10th National Conference on Technological Trends (NCTT09) 6-7 Nov 2009

Effect of Lateral Load Patterns in Pushover Analysis

Abhilash R. M.Tech Student College of Engineering Thiruvananthapuram priyadarsini4u@gmail.com Biju V. Lecturer College of Engineering Thiruvananthapuram biju_vasudevan@yahoo.com Rahul Leslie Asst. Director DRIQ Board Kerala PWD Thiruvananthapuram rahul.leslie@gmail.com

Abstract- Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the structural loading is incrementally increased in accordance with a certain predefined pattern. With the increase in the magnitude of the loading, weak links and failure modes of the structure are found. Static pushover analysis is an attempt by the structural engineering profession to evaluate the real strength of the structure and it promises to be a useful and effective tool for performance based design. The performance point of the structure depends on the lateral load pattern applied on the structure. Commonly applied load patterns are inverted triangle and uniformly distributed. Then guidelines like FEMA257 & 356 provide guidelines for lateral loads and doing pushover analysis. Here pushover analysis is done a typical RCC structure by applying different lateral load patterns using ETABS and SAP2000. The lateral load patterns used here are uniform load distribution and equivalent lateral force distribution as per FEMA-257, lateral loads from response spectrum analysis as per IS-1893(2002) and the lateral load pattern as per Upper-Bound Pushover analysis method. Keywords: Earthquake Engineering, Performance based design, nonlinear static analysis, Pushover analysis, Structural dynamics.

The performance criteria for pushover analysis are generally established as the desired state of the building, given roof- top displacement amplitude. The non-linear static analysis is then revisited to determine member forces and deformations at target displacement or performance point. This analysis provides data on the strength and ductility of the structure which otherwise cannot be predicted. Base shear versus top displacement curve of the structure, called pushover curves, are essential outcomes of pushover analysis. These curves are useful in ascertaining whether a structure is capable of sustaining certain level of seismic load. This method is considered as a step forward from the use of linear analysis, because they are based on a more accurate estimate of the distributed yielding within a structure, rather than an assumed, uniform ductility. The generation of the pushover curve also provides the nonlinear behaviour of the structure under lateral load. However, it is important to remember that pushover methods have no rigorous theoretical basis, and may be inaccurate if the assumed load distribution is incorrect. For example, the use of a load pattern based on the fundamental mode shape may be inaccurate if higher modes are significant, and the use of any fixed load pattern may be unrealistic if yielding is not uniformly distributed, so that the stiffness profile changes as the structure yields. Here lateral load pattern recommended by FEMA-273, Upper bound pushover analysis and the lateral load obtained by dynamic analysis based on response spectra in IS-1893(2002) are used. Pushover analysis is done on a regular single bay four storied RCC structure using SAP2000 and ETABS. Four load patterns are applied and the variations in performance point are checked. II. PERFORMANCE LEVELS Seismic performance of a structure is described by designating the maximum allowable damage state for an identified seismic hazard. ATC-40 describes standard performance levels for structural and non structural systems and several commonly used combinations of structural and nonstructural levels as (a) Operational, (b) Immediate occupancy, (c) Damage control, (d) Life safety, (e) Structural stability and (f) Not considered

I. INTRODUCTION Analysis methods are broadly classified as linear static, linear dynamic, nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analysis. In these the first two is suitable only when the structural loads are small and at no point the load will reach to collapse load. During earthquake loads the structural loading will reach to collapse load and the material stresses will be above yield stresses. So in this case material nonlinearity and geometrical nonlinearity should be incorporated into the analysis to get better results. Non Linear Static analysis or Push-over 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, triangular or uniform). The intensity of the lateral load is slowly increased and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic hinge formations, and failure of various structural components is recorded. In the structural design process a series of iterations are usually required during which, the structural deficiencies observed in iteration is rectified and followed by another. This iterative analysis and design procedure continues until the design satisfies pre-established performance criteria.

College of Engineering Trivandrum

138

The performance level of a building is determined based up on its function and importance. Structures like hospital buildings, telecommunication centers, transportation facilities etc. are expected to have a performance level of operational or immediate occupancy for an identified seismic hazard that can occur for the structure. Meanwhile a residential building must have a performance level of damage control or life safety. Temporary structures or unimportant buildings or structures came under the performance level of structural stability or sometimes are not considered. The force deformation relationship as well as the performance levels of a structure as well as a structural element is given in fig 1.

Fig 3. General Layout of Floor Beams & Columns

Fig.1. Force-Deformation relationship of a typical plastic hinge (FEMA 356)

III. DETAILS OF THE STRUCTURE. Structure used for analysis is a four storied RCC structure with single bay 5m x 5m dimension. The structure is the part of an existing structure. Height of the storey is 4m. The section details are given in table1 and 3. The structure is first modeled in ETABS and the dynamic properties of the structure is calculated and based on that the different lateral loads are calculated and the structure is then modeled in SAP2000 and is then analyzed by applying the different lateral loads.
Fig 4. Analysis Model (ETABS). TABLE 1. Structural Beams Details. Width Ast(mm2) (mm) 230 653.43 230 1031.49 230 1232.45 230 1031.49 230 992.24 230 603.186 230 1031.49 230 678.54

Name BF204 BF205 BF223 BF225 BR6 BR7 BR20 BR21

Depth (mm) 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 600 1000 1000

Asc(mm2) 473.8544 1053.185 1053.185 786.256 786.256 402.124 786.256 786.256

Modal Properties Period (sec) Participation factor Modal mass factor Mode Shape Amplitude

Fig 2. General Layout of Roof Beams & Columns.

TABLE 2. Dynamic Properties of the Structure. Mode 1 2 0.297076 0.262477 229.906679 150.62003 55.936 24.0079 roof 1 -1 3rd floor 0.8049 0.1 2nd floor 0.5122 0.8333 st 1 floor 0.2195 0.6333

College of Engineering Trivandrum

139

Mode Shape
1.5 Modal Displaecments 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Storey Mode 1 Mode2 1 2 3 4

Of these the first two load patterns are taken for the analysis. Details of the load distribution are given in the tables. The uniform distribution can be calculated by the equation Fi = mi /mj Were mi is the storey mass And the equivalent lateral force can be calculated as Fi = (mi hki)/((mj hkj). where k = 1.0 = 2.0 T 0.5s 2.5 T

Name CL15,CL19

Fig 5. Normalized Mode Shape of the Structure. TABLE 3. Structural Column Details. Positio Depth Width Reinforcem n (mm) (mm) ent details 400 12# - 28mm Ground 900 to 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor Ground to 2nd floor 3rd & 4th floor 700 400 4# - 25mm 6# - 20mm 8# - 20mm

CL15,CL19

CL15,CL19

700

300

CL16,CL20

900

350

12# - 25mm

Stirrup details 10mm at 100mm c/c 10mm at 100mm c/c 10mm at 100mm c/c 10mm at 100mm c/c

TABLE 4. Uniform distribution as per FEMA-273 Lateral force Storey Mass (kN) distribution 1st floor 17263.69 0.183 2nd floor 0.260 24530.53 3rd floor 0.275 25942.84 4th floor 0.283 26758.62 TABLE 5. Equivalent Lateral Force distribution as per FEMA-273 Lateral force Mass (kN) Height (m) distribution 17263.69 4 0.0687 0.1953 24530.53 8 0.3098 25942.84 12 0.4261 26758.62 16

Storey 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor

B. IS-1893(2002) Response Spectrum Load For the linear static analysis of structures IS1893(2002) recommends two methods; the seismic coefficient method and the response spectrum method. Here the response spectrum analysis of the structure is done and the lateral load distribution on the structure is obtained. This load is applied as a lateral load pattern in pushover analysis.
TABLE 6. Lateral Load Distribution as per IS-1893(2002) Storey Lateral force distribution (N) 4th floor 16227.66 3rd floor 13088.25 2nd floor 6101.95 1st floor 1459.16

CL16,CL20

900

350

10# -20mm

IV. LOAD PATTERNS To perform a pushover analysis a load pattern which is equivalent to the earthquake load is required. This load is applied laterally to the structure by increment. There are several guidelines and methods available to perform pushover analysis; in these different types of lateral load patterns are also recommended. Here load patterns recommended in FEMA256, loads obtained from dynamic analysis as per IS1893(2002) and load as per Upper Bound Pushover analysis are take. A. Fema-273 Lateral Load Distribution. The FEMA-273 document (Building Seismic Safety Council; 1997) recommends pushover analysis procedures by applying a lateral load pattern which is a uniform distribution over height but gradually increasing values until a target roof displacement is obtained. Specified in FEMA-273 are three lateral load distributions: 1. Uniform distribution. 2. Equivalent Lateral force distribution. 3. SRSS distribution.

C. Upper Bound Pushover Lateral Load Distribution. The upper-bound pushover analysis (UBPA) proposed by Jan et al. is based on utilizing a singe load vector obtained as the combination of the first mode shape and a factored second mode shape. The spectral displacements (Dn) corresponding to elastic first and second mode periods are estimated from the elastic spectrum of the considered ground motion and the upper-bound contribution of the second mode is established using modal participation factors (n). (q2/q1) = |(2D2)/( 1D1)|. The invariant load vector (F) is then computed as the combination of first and second mode shapes:

College of Engineering Trivandrum

140

F = 12m 1 + 22m 2(q2/q1). Were n is the normalized modal displacements.

TABLE 7. Lateral Load Distribution as per UBPA Storey Lateral force distribution 4th floor 152410 3rd floor 173710 2nd floor 116900 1st floor 54150

In figure 6 curve A is obtained for uniform distribution as per FEMA-273, curve B is obtained for equivalent lateral force as per FEMA-273, curve C is for load pattern as per IS 1893 and curve D is UBPA loading. The base shear displacement details for each loading is noted and the loading as well as hinge stages are noted for each analysis.
TABLE 8. Performance points obtained Performance point Base Displacement Effective Shear (mm) Time period (kN) 697.968 643.083 29 33 0.313 0.338

Loading Pattern Uniform loading (FEMA-273) Equivalent Lateral loading (FEMA-273) IS-1893 (2002) UBPA

Loading Uniform loading (FEMA) Equivalent Lateral (FEMA) IS-1893 (2002) UBPA

630.678 34 0.345 671.959 30 0.326 TABLE 9. Hinge details until performance point Hinge performance stage Step LSA-B B-IO IO-LS CP 2 57 15 0 0

Fig 6. Lateral Load Patterns

V. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The Structure is first modeled in ETABS and static as dynamic analysis is done. Then the dynamic behavior of the structure such as modal participation factor, mass participation factors are obtained. From static analysis the member forces, centre of mass of each floors are obtained which is required for modeling the structure for pushover analysis. Then the structure is modeled in SAP2000 and the material nonlinearities are assigned as hinges; M3 flexural hinges for beams and PMM flexural hinges for columns. Then each lateral load pattern is applied. The pushover curves, ie the load versus displacement curve are obtained which is given in fig 7.

2 2 2

56 56 57

13 11 14

3 5 1

0 0 0

VI. CONCLUSIONS From the study the following conclusions can be drawn For all the four type loadings the performance points are very close. Performance is very close for Uniform loading from FEMA and IS-1893 loading. Similarly Equivalent Lateral loading (FEMA) and UBPA loading performance appears to be same. This is due to the close similarity between the load patterns. Different loading pattern shows only slight change in performance point in regular building. The case may vary for irregular buildings. To select the exact loading, performance of buildings in different configuration have to be studied and should be compared with Non-linear Time history analysis. REFERENCES

Fig 7. Pushover curves obtained

[1]. Applied Technology Council, ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings, vols. 1 & 2. California; 1996. [2]. FEMA-356, (2000). Prestandards and commentary for Seismic rehabilitation of

College of Engineering Trivandrum

141

[3]. Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K. (2001). A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic Demands for Buildings: Theory and Preliminary Evaluation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report, pp.1-87. [4]. Jan, T.S., Liu, M.W., and Kao, Y.C. (2004). An upper-bound pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands of high-rise buildings. J. Engineering Structures,Vol-26, pp.11728. [5]. Paz, M. (1979). Structural Dynamics- Theory and Computation. .pp.1-560.

[6]. IS 1893-2002, Indian standard code of criteria for design of earthquake resistant structures. [7]. Fajfar, P. (2000). A Nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. J. Earthquake Spectra, Vol-16, No.3, pp.573-592. [8]. Kalkan, E., and Kunnath, S.K. (2007).

Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings. J. Engineering Structures, Vol29, pp. 305-316.

College of Engineering Trivandrum

142