You are on page 1of 6

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 72 2010

Study on Nonlinear-Performance Behavior of the Six-Storey Framed Building in Yangon under Design Earthquake using Pushover Analysis
Pwint Thandar Kyaw Kyaw
without any damage, moderate earthquakes with negligible structural damage and some nonstructural damage, and major earthquakes with possibly some structural and nonstructural damage. In most structures that are subjected to moderate-tostrong earthquakes, economical earthquake-resistant design is achieved by allowing yielding to take place in some structural members. Estimating the maximum lateral displacement of the structures in the wake of massive earthquakes is considered to be widely important for seismic design. Due to economic reason, the present seismic codes allow structures to undergo inelastic deformations in the event of strong ground motions. Consequently, the demand lateral strength is lower than the strength maintaining the structure in the elastic range. According to the seismic codes, the buildings are allowed to use overstrength against strong earthquakes. Overstrength is the strength in excess of seismic code requirements resists while plastic hinges formed frequently in relevant structural members. Pushover analysis is a viable method to assess damage vulnerability of buildings. Pushover (nonlinear static) analysis is performed to identify damage venerability of structures and to determine an acceptable level of safety. Pushover analysis is a series of incremental static analysis carried out to develop a capacity curve for the building. Base on the capacity curve, a target displacement which is an estimate of the displacement that the design earthquake will produce on the building is determined. The extent of damage experienced by the structure at this target displacement is considered representative of the damage experienced by the building when subjected to design level ground shaking. In general, analytical models for the pushover analysis of frame structures may be divided into two main types: (1) distributed plasticity (plastic zone) and (2) concentrated plasticity (plastic hinge). Since the behavior of reinforced concrete structures may be highly inelastic under seismic loads, the global inelastic performance of RC structures will be dominated by plastic yielding effects and consequently the accuracy of the pushover analysis will be influenced by the ability of the analytical models to capture these effects. In this study, behaviors of system overstrength relating to

AbstractIn performance based design, nonlinear lateral resistances of the building frame system, combination of ductility and overstrength of the system, are offering major share of lateral load resisting capacity. It comes out from ductility of constituent materials and components, plastic hinging capability of the frame system and uncertainty in probable strength of materials and overstrength of components. Therefore, nonlinear resistance natures of the designed buildings may be different from one to another. In this study, nonlinear resisting behavior of selected building designed and to be constructed according to local practice is evaluated using pushover analysis. For seismic design, it is also important to predict inelastic displacement (maximum lateral displacement) of the structures due to severe earthquakes. This paper aims to study the nature of inelastic deformation of RC framed buildings by carrying out Pushover analysis, modeling three-dimensional frames building located in seismic zone 2A. Total of seven different case studies are performed. It is found that displacement amplification factor Cd depends on ductility and overstrength factors. The available ductility values are lower than expected and it is showing need of modification in design practice to synchronize between selected R values and nonlinear displacement capability of the system. It is also found that reduced base shear from elastic analysis is much lower than the actual frames elastic limit. And building structural system is showing linear behaviours in lateral resisting although secant moduli are different about 0.7%. It means design of non-plastic region using demand forces corresponding to specified overstrength at plastic regions are uncertain in safety performance of selected building. KeywordsDisplacement modification factor, Nonlinear resistance, Overstrength, Pushover analysis.
Ductility,

I. INTRODUCTION
UE

to the damage of some RC structures in Yangon under only a minor earthquake of Magnitude 3.5 occurred at Taikkyi and after Giant earthquake of Magnitude 9.0 at Sumatra offshore in 2004, the evaluation of the seismic adequacy of existing buildings and performance under design earthquake is being interested by some structural designers, decision makers and engineering societies. In general, most earthquake code provisions implicitly require that structures be able to resist minor earthquakes
Pwint Thandar kyaw Kyaw is now with the Postgraduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Yangon Technological University, Yangon, Myanmar (phone: +95-9-509-7062; e-mail: pwint.kyaw@gmail.com).

670

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 72 2010

ductility of the system are studied. This may help to reveal the actual overstrength behavior of local building products. Total of seven different case studies are performed. II. METHODOLOGY In studying behavior of overstrength nature of the existing building, the ductility of the building depends on the stiffness and mechanism formations. It is also mostly depend on the overstrength of steel and concrete i.e., probable strength, members uniformity and geometric imperfection. It comes out from the combination of flexural overstrength of each members and system overstrength. Generally, designers in common designed the structures according to the locations, loads, span, storey, perimeter (exterior, interior) and groups of members sizes for elastic design. They designed to have uniformity in plan forms. In view of require strength and overstrength due to the actual load sharing by adjusting the uniformity of sizes of columns and beams; there will be uniformity induced overstrength in members. In such members, steel ratios may be just over the minimum at low end 1%. For ductility design, the more the members stiff, the less the percentage of reinforcement in members and the value of ductility. On the other hand, flexible members lead to reduction in stiffness and more ductility. The main factor which leads to reduction in ductility of members is the use of horizontal and vertical uniformity as possible as one can in designing the buildings. The selection practice used in design may differ from designer to designer ranging steel ratio with minimum low end 1% to high end 4%. In designing concrete sections, designers choose vertical uniformity with the use of same section of concrete in every two levels or three levels and so on. All these facts control in deviations the design to its ultimate stage design. Nonlinear portion, in which part, has not been assessed whether it is actually deformed by means of the ductility in practice in Myanmar. Depending on these different methods in designing, it is interesting to assess how nonlinear performances are differing from one to another in these different designs. A. Analysis In this study, the seismic overstrength of example RC frames was assessed by using Pushover Analysis (Static Nonlinear Analysis), modeling three-dimensional frame buildings located in seismic zone 2A. The buildings used for analysis are of six stories framed buildings and are designed as per ACI 318, 99 and UBC 1997 for loading. The design base shear was calculated as per UBC 1997 and sections were designed as per ACI 318, 99 using 26 load combinations as per UBC 1997. Pushover analysis is performed by subjecting a structure to a monotonically increasing pattern of lateral loads, representing the inertia forces which would be experienced by the structure when subjected to ground shaking. Under incrementally increasing loads, various structural elements may yield sequentially. Consequently, at each event, the structure experiences a loss in stiffness. Using a pushover

analysis, a characteristic non linear force-displacement relationship can be determined.

Fig. 1 Load-deformation curve

B. Ovserstrength in Building Structures The inertia force due to earthquake motion at which the first significant yield in a RC structure starts may be much higher than the prescribed unfactored base shear force because of factors such as: 1. Load factor applied to the code-prescribed design seismic force 2. Much lower gravity loads on the building at the time of a seismic event than the factored gravity loads used in design 3. Strength reduction factors on material properties used in design 4. Higher actual strength of materials than the specified strength 5. Larger member sizes than required from strength considerations 6. More reinforcement than required for strength 7. Special ductility requirements, such as strong-column weak-beam provision, and 8. Considerations for the uniformity of member sizes in plan form and elevation. Even after the first significant yield, the structure can take further load due to factors such as redundancy, strainhardening of reinforcing steel, and confinement of concrete. Other factors that contribute to overstrength include higher material strength under cyclic conditions than in the static conditions, presence of nonstructural elements and structural non-seismic elements and action of floor slab as a tension flange. Besides, common analysis assumptions may neglect secondary stiffening and strengthening effects associated with three-dimensional action ( Bertero et al. 1991). The load-displacement relationship for nonlinear response of structures is often approximate to be elastoplastic. The maximum base shear coefficient Cy at roof displacement equal to 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% of the building height divided by the unfactored design base shear coefficient Cw was taken as overstrength of the structure. The idealization adopted in the present study, the overstrength is defined as: = Cy / C w (1)

Where Cy = base shear corresponding to idealized yield displacement y of the structure; Cw = code-prescribed

671

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 72 2010

unfactored design base shear; and Cs = base shear corresponding to first significant yield of structure.

designed with highly reinforcement ratio. In study 5, areas of concrete in columns at uppermost story are increased to reduce the steel percent. In study 6, the sizes of columns at second and third floor are reduced by one inch to increase the minimum steel level. In study 7, concrete areas of all columns at all levels are increased half inches for better carrying capacity of concrete. All of case studies were performed depending on the construction practice and detailing.

Fig. 2 Typical global structural response idealized as linearly elasticperfectly plastic curve

C. Displacement Amplification Factor, Cd Seismic design provisions estimate the maximum roof and storey drifts occurring in major earthquakes by amplifying the drifts of the structures obtained by elastic analysis subjected to seismic design load, with a coefficient named displacement amplification factor which is greater than one. Seismic design provisions, estimate the maximum roof displacement and storey drifts by augmenting the displacement and drifts obtained from elastic analysis by displacement amplification factor (Cd): m = e x Cd Cd = x Rs = m / y Rs = Cy /Cs III. CASE STUDIES A. Hypothetical Model In this study, Pushover Analysis (Static Non-linear Analysis) was carried out, modeling 6 storeys RC Framed building located in seismic zone 2A. It is residential building with total height 58 ft and total floor area 5400 sq-ft. Live load is 40 psf for occupants, wind speed is 80 mph and seismic zone factor is 0.15. Material strengths are fc=3000 psi and fy=50,000 psi. Data preparation for analysis and design are according to Uniform Building Code 1997 and ACI 31899. B. Case Study Programme In this study, when developing methodology, case study programme are divided to cover the different methods of designs and designers choice. Seven types of case studies were considered in this study. Depending on the height of the structure, different percentages of building height of displacement magnitude are used as target displacements in the pushover analysis. In study 1, shear and longitudinal carrying capacity of concrete is insufficient in some frame members. In study 2, column members are modified to increase concrete shear carrying share. In study 3, concrete area of beam members are modified to increase shear carrying capacity. In study 4, all the frame members are sufficiently (2) (3) (4) (5)

Fig. 3 Floor Plan and 3D View of Structural Model

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Results The seven resulting capacity curves for the seven case studies are shown in Figs. 4~10.The curves show similar features under various target displacement and most of them show decrease in the load carrying capacity of the buildings suggesting not good enough structural behavior. They are initially linear but start to deviate from linearity as the beam and the columns undergo inelastic actions. When the buildings are pushed well into the inelastic range, the curves become linear again but with a smaller slope. All the curves could be approximated by a bilinear relationship. By plotting the force- displacement curves for each steps of loading, it can be seen that design base shear from linearly elastic static analysis is too low. This means that structure can be economically design for a friction of the estimated elastic seismic design forces, while maintaining the basic life safety performance objective. By studying behaviors of system overstrength, ductility of the system and material overstrength is highly depending on construction practice and detailing. The calculated values of , , and Cd with the relevant equations for case study 1~7 are shown in Tables 1~7 respectively. The results show that the values of design seismic force level base shears Cw increase with the increasing area of concrete. y values vary with the changing values of maximum yield strength level base shears and changes in stiffness of force-controlled members, as a result, the values of overstrength are varying. It is also seen that the buildings do not have the system ductility level in accordance with the selected R value to resist lateral force beyond elastic analysis by inelastic nature. It may be due to the overstrength characteristics of the constituent materials and components and detailing of the individual

672

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 72 2010

designers. Although code specified limit of the ratio of Cd and R is between 0.5 and 1 for building frame system, it is found that this ratio is just over the code specified limit in some local building design practice. The available ductility values are lower than expected and it is showing need of modification in design practice to synchronize between selected R values and nonlinear displacement capability of the system. It is also found that reduced base shear from elastic analysis is much lower than the actual frames elastic limit. And building structural system is showing linear behaviours in lateral resisting although secant moduli are different about 0.7%. It means design of non-plastic region using demand forces corresponding to specified overstrength at plastic regions are uncertain in safety performance of selected building.

Fig. 7 Global structural response (Study 4)

Fig. 4 Global structural response (Study 1)

Fig. 8 Global structural response (Study 5)

Fig. 5 Global structural response (Study 2)

Fig. 9 Global structural response (Study 6)

Fig. 6 Global structural response (Study 3) Fig. 10 Global structural response (Study 7)

673

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 72 2010

TABLE I COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE (STUDY 1) (Target Displacement) Ductility Different Percentage of Building Height Parameters 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Cw (kips) Cs (kips) Cy (kips) Rs= Cy / Cs R R m (in) y (in) = m / y Cd 90.02 418.2 600.7 6.67 1.44 5.5 3.83 13.48 6.3 2.14 3.07 90.02 418.2 594.3 6.60 1.42 5.5 3.87 13.48 6.38 2.11 3.00 90.02 418.2 625.2 6.95 1.49 5.5 3.68 13.48 6.67 2.02 3.02 90.02 418.2 625.2 6.95 1.49 5.5 3.68 13.48 6.69 2.01 3.01 90.02 418.2 594.3 6.60 1.42 5.5 3.87 13.48 6.37 2.12 3.01

TABLE IV COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE (STUDY 4) (Target Displacement) Ductility Different Percentage of Building Height Parameters 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Cw (kips) Cs (kips) Cy (kips) Rs= Cy / Cs R R m (in) y (in) = m / y Cd 96.31 459.5 792.1 8.22 1.72 5.5 3.19 11.72 4.21 2.78 4.80 96.31 459.5 792.1 8.22 1.72 5.5 3.19 11.72 4.21 2.78 4.80 96.31 459.5 792.1 8.22 1.72 5.5 3.19 11.72 4.25 2.76 4.75 96.31 459.5 792.1 8.22 1.72 5.5 3.19 11.72 4.29 2.73 4.71 96.31 459.5 792.1 8.22 1.72 5.5 3.19 11.72 4.21 2.78 4.80

TABLE II COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE (STUDY 2) (Target Displacement) Ductility Different Percentage of Building Height Parameters 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Cw (kips) Cs (kips) Cy (kips) Rs= Cy / Cs R R m (in) y (in) = m / y Cd 92.22 434.1 856.8 9.29 1.97 5.5 2.79 13.95 7.22 1.93 3.81 92.22 434.1 797.2 8.64 1.84 5.5 2.99 14.60 6.7 2.18 4.00 92.22 434.1 852.8 9.25 1.96 5.5 2.80 14.61 7.12 2.05 4.03 92.22 434.1 739.3 8.02 1.70 5.5 3.23 14.61 6.33 2.31 3.93 92.22 434.1 739.3 8.02 1.70 5.5 3.23 14.61 5.53 2.64 4.50

TABLE V COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE (STUDY 5) (Target Displacement) Ductility Different Percentage of Building Height Parameters 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Cw (kips) Cs (kips) Cy (kips) Rs= Cy / Cs R R m (in) y (in) = m / y Cd 96.49 458.8 797.8 8.27 1.74 5.5 3.16 11.42 4 2.85 4.96 96.49 458.8 797.8 8.27 1.74 5.5 3.16 11.42 4.11 2.78 4.83 96.49 458.8 795.2 8.24 1.73 5.5 3.17 11.42 3.57 3.20 5.54 96.49 458.8 795.2 8.24 1.73 5.5 3.17 11.42 3.54 3.23 5.59 96.49 458.8 797.8 8.27 1.74 5.5 3.16 11.42 3.5 3.26 5.67

TABLE III COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE (STUDY 3) (Target Displacement) Ductility Different Percentage of Building Height Parameters 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Cw (kips) Cs (kips) Cy (kips) Rs= Cy / Cs R R m (in) y (in) = m / y Cd 93.89 445.87 825.31 8.79 1.85 5.5 2.97 13.844 5.71 2.42 4.49 93.89 445.87 825.31 8.79 1.85 5.5 2.97 13.844 5.55 2.49 4.62 93.89 445.87 866.79 9.23 1.94 5.5 2.83 13.844 5.88 2.35 4.58 93.89 445.85 760.87 8.10 1.71 5.5 3.22 13.844 4.42 3.13 5.35 93.89 445.85 760.87 8.10 1.71 5.5 3.22 13.844 4.375 3.16 5.40

TABLE VI COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE (STUDY 6) (Target Displacement) Ductility Different Percentage of Building Height Parameters 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Cw (kips) Cs (kips) Cy (kips) Rs= Cy / Cs R R m (in) y (in) = m / y Cd 95.93 452.7 780.8 8.14 1.72 5.5 3.19 11.3 4.13 2.74 4.72 95.93 452.7 780.8 8.14 1.72 5.5 3.19 11.3 4.1 2.76 4.75 95.93 452.7 778.5 8.11 1.72 5.5 3.20 11.30 3.8 2.97 5.11 95.93 452.7 781.6 8.15 1.73 5.5 3.19 11.31 3.67 3.08 5.32 95.93 452.7 781.6 8.15 1.73 5.5 3.19 11.31 3.55 3.19 5.50

674

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 72 2010

TABLE VII COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE (STUDY 7) (Target Displacement) Ductility Different Percentage of Building Height Parameters 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Cw (kips) Cs (kips) Cy (kips) Rs= Cy / Cs R R m (in) y (in) = m / y Cd 97.17 462.5 838.16 8.63 1.81 5.5 3.03 11.6 4.04 2.87 5.20 97.17 462.5 838.17 8.63 1.81 5.5 3.03 11.6 4 2.90 5.25 97.17 462.5 836.03 8.60 1.81 5.5 3.04 11.6 3.93 2.95 5.33 97.17 462.5 836.03 8.60 1.81 5.5 3.04 11.6 3.93 2.95 5.33 97.17 462.5 836.03 8.60 1.81 5.5 3.04 11.6 3.93 2.95 5.33

By studying overall performance of all case studies, the values of overstrength are very high. This is because of high maximum yield strength level shears and low design base shears which mainly depend on structural configurations. The characteristics of overstrength also depends on the constituent materials and components and detailing of the individual designer. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author gratefully acknowledges her teachers of Department of Civil Engineering, Yangon Technological University, for their invaluable suggestions and guidance and expresses deep gratitude to Naypyitaw Development Committee for all kinds of support during research project and compilation of the thesis. NOTATION The following symbols are used in this paper: Cw = code-prescribed unfactored design base shear Cs = base shear corresponding at first significant yield level of structure Cy = maximum yield strength level base shear R = response reduction factor R = ductility reduction factor Rs = structural overstrength factor y = idealized yield displacement at roof m = maximum inelastic displacement (roof or storey drifts) = system ductility factor = overstrength Cd = displacement amplification factor REFERENCES
[1] Sudhir K. Jain and Rahul Navin, Seismic overstrength in reinforced concrete frames, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, Vo.l121, No.3, 1995, pp.580-585. A. Kadid and A. Boumrkik, Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame structures, Asian. J. Civ. Engrg., (Building and Housing), Vol.9, No.1, 2008, pp.75-83. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, A Wiley Inter science Publication, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, U. S. A, 1991. S.K. Ghosh and David A. Fanella., Seismic and Wind Design of concrete Buildings, (2000 IBC, ASCE 7-98, ACI 318-99), 2003. Nilson, A.H., and Winter, G., Design of Concrete Structure, 12th edition, McGraw Hill Co. Inc., 1997. Roger M. Di Julio Jr., The Seismic Design Handbook, 2nd edition, John A. Martin Associates, Inc., U.S.A, 2001. Bertero. V. V., Anderson. J. C., Krawinkler, H., and Miranda E., Design Guidelines for Ductility and Drift Limits: Review of the State-of-thepractice and State-of-the-art in Ductility and Drift-based Earthquakeresistant Design of Buildings, Rep. No. UCB/EERC-91/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif, 1991. M. Mahmoudi, The relationship between overstrength and members ductility of RC moment resisting frames, Proceedings of Pacific conference on earthquake engineering (PCEE-2003), Pacific, 2003, pp.026. Uniform Building Code:UBC 1997,. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.

B. Discussions The extent of overstrength in the performance of buildings during a severe earthquake is important and there are number of factors that contribute to the actual performance of buildings in a severe ground motion. Structure can be economically design for a friction of the estimated elastic seismic design forces, while maintaining the basic life safety performance objective. The survival of code-designed structures in the event of significantly higher seismic shaking is possible only because of implicitly assumed overstrength. Dynamic analysis results on frame systems indicated that an overstrength value is 6.6-9.29 times higher than code specied design value. V. CONCLUSIONS

In this study, Pushover Analysis (Static Non-linear Analysis) was carried out, modeling three-dimensional frame buildings located in seismic zone 2A. Seven types of case studies were considered depending on construction practice and detailing. The different percentages of building height of displacement magnitude are used as target displacement at each case study. The result shows that displacement amplification factor Cd varied mostly with the changes in system ductility factor (i.e, the extent of yield displacement and maximum inelastic deformation). The values of Cd / R are generally within the code prescribed limit for building frame system according to UBC 1997, ASCE 7-05, Euro code 8, Mexico, New Zealand and NBC of Canada 2005 values. Although non-linear static analysis carrying on the end of linear elastic analysis, by the formation of yielding mechanisms in structural members to form inelastic deformation, available ductility factors are inconsistent with the response reduction factor R which was used in linear static analysis. Therefore, linear elastic analyses take into account only for the design base shear level.

[2]

[3]

[4] [5] [6] [7]

[8]

[9]

675

You might also like