Seminar

on
STUDY OF SEISMIC BEHAVIOR ON RC BUILDINGS BY NON-
LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Presented by:
RAKESH YADAV
M. Tech. (IInd Year)
(Structural Engineering )

COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING

MPUAT, UDAIPUR (Raj.)
 CONTENTS
Introduction
What is Nonlinear pushover analysis?
Methodology of pushover analysis
Application of pushover analysis
Performance levels in buildings
Target displacement and effect of drift in the structure
Formation of hinges
Case Study
Summary
 INTRODUCTION

The Word seism means Earthquake, The study of earthquake

is called as Seismology. Which includes the study of seismic
waves, its origin, recording and analyzing.

Earthquakes are caused commonly by the rupture of geological

faults, volcanic activity, mine blast, nuclear test and landslides.

Effects of seismic damages in Rc buildings :

1.Vertical Irregularities
2.Horizontal Irregularities
1) Vertical Irregularity
a) Irregularity in strength and stiffness
b) Vertical Discontinuity
c) Mass Irregularity
d) Vertical Geometrical irregularity

2) Horizontal Irregularity
a) Torsion Irregularity
b) Re-Entrant Irregularity
c) Non-parallel System
d) Diaphragm Discontinuity
 Vertical irregularity

Weak Storey when

F1<O.8 F1+1

Irregularity in strength and Vertical Discontinuity

Stiffness
 When L2>1.5 L ,

Vertical Geometry Mass irregularity

 Horizontal Irregularity

Torsion Irregularity Non-Parallel system

Re-entrant corners Diaphragm Discontinuity

Seismic Region in India IS 1893 Part-1 : 2002
 Table 2 Zone Factor, Z
(Clouse 6.4.2,IS 1893 Part-1 :2002)
Seismic Zone II III IV V
Seismic Intensity Low Moderate Severe Very Severe
Z 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36

About 60% of land area of our country is susceptible to

damaging levels of seismic hazards. We cant avoid future
earthquake, but preparedness and safe building construction
practices can certainly reduce the damages and loss.

By conducting the Pushover analysis ,we can know the weak

zones in the structures and the we will decide whether the
particular part is to be retrofitted or rehabilitated according to
the requirement.
 NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Non linear Pushover analysis is technique in which the structure
is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral forces with an
invariant height-wise distribution until a target displacement is
reached (Maske et al., 2014).

The intensity of the lateral load is slowly increased and the

sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic hinge formation, and failure
of various structural components is recorded (Dhadve et al.,2014).

The method provides non linear behavior, information of

strength, deformation and ductility of the structure and also
determine seismic assessment parameters such as capacity,
demand and performance level (Raut and Prasad, 2014).
 METHODOLOGY
The methodologies available so far for the evaluation of existing
buildings can be divided into two categories-
(i) Qualitative method (ii) Analytical method.

The qualitative methods for evaluation are based on the

background data of the building and its construction site available,
few documents like drawings, visual inspection report, past
performance of the analogous buildings under seismic activities,
and certain non-destructive test results. The analytical methods for
evaluation are centered on the consideration of the ductility and
capacity of buildings (Agarwal, 2012).
 Static Analysis Dynamic analysis
(i) Linear-Seismic Coefficient Method (i) Linear- Response Spectrum method
(ii)Nonlinear Push over analysis (ii)Nonlinear-Time History Method

Basic Strategy of Earthquake Design & Capacity-Demand curve

(Khan and Vyawahare, 2013)
 APLICATIONS (Phyo et al., 2014).
Identification of the critical regions in which the deformation
demands are expected to be high and that have to become the
focus of thorough detailing for strength or stiffness
discontinuities.

To investigate the sequential formation of plastic hinges in the

individual structural elements constituting the entire structure.

Identification of strength discontinuities in plan or elevation.

To assess the structural performance of existing or retrofitted

buildings.
 PERFORMANCE LEVELS OF STRUCTURE
Operational level
Immediate Occupancy level
Live Safety level
Collapse Prevention level
Damage level

Performance levels of structure (Kalibhat et al., 2014)

1. Operational level: Following facts can occur in the structure ;
Negligible structural and nonstructural damage
Occupants are safe during event
Utilities are available
Facility is available for immediate re-use
Losses less than 5% of replacement value

2. Immediate Occupancy level: Following facts can occur in the structure

Negligible structural damage
Occupants are safe during event
Minor nonstructural damage
Building is safe to occupy but may not function
Limited interruption of operations
Losses less than 15%
3. Live Safety level :
In this level, the following fact can occur in the structure;
Significant structural damage
Some injuries may occur
Extensive nonstructural damage
Building not safe for re-occupancy until repaired
Losses less than 30%

4. Collapse Prevention level :

In this level, the following fact can occur in the structure;
Extensive (near complete) structural and nonstructural damage
Significant potential for injury but not wide scale loss of life
Repair may not be practical
Losses greater than 30%
 TARGET DISPLACEMENT
The target displacement serves as an estimate of the global
displacement of the structure is expected to experience in a design
earthquake.

It is the roof displacement at the center of mass of the structure.

The target displacement, t is determined using the equation given

below:

t = C0 C1 C2 C3 Sa [Te2 / 22] g
Where
Te = Ti (Ki/Ke)

C0 is modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF

system to roof displacement of the building MDOF system.
C1 is modification factor to relate expected inelastic displacements to
displacements for linear elastic response.

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

stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement
response.

C3 is modification factor to increased displacements due to P- effects.

Sa is response spectrum acceleration at the effective fundamental period and

damping ratio.

Te is effective fundamental period of building in the direction under

consideration
a) Storey Drift (IS 1893:2002, 2002)
It is the displacement of one level relative to the other Level above
or below.

The storey drift in any storey due to the minimum specified design
lateral force, with partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed 0.004
times the storey height.

For the purposes of displacement requirements only for deformation

compatibility of non-seismic members and separation between
adjacent units, two adjacent buildings or two adjacent units of the
same building with separation joint in between shall be separated by
a distance equal to the amount R times of the calculated storey
displacement as per the storey drift limitations.
b) Effect of storey drift (Mahesh and Rao, 2014)
In terms of the lateral force resisting system, when the lateral
forces are placed on the structure, the structure responds and
moves due to those forces.

there is a relationship between the lateral force resisting system

and its movement under lateral loads; this relationship can be
analyzed by hand or by computer.

Without proper consideration of the expected movement of the

structure, the lateral force resisting system might experience
premature failure and a corresponding loss of strength.

In addition, if the lateral deflections of any structure become too

large, P- effects can cause instability of the structure .
 PLASTIC HINGE FORMATION
Researches show that the possibility of hinge formation is maximum
at beam and column end zones during an earthquake.

If the gravity loads are large, hinges may form near the mid span in
beams. In such cases, cyclic loads increase the rotation of hinges
progressively, causing the beam to sag.

Column hinges have both axial and bending deformations, the

demand/capacity ratio is usually calculated from bending
deformation only, not including axial deformations. However,
rotation capacity of a hinge can depend on P and V because the
bending ductility is smaller.

Nonlinear static pushover analysis requires the development of the

force - deformation curve for the critical sections of beams, columns.
Hinge pattern at yielding Hinge pattern at ultimate State
 CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDIY 1 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF R.C. FRAMES
WITH VERTICAL STIFFNESS IRREGULARITY FROM PUSHOVER
ANALYSIS (Kalibhat et al., 2014)
In the present Case, six Models of 4-Bay, 4-storey 2-D RC frames have
been considered and analysis has been done on ETABS software.
Structure type Special Moment Resisting Frame
Number of stories Four
Typical storey height` 3.5m
Beam size 0.2 m x 0.6 m
Column size 0.2 m x 0.45 m
Imposed Load 20kN/m
Seismic zone III & V
Importance factor I 1.0
Soil type Medium stiff (Type II)
Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
Model-4 Model-5 Model-6
 Results and Discussion
a) Number and status of plastic hinges
Type of E IO LS CP
Models
No. % Total No. % Total No. % Total No. % Total
No. of Hinges

Model 1 72 43 59.72 5 6.94 11 15.27 13 18.05

Model 2 60 36 60 4 6.67 14 23.33 6 10
Model 3 56 33 58.92 4 7.14 17 30.35 2 3.57
Model 4 54 30 55.55 12 22.22 12 22.221 0 0
Model 5 52 30 57.7 12 23.07 10 19.23 0 0
Model 6 48 28 58.3 9 18.75 11 22.91 0 0
 b) Base Shear (V) and Roof Displacement (D) at Performance
point
Performance Point Seismic Zone V

Type of Model Model 1 Mode 2 Model 3 Model 4 Mode5 Model 6

V 301 288 248 253 223 224

D 0.095 0.088 0.084 0.086 0.082 0.074

Performance Level LS IO IO IO IO IO

In this study, it can be observed that the severity of plastic hinges

depends on vertical irregularity. Thus This indicates that the
asymmetry in elevation of the building increases the severity of
lateral forces on the buildings.
 It is seen that as the irregularity in the structure increases the lateral
load carrying capacity of the structure decreases.

Vulnerability of the structure depends on the Zone in which structure

is located. Therefore utmost care should be taken while designing
irregular structure in high earthquake prone regions.

Pushover curves for the six frame models

CASE STUDIY 2 EFFECTS OF BUILDING CONFIGURATION
ON SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF RC BUILDINGS BY
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS(Alashker et al., 2015)
In more slendrical buildings, the horizontal movement of the
floors increases significantly which may lead to increment in drift
and overturning effects of the earthquake.

In this study, four buildings have been analyzed with different

plans of aspect ratio of 1, 1.5, 2 and 4 having the same area.

The results are compared in terms of base shear, displacement and

plastic hinge pattern to evaluate the effects of different plan aspect
ratio on the performance level of buildings.
 The study shows that hinges have developed in the beams and
columns showing the three stages IO (immediate occupancy), LS
(life safety) and CP (collapse prevention).

Lateral displacement of diaphragm

 The building is analyzed as per seismic provisions provided by
UBC-1997 and SAP2000 finite element software is utilized for three
dimensional modeling and analyses of the buildings.
Structure Type Special Moment Resisting Frame
Aspect ratio 1 20x20
Aspect ratio 1.5 20x16
Aspect ratio 2 28.5x14
Aspect ratio 4 40x10
Total DL 7.5 Kn/m2
Total LL 4 Kn/m2
Importance factor I 1.0
Column & Beam 0.5mx.3m
Z 0.3
 Results and Discussion
a) Base Shear versus Top Displacement
All four buildings were analyzed in both X and Y directions for static
nonlinear (pushover) analysis using SAP2000.The Base shear versus
displacement graphs have been plotted and compared for all models.

Base Shear versus Top Displacement (Alashker et al., 2015)

b) Yielding (Plastic Hinge) Pattern of the Structure
Plastic hinge formation starts with the yielding of structural
members of lower stories and then propagates to upper stories with
yielding of intermediate columns.

Yielding pattern of the structure (Alashker et al., 2015)

 Plastic hinges formed due to yielding of members, at different
level of performance in X and Y directions. Also the analysis
results showed the limited damage in four buildings due to
yielding occurred at events B, IO and LS respectively

Number of plastic hinges from A to B (Alashker et al., 2015)

Number of plastic hinges from B to IO (Alashker et al., 2015)
 CONCLUSION

a) The building with plan aspect ratio 1.5 shows the least base shear
in both directions, thereafter base shear significantly increases with
increase in plan aspect ratio.
b) Inter-storey drift increases with Plan aspect ratio as in case 3 and
case 4.
c) By increasing plan aspect ratio, the total number of hinges formed
at different performance levels also increases, which may lead to
building deficiency of resisting seismic loads.
Total number of Plastic hinges from in X & Y directions(Alashker et al., 2015)
CASE STUDY 3 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF ONE WAY SLOPE RC
FRAME BUILDING WITH SOFT STOREY (Prashant and Kori, 2013)
The multistoried buildings with open ground floors collapsed due to
lesser strength and stiffness of ground storey as compared to upper
stories and also buildings constructed on hill slopes are collapsed due to
the irregularity.

Such buildings without conforming to seismic codal provisions have

proved unsafe and, resulted in loss of life and property when subjected to
earthquake ground motions.

In this study, RC framed 10 storeys, one way sloped (27 with the
ground) building of plan dimension 35m35m with a floor to floor
height of 3.5m
 Model 01: Building modeled as bare frame ignoring the stiffness
contribution of walls. However, masses of the walls are as in model
02 are included.

Model 02:02 Building has one full brick infill masonry walls (230mm)
in all the storey.

Model 03: Building has half brick infill masonry walls (115mm) in
all the storey.

Model 04: Building has no walls up to one storey height from the
ground and one full brick infill masonry walls (230mm) in the upper
storey.
 Model 05: Building has no walls up to one storey height from the
ground and half brick infill masonry walls (115mm) in the upper
storeys.

Model 06: Building has no walls up to one storey height from the
ground except at the corners and one full brick infill masonry walls
(230mm) at the corners and in the upper storeys.

Model 07: Building has no walls up to one storey height from the
ground except at the corners and one full brick infill masonry walls
(115mm) at the corners and in the upper storeys.
Model 01(Bare frame) Model 02 & 03
(Soft ground storey)
Model 04 & 05 (Full infill) Model 06 & 07 (Soft ground
storey except corners)
 The buildings of G+9 storeys analyzed on ETABS and designed for
gravity loads only are evaluated for seismic load combination as per
IS: 1893-2002 i.e.,1.2(DL+LL+EQ).
Building frame system SMRF
Storey height 3.50m
Seismic zone Zone Type-III
Grade of concrete M25
Grade of steel Fe415
All Beam size 0.25mx0.5m
All Column size 0.55mx0.55m
DL 6.75 kN/m2
LL 3 kN/m2
Results and Discussion
a)Time Period
The time period of Model 1 is 136.89%, 118.25%, 109.74%, 96.09%,
134.05%, and 112.62% more than that of Model 2, Model 3, Model 4,
Model 5, Model 6 and Model 7 respectively.
Results and Discussion
b) Base Shear
The base shear of Model 1 is less when it is compared to remaining
models .The base shear of the infilled models increases with the increase
in stiffness of the building models
Results and Discussion
Hinge Status
Model Displacement Base force A B IO LS CP C D
In mm kN to to to to to to to >E Total
B IO LS CP C D E

Model1 352.8 6289.029 1142 86 104 238 0 1 7 2 1580

Model2 117.6 29034.46 1533 170 21 12 0 1 2 1 1740
Model3 126.7 23179.21 1527 183 18 8 0 1 1 2 1740

Model4 106.8 23624.76 1559 118 28 13 0 1 0 1 1720

Model5 119.8 20780.03 1492 191 19 16 0 1 0 1 1720
Model6 112.8 26350.14 1548 132 23 14 0 1 1 1 1720
Model7 115.1 21354.24 1530 162 16 10 0 1 0 1 1720
 Results and Discussion
Hinge Status at Target Displacement
MODELS DISPLACEMENT IN MM HINGE STATUS
Model1 203 >E
Model2 102 D to E
Model3 108 D to E
Model4 107 >E
Model5 120 >E
Model6 103 D To E
Model7 112 D to E
The plastic hinges are more in case of bare frame model. The
plastic hinges are more in the soft storey building when it is
compared with full infill or corner infill models. This is because
of lack of stiffness in the ground storey of the building.
CONCLUSIONS

a) The time period of soft story model is 10.13% more than fully
infill building and also base shear decreases 22.9% than that of
fully infill building.
b) The lateral displacements of the soft storey shows the abrupt
change in the displacement profile at storey 1, which indicates the
stiffness irregularity due to soft storey mechanism .
c) From analysis, it is found that time period for bare frame model is
almost 90 to 135 percent more, when compared to other models.
 SUMMARY
Static pushover analysis is an attempt by the structural engineers to
evaluate the real strength of the structure. This method of analysis
promises to be a useful and effective tool for performance levels of the
structure. Residential buildings with different plan aspect ratio have
been analyzed by this method and results have been compared in terms
of base shear, displacement and, plastic hinge pattern.

The main output of a pushover analysis is in terms of response demand

versus capacity. If the demand curve intersects the capacity envelope
near the elastic range, then the structure has a good resistance. If the
demand curve intersects the capacity curve with little reserve of strength
and deformation capacity, then it can be concluded that the structure
will behave poorly during the imposed seismic excitation and need to be
retrofitted to avoid future major damage or collapse.
 REFERENCES
Akbari, R. and Maheri, R. 2013.Analytical investigation of response
modification (behaviour) factor, r, for reinforced concrete frames
rehabilitated by steel chevron bracing, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering 9(6): 507515.
Alashker, Y. Nazar, S. and Ismaiel M. 2015. Effects of building configuration
on seismic performance of rc buildings by pushover analysis, Open Journal
of Civil Engineering 5(1): 203-213.
Dhadve, P., Rao, A. Rupanvar, A. Deokate K. Admile P.R. and Nemade P. D.
2015, Assessment of p-delta effect on high rise buildings, International
Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and
Communication 3(5): 3231-3236.
Kadid, A. and Boumrkik, A. 2008. Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete
frame structures, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and
Housing) 9(1):75-83.
BIS, IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002.Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures
part-1 general provisions and buildings, Fifth revision, Bureau of Indian
Standard.
Dhadve, P., Rao, A. Rupanvar, A. Deokate K. Admile P.R. and Nemade P. D.
2015, Assessment of p-delta effect on high rise buildings, International
Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication
3(5): 3231-3236.