration time history analysis.
• For each material, you may specify a mass coefficient, α, and a stiffness
coefficient, β.
• Material damping is a property of the material and affects all analysis cases.
• Additional damping may be specified in each analysis case.

3.4 DETERMINATION OF CENTER OF RIGIDITY AND CENTER OF MASS

Even though more accurate method of seismic analysis is available, in the case of
low to medium height structures with regular configuration, equivalent static method is
performed for seismic analysis. It is based on the assumption that the predominant mode
of vibration will be in first mode. In such cases, the vertical shear distribution calculated
as per IS: 1893(2002) codal provisions has to be applied at the shifted center of mass on
each floor. This section explains the procedure to find the shifted center of mass in a
floor.

3.4.1 Determination of Center of Rigidity

Center of rigidity is defined for each floor levels. It is defined as that point in each
floor level, where the resultant restoring force in a storey acts. In simple words, it is the
point in the slab, where even if a large force is applied, there will only translational
movement but there will not be any rotation. A simple procedure for calculating center of
rigidity of roof slab of a G+1 structure (Figure 3.6) is explained below using Figure 3.8 to
Figure 3.10.The column bases of first floor are given fixity (Figure 3.7).A test point is
selected (it can be any node). Let the co-ordinates of the test point be (0, 0).The test point
is connected to all other beam column joints in the roof slab level by diaphragm action. A
unit load is applied along X, along Y and a unit moment is applied about Z at the above

25
test point (Figure 3.8 a, Figure 3.9a and Figure 3.10a) The rotations due to these unit
loads are then obtained as shown in Figure 3.8b, Figure 3.9b and Figure 3.10b.

The co-ordinates of center of rigidity are calculated using equation 3.4 and
equation 3.5 as follows.

(θ z )y
CR x = − (3.4)
(θ z )z

(θ z )x
CR y = (3.5)
(θ z )z

Rotation about Z due to unit load along X, (θz)x = 2.24 × 10-6 radian
Rotation about Z due to unit load along Y, (θz)y = 2.3 ×10-6 radian
Rotation about Z due to unit moment about Z, (θz)z = 7.37×10-7 radian
(θ z )y
CR x = −
(θ z )z
= 2.3 × 10-6/7.37×10-7 = 3.12m

(θ z )x
CR y =
(θ z )z
= 2.24 × 10-6/7.37×10-7 = 3.04m

(θz)x, (θz)y and (θz)z are shown as R3 in Figures 3.8b, 3.9b and 3.10b respectively.

26
 Figure 3.7 3D Model with bottom
Figure 3.6 3D Model of the Structure of First Storey Column Fixed

a) Roof Slab showing Unit Load applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis
in X direction at the Test Point
Figure 3.8 Calculation of (θz)x

27
a) Roof Slab showing Unit Load applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis
in Y direction at the Test Point
Figure 3.9 Calculation of (θz)y

a) Roof Slab showing Unit Moment applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis
about Z axis at the Test Point
Figure 3.10 Calculation of (θz)z

28
3.4.2 Determination of Center of Mass

It is the point where the total mass of any storey level is assumed to be
lumped. It is calculated by taking moments of the axial forces in columns as obtained
from gravity load analysis about a reference point in X and Y directions separately. The
co-ordinates of the center of mass with respect to the reference point are then calculated
using equation 3.6 and equation 3.7.

Pi x i
CM x = (3.6)
Pi

Pi y i
CM y = (3.7)
Pi

Here

Pi = Axial force in the column in ith storey

xi = Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the X
direction from the reference point
yi = Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the Y
direction from the reference point

3.4.3 Static Eccentricity

Static eccentricity is the distance between center of rigidity and center of mass.
The static eccentricity along X direction (esix) is calculated using equation 3.8. Similarly
the static eccentricity along Y direction (esiy) is calculated using equation 3.9.

e six = CM x − CR x (3.8)

e siy = CM x − CR x (3.9)

3.4.4 Design Eccentricity

In order to account for dynamic amplification and accidental eccentricity, the

above static eccentricity is modified using a dynamic amplification factor of 1.5 and an
accidental eccentricity of 5% of the building dimension perpendicular to the direction of

29
force. The design eccentricity is determined using equation 3.10 and equation 3.11 in
both X and Y directions
e di = 1 .5e si − 0 .05 b i (3.10)

or

e di = e si − 0 .05 b i (3.11)

The value which will give more severe effect in the shear of frame is used for analysis.

In equi-static method of lateral load analysis the vertical base shear distribution
are applied at design eccentricity from the center of rigidity. This point is defined as
shifted center of mass.

3.5 MODELLING OF NON-LINEAR PROPERTIES AND ITS CALCULATIONS

The two types of non-linearity namely material non-linearity and geometric non-
linearity are briefly explained below.

3.5.1 Material Non-linearity

When a material is strained beyond its proportional limit, the linear stress-strain
relationship is no longer valid. In order to assign the material non-linearity to the
structure, plastic hinges are modelled at locations where bending moment are expected to
be maximum. Plastic hinges can be provided at any number of locations along the clear
length of any frame element. Each hinge represents concentrated post yield behaviour.

Hinges only affect the behavior of the structure in non-linear static (Pushover) and
nonlinear direct-integration time-history analysis. The different types of hinge properties
are

• Default Hinge Property calculated by the software based on the section defined
and default stress strain.
• User Defined Hinge Property

30
 Default hinge properties can not be modified, since it is section dependent. The
default properties can not be fully defined by the program until the section to which they
are applied has been 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 can be viewed. The built-in default hinge properties for concrete members
are generally based on Tables 9.6, 9.7 and 9.12 of ATC-40. Calculation of user defined
hinge properties are explained in section 3.7 of this chapter.

The hinges in the frame members form near the joints and not exactly at joint. It is
assumed that these plastic hinges in the members from at a distance equal to half the
average plastic hinge length, Lp, from the face of the member to which it frames into. The
plastic hinge length is calculated using Baker’s formula (equation 3.12)

L p = 0 .5 H (3.12)

Here
H = depth of beam or column cross-section

3.5.2 Geometric Nonlinearity

The geometric nonlinearties are P-Delta effect and are displacement/rotation

effects. Strains within the elements are assumed to be small. Geometric nonlinearity can
be considered on a step-by-step basis in nonlinear static and direct-integration time
history analysis, and incorporated in the stiffness matrix for linear analysis.

3.5.2.1 P-Delta

The equilibrium equations take into partial account the deformed configuration of
the structure. The tensile force stiffens the structure and the compressive force
destabilizes the structure. But this analysis requires a moderate amount of iteration.

31
3.5.2.2 Large Displacement

All the equilibrium equations are written in the deformed configuration of the
structure. This may require a large amount of iterations. Although large displacement and
large rotation effects are modeled, all strains are assumed to be small.

• Large displacement option should be used for cable structures undergoing

significant deformation.
• For most other structures, the P-Delta option is adequate, particularly when
material nonlinearity dominates.

3.6 DEVELOPMENT OF MOMENT CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP FOR

BEAM AND COLUMN

Moment curvature relation is developed for a particular section of a frame

element. It will depend on the cross sectional property, reinforcement details, material
properties and the stress strain curve. The following flow chart (Figure 3.11) shows, how
the moment curvature relationship is generated for a section for a particular strain value
in the extreme compression fiber.

32
 Define material

Define section and reinforcement

Assume strain in extreme compression fibre of concrete

Assume neutral
axis depth, kd

kd =kd’+ kd Equate T=C

kd’ = kd
2 No & find kd’
Yes

Calculate Moment

Calculate curvature

Figure 3.11 Flow Chart for Calculating Moment Curvature

Relationship for a Strain Value in the Extreme Compression Fibre

Similarly moment and curvature values are calculated for different strain values
up to ultimate strain for the same section. A typical moment curvature relation ship
developed is shown in Figure 3.12. Here kd is the assumed neutral axis depth for the trial
and error procedure and kd’ is the final neutral axis depth as obtained by equating total
tensile and total compressive forces at the section for that particular strain at the extreme
compression fiber in concrete.

33
 1 0 0
M- Φ

9 0

C
8 0

B
7 0
M (kNm)

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

B'
2 0
A'

1 0

A
0

0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 5 0 .0 0 0 0 1 0 .0 0 0 0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 0 2 0 .0 0 0 0 2 5

Φ (rad/m)

Figure 3.12 Actual Moment Curvature Relationship

There will be four distinct points.

• Point A corresponds to unloaded stage.

• Point A’ represents cracking in concrete. Till that stage, entire load is resisted by
concrete alone. Once the section cracks, steel starts to take tensile load.
• Point B represents yielding stage.
• Point C corresponds to ultimate strength and ultimate curvature φu, following
which failure takes place.

But for computational stability two more points has to be defined. Also the
cracking stage will not be plotted in idealised conditions. In actual practice we have to
convert the curve in Figure 3.12 into an idealised shape as shown in Figure 3.13.

34
 1 0 0
M- Φ
C
9 0
B

8 0

7 0
M (kNm)
6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0
D E

A
1 0

0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 5 0 .0 0 0 0 1 0 .0 0 0 0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 0 2 0 .0 0 0 0 2 5 0 .0 0 0 0 3 0 .0 0 0 0 3 5 0 .0 0 0 0 4

Φ (rad/m)

Figure 3.13 Idealised Moment Curvature Relationship

Idealised moment curvature curve for a typical section should have the following
well defined points.
• Point A corresponds to unloaded stage.
• Point B corresponds to nominal yield strength and yield rotation θy.
• Point C corresponds to ultimate strength and ultimate rotation θu, following
which failure takes place.
• Point D corresponds to residual strength beyond point C. Conventionally a value
of 20% of the yield strength is assumed.
• Point E corresponds to the maximum deformation capacity with the residual
strength. Conventionally a high value of deformation capacity is assumed.

A sample calculation for generating moment curvature relationship is shown

below. The section considered for calculating moment curvature values is shown in
Figure 3.14. Cross-sectional and material properties of the section considered are shown
in Table 3.3.

35
 Figure 3.14 Cross-Section Considered for Generating M-Φ Curve

Table 3.3 Cross-sectional, Material and Reinforcement details

b 300 mm
D 500 mm
fck 25 N/mm2
fy 415 N/mm2
Cover 25 mm
Φh 8 mm
Φ 20 mm
Es 200000 N/mm2
Ec 25000 N/mm2
m 8

Here
b = width of the beam
D = depth of the beam
Φh = diameter of the stirrup
Φ = diameter of the main reinforcement considered
Es = modulus of elasticity of the steel reinforcement
Ec = modulus of elasticity of the concrete.
m = modular ratio between steel and concrete.

36
 Figure 3.15 shows the stress strain diagram for concrete, which is used to generate
moment curvature relationship. It has an ascending and a descending part. The ascending
part is represented by equation 3.13. The descending part is represented by equation 3.14.
The corresponding stress block is shown in Figure 3.16.

0.002 0.0035
Strain
Figure 3.15 Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete

2
εc εc
f c= 0.446f ck 2 − 0 < ε c ≤ 0.002 (3.13)
0.002 0.002

2
εc (3.14)
f c= 0.446f ck 1 − 0.25 −1 0.002 < ε c ≤ 0.0035
0.002

εc = strain in the extreme compression fibre in concrete

The strain at each level of reinforcement can be calculated assuming linear strain
variation along the depth as shown in equation 3.15 and the corresponding stress in the
steel is calculated using equation 3.16.

εs = εc
(kd − d') (3.15)
kd

37
 fs = εs Es (3.16)

Here
εs = strain in reinforcement at a depth d’ from the extreme compressive fibre
in concrete which is equal to the strain in the surrounding concrete
layer.

k 2 kd
k1k3 f ck bkd

Ast f s

Figure 3.16 Stress block for Concrete Section

Equation 3.17 represents the force equilibrium across the section.

k 1 k 3 f ck bkd = A st f s (3.17)

k2kd= depth of resultant compressive force developed in concrete from the

extreme compression fiber in concrete.
k3fck = maximum compressive stress in the stress block (here a value of 0.446
is taken as k3)

Table 3.4 explains how to calculate η, k1 and k2 for different ranges of εc, whereas
Table 3.5 shows the values of η, k1 and k2 calculated based on the above equation for a
strain value of 0.0005 in the extreme compression fiber in concrete.

38
 Table 3.4 Equation for η, k1 and k2

0<εc<ε0 ε0<εc< εu
η εc/ε0 ε0/εc
k1 η− (η2/3) 1− (η/3)
k2 (1/3- η/12)/(1− (η/3)) (6-4η+ η2)/(12−4η)

Here
ε0 = strain corresponding to peak stress
εu = ultimate strain

Calculation of moment for a strain value of 0.0005 in the extreme compression

fiber of concrete. (Clear vertical spacing between reinforcement layers is 40mm)

Table 3.5 Calculation of Values η, k1 and k2

εc η k1 k2 K3
0.0005 0.25 0.229 0.3409 0.446

Assume a neutral axis depth of 300mm

Total tensile force developed in tension steel, T1 = 125.00 kN

Total compression force in compression steel, C1 = 117.17 kN

Total compressive force in concrete, C2 = 0.919kd kN

Neutral axis depth, kd = 8.52 mm

The neutral axis depth that is used for next trial, kd = (300+8.52)/2 =154.26 mm

Repeat the procedure till the input kd exactly matches with the kd calculated.
Here for input kd = 214.69 mm, the calculated kd also gave the same value. The
calculation procedure is graphically shown in Figure 3.17.

39
 78.36
38.8
300 919.875kd

34.35
90.62

(a) Calculation of actual kd (First trial)

72.37
31.39 73.18 299.92 ≈ 300
196.16
214.69
145

216.4
94.57
293.35 ≈ 300
198.78

(b) Calculation of Moment (from actual kd)

Figure 3.17 Calculation of Moment

Moment is calculated using equation 3.18.

M = k 1k 3 f ck bkd(d − k 2 kd ) (3.18)

= 106 kNm

Calculation of curvature for a strain value of 0.0005 in the extreme

compression fiber of concrete is explained below using Figure 3.18 and equation 3.19.

40
 εc =0.0005

213.25
Φ

Figure 3.18 Calculation of curvature

εc
φ= (3.19)
kd
= 0.0005/213.25 = 0.0000023446 rad/m

Similarly moment and curvature are determined for strain values 0.001, 0.0015,
0.002, 0.0025, 0.003 and 0.0035. The values obtained are plotted in the graph as shown in
Figure 3.19. The moment curvature relation generated for a particular section will depend
on the stress strain curves used. The values are validated with the in-house software
developed by IIT-Madras.

M- Φ curve without considering cracking

300

250

200
M (kN/m)

150

100

50

0
0.00E+00 5.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.50E-05 2.00E-05 2.50E-05 3.00E-05
Φ (rad/mm)

Figure 3.19 Moment Curvature Relationship generated for the Sample Section

41
42
 CHAPTER – 4
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION

As the world move towards the implementation of Performance Based

Engineering philosophies in seismic design of civil structures, new seismic design
provisions will require structural engineers to perform nonlinear analyses of the
structures they are designing. These analyses can take the form of a full, nonlinear
dynamic analysis, or of a static nonlinear pushover analysis. This chapter deals with the
steps in pushover analysis for performance based analysis of structures. Since the
modeling approach for frame members, details and location of plastic hinge properties
assigned to the members have been discussed in Chapter 3, they are not repeated here.

4.2 METHODOLOGY OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the building is

subjected to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., parabolic, inverted triangular or
uniform) which is shown in Figure 4.1. In such analysis, a monotonic steadily increasing
lateral load is applied to the structure, in the presence of the full gravity dead load, until a
predetermined level of roof displacement is approached. The magnitude of lateral loads
at floor levels do not affect the response of the structure in displacement-controlled
pushover analysis, but the ratio in which they are applied at each floor level alters the
response of the structures.

Figure 4.1 Static Approximation in the Pushover Analysis

43
 Pushover analysis is an efficient way to analyze the behavior of the structure,
highlighting the sequence of member cracking and yielding as the base shear value
increases. This information then can be used for the evaluation of the performance of the
structure and the locations with inelastic deformation. The primary benefit of pushover
analysis is to obtain a measure of over strength and to obtain a sense of the general
capacity of the structure to sustain inelastic deformation.
The loads acting on the structure are contributed from slabs, beams, columns,
walls, ceilings and finishes. They are calculated by conventional methods according to
IS 456 – 2000 and are applied as gravity loads along with live loads as per IS 875 (Part
II) in the structural model. The lateral loads and their vertical distribution on each floor
level are determined as per IS 1893 – 2002 and calculated from equation 4.1. These loads
are then applied in “PUSH - Analysis case” during the analysis.
2
Wi h i
Qi = VB n
------- (4.1)
2
Wjhj
j=1

Qi = Design lateral force at floor i

VB = Design seismic base shear
Wi = Seismic weight of floor i
hi = Height of floor i measured from base
N = Number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the
masses are loads
The sections of beams and columns are then designed for the moments and axial
forces obtained from the analysis using IS 456 – 2000 for the load combination
1.5(DL+LL).

4.3 RESULTS FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

4.3.1 Performance Point

The seismic performance of a building can be evaluated in terms of pushover

curve, performance point, displacement ductility, plastic hinge formation etc.. The base
shear Vs. roof displacement curve (Figure 4.2) is obtained from the pushover analysis
from which the maximum base shear capacity of structure can be obtained. This capacity

44
curve is transformed into capacity spectrum by SAP10 as per ATC40 and demand or
response spectrum is also determined for the structure depending upon the seismic zone,
soil conditions and required building performance level. The intersection of demand and
capacity spectrum at 5% damping gives the performance point of the structure analyzed.
This is illustrated in Figure 4.3. At the performance point, the resulting responses of the
building should then be checked using certain acceptability criteria. The performance
point thus obtained from pushover analysis is then compared with the target displacement
calculated using Equation 2.2 (FEMA 356).

Figure 4.2 Base Shear Vs. Roof Displacement

Figure 4.3 Determination of Performance Point

45
4.3.2 Displacement Ductility

Ductility may be broadly defined as the ability of a structure or member to

undergo inelastic deformations beyond the initial yield deformation with no decrease in
the load resistance. The displacement ductility demand ( ) for a given earthquake load is
obtained from the pushover curve and is calculated by the following equation,
∆m
µ=
∆y

------- (4.2)
Where m is the maximum displacement and y is the yield deformation.

4.3.3 Interstorey Drift and Plastic Hinge Formation

It has been recognized that the interstory drift performance of a multistory

building is an important measure of structural and non-structural damage of the building
under various levels of earthquake motion. In performance based design, interstory drift
performance has become a principal design consideration. The system performance levels
of a multistory building are evaluated on the basis of the interstory drift values along the
height of the building under different levels of earthquake motion.
Interstorey drift is defined as the ratio of relative horizontal displacement of two
adjacent floors ( ) and corresponding storey height (h).

δ δ − δ i −1
Interstorey Drift = = i
h h
------- (4.3)
The sequence of plastic hinge formation and state of hinge at various levels of
building performance can be obtained from SAP output. This gives the information about
the weakest member and so the one which is to be strengthened in case of a building need
to be retrofitted. Accordingly the detailing of the member can be done in order to achieve
the desired pattern of failure of members in case of severe earthquakes. It is concluded
that pushover analysis is a successful method in determination of the sequence of

46
yielding of the components of a building, possible mode of failure, and final state of the
building after a predetermined level of lateral load is sustained by the structure.

47
 CHAPTER 5
TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Time-history analysis is a step by step analysis of the dynamical response of a

structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. A time history function may be a
list of time and function values or just a list of function values that are assumed to occur
at equally spaced intervals. The function values in a time history function may be
normalized ground acceleration values or they may be multipliers for specified (force or
displacement) load cases.

5.2 TYPES OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

There are two important types of dynamic analysis of structures which are
namely Linear Dynamic analysis and Nonlinear Dynamic analysis.

5.2.1 Linear Dynamic Analysis

The Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP) is for seismic analysis of the building, the
design seismic forces, and the distribution over the height of the building, and the
corresponding internal forces and system displacements shall be determined using a
linearly elastic, dynamic analysis in compliance with the requirements of this section.
Buildings shall be modeled with linearly elastic stiffness and equivalent viscous damping
values consistent with components responding at or near yield level.

The LDP includes two analysis methods, namely, the Response Spectrum Method
and the Time History Method. The Response Spectrum Method uses peak modal
responses calculated from dynamic analysis of a mathematical model. Only those modes
contributing significantly to the response need to be considered. Modal responses are
combined using rational methods to estimate total building response quantities. The
Time- History Method (also termed Response-History Analysis) involves a time-step-by-
time-step evaluation of building response, using discretized recorded or synthetic
earthquake records as base motion input. Pairs of ground motion records for simultaneous

48
analysis along each horizontal axis of the building should be consistent. Consistent pairs
are the orthogonal motions expected at a given site based on the same earthquake.

5.2.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

The Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP) is for seismic analysis of the

building, a mathematical model directly incorporating the nonlinear load-deformation
characteristics of individual components and elements of the building shall be subjected
to earthquake shaking represented by ground motion time histories to obtain forces and
displacements. Calculated displacements and internal forces shall be compared directly
with acceptance criteria.
With the NDP, the design displacements are not established using a target
displacement, but instead are determined directly through dynamic analysis using ground
motion time histories. Calculated response can be highly sensitive to characteristics of
individual ground motions; therefore, the analysis should be carried out with more than
one ground motion record. Because the numerical model accounts directly for effects of
material inelastic response, the calculated internal forces will be reasonable
approximations of those expected during the design earthquake.

5.3 METHODOLOGY OF NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS

To perform the Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP), or what usually is called

Nonlinear Time-History Analysis (NTHA), acceleration time-history records should be
available. The nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis provides a more accurate estimate
of the dynamic response of the structure. However, because the results computed by the
nonlinear dynamic procedure can be sensitive to characteristics of individual ground
motions, the analysis should be carried out with several ground motion records and the
average response be taken into account. Figure 5.1 shows the steps involved in the
nonlinear time history analysis.

49
 Modelling of Frame

Assigning Properties to
Frames

Defining Time History

Function

Time History Analysis

Scaling

Peak Displacement =
Target Displacement

Results
(Maximum Displacement,
Base shear and
Hinge Formation)

Figure 5.1 Steps involved in Nonlinear Time-History Analysis

5.3.1 Acceleration Time Histories

Time history analysis shall be performed with no fewer than three data sets (each
containing two horizontal components or, if vertical motion is to be considered, two
horizontal components and one vertical component) of ground motion time histories that
shall be selected and scaled from no fewer than three recorded events. Time histories
shall have magnitude, fault distances, and source mechanisms that are equivalent to those
that control the design earthquake ground motion. Figure 5.2 shows the typical
Northridge earthquake ground motion record in which abscissa represents the time in
seconds and ordinate represents the acceleration in terms of g. Where three recorded

50
ground-motion time history data sets having these characteristics are not available,
simulated time history data sets having equivalent duration and spectral content shall be
used to make up the total number required. For each data set, the square root of the sum
of the squares (SRSS) of the 5%-damped site-specific spectrum of the scaled horizontal
components shall be constructed. The data sets shall be scaled such that the average value
of the SRSS spectra does not fall below 1.4 times the 5% damped spectrum for the design
earthquake for periods between 0.2T seconds and 1.5T seconds (where T is the
fundamental period of the building).
Acceleration in g

Time in seconds
Figure 5.2 Typical Acceleration Time-History Record
(Northridge EQ Motion Record)

Where three time history data sets are used in the analysis of a structure, the
maximum value of each response parameter (e.g., force in a member, displacement at a
specific level) shall be used to determine design acceptability. Where seven or more time
history data sets are employed, the average value of each response parameter shall be
permitted to determine design acceptability.

5.3.2 Evaluation of Nonlinear Static Analysis

The validity of pushover procedures based on the load distributions is examined

using the results of non-linear time-history analyses as a benchmark. To facilitate the
comparison with pushover analyses, the ground motions are scaled in such a manner so
that the resulting peak roof displacement is equal to the target displacement computed for

51
each building. A conventional technique is to scale ground motions such that the spectral
acceleration at the fundamental period matches a given design spectrum.
5.4 Comparison between Pushover Analysis and Time-History Analysis

• Nonlinear static procedures are generally not effective in predicting inter-story

drift demands compared to nonlinear dynamic procedures. Drifts are generally
under-estimated at upper levels and sometimes over-estimated at lower levels.
• Nonlinear static methods will not capture yielding of columns at the upper levels.
This inability can be a significant source of concern in identifying local upper
story mechanisms.
• The static pushover analysis for irregular structures can not be accurate for higher
modes. But Time history analysis incorporates the higher mode effects also.
• The computational time required to perform a pushover analysis is comparatively
much lesser than that required to run a full nonlinear dynamic analysis. This
makes the pushover analysis much more applicable in a design office.
• When performing a dynamic analysis, it is best to use a series of earthquakes
which also increases the computational time. The pushover analysis naturally
accounts for all earthquakes with the same probability of exceedance by
predicting the maximum displacement that can be expected in the form of the
target displacement. Now, computational time has been further reduced, since
only one analysis must be run for each exceedance probability that the designer is
interested in, strengthening the idea that the pushover analysis is much more
practical in a design office.
• The pushover analysis allows the designer to determine the building’s
performance under a range of ground shakings while the current code design just
determines that the building won’t fall down or threaten life under the worst
possible shaking. This allows owners to choose in advance what the condition of
their building will be after a given event which in turn limits their costs in
purchasing earthquake insurance. Also, by knowing the resulting condition of the
building after any ground motion, including small ground motions which may be
just large enough to cause some non–structural damage, the designers can modify
their design to protect expensive architectural fixtures or to limit the

52
 inconvenience that can be caused to building occupants when mechanical or
plumbing components are damaged. This increases the overall effectiveness of the
structure furthering its applicability in a design office.
• The pushover model directly incorporates the actual material nonlinearities of
each member, and the structure is monotonically forced into the inelastic response
range, the designer is able to get detailed member information at displacements up
to and including the maximum displacement. From this information, sections of
members which will be most damaged by the ground shaking can be located and
these sections can be redesigned to develop the strength or ductility that will be
required of them. In comparison, when designing by an appropriate code, the
maximum loads are applied directly to the structure and only the maximum
response is determined. The relation at specific loading values before the
maximum is lost and the interrelation among contributing elements is not
available. So, the designer has no idea of what the effect of increasing the strength
or ductility at one section will have upon the other. This requires that both
sections obtain their maximum strength or ductility, while the pushover analysis
allows the designer to modify one section which in turn could have a beneficial
result on the other section lowering the maximum response it would have to
endure. So, the pushover analysis increases the effectiveness and efficiency of the
design.

53
54
 CHAPTER 6
EXAMPLES

6.1 PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS OF 2D RC FRAME WITHOUT

INFILL ACTION

6.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE

The building considered for analysis is a typical 6- storey RC frame designed only
for gravity loads as per IS 456 – 2000. The seismic performance of the frame is evaluated
in terms of interstorey drift ratio, ductility, maximum base shear, roof displacement and
plastic hinge formation. Material properties are assumed to be 25MPa for the concrete
compressive strength and 415MPa for the yield strength of longitudinal and shear
reinforcement. The labels of beam and column along with the frame dimensions are
shown in Figure 6.1. The beam in all storey levels is of size 300mm x 600mm with
tension and compression reinforcements of 3885mm2 and 2412mm2 respectively. The
column dimensions and area of longitudinal reinforcement (Acol) details are presented in
Table 6.1.

Figure 6.1 6-Storey Frame with Dimensions

55
 Table 6.1 Column Dimensions and Area of Longitudinal Reinforcement

Column Cross Acol

Label Section (mm2)
mm x mm
1&9 300 x 500 5892
2 & 10 300 x 500 4020
3 & 11 300 x 400 3216
4 & 12 300 x 300 3080
21& 23 300 x 300 1232
24& 26 300 x 300 905
27& 29 300 x 300 905
5 650 x 650 14784
6 600 x 600 12744
7 550 x 550 10620
8 500 x 500 7856
22 450 x 450 6372
25 300 x 300 4928
28 300 x 300 804

Acol = Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column

6.1.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Two types of nonlinear analyses were carried out to evaluate the seismic
performance of frame namely, pushover and time–history analyses. The pushover
analysis consists of the application of gravity loads and a representative lateral load
pattern. The frame was subjected to gravity loads and simultaneous lateral loading.
Gravity loads were in place during lateral loading. Lateral forces calculated according to
IS 1893 – 2002 were applied monotonically in a step-by-step nonlinear static analysis. P-
Delta effect was not taken into consideration. In pushover analysis, the behavior of the
structure is characterized by a capacity curve that represents the relationship between the
base shear force and the displacement of the roof. This is a very convenient
representation in practice, and can be visualized easily by the engineer.

Time-history analysis is a step by step analysis of the dynamical response of a

structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. The validity of pushover
procedure is examined using the results of non-linear time-history analyses as a
benchmark. A set of seven strong ground motions having a magnitude range of 6.6 to 7.5

56
are selected for the nonlinear time-history evaluation. The peak displacements obtained in
time-history analysis do not correspond to the ultimate displacement capacity on the push
over curve. To facilitate the comparison with pushover analyses, the ground motions are
scaled in such a manner so that the resulting peak roof displacement is equal to the target
displacement computed for each building. A conventional technique is to scale ground
motions such that the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period matches a given
design spectrum. The earthquake motions taken for analysis and the scale factors
corresponding to target displacement at DBE and MCE levels are presented in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Input Earthquake Ground Motions
EQ Year Earthquake Recording Magnitude PGA EQ. Scale Factor
No. Station in g DBE MCE
1 1979 El Centro Array #7 7.0 0.338 0.45 0.785
2 1999 Duzce Turkey 7.1 0.348 0.8 1.15
3 1971 San Old Ridge 6.5 0.268 1.7 1.9
Fernando Route
4 1995 Kobe KJM 6.9 0.343 0.35 0.5
5 1976 Friuli Tolmezzo 6.5 0.315 0.95 1.2
6 1994 Northridge Arleta 6.7 0.344 0.6 1.0
7 1989 Loma Prieta Gilroy #2 7.1 0.322 0.35 0.515

6.1.2.1 BASE SHEAR

The pushover curve is shown in Figure 6.2. It is observed that maximum base
shear was 571kN which is about 10% of seismic weight of frame and the maximum
displacement corresponding to this base shear is 1.02m. The displacement ductility of
frame is 2.3. The frame is pushed to a maximum displacement of 4% of its height. The
base shear obtained at DBE and MCE levels from push over analysis were 116kN and
171kN respectively. The corresponding values obtained from nonlinear time-history
analysis were 151kN and 251kN respectively. The results from time-history analysis
were 23% and 32% higher than that of the pushover analysis results.

57
 Figure 6.2 Pushover Curve of 6 Storey Frame

6.1.2.2 PERFORMANCE POINT

The performance point of frame is obtained from the intersection of capacity and
demand spectra from SAP analysis. The performance is assessed for two levels of
performance objectives, Life Safety (LS) under design basis earthquake (DBE) and
Collapse Prevention (CP) under maximum considered earthquake (MCE). The capacity
vs. demand spectrum for the frame under DBE and MCE is shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4
respectively. The base shear, roof displacement, spectral acceleration, spectral
displacement, effective time period and effective damping corresponding to the
performance point is shown in same figures. The displacement at performance point at
DBE level is 0.123m (Figure 6.3) and it is greater than target displacement given by
FEMA 356 for life safety which is 0.119m. The displacement at performance point at
MCE level is 0.171m (Figure 6.4) and is lesser than corresponding target displacement as
per FEMA 356 which is 0.177m.

58
 Figure 6.3 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Design Basis Earthquake

Figure 6.4 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Maximum Considered Earthquake

6.1.2.3 Interstorey Drift

The interstorey drift has long been recognized as an important indicator of

building performance. Interstorey drift is defined as the ratio of relative horizontal
displacement of two adjacent floors and corresponding storey height. Interstorey drift
ratio from pushover analysis at DBE and MCE levels is presented in Figure 6.5(a). It is

59
observed that 3rd storey level experienced the largest interstorey drift values of 0.58% and
0.85% at both DBE and MCE levels. It is seen that the interstorey drift ratio increased
with increase in storey level up to first 4 stories and thereafter showed a reverse trend at
both levels of earthquake.

7 7

6 6

5 5 NT H-DBE
Sto r e y L e v e l

Storey Level
4 DBE 4 NSP-MCE
3 MCE 3
NSP-DBE
2 2
1 1 NT H-MCE

0 0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Interstorey drift in % Inte rsotrey drift in %

(a) Results from Pushover (b) Comparison between Pushover &

Analysis at DBE & MCE Levels Time-history Results at DBE & MCE Levels
Figure 6.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios

7 7
Elcentro
Elcent ro
6 6
Duzce
Duzce
5 5 San Fernando
San Fernando
Storey Level
Storey Level

4 4 Friuli,Italy
Friuli,It aly
Kobe
3 3
Kobe
Northridge
2 2
Northridge LomaPrieta
1 LomaPrieta 1 Average

0 Average 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Interstorey Drift Ratio in % Interstorey Drift Ratio in %

(a) Results from Time-history (b) Results from Time-history

Analysis at DBE Level Analysis at MCE Level

Figure 6.6 Interstorey Drift Ratios from Time – history Analysis

The interstorey drift ratio from pushover analysis is compared with that of time-
history analysis as shown in Figure 6.5(b). At DBE level, pushover analysis over-estimated
the interstorey drift ratio at lower storey levels and underestimates the same at upper storey

60
levels. At MCE level, pushover analysis over-estimated the interstorey drift ratio at almost
all storey levels.
The interstorey drift ratios from time-history analyses for the seven earthquake
ground motions at DBE and MCE levels are shown in Figures 6.6(a) and 6.6(b)
respectively. The average interstorey drift ratio is also shown in same figures which were
compared with the interstorey drift ratio from pushover analysis.

6.1.2.4 Plastic Hinge Patterns

The plastic hinge patterns of frame at DBE and MCE levels from pushover analysis
are compared with that of results from time-history analysis (Figures 6.7&6.8). In both the
analyses, it is observed that more number of columns underwent yielding than beams at the
displacement levels corresponding to DBE and MCE levels. It is also seen that more
number of beam ends showed hinges at yielding level in model of time-history analysis
than the model from pushover analysis at both DBE and MCE levels. Comparison of
plastic hinging pattern at MCE level indicates that middle columns in 5th and 6th stories
yielded in the model from time-history analysis whereas there was no hinge formation in
the middle columns in the model from pushover analysis.

The plastic hinge pattern from pushover analysis at last step i.e. when roof of frame
is pushed to 4% of total height is shown in Figure 6.9. Plastic hinge formation started with
yielding of outer columns at all stories with yielding of few beam ends in upper stories.
Then middle columns at upper stories start to yield with simultaneous yielding of base
columns. Although the beams experienced less number of hinges than columns, they were
all at significant damage or failure stage. All the hinges in columns were only at the
yielding stage. Thus the model with default hinge properties shows significant damage in
beams, though such mechanism is not guaranteed for structures designed only for gravity
loads as per IS 456-2000.

61
 (a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time – history Analysis

Figure 6.7 Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level

(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time - history Analysis

Figure 6.8 Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level

62
 Figure 6.9 Plastic Hinge Pattern at Last Step from Pushover Analysis

6.2 PUSHOVER AND TIMEHISTORY ANALYSIS OF 2D RC FRAME WITH

INFILL ACTION

6.2.1 EFFECT OF INFILL ACTION

In the conventional seismic analysis of framed structures, stiffness contribution

due to infill walls is not considered. The presence of infill increases the demand and
capacity of the structure. Even though we are considering the increase in demand due to
infill, we are neglecting the increase in capacity due to infill. Thus we are under
estimating the actual lateral strength of the structural system. Hence modeling of infill
wall is necessary. The present example studies the behaviour of 2D frames with and
without infill action under lateral loads using pushover and time history analysis.

6.2.2 DETAILS OF THE FRAME STRUCTURE

A regular four storeyed (G+3), five storeyed (G+4), six storeyed (G+5) and a
seven storeyed (G+6) building were considered in the present study. All the buildings are

63
rectangular in plan with same plan dimensions and storey height. The plan view and
sectional elevation of a G+3 building is shown in Figure 6.10. The X and Y direction
were selected along the width and length of the building respectively. A raft foundation
was considered.
To study the difference in behaviour of structures with and without infill action, a
single bay 2D frame (frame 2-2) is selected from all the buildings described above. To
get the worst effect in analysis, seismic zone V and an importance factor of 1.5 is
considered. All the frames considered are ordinary moment resisting frames only.
The dimensions and other details of beams and columns are shown in Table 6.3.
For all the frames considered in this study, only the reinforcement details vary, while the
other dimensions remain the same.
Table 6.3 Dimensions of beams and columns
b Dc or Db fck fy
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Beam 250 400 25 415
Column 250 400 25 415
Here
b = width of beam or column (cross-sectional dimension)
Db = depth of beam (cross-sectional dimension)
Dc = depth of column (cross-sectional dimension)
fck = characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete
fy = yield strength of reinforcement.
Table 6.4 Column and Beam Reinforcement Details (mm2)

G + 6 Storey Frame G + 5 Storey Frame

Asc Ast Beam Asc Ast Beam
Storey End End
Column Column
(Top) End(bottom) (Top) End(bottom)
6th 923 780
5th 785.39 1256 780
4th 1608 804
3rd 2412 1540
1577 742
2nd 3694.5 2413 1577 742
1st 4926 3695
G 4926 4247

64
 G + 4 Storey Frame G + 3 Storey Frame
Asc Ast Beam Asc Ast Beam
Storey End End
Column Column
(Top) End(bottom) (Top) End(bottom)
4th 1885 927 116.7
3rd 1206 1608 927 116.7
2nd 1885 1256
1704 876
1st 2513 2513 1704 876
G 3927 2513

Y 6

0.6
3

3.5 4.0

3.5 4.0

3.5
4.0
2

P P 3.5
4.0
1
X
A 1.5
B

Typical Floor Plan Sectional Elevation at P-P

(All dimensions in meters)
Figure 6.10 Typical Floor Plan and Sectional Elevation of the Building

6.2.3 MODELLING ASPECTS

The beams and columns are modeled as frame elements and the infill wall is
modeled as equivalent strut by truss elements. Since the deformation is expected to go

65
beyond the elastic range in a pushover analysis, it is necessary to model the nonlinear
properties also. The following are the non-linear properties assigned for different
elements.
1) Flexural hinge for beams
2) Flexural-axial interaction hinge for columns.
3) Axial hinge for equivalent diagonal struts
The length of plastic hinge was calculated using the following equation.
l p = 0.5H

(6.1)

lp = length of plastic hinge.

H= depth of beam or column (cross-sectional dimension)
For beams flexural hinge is assigned at both ends. The distance of plastic hinge was
calculated based on the following equation.
L b = 0.5(l p + D c )
(6.2)

Lb = distance of plastic hinge in beam measured from the centerline of column.

For columns flexural-axial interaction hinge is assigned at both ends. The distance was
calculated based on the following equation.
L c = 0.5(l p + D b ) (6.3)

Lc = distance of plastic hinge in column measured from the centerline of beam.

Calculation of plastic hinge length and its location is shown in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Calculation of Plastic Hinge Length and its Location

H lp lc lb Lc Lb
mm mm mm mm mm mm
400 250 7000 4000 300 300

66
Here
lc = length of the column.
lb = length of the beam.

The hinge properties can be

1) User defined
2) Automatically generated
For the present case, SAP generated hinge properties were assigned for beams and
columns. But for modeling equivalent strut, user defined property is used.

Axial hinges are assigned at the center of the strut. For the case of pushover
analysis, infill panel is modeled as single diagonal strut connected between two
compressive diagonal corners. The diagonal strut is assumed to be connected to the frame
through pin connections at both ends. The modeling of infill panel as single diagonal strut
is based on the assumption that the masonry is weak in tension and the bond strength at
the panel-frame interface is very low. Axial hinges were assigned at the center of each
strut. In the case of time history analysis, equivalent struts are modeled along both
diagonal directions, since the structure is subjected to lateral deformations in both
directions. Here also axial hinges were assigned at the center of strut in each direction.

For the axial hinge, a non-linear variation of load versus deformation relation
proposed by Asokan A. is used. He assumed a parabolic variation of load versus
deformation from a strain value of 0 to 0.0026. From the strain value of 0.0026 to a strain
value of 0.004, the load is assumed to be constant for different deformation levels.
For 0 ε ε0,
2
R ε ε
= 2 −
Ru ε0 ε0

(6.4)
For ε0 ε εu ,

67
 R
=1
Ru

(6.5)
R = strength of infill wall corresponding to any strain level
Ru = ultimate strength of infill which is the lower value of Rc and Rs
Rc = strength corresponding to corner crushing failure
Rs = strength corresponding to shear cracking failure
ε = axial strain in the strut
ε0 = strain in the strut when R/Ru attains unity
εu = maximum strain in the strut.
The curve obtained from above equation is idealized and used for the present study.
Width of Equivalent struts
d
w=
3

(6.6)
Here
w = width of equivalent strut
d = diagonal length of infill.
Thickness of the strut is kept equal to the thickness of the infill.
Figure 6.11 shows a 2D frame with G+3 stories, modeled in SAP for pushover
analysis. Figure 6.11a shows the model of the frame without strut. Figure 6.11c shows the
releases assigned to the structure, whereas Figure 6.11b shows the hinges assigned to the
frame and strut. Similarly Figure 6.12 shows the G+3, 2D frame modeled in SAP for
time-history analysis.

68
 a) Model without strut b) Model with strut c) Model showing releases
Figure 6.11 G+3 Storey 2D Frame Modelling for Pushover Analysis

a) Model showing Releases b) Model showing Hinges

Figure 6.12 SAP Model of Frame (G+3 stories) with Infill Used for
Time History Analysis
6.2.4 ANALYSIS

6.2.4.1 Pushover Analysis

To study the sequence of hinge formation in structures with and without infill
action, pushover analysis is carried for a G+3 structure with and without equivalent
diagonal strut. Here loading is static and applied in one direction. So struts are modeled

69
in one direction only. Figure 6.11 shows the 2D model of the G+3 frame developed in
SAP with and without strut action. Figure 6.13 shows a typical frame with axial hinge
developed in its infill as obtained from pushover analysis. The analysis is repeated for
G+4, G+5, G+6 and G+7,2D frames.

Figure 6.13 2D Model showing Typical Hinge Formation in Infill of a G+3

Storey Frame, using Pushover Analysis.

6.2.4.2 Time History Analysis

Time-history analysis is a step by step analysis of the dynamical response of a

structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. A time history function may be a
list of time and function values or just a list of function values that are assumed to occur
at equally spaced intervals. In this paper, an attempt is made to compare the behaviour of
structures with and without infill stiffness modeling. Northridge earthquake motion
record of 0.344g PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) was selected from ATC40 for
analysis. Here loading is dynamic and the frame moves laterally in both directions. Hence
struts are required in both directions. Figure 6.14 shows a typical frame with axial hinge
developed in its infill as obtained from time-history analysis.

70
 Figure 6.14 2D Model showing Typical Hinge Formation in Infill of a G+3 Storey
Frame using Time History Analysis

6.2.5 Results and Discussions

Analysis results shows that, hinges will be formed earlier in frames of structures
without strut action than frames of structures with strut action. Figure 6.15 compares the
fundamental time period of G+3, G+4, G+5 and G+6 frames with and without strut action
as obtained from time history analysis. It is observed that, in all the cases, the
fundamental time period of the structure with strut action is considerably less than the
structures without strut action. This is due to the additional stiffness offered by the strut
in the lateral direction. Figure 6.16 compares the roof displacement of G+3, G+4, G+5
and G+6 frames with and without strut action. The graph shows that roof displacement
get considerably (50%) reduced with strut action. From the pushover analysis, it is found
that performance point parameters such as roof displacement and base shear get reduced
due to strut action.

71
 With strut Without strut
1.6
1.4
1.2
Time Period (s)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3 4 5 6 7 8
No. of storey
Figure 6.15 Comparison of Variation of Fundamental Time Period using
Time History Analysis.

With strut action Without strut action

200
Displacement (mm)

150

100

50

0
3 4 5 6 7 8
No. of storey
Figure 6.16 Comparison of Variation of Roof Displacement using
Time History Analysis.

72
73
 CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS

7.1 GENERAL

Nonlinear static pushover and time-history analyses were carried out to evaluate
seismic performance and effect of infill of 2D RC frames. Beam and column elements
were modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity by defining plastic
hinges at both ends of the beams and columns. The frames were modeled with default
hinge properties. The moment curvature relationship developed for beams can be used for
determining user-defined hinge properties in modeling the nonlinear behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams.

7.2 CONCLUSIONS FROM EXAMPLE-1

The following findings were observed from performance based analysis of 2D RC
frames without infill:

1. The time-history analysis gave 23% and 32% higher values of base shear at
DBE and MCE levels than pushover analysis.
2. The roof displacement of frame at DBE and MCE levels indicates that the frame
satisfies the requirement for Life Safety performance at DBE level whereas it
does not satisfy the requirement for Collapse Prevention performance at MCE
level. The satisfactory performance at DBE level may be attributed to the
default hinge properties assigned to structural members; an observation
consistent with that noticed by others.
3. From pushover and time-history analyses, it is seen that 3rd storey experienced
the maximum interstorey drift ratio at both DBE and MCE levels. At MCE
level, pushover analysis over-estimated the interstorey drift when compared to
time-history analysis.
4. There is no significant difference in the plastic hinge pattern for the frame at
DBE and MCE levels from both the analyses; but time-history analysis gave
more number of beam hinges than pushover analysis.

74
 5. The last step of pushover analysis of frame shows beam failure mechanism with
only yielding of columns.

7.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM EXAMPLE 2

From the pushover and time-history analyses of 2D RC frames with infill, the
following conclusions are drawn:
1) It is found that the fundamental time period of the structure get considerably
reduced due to strut action. This will alter the response of the structure to lateral
loads.
2) In addition strut action will considerably reduce the roof displacement. This will
increase the safety level of the structure.
Hence it is recommended to model infill stiffness using equivalent diagonal struts for
any lateral load analysis.

7.4 SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK

1. Pushover and time-history analysis for 3D structure with default hinge properties
and user-defined hinge properties shall be carried out.
2. Moment-curvature relation for column shall be developed and 3D buildings with
user-defined properties for beam and column can be carried out.
3. Nonlinear time-history analysis of 3D structures with isolators, dampers shall be
done.
4. Pushover and time-history analysis for 3D structure with P-Delta effect shall be
done.
5. Refinement of infill modelling shall be carried out.

75
76
 REFERENCES

1. Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee, Alireza Y. Motlagh and Andrew Scanlon (2001),
“Comparative Evaluation of Seismic Assessment Methodologies Applied to a 32-
Story Reinforced Concrete Office Building”, Journal of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3 ,No.1, 31-44.

2. Andreas J. Kappos, Alireza Manafpour (2001), “Seismic Design of R/C Buildings

with the Aid of Advanced Analytical Techniques”, Engineering Structures, 23,
319–332.

3. Asokan A. “Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls for Non-linear Static Analysis of

Buildings Under Seismic Loads”, M.Tech. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras, January 2006

4. ATC 40 (1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings”,

Applied Technology Council, USA, Vol.1.

5. Chopra A.K. (1995), “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to

Earthquake Engineering”, Prentice Hall Publishers.

6. Chung C. Fu and Hamed AlAyed, “Seismic Analysis of Bridges using

Displacement-Based Approach”, 1-20.

7. Das D. and Murty C.R. (2004), “Brick Masonry Infills in Seismic Design of R.C.
Frame Buildings”, Indian Concrete Journal, Vol.78, No.8, pp. 31-38.

8. Enrico Spacone, Russel Martino and Greg Kingsley, “Nonlinear Pushover

Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures” Final Report to Colorado Advanced
Software Institute, pp. 1-117.

9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and Commentary for the

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), Washington D.C. November
2000.

10. FEMA 273 (1997), “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings”, Applied Technology Council, USA.

77
11. Hasan R., Xu L. and Grierson D.E.(2002), “Push-over Analysis for Performance-
Based Seismic Design”, Computers and Structures, Vol.80, pp.2483-2493

12. IS 456-2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice,
Bureau of Indian Standards.

13. IS 1893 (Part 1) – 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design
of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.

14. IS: 875(Part 2) – 1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than earthquake)
for Buildings and Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.

15. Kunnath S.K and Kalkan E(2004), “Evaluation of Seismic Deformation Demands
using Nonlinear Procedures in Multistorey Steel and Concrete Moment Frames”,
ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No 445, Vol 41, No1, pp159-181.

16. “Manual for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Mutli-storeyed RC Buildings”, by

IIT Madras and SERC Chennai.

17. Mehmet Inel and Hayri Baytan Ozmen (2006), “Effects of Plastic Hinge
Properties in Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 28, pp.1494-1502.

18. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande (2006), “Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures”, Prentice Hall of India Pt. Ltd.

19. Park R. and Paulay T. (1975), “Reinforced Concrete Structures”, John Wiley
Publishers.

20. Paulay T. and Priestley M.J.N (1991), “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
and Masonry Buildings”, A Wiley Interscience Publication.

21. Sadjadi R., Kianoush M.R. and Talebi S. (2007), “Seismic Performance of
Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 9,
pp.2365-2380.

22. Zou X. K, Chan C.M (2005), “Optimal Seismic Performance-based Design of

Reinforced Concrete Buildings using Nonlinear Pushover Analysis”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 27, pp.1289-1302.

78