Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
R.C.C. BUILDINGS
SUBMITTED BY
GUIDE BY
PROF. SUMANT B. PATEL
M.E Structure
A Thesis Submitted to
Gujarat Technological University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Master of Engineering
in Structural Engineering
JUNE,2011
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that research work embodied in this thesis entitled Performance
based analysis of new and existing R.C.C buildings, was carried out by Mr. Shah
Mrugesh Dilipkumar having Enrollment No. 090070720009 at Birla Vishvakarma
Mahavidhyalaya (Engineering College) (007), Vallabh Vidyanagar, for partial
fulfillment of M.E. Structure degree to be awarded by Gujarat Technological
University. This research work has been carried out under my supervision and is to
my satisfaction.
Date: 13/06/2011
Place: B.V.M Engg. College
_______________
___________________
Supervisor
Principal
Dr. F.S.Umrigar
Vallabh Vidhyanagar,
Vallabh Vidhyanagar,
II
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that research work embodied in this thesis entitled Performance
based analysis of new and existing R.C.C buildings was carried out by Mr. Shah
Mrugesh Dilipkumar having Enrollment No. 090070720009 at Birla Vishvakarma
Mahavidhyalaya (Engineering College) (007), Vallabh Vidyanagar, for partial
fulfillment of M.E. degree to be awarded by Gujarat Technological University. He has
complied to the comments given by the Mid Semester Thesis Reviewer to my
satisfaction.
Date: 13/06/2011
Place: B.V.M Engg. College
_______________
___________________
Mrugesh D. Shah
Supervisor
(090070720009)
__________________
__________________
Mrugesh D. Shah
Supervisor
(090070720009)
THESIS APPROVAL
This is to certify that work embodied in this work entitled Performance based
analysis of new and existing R.C.C buildings was carried out by Mr. Shah
Mrugesh Dilipkumar having Enrollment No. 090070720009 at Birla Vishvakarma
Mahavidhyalaya (Engineering College) (007), Vallabh Vidyanagar, is approved for
award of the degree of M.E. Structure by Gujarat Technological University.
Date: / /2011
Place: B.V.M Engg. College
Examiner(s) :
____________________
_____________________
___________________
IV
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby certify that I am the sole author of this thesis and that neither any part
of this thesis nor the whole of the thesis has been submitted for a degree to any other
University or Institution.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, my thesis does not infringe upon
anyones copyright nor violate any proprietary rights and that any ideas, techniques,
quotations, or any other material from the work of other people included in my thesis,
published or otherwise, are fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard
referencing practices.
I declare that this is a true copy of my thesis, including any final revisions, as
approved by my thesis review committee.
Date: 13/06/2011
Place: B.V.M Engg. College
_______________
Mrugesh D. Shah
Enrolment No. 090007072009
Verified by:
_______________
Supervisor
Prof. Sumant B. patel
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my deep sense of gratitude and sincere thanks to my guide Prof. S. B. Patel,
Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidhyalaya
(Engineering College), Vallabh Vidhyanagar. I express my hearty thanks to him who,
right from the conceptualization of the problem to the finishing stage of the Major
Project part molding my work. From the very beginning of the thesis, his valuable
discussions and continuous reviews and suggestions helped me a lot during this study.
Many others helped me directly and indirectly, I also convey my thanks to them.
Mrugesh D. Shah
(Enroll No: 090070720009)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
CERTIFICATE PAGE
II
COMPLITION CERTIFICATE
III
III
THESIS APPROVAL
IV
ACKNOLEDGMENTS
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VII
LIST OF FIGURES
XII
LIST OF TABLES
XVIII
ABSTRACT
XX
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.2 Background
2.1 General
2.2 Nonlinearity
13
15
19
3.1 General
19
19
3.2.1 Introduction
19
VII
20
20
3.2.4 Consideration
21
23
24
24
25
26
28
29
30
30
31
32
33
33
35
35
46
47
48
48
54
60
60
63
63
4.3 Example
63
63
64
65
VIII
69
ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
69
69
72
74
74
75
77
79
83
CONFIGURATION
6.1 Introduction
83
6.2 List of Models of bare frame, infill as membrane, and infill as strut
83
84
85
6.3.2 G+4 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall with GF as soft story
86
6.3.3 G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft story
87
6.3.4 G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut without soft story
88
89
89
6.3.7 G+4 model 33 bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft story
89
89
89
89
6.3.11 G+4 model 22 bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft
89
story
89
89
90
IX
90
6.3.15 G+4 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall (Square Column)
90
6.3.16 G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut (Square Column)
91
91
92
6.4.2 G+10 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall with GF as soft story
92
6.4.3 G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft story
92
93
93
93
6.4.7 G+10 model 33 bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft
93
story
93
93
94
6.4.11 G+10 model 22 bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft
94
story
94
94
94
95
6.4.15 G+10 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall ( Square Column)
95
6.4.16 G+10 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut (Square Column)
96
6.5 Static Linear, Dynamic and Response Spectrum Analysis and Design.
96
99
99
99
102
104
6.8.1.2 G+4 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall GF as soft story
105
6.8.1.3 G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut GF as soft story
107
109
111
112
X
113
6.8.2.2 G+10 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall GF as soft story
115
117
117
117
117
119
7.4.1 Yielding
119
129
131
8.1 Introduction
131
131
134
136
136
136
136
139
143
References
146
XI
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.
Description
Pg.
No
No
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Performance point
2.5
14
2.6
14
2.7
15
system
2.8
17
2.9
18
structure
3.1
Capacity curve
24
3.2
Capacity spectrum
26
3.3
27
3.4
27
3.5
28
3.6
28
3.7
Performance point
29
3.8
29
31
4.1
36
4.2
36
4.3
37
4.4
37
4.5
38
XII
4.6
38
4.7
39
4.8
39
4.9
CSISD form
40
4.10
40
4.11
41
4.12
41
4.13
42
4.14
42
4.15
42
4.16
43
4.17
44
4.18
44
4.19
45
4.20
45
4.21
46
4.22
47
4.23
48
4.24
49
4.25
50
4.25a
52
4.26
52
4.27
53
4.28
53
4.29
54
4.30
55
4.31
55
4.32
56
4.33
60
4.34
61
4.35
Capacity Spectrum
61
4.36
63
4.37
63
XIII
4.38
64
4.39
66
4.40
66
4.41
68
5.1
70
5.2
71
section
5.3
72
5.4
73
75
5.6
76
required
5.7
76
5.8
3D Frame of building
77
5.9
77
5.10
78
5.11
78
5.12
79
5.13
80
5.14
81
5.15
82
properties
5.16
85
properties
6.1
85
6.2
86
6.3
87
6.4
88
6.5
88
6.6
91
6.7
92
6.8
93
XIV
6.9
95
6.10
96
6.10a
97
6.10b
98
6.10c
98
6.11
99
6.12
100
6.13
101
6.14
Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve for G+4 with wall
102
(PUSH-2)
6.15
103
6.16
104
105
6.18
106
107
6.20
109
(PUSH-2)
6.21
111
6.22
112
(PUSH-2)
6.23
113
(PUSH-2)
6.24
113
(PUSH-2)
6.25
114
7.1
118
7.2
118
7.3
118
7.4
118
7.5
119
7.6
119
XV
7.7
Bare Frame(0%)
119
7.8
Infill Strut(50%)
119
7.9
119
7.10
121
121
122
direction for G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill (outer frame)
7.13
122
123
direction for G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill (outer frame)
7.15
123
124
direction for G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill (outer frame)
7.17
124
125
direction for G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill (outer frame)
7.19
125
126
direction for G+4 storied bldg. with 100% Infill (outer frame)
7.21
126
127
127
128
7.25
128
129
129
130
7.29
130
8.1
Column location
132
8.2
Beam location
133
8.3a
135
8.3b
135
8.4
135
8.5a
137
8.5b
137
8.6a
137
8.6b
137
8.7
139
performance point
8.8
139
performance point
8.9a
140
8.9b
140
8.10a
140
8.10b
140
8.11
142
point
8.11
XVII
142
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Description
Pg
No.
No
2.1
16
3.1
30
4.1
67
4.2
67
6.1
83
6.2
85
6.3
90
Column)
6.4
91
6.5
94
100
(PUSH-2)
6.7
103
6.8
104
6.9
106
6.10
107
6.11
110
(PUSH-2)
6.12
112
6.13
114
6.14
115
7.1
117
8.1
Column Schedule
131
8.2
Beam Schedule
132
8.3
137
strut in X-dirn.
XVIII
8.4
138
strut in Y-dirn.
8.5
141
in X-dirn.
8.6
XIX
141
ABSTRACT
Performance Based Seismic Engineering is the modern approach to
earthquake resistant design. It is an attempt to predict the buildings with predictable
seismic performance.
G+4 and G+10 story building model without infill has an overall performance
in Life Safety to Collapse Prevention.
G+4 and G+10 story building model with infill as membrane wall has an
overall performance in Immediate Occupancy level.
G+4 and G+10 story building model with infill as equivalent strut has an
overall performance in Collapse Prevention level.
XX
However, for building models with equivalent strut shown axial hinges
formation in strut because of brittle property assigned to strut members.
In case of building models without infills at GF, soft storey effect has been
seen remarkably.
XXI
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
The Buildings, which appeared to be strong enough, may crumble like houses
of cards during earthquake and deficiencies may be exposed. Experience gain from
the earthquake of Bhuj, 2001 demonstrates that the most of buildings collapsed were
found deficient to meet the requirements of the present day codes. In last decade, four
devastating earthquakes of world have been occurred in India, and low to mild
intensities earthquakes shake our land frequently. Due to wrong construction practices
and ignorance for earthquake resistant design of buildings in our country, most of the
existing buildings are vulnerable to future earthquakes.
In the simplest case, seismic design can be viewed as a two-step process. The
first, and usually most important one, is the conception of an effective structural
system that needs to be configured with due regard to all-important seismic
performance objectives, ranging from serviceability considerations to life safety and
collapse prevention. This step comprises the art of seismic engineering, since no rigid
rules can, or should, be imposed on the engineer's creativity to devise a system that
not only fulfills seismic performance objectives, but also pays tribute to functional
and economic constraints imposed by the owner, the architect, and other professionals
involved in the design and construction of a building. By default, this process of
creation is based on judgment, experience, and understanding of seismic behaviour,
rather than rigorous mathematical formulations. Rules of thumb for strength and
stiffness targets, based on the fundamental knowledge of ground motion and elastic
and inelastic dynamic response characteristics, should suffice to configure and
roughly size an effective structural system.
The second step of the design process should involve a demand/ capacity
evaluation at all important performance levels, which requires identification of
important capacity parameters and prescription of acceptable values of these
parameters, as well as the prediction of the demands imposed by ground motions.
Suitable capacity parameters and their acceptable values, as well as suitable methods
for demand prediction will depend on the performance level to be evaluated.
In light of these facts, it is imperative to seismically evaluate the existing
building with the present day knowledge to avoid the major destruction in the future
1.3
OBJECTIVE OF WORK
As mentioned above, each building needs to be accessed for its seismic
To study the influence of brick masonry (BM) infill walls and the structural
behaviour including yield patterns of RC framed buildings.
3.
firstly analysis of a new building which has to met specific performance level in
future earthquake and secondly, analysis and assessment of an existing building
performance level in future earthquake.
In view to fulfill the above outlined objective of work, following work was defined.
Selection of an appropriate structural layout for new as well as an existing
R.C.C. building.
Carryout Static Nonlinear Analysis (Pushover Analysis) for R.C.C. building.
Generate pushover curve (Base Shear-Roof Displacement) for R.C.C.
building.
Obtain Demand curve by converting Response Spectrum into ADRS
(Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum) format.
REPORT OUTLLINE
The contents of major project are divided in to various chapters as follows;
Chapter 1 summarized the introductory part. It also includes the objectives of
Performance:
Once, a capacity curve and demand displacement, are defined, a performance
check can be done. A performance check verifies that structural and nonstructural
components are not damaged beyond the acceptable limits of the performance
objective for the forces and displacements implied by the displacement demand.
of the infilled frame, and in determining the strength of the infilled frame. The
behavior of an infilled frame is dependent on the properties of frame and infill; hence,
the response of such frames should be based on overall frame to infill composite
action rather than on isolated bare frame behavior. The proposed analytical procedure
can be implemented in the normal course of design and uses readily available
computational tools.
As per Krawinkler and Senevirantnas (1998) [P4] opinion the push over
analysis could be implemented for all structures, but it should be completed with other
evaluation procedure if higher mode effects were judged to be important. No unique
criterion could be establish for the condition, since the importance of higher mode
effects depends on the number of stories as well as on the peak(s) and plateau(s) of
the design spectrum. Examples for additional evaluation procedures were, in order of
preference, inelastic dynamic analysis with a representative suit of ground motions
and elastic dynamic analysis using the unreduced design spectrum and suitable modal
combination procedure. The latter procedure would provide estimates of elastic
demand ratio that needed to be compared to acceptable values.
Ashraf Habibullah (1998)[P5] has presented the steps used in performing a
pushover analysis of a simple three-dimensional building. SAP2000, a state-of-the-art,
general purpose, three-dimensional structural analysis program, is used as a tool for
performing the pushover. The following steps are included in the pushover analysis.
Step 1 through 4 discuss creating the computer model, step 5 runs the analysis, and
steps 6 through 10 review the pushover analysis results.
1. Creating the basic computer model (without the pushover data) in the usual
manner.
2. Define properties and acceptance criteria for the pushover hinges. The program
includes several built-in default hinge properties that are based on average values
from ATC-40 for concrete members and average values from FEMA-273 for steel
members. These built in properties can be useful for preliminary analyses, but user
defined properties are recommended for final analyses.
3. Locate the pushover hinges on the model by selecting one or more frame members
and assigning them one or more hinge properties and hinge locations.
4. Define the pushover load cases. In SAP2000 more than one pushover load case can
be run in the same analysis. Also a pushover load case can start from the final
conditions of another pushover load case that was previously run in the same analysis.
Typically the first pushover load case is used to apply gravity load and then
subsequent lateral pushover load cases are specified to start from the final conditions
of the gravity pushover. Pushover load cases can be force controlled, that is, pushed to
a certain defined force level, or they can be displacement controlled, that is, pushed to
a specified displacement. Typically a gravity load pushover is force controlled and
lateral pushovers are displacement controlled. SAP2000 allows the distribution of
lateral force used in the pushover to be based on a uniform acceleration in a specified
direction, a specified mode shape, or a user-defined static load case.
5. Run the basic static analysis and, if desired, dynamic analysis. Then run the static
nonlinear pushover analysis.
6. Display the pushover curve and the table which gives the coordinates of each step
of the pushover curve and summarizes the number of hinges in each state(for
example, between IO and LS, or between D and E).
7. Review the pushover displaced shape and sequence of hinge formation on a stepby-step basis. Hinges appear when they yield and are color coded based on their state.
Paulo B. Loureno, Rita C. Alvarenga, Roberto M. Silva (2005)[P6] states
that masonry infills is an issue that has attracted the attention of several researchers in
the past, both from the experimental and analytical points of view. Nevertheless, the
results are often questionable due to the large variability of masonry properties, the
limited number of tests carried out and the large number of influencing factors. paper
addresses this limitation by using numerical analysis as a simulation of an
experimental laboratory, and by performing a sensitivity analysis about the influence
of the different influence factors. The modelling approach has been validated using
the experimental results of two masonry walls subjected to horizontal loading. The
parametric study subsequently carried out allowed to propose a strut-and-tie model
that provides a novel simplified expression for the failure of infill walls belonging to
frames subjected to horizontal loading. The contribution of masonry panels for
stiffness and strength of masonry infilled frames is significant. Nevertheless, their
favourable effect is usually not taken into account because masonry partitions walls
are assumed non-structural and reliable design tools are lacking. From the parametric
10
study, a simplified model able to represent the collapse of masonry infills was
proposed. The model is based on a decomposition of the usual diagonal strut in
multiple struts and one tie. The proposed expressions for diagonal cracking and corner
crushing are then compared with the parametric study and experimental results
available in the literature, showing good agreement. The proposed tool is therefore a
simple and useful approach for the design of masonry infilled panels.
Shuraim , A. Charif (2007)[P7] use the nonlinear static analytical procedure
(Pushover) as introduced by ATC-40 was applied for the evaluation of existing design
of a reinforced concrete frame, in order to examine the applicability of the pushover
for evaluating design of new buildings, order to examine the applicability of the
pushover for evaluating design of new buildings. Potential structural deficiencies in
the frame were assessed by the code seismic-resistant design and pushover
approaches, for the sake of comparison. In the first approach, the potential
deficiencies were determined by redesigning under one selected seismic combination
in order to show which members would require additional reinforcement. In the
second approach, a pushover analysis was conducted to assess the seismic
performance of the frame and detect the locations of the plastic hinges.
Conclusion In the first method the design was evaluated by redesigning under one
selected seismic combination in order to show which members would require
additional reinforcement. It was shown that most columns required significant
additional reinforcement, indicating their vulnerability if subjected to seismic forces.
On the other hand, the nonlinear pushover procedure shows that the frame is capable
of withstanding the presumed seismic force with some significant yielding at all
beams and one column. Vulnerability locations from the two procedures are
significantly different.
A. Kadid and A. Boumrkik (2008)[P8] have evaluated the performance of
framed buildings under future expected earthquake by conducting non linear static
pushover analysis. To achieve this objective, three framed buildings with 5,8 and 12
stories respectively were analyzed. The results obtain from the study show that
properly designed frames will perform well under seismic loads. Following were
some of the conclusions drawn from the analysis:
11
- The pushover analysis is a relatively simple way to explore the non linear behaviour
of buildings
- The behaviour of properly detailed reinforced concrete frame building is adequate as
indicated by the intersection of the demand and capacity curves and the distribution of
hinges in the beams and the columns. Most of the hinges developed in the beams and
few in the columns but with limited damage
- The causes of failure of reinforced concrete during the Boumerdes earthquake may
be attributed to the quality of the materials of the used and also to the fact that most of
buildings constructed in Algeria are of strong beam and weak column type and not to
the intrinsic behaviour of framed structures.
- The results obtained in terms of demand, capacity and plastic hinges gave an insight
into the real behaviour of structures.
V.G. Pereira1, R.C. Barros, M.T. Csar (2009)[P9] use three commercial
software packages (SAP 2000, Seismo Struck and MIDAS/CIVIL) universally used in
the design of civil engineering structures, are applied on a parametric study of
pushover analyses of a RC frame of an office building under a few evaluative phases.
In order to represent the influence of the masonry infill panels the equivalent tie
method is used. The pushover analyses were performed using three softwares, two
based on concentrated plastic hinges (SAP 2000 and MIDAS/CIVIL) and another
based on distributed hinges (Seismo Struck). Confronting the capacity curves
obtained by all of them, it was found that the final level of all the pushover curves
become close together as the parametric study progresses. There is greater stiffness in
the structure so that the top displacements are smaller. It was also observed that the
curves obtained by uniform and modal distribution are close enough comparing to the
triangular one.
12
According to ATC 40, the location of performance point must satisfy two
relationships:
1. The point must lie on the capacity spectrum curve in order to represent the structure
at a given displacement, and
2. The point must lie on a spectral demand curve, reduced from the elastic, 5 percent
damped design spectrum that represents the nonlinear demand at the same structural
displacement.
ATC 40 considers the determination of performance point, a trial and error
method that searches for satisfaction of the above two specified criteria.
There are three methods of obtaining performance point given in ATC-40.
They are: Procedure A, Procedure B, Procedure C
Procedure A is more transparent and most direct application of the
methodology. It is truly iterative, but is formula based and easily can be programmed
into a spreadsheet. It is more an analytical method than a graphical method. It is the
best method for beginners as it is most direct and easiest to understand.
Procedure B is also an analytical method but is simpler than Procedure A.
simplification is introduced in the bilinear modeling of the capacity curve that enables
a relatively direct solution for the performance point with little iteration. It assumes
that not only the initial slope of bilinear representation of capacity curve remains
constant, but also the post yield slope remains constant.
Procedure C is graphical method and is most convenient for hand analysis. It
is not particularly convenient for spreadsheet programming. It is the least transparent
application of the methodology.
Farzed Naeim (2001)[W1] gives some solution if the performance point
doesnt exist. There are three solutions.
Add Strength or Stiffness or both to the building: As shown in fig.2.5 one of the
reasons for not getting performance point is that the demand is more and capacity is
less. Adding strength or stiffness to the building raises the capacity of the building
and subsequently the capacity curve of the building which intersects the demand
curve.
13
14
15
Table 2.1 shows the Target Building Performance Levels and Ranges
16
17
18
demands, is a very useful tool in the evaluation and retrofit design of existing concrete
building. The graphical representation provides a clear picture of how a building
responds to earthquake ground motion, and it provides an immediate and clear picture
of how various retrofit strategies, such as adding stiffness or strength, will impact the
buildings response to earthquake.
3.2.2 Need for push over analysis
Conventionally, seismic assessment and design has relied on linear or
equivalent linear (with reduced stiffness) analysis of structural systems. In this
approach, simple models are used for various components of the structure, which is
subjected to seismic force evaluated from elastic or design spectra, and reduced by
force reduction factors. The resultant displacements are amplified to account for the
reduced applied forces. This procedure, though simple and easy to apply in the design
office environment, suffers from the following shortcomings:
1. The force reduction factors recommended in codes of practice are approximate and
do not necessarily represent the specific structure under consideration.
2. The mechanism that will most likely be responsible for collapse is unlikely to be
that represented by the elastic action and deformation distribution.
3. When critical zones of a structure enter into the inelastic range, the force and
deformation distribution change significantly. This change is not represented by a
global reduction of force.
4. The global and particularly the local distribution of deformations in the inelastic
range may represent no resemblance to those in the elastic range. The same applies to
the values of deformations, not just the distribution.
As a consequence of the above, the reduced force amplified deformation
linear elastic approach fails to fit within the principle of failure mode control. This in
turn has to lead to an increase in the use of inelastic analysis as a more realistic means
of assessing the deformation state in structures subjected to strong ground motion.
20
2. Pushover analysis is a static analysis and neglects inherent dynamic nature. During
an earthquake, the behavior of a nonlinearly yielding structure can be described by
balancing the dynamic equilibrium at every time step. By focusing only on the strain
energy of the structure during monotonic static push, the procedure can leave a
misleading impression that energy associated with the dynamic components of forces
(i.e. kinetic energy and viscous damping energy) are insignificant. The energy of a
structure under earthquake force is given by,
Ei = Ek + Es + Ev + Ed
Where,
Ei = earthquake input energy
Ek = Kinetic energy
Es = Static energy
Ev = Viscous damping energy
Ed = Controlled damping energy
3. Pushover analysis over simplifies the structure modeling. The procedure assumes
that it is possible to substructure a nonlinear three dimensional structure and
characterize its behavior by two parameters, base shear force and roof displacement.
4. Pushover fails to produce good correlation for earthquakes with predominantly
impulsive ground motions.
5. Pushover analysis procedure considers only the lateral earthquake loading and
ignores vertical component of earthquake loading.
6. Pushover analysis procedure implicitly assumes that the damage is a function of the
lateral deformation of the structure, neglecting duration effect, number of stress
reversals and cumulative energy dissipation demand. It is generally accepted that
damage of a structure is a function of deformation and energy.
7. Pushover analysis procedure does not take into account the progressive change in
the model properties that take place in a structure as it experience cyclic non-linear
yielding during an earthquake.
3.2.4 Consideration
As described previously, it is a technique by which a computer model is
subjected to lateral load of certain shape. The intensity of lateral load is increased and
the sequence of failure is recorded.
21
23
Eq.3.1
Eq.3.2
Eq.3.3
Eq.3.4
Where,
PF1 = modal participation factor for the first natural mode.
1= modal mass coefficient for the first natural mode.
Wi/g = mass assigned to level i.
i1= amplitude of node 1 at level i.
N = Level N, the level which is the uppermost in the main portion of the structure.
V = Base shear.
W = Building dead weight plus likely live load.
25
roof = roof displacement (V and the associated delta roof make up points on the
capacity curve).
Sa = spectral acceleration.
Sd = spectral displacement (Sa and the associated Sd make up point on the capacity
spectrum).
First calculate the modal participation factor PF1 and modal mass coefficient
using equations Eq.1.1 and Eq1.2. Then each point on the capacity curve (V, Delta
roof), calculate the associated point (Sa, Sd) on the capacity spectrum using Eq.3.1 and
Eq.3.4.
A typical capacity spectrum is as shown in fig.3.2.
26
27
Now,
Eq.3.6
CV = 2.5CA*TS
3.4.4 Demand spectrum
Sa =
Eq.3.7
28
29
Drift limit
Occupancy
control
safety
stability
0.01
0.01-0.02
0.02
0.33 Vi/Pi
0.005
0.005-0.015
No limit
No limit
Maximum total
drift
Maximum
inelastic drift
Structural
2. Identify and classify the different elements in the building. Any of the
following building type may be present: Beam-column frames, slab-column
frames, solid walls, coupled walls, performed walls, punched walls, floor
diaphragms and foundation.
3. Identify all primary and secondary components.
4. For each element type, identify critical component and action to be checked.
5. The strength and deformation demands at the structures performance point
should be equal to or less then the capacities considering all co-existing forces
acting with the demand spectrum.
6. The performances of secondary elements (such as gravity load carrying
member not part of lateral load resisting system)are reviewed for acceptability
for the specific performance level.
7. Non-structural elements are checked for specific performance level.
30
31
32
CHAPTER
SOFTWARE
IMPLEMENTATION
FOR
33
and assigning those structural properties to the respective structural elements. The
various steps involved in modeling are as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
2. Static analysis
Once the model is built, static analysis is performed after defining the various
loads and their combination.
3. Design
In RC frame section, properties of nonlinear hinges are mainly based on the
outcome of the design section. So, prior to pushover analysis it is necessary to do
design. Using appropriate code
34
Fig.4.2 Building Plan Grid System and Story Data Definition form
2. RC frame code selection
Select the Option menu > Preferences > Concrete frame design command
the form shown in fig.4.3 will displayed. Select the appropriate Design code.
36
37
38
39
40
41
By clicking the Draw menu > Draw Area Objects > Draw Rectangle Areas
command, the form shown in fig.4.16 Will be displayed.
43
44
before a load can assigned to the object. After the object has been selected, Click the
Assign menu > Shell/Area load > Uniform command as shown in fig.4.19, form
shown in fig.4.20 will be displayed.
45
46
For an example, Let us take Moment 3-3 as shown in Fig.4.22 for elevation of
building.
47
48
49
number. For each element, the program starts with hinge number 1 and increments the
hinge number by one for each consecutive hinge assigned to the frame element. For
example, the generated hinge property name F23H2 refers to the second hinge
assigned to frame element F23.
Plastic Deformation curve:
For each degree of freedom, one can define a force-displacement (momentrotation) curve that gives the yield value and the plastic deformation following yield.
This is done in terms of a curve with values at five point A-B-C-D-E, as shown in
fig.4.25. One may specify a symmetric curve, or one that differs in the positive and
negative direction.
50
wish the hinge to fall this way, be sure to specify large value for the deformation
at point E.
One may specify additional deformation measures at points IO (immediate
occupancy), LS (life safety), and CP (collapse prevention). These are informational
measures that are reported in the analysis results and used for performance-based
design. They do not have any effect on the behavior of the structure.
Prior to reaching point B, all-deformation is linear and occurs in the hinge in
the frame element itself, not the hinge. Plastic deformation beyond point B occurs in
the element. When the hinge unloads elastically, it does so without any plastic
deformation, i.e., parallel to slope A-B. Program it self calculate the yield value from
the frame section properties.
When you display the deflected shape in the graphical user interface for a non
linear static case, the hinge are plotted as colored dots indicating their most extreme
state:
B to IO
IO to LS
LS to CP
CP to C
C to D
D to E
E
The colors used for the different states are indicated on the plot. Hinges that
have not experienced any plastic deformation (A to B) are not shown.
Assign hinge properties:
To assign hinge properties, after selection the frame elements, click the Assign
menu > Frame/Line > Frame Nonlinear hinges. In Fig.4.25a and fig.4.26 default
hinge properties are selected for Beam and Column respectively.
51
52
53
54
55
located at the top of the structure. The default monitored degree of freedom is UX;
other available directions are UY, UZ,RX, RY, and RZ.
For the most meaningful pushover curve, it is important to choose a monitored
displacement that is sensitive to the applied load pattern. For example, one should not
typically monitor degree of freedom UX when the load is applied in direction UY.
The conjugate displacement is a weighted sum of all displacement degrees of
freedom in the structure: each displacement component is multiplied by the load
applied at that degree of freedom, and the results are summed. The conjugate
displacement is usually the most sensitive measure of displacement in the structure
under a given specified load.
When performing a displacement-controlled static nonlinear analysis, it is
usually recommended that you use the conjugate displacement unless a displacement
in the structure that monotonically increases during the analysis is identified.
Generally, two static nonlinear cases are defined, one for gravity load and
other for lateral load. Firstly the analysis is carried out by applying gravity load and
then the second analysis, using lateral load in load pattern, starts at the end of the
previous case. To start the current case from the end of previous case, Start from
Previous Case option is used.
The static nonlinear analysis can be controlled by specifying the Minimum
Saved Steps, Maximum Null Steps, Maximum Total Steps, Maximum Iteration Steps,
Iteration Tolerance and Event Tolerance.
Member Unloading Method:
Member unloading method is used to handle the hinges that drop load. When
hinge unloads, the load that hinge was carrying has to be removed and to be
distributed it to the rest of the structure. The software provides three different methods
to solve this problem of hinge unloading. Hinge unloading occurs whenever the
stress-strain (force-deformation or moment-rotation) curve shows a drop in capacity.
57
curve. Other parts of the structure may now pick up the load that was removed from
the unloading hinge. This method is the most efficient of the three methods available,
and is usually the first method to try. It generally works well if hinge unloading does
not require large reductions in the load applied to the structure. It will fail if two
hinges compete to unload, i.e., where one hinge requires the applied load to increase
while the other requires the load to decrease. In this case, the analysis will stop with
the message "UNABLE TO FIND A SOLUTION", in which case other two methods
should be used.
2. Apply Local Redistribution:
This method is similar to the first method, except that instead of unloading the
entire structure, only the element containing the hinge is unloaded. When a hinge is
on a negative-sloped portion of the stress-strain curve and the applied load causes the
strain to reverse, the program applies a temporary, localized, self-equilibrating,
internal load that unloads the element. This causes the hinge to unload. Once the
hinge is unloaded, the temporary load is reversed, transferring the removed load to
neighboring elements. This method will fail if two hinges in the same element
compete to unload, i.e., where one hinge requires the temporary load to increase while
the other requires the load to decrease. In this case, the analysis will stop with the
message "UNABLE TO FIND A SOLUTION".
3. Restart Using Secant Stiffness:
This method is quite different from the first two. Whenever any hinge reaches
a negative-sloped portion of the stress-strain curve, all hinges that have become
nonlinear are reformed using secant stiffness properties, and the analysis is restarted.
This method is similar to the approach suggested by the FEMA 273 guidelines, and
makes sense when performing pushover analysis where the static nonlinear analysis
represents cyclic loading of increasing amplitude rather than a monotonic static push.
Geometric Nonlinearity Effect:
Three options are available for considering geometric nonlinearity in the problem.
1. None:
All equilibrium equations are considered in the undeformed configuration of
the structure.
58
2. P-delta:
The equilibrium equations take into partial account the deformed
configuration of the structure. Tensile forces tend to resist the rotation of elements and
stiffen the structure, and compressive forces tend to enhance the rotation of elements
and destabilize the structure. This may require a moderate amount of iteration.
3. P-delta and Large Displacements:
All equilibrium equations are written in the deformed configuration of the
structure. This may require a large amount of iteration. The large displacement option
is used for cable structures undergoing significant deformation; and for buckling
analysis, particularly for snap-through buckling and post-buckling behavior.
For most other structures, the P-delta option is adequate, particularly when
material nonlinearity dominates.
Load Pattern:
The distribution of load applied on the structure for a given static nonlinear
case is defined as a scaled combination of one or more of the following:
Any static load case.
Uniform acceleration acting in any of the three global directions. The force at each
joint is proportional to the mass tributary to that joint and acts in the specified
direction.
A modal load for any eigen or Ritz mode. The force at each joint is proportional to
the product of the modal displacement, the modal circular frequency squared (w2),
and the mass tributary to that joint, and it acts in the direction of the modal
displacement.
The load combination for each static nonlinear case is incremental, i.e., it acts
in addition to the load already on the structure if starting from a previous static
nonlinear case.
Active Structure:
Active Structure option is required to set for Stage Construction. If the whole
structure is to be analyzed without stage construction, active structure is to be set to
only one stage ALL and the check labeled Loads Apply to Added Elements Only
should not be checked.
59
60
61
Checking show the family of demand spectra box in demand spectrum area overlays a
family of demand spectra on the capacity curve in ADRS format. The family of
curves can include up to four demand-spectra curves, each with a different effective
damping ratio, beff. By default, the software plots curves with beff = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15
and 0.2. The damping ratios for any of the four curves can be changed by editing the
value in one of the four Damping Ratios, beff edit boxes. The values input into the
beff edit boxes must be between 0 and 1, inclusively. A value of 0, or a blank edit
box, means to omit that demand spectrum curve.
Checking Show Single Demand Spectra (Variable Damping) displays the
demand spectra as single curve. The method of constructing single demand spectra is
similar to the Procedure B in ATC 40 except that the software does not make the
simplifying assumption that post yield stiffness remains constant. Check the Show
Constant Period Lines At check box to display lines of constant period.
These lines appear as radial lines on the capacity spectrum plot. By default the
program plots lines for T = 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 seconds. The periods for any of the four
curves can be changed by editing the value in one of the four associated edit boxes. A
value of 0, or a blank edit box, means to omit that period line.
In the Damping Parameters area, the value of Inherent/Additional Damping is
to be provided.
The value input into this box must be between 0 and 1, inclusively. The
default value is 0.05. The b0 term is automatically included by the ETABS analysis
method, and the 5% inherent viscous damping term can be specified in the
Inherent/Additional Damping edit box as 0.05.
If there is additional viscous damping provided in the structure, perhaps by
viscous dampers that are not specifically included in the model, and then this damping
should also be included in the Inherent/Additional Damping edit box. Thus if the
damping inherent in the structure is assumed to be 5% of critical damping, and
dampers which provide an additional 7% of critical damping are assumed to be added
to the structure (although they are not actually in the model), then the value input in
the Inherent/Additional Damping edit box should be 0.12, since 0.05 + 0.07 = 0.12.
Structural Behavior type/Kappa Factor is also available. The Structural Behavior
types A, B and C defaults to the value defined for those structural behaviour types in
ATC 40. The User Defined Kappa Factor option allows the user to input other kappa
(k) values.
62
To View deform shape at any step of static nonlinear case, will be displayed.
For an example as shown in fig.4.37 select load and step so form shown in fig will be
displayed.
4.2.4.6 Evaluating of building at performance point
The step by step nonlinear hinge formation for a static nonlinear analysis can
be displayed graphically in the software. Once the hinge yields, it is shown as a
colored dot with the color indicating the maximum amount of plastic deformation that
has occurred. Different color notation is given at each stage of the hinge formation.
4.3 EXAPMPLE
To verify the answers of ETABS 9.7 and for proper understanding of software
implementation, One solved problem from LEARNING OF ETABS SOFTWAR
[W2]
63
64
65
Fig. 4.40 Pushover Curve as per this work and literature (PUSH-2)
66
Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 shows the tabular format of pushover curve as per
this work and literature respectively. Both the table shows the displacement, base
force and yield formation, Values of both are matches with each other.
Table 4.1 Tabular format of pushover curve as per this work (PUSH-2)
Fig.4.41 shows the Capacity Spectrum curve as per this work and literature
respectively. Fig shows the values of performance point in terms of (V,D), (Sa,Sd),
and (Teff,Beff), This values are nearly same.
67
Fig. 4.41 Capacity Spectrum curve as per this work and literature (PUSH-2)
68
69
.Eq.5.1
.Eq.5.2
Strain Distribution
.. Eq.5.3
The curvature will actually vary along the length of the member because of the
fluctuation of the neutral axis depth and the strains between the cracks. If the element
length is small and over a crack, the curvature is given by Eq.5.3 with C and S as the
strains in concrete and steel at the cracked section.
If the strains at the critical section of a reinforced concrete beam are measured
over a short gauge length as the bending moment is increased to failure, the curvature
may be calculated from Eq.5.3 permitting the Moment Curvature relationship for
the section to be obtained. Two such curves obtained from measurements on singly
reinforced beams failing in tension and compressions are shown in fig. 5.2. Both
curves are linear in the initial stages, and the relationship between moment M and
curvature is given by the classical elastic equation,
70
.Eq.5.4
Where EI is the flexural rigidity of the section. With increase in moment,
cracking of the concrete reduces the flexural rigidity of the sections, the reduction in
rigidity being greater for the lightly reinforced section than for the more heavily
reinforced section. The behavior of section after cracking is dependent mainly on the
steel content. Lightly reinforced sections shows, fig.5.2 (a) results in practically linear
M curve up to point of steel yielding. When steel yields, a large increase in
curvature occurs at nearly constant bending moment, the moment rising slowly to a
maximum due to an increase in the internal lever arm, then decreasing. In heavily
reinforced sections shows in fig.5.2 (b), on the other hand, the M becomes
nonlinear when the concrete enters in inelastic part of stress strain relationship, and
failure can be quite brittle unless the concrete is confined by closed stirrups at close
centers. If the concrete is not confined, the concrete crushes at a relatively small
curvature before the steel yields, causing an immediate decrease in the moment
carrying capacity. To ensure ductile behavior in practice, steel contents less than the
balanced design value are always used for beams [D2].
71
... Eq.5.5
.Eq.5.6
72
.Eq.5.7
Where
n = Es/Ec
pt = AS / bd
pt = AS/bd
AS = area of tension steel
AS = area of compression steel
b = width of section
d = effective depth of tension steel
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of compression steel
EC = modulus of elasticity of concrete
ES = modulus of elasticity of steel
fY = yield strength of steel
jd = distance from centroid of compressive force in the steel and concrete to the
centroid of tension
If the stress in extreme compression fiber of the concrete is greater than
approximately 0.7 fC, the neutral axis depth at first yield of tension steel should be
calculated using the actual curved stress-strain curve from the concrete.
However, an estimate may be obtained from the straight line formula even if
the computed stress is as high as fC. Fig. 5.4 indicates that the value for k calculated
from the straight line formula will be smaller than the actual value for k if concrete
stress distribution is curve, which will lead to an underestimating of Y and
overestimation of MY [D2].
Fig. 5.4 Stress and strain distribution for same compressive force
in concrete when steel reaches yield stress
73
The ultimate curvature and moment of doubly reinforced section are given by
following equation.
.. Eq.5.8
... Eq.5.9
...Eq.5.10
5.4 PLASTIC HINGE ZONES
In R.C. member, the plastic hinge is defined as that section of the beam, where
plastification of concrete in compression and yielding of steel in tension zone has
occurred causing rotation of the section under constant ultimate moment. Location of
plastic hinge in beams must be clearly identified since special detailing requirements
are needed in inelastic regions of beams of frames subjected to earthquake forces. In
capacity design concept, potential plastic hinges regions within structure are clearly
defined. These are designed to have dependable flexural strengths as close as
practicable to the required strength.
Subsequently, these regions are carefully detailed to ensure that estimated ductility
demands in these regions can be reliably achieved. This is obtained primarily by
closely-spaced and well anchored transverse reinforcement.
5.4.1 Types of Plastic Hinges
Two types of plastic hinge develop in structure element based on the locations
as:
I. Positive plastic hinges.
II. Negative plastic hinges.
I. Positive plastic hinges.
Positive plastic hinges are generally formed in the long span beams, which is
dominating by gravity load, where the tension reinforcement is at the bottom and
compression at top fiber as shown in Fig.5.5. If the plastic hinges are formed at
column faces, the hinge plastic rotations is . Positive plastic hinges formed at the
distance L1 from right end of beam. Therefore rotation of the positive plastic hinges
74
Where, Lp is the potential plastic hinge length, L is the distance from the
critical section to the point of contra flexure, fY is the yield strength of the beam
longitudinal bars of diameter dbl.
The special detailing of the transverse reinforcement should be required in 2h
length of plastic hinge. Where, h is the depth of the section. When critical section of
the plastic hinge is at the face of the supporting column, this length is measured from
the critical section towards the span as shown in fig.5.6.
Where the critical section of the plastic hinge is not at the face of a column
and is located at a distance not less than the beam depth h away from a column, the
length should be assumed to begin between the column face and the critical sections,
at least 0.5h from the critical section, and to extend at least 1.5h past critical
section towards mid span. At positive plastic hinges where the shear force is zero at
the critical sections, such as at C shown in Fig. 5.6, the length should extended by h in
both directions from the critical sections.
75
Fig. 5.6 Locations of Potential plastic hinges where special detailing is required
Redistribution of moments and shear forces relies entirely on rotation within
plastic hinges in the beams. The apparent redistribution of moments and shear forces
between individual columns also relies on plastic hinge rotations in the beam only. It
is recommended that in any span of a continuous beam in a ductile frame, the
maximum moments may be decreased, if so desired, by up to 30% of the absolute
maximum moments derived for that span from elastic analysis, for any combination
of seismic and gravity loading. This limit is placed to ensure that plastic hinges do not
occur prematurely under a moderate earthquake, and that the beam rotational ductility
demand is not increased excessively.
76
77
Moment (kN-m)
100
80
77
62
60
40
34
20
0
Moment (kN-m)
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
77
62
34
13
0
0
Curvature
13
0.01
0.02
Rotation
0.03
0.04
Fig. 5.10 Moment curvature relationship Fig. 5.11 Moment rotation relationship
The pushover analysis consists of the application of gravity loads and a
representative lateral load pattern. The frames are subjected to gravity analyses and
simultaneously lateral loading. Gravity loads are in place during lateral loading. In all
cases, lateral forces are applied monotonically in a step-by-step in nonlinear static
analysis. The applied lateral forces are proportional to the product of mass and the
first mode shape amplitude at each story level under consideration. Moment rotation
relationship is most important to understand the behavior of structural element. This
relation is derived using EXCEL sheet as a user defined hinge properties. Moment
versus curvature relationship is shown in fig. 5.10. ETABS has a facility to consider
the user defined hinge properties. User defined moment versus rotation relationship as
given in ETABS is shown in fig. 5.11.
78
Default hinge properties are based upon a simplified set of assumptions that
may not be appropriate for all structures. One may want to use default properties as a
starting point, and explicitly override properties as needed during the development of
model. This study defines three points corresponding to 10% for immediately
occupancy, 50% for life safety, and 90% for collapse prevention for plastic hinge
deformation capacity. Moment versus rotation relationship based on default hinge
properties is shown in Fig.5.12 (b)
79
80
Before carrying out nonlinear analysis, nonlinear static load cases are to be
defined. Two load cases are defined one having gravity load pattern (PUSH1) and
second having lateral load pattern in X dir. (PUSH2). For push over analysis first
apply the gravity loading and then use lateral displacement in sequence for derive
capacity curve and demand curve. Development of hinges during pushover analysis
considering user defined and default hinge properties are shown in fig. 5.15 and fig.
5.16.
81
Fig. 5.15 Tabular format of pushover curve considering default hinge properties
Fig. 5.16 Tabular format of pushover curve considering user defined hinge
properties
From above study following findings are observed:
- The base shear capacity of models with the default hinges and with the user defined
hinges properties are similar. The variation in the base shear capacity is less than 1%.
Thus, the base shear capacity does not depend on whether the default or user-defined
hinge properties are used.
- Comparison of hinging patterns indicates that both models with default hinges and
the user-defined hinges estimate plastic hinge formation at the yielding point quite
well. However, there are significant differences in the hinging patterns at near to
collapse point.
- Capacity curve and demand curve is nearly matched in both models. So, hinge
properties considered based on stress-strain relationship and default hinge properties
based on ATC 40 and FEMA 356 are nearly same.
82
Name
Storey
Bays in
Size of
Column
both
bay
Geometry
direction (meter)
1
Bare Frame
G+4
44
Rectangle
G+4
44
Rectangle
G+4
44
Rectangle
G+4
44
Rectangle
Bare Frame
G+4
33
Rectangle
G+4
33
Rectangle
G+4
33
Rectangle
G+4
33
Rectangle
Bare Frame
G+4
22
Rectangle
10
G+4
22
Rectangle
11
G+4
22
Rectangle
12
G+4
22
Rectangle
83
13
Bare Frame
G+4
44
Rectangle
14
Bare Frame
G+4
44
Square
15
G+4
44
Square
16
G+4
44
Square
17
Bare Frame
G+10
44
Rectangle
18
G+10
44
Rectangle
19
G+10
44
Rectangle
20
G+10
44
Rectangle
21
Bare Frame
G+10
33
Rectangle
22
G+10
33
Rectangle
23
G+10
33
Rectangle
24
G+10
33
Rectangle
25
Bare Frame
G+10
22
Rectangle
26
G+10
22
Rectangle
27
G+10
22
Rectangle
28
G+10
22
Rectangle
29
Bare Frame
G+10
44
Rectangle
30
Bare Frame
G+10
44
Square
31
G+10
44
Square
32
G+10
44
Square
84
Column
Beam size
Live
Size
(mmmm)
Load
KN/ m2
(mmmm)
GF
230x600
230500
1st floor
230x600
230x500
2nd floor
230x500
230x450
1.5
3rd floor
230x500
230x450
1.5
4th floor
230x450
230x450
1.5
As per the general practice followed in field, the column and beam sizes were
reduced going from GF to 4th floor, also the live loads were reduced as per IS: 875
85
fig 6.2 shows the elevation of the building model. The storey height was 3m and the
support condition at base was assumed to be fixed. The lateral load was applied in Xdirection.
86
87
Fig. 6.5 G+4 with infill as equivalent strut of 44 bays without soft story
88
89
Column Size
Beam size
Live Load
(mmmm)
(mmmm)
on slab
KN/ m2
GF
600x600
230500
1st floor
600x600
230x500
2nd floor
500x500
230x450
1.5
3rd floor
500x500
230x450
1.5
4th floor
450x450
230x450
1.5
6.3.15 G+4 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall (Square Column)
Modeling process and geometrical properties except column sizes are similar
to G+4 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall with soft story. Column sizes are
as per Table 6.3
6.3.16 G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut without soft story
(Square Column)
Modeling process and geometrical properties except column sizes are similar
to G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut without soft story. Column sizes
are as per Table 6.3
90
Column size
Beam size
(mm)
(mm)
GF
230x900
230x650
1st floor
230x900
230x650
2nd floor
230x900
230x650
3rd floor
230x750
230x650
4th floor
230x750
230x650
5th floor
230x750
230x650
6th floor
230x550
230x650
7th floor
230x450
230x450
8th floor
230x450
230x450
1.5
9th floor
230x450
230x450
1.5
10th floor
230x450
230x450
1.5
Floor
91
slab
(kN/m2)
6.4.2 G+10 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall with GF as soft story
Fig. 6.7 shows the elevation of G+10 model 44 bays with infill as membrane
wall. The thickness of the masonry infill wall was 115mm. The material property of
masonry was kept same as G+4 with infill as membrane wall model. The walls were
provided at all the internal as well as external panels of the building at all the floors.
The geometrical property of beams and columns and loading on slabs were kept same
as in the bare frame. The size reduction of columns at different storey is seen from the
Fig.6.7
92
Fig. 6.8 G+10 with infill as equivalent strut of 44 bays without soft story
6.4.5 G+10 model 33 bays without infill
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+10 model of
44 bays without infill, Instead of 44 bays 33 bays were provided.
6.4.6 G+10 model 33 bays with infill membrane wall
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+10 model 44
bays with infill membrane wall with GF as soft story, Instead of 44 bays 33 bays
were provided.
6.4.7 G+10 model 33 bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft story
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+10 model 44
bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft story, Instead of 44 bays 33 bays
were provided.
6.4.8 G+10 model 33 bays with infill as equivalent strut
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+10 model 44
bays with infill as equivalent strut, Instead of 44 bays 33 bays were provided.
6.4.9 G+10 model 22 bays without infill
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+10 model of
44 bays without infill, Instead of 44 bays 22 bays were provided.
6.4.10 G+10 model 22 bays with infill membrane wall
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+10 model 44
bays with infill membrane wall with GF as soft story, Instead of 44 bays 22 bays
were provided.
93
6.3.11 G+10 model 22 bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft story
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+10 model 44
bays with infill as equivalent strut with GF as soft story, Instead of 44 bays 33 bays
were provided.
6.4.12 G+10 model 22 bays with infill as equivalent strut
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+10 model 44
bays with infill as equivalent strut, Instead of 44 bays 22 bays were provided.
6.4.13 G+10 model 44 bays without infill (2m bays)
Modeling process and geometrical properties are similar to G+4 model of 44
bays without infill, Instead of 4m bays 2m bays were provided.
6.4.14 G+10 model 44 bays without infill (Square Column)
Modeling process and geometrical properties except column sizes are similar
to G+10 model of 44 bays without infill. Column sizes are shown in Table 6.5
Table 6.5 Geometric Properties of frame and live loads on slab (Square Column)
Floor
GF
900x900
230x650
1st floor
900x900
230x650
2nd floor
900x900
230x650
3rd floor
750x750
230x650
4th floor
750x750
230x650
5th floor
750x750
230x650
6th floor
550x550
230x650
7th floor
450x450
230x450
8th floor
450x450
230x450
1.5
9th floor
450x450
230x450
1.5
10th floor
450x450
230x450
1.5
6.4.15 G+10 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall ( Square Column)
Modeling process and geometrical properties except column sizes are similar
to G+10 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall with GF as soft story. Column
sizes are as per Table 6.5
94
6.4.16 G+10 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut without soft story
(Square Column)
Modeling process and geometrical properties except column sizes are similar
to G+10 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut. Column sizes are as per Table
6.5
6.5 STATIC LINEAR, DYNAMIC AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
Once the model was created, the static, dynamic and response spectrum
analysis was performed. Performing dynamic analysis gives no. of modes, time period
for each mode and mode participation factor. Response Spectrum Curve as shown in
fig. 6.9 1 for 5% damping and medium soil as per IS 1893-2002 (part I) was default
assigned to the software.
95
96
displacement of 1st node of top storey was monitored for analysis. Member unloading
method used was Unload Entire Structure. Geometric Nonlinearity was also
considered in analysis. fig. 6.10 shows the Static Nonlinear Case defining for all
cases.
PUSH2 considers lateral load in X-direction and it was displacement controlled as
applied lateral load was not known. The analysis starts at the end of PUSH1 analysis.
Member unloading Method and Geometric Nonlinearity were taken same as in
PUSH1 case.
PUSH3 considers lateral load in Y-direction and it was displacement controlled as
applied lateral load was not known. The analysis starts at the end of PUSH1 analysis.
Member unloading Method and Geometric Nonlinearity were taken same as in
PUSH1 case.
97
98
Fig. 6.11 Pushover Curve for G+4 bare frame 44 bays (PUSH-2)
The capacity spectrum curve of the same model is shown in Fig. 6.12. Red
curve in the Fig. 6.12 shows the response spectrum curve for various damping values.
The Response Spectrum curves are governed by the values of Coefficient of
Acceleration (Ca) and Coefficient of Velocity (C V). For getting the response spectrum
curve as per IS:1893-2002 (part I), the value of Ca and CV were calculated and
assigned to the software. The values of Ca and CV for all type of soils are given in
Appendix-III. For medium soil and Zone V, Ca is 0.36 and CV is 0.495.
99
Fig. 6.12 Capacity Spectrum Curve for G+4 bare frame 44 bays (PUSH-2)
In Fig. 6.12, the green curve is the capacity spectrum curve, red curves are
response spectrum curve for various damping ratios and yellow curve is Single
Demand Spectra. The intersection point of Single Demand Spectra with the Capacity
Spectrum Curve is the performance point. The base shear at performance point is
4050 kN and corresponding displacement is 82 mm. Table 6.6 shows the step wise
base shear, corresponding roof displacement and number of hinges formed in different
nonlinear ranges.
Table 6.6 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 bare frame 44 bays
(PUSH-2)
100
The pushover analysis was including fourteen steps. It has been observed that, on
subsequent push to building, hinges started forming in beams first. Initially hinges
were in B-IO stage and subsequently proceeding to IO-LS and LS-CP stage. On
further pushing of buildings the hinges formed initially, moved to higher stage of
hinge property. At performance point, where the capacity and demand meets, out of
1050 assigned hinges 782were in AB stage, 66, 51, and 151 hinges are in B-IO, IOLS and LS-CP stages respectively. From Fig. 6.13 it is evident that building has good
capacity to resist future earthquake as demand seen less. As at performance point,
hinges were in LS-CP range, overall performance of building is said to be Life Safety
to Collapse Prevention. Also it has been observed that, at ultimate capacity of
building hinges formed were in columns which were located inside the buildings. At
ultimate load, columns capacity exhausted and analysis stopped. Hinges formation are
shown in Fig. 6.13
Fig. 6.13 Hinge formation at performance point for G+4 bare frame (PUSH-2)
101
6.8.1.2 G+4 model 44 bays with infill membrane wall GF as soft story
In this model, the infill walls were modeled as membrane element with inplane stiffness and no out of plane stiffness. From Fig. 6.14, the ultimate base shear
before failure is around 11277.10 kN which is higher compared to bare frame
structure, and corresponding displacement is 50mm which is less as compared to bare
frame structure as it is having high stiffness because of the presence of infill walls.
The drop in the pushover curve indicates the failure of some of the member, which
suddenly reduces the applied load to the structure.
Fig. 6.14 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve for G+4 with wall
(PUSH-2)
Tabular format of pushover curve is shown in Table 6.7. As mentioned above,
the drop in the pushover curve comes at step 4 where three hinges are reaching to its
failure stage. Because the G+4 building model do not have infill walls at ground floor
and rest of all upper storey infill walls, it has anticipated a large displacement and
formation of hinges (yielding of members) at ground floor to first floor level. The
same has been observed from the result. This is typical soft storey phenomenon of the
building. At performance point, the base shear was 9209.57 kN and corresponding
roof displacement 33 mm.
102
Table 6.7 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with membrane wall
The pushover analysis was including five steps. It has been observed that, on
subsequent push to building, hinges started forming in beams first. Initially hinges
were in B-IO stage and subsequently proceeding to IO-LS and LS-CP stage. On
further pushing of buildings the hinges formed initially, moved to higher stage of
hinge property. At performance point, where the capacity and demand meets, out of
1050 assigned hinges 965 were in AB stage, 60 and 25 hinges are in B-IO and IO-LS
stages respectively. From Fig. 6.14 it is evident that building has good capacity to
resist future earthquake as demand seen less. As at performance point, hinges were in
IO-LS range, overall performance of building is said to be Immediate Occupancy to
Life Safety. Hinges formation at performance point are shown in Fig. 6.15
Fig. 6.15 Hinge Formation G+4 with wall at performance point (PUSH-2)
103
6.8.1.3 G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut GF soft story
In the model, the infills were provided as equivalent compression only strut.
The pushover curve and capacity spectrum curve is shown in fig. 6.16. The
performance point obtained in this case is almost 1.5 times higher than that obtained
in bare frame model and lesser by half than model having infills as membrane wall,
which is sufficient to understand that G+4 building model with membrane wall is
stiffer compared to G+4 building model with equivalent strut.
Fig. 6.16 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 with equivalent
strut (PUSH-2)
The pushover analysis includes eight steps. Interesting point was that, the
subsequent formation of hinges has not taken place. The reason was the brittle
property of masonry strut. There was no hinge formation in columns, while the beams
closer to the strut which were failing, started showing hinge formation at later stages
because of the redistribution of the forces. At the performance point, three axial
hinges were in C-D range, which indicates that there was a failure of strut under the
expected earthquake demand.
Table 6.8 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with Strut
104
Fig. 6.17 Hinge formation G+4 with strut at performance point (PUSH-2)
6.8.1.4 G+4 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut without soft story
In the model, the infills were provided as equivalent compression only strut.
The pushover curve and capacity spectrum curve is shown in fig. 6.18. The
performance point obtained in this case is almost 1.5 times higher than that obtained
in bare frame model and lesser by 1.25 times than model having infills as membrane
wall, which is sufficient to understand that G+4 building model with strut is stiffer
compared to G+4 building model with bare frame.
105
Fig. 6.18 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+4 with equivalent
strut (PUSH-2)
The pushover analysis includes eight steps. It has been observed and as
tabulated in Table 6.9, initially the axial hinges have formed into the strut and were in
A-B range, up to second step of analysis. In step three, out of 1450 hinges assigned,
1039 hinges were in A-B range, 54 in B-IO, 58 in IO-LS, 128 in LS-CP while 171
hinges were in CP-C range. Interesting point was that, the subsequent formation of
hinges has not taken place. The reason was the brittle property of masonry strut. There
was no hinge formation in columns, while the beams closer to the strut which were
failing, started showing hinge formation at later stages because of the redistribution of
the forces.
Table 6.9 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+4 with Strut
106
Name
Bays
ance
point X
(KN)
Bare Frame
Infill as Membrane
(GF soft story)
Infill as Strut
(GF soft story)
Infill as Strut
(without soft story)
Displace-
Perfor
ment X
mance
(Meter)
level
Performance
point Y
(KN)
Displacement Y
(Meter)
44
4050.97
0.081
LS-CP
2924.57
0.132
44
9209.57
0.033
IO-LS
5612.33
0.071
44
7028.71
0.080
CP
5266.00
0.123
44
6262.6
0.059
CP
5906.68
0.094
107
Bare Frame
Infill as Membrane
(GF soft story)
Infill as Strut
Bare Frame
10
Infill as Membrane
(GF soft story)
11
Infill as Strut
(GF soft story)
12
Infill as Strut
(without soft story)
13
Bare Frame
(2m bay)
14
Bare Frame
15
Infill as Membrane
(GF soft story)
16
Infill as Strut
(without soft story)
33
2370.58
0.081
LS-CP
1695.91
0.149
33
5535.1
0.033
IO-LS
3551.06
0.071
33
4046.00
0.077
CP
3162.90
0.118
33
3844.40
0.063
CP
3600.22
0.096
22
1115.33
0.077
LS-CP
834.49
0.119
22
2618.55
0.032
IO-LS
1925.32
0.069
22
1893.90
0.071
CP
1596.67
0.111
22
1827.20
0.061
CP
1754.31
0.093
44
1704.24
0.025
LS-CP
795.23
0.022
44
4712.34
0.083
LS-CP
4712.34
0.083
44
9642.19
0.031
IO-LS
9642.19
0.031
44
7396.40
0.070
CP
7396.40
0.070
108
Fig. 6.20 Pushover Curve and Capacity Spectrum Curve of G+10 without infill
PUSH-2
The maximum roof displacement of the building is 519mm and corresponding
failure load is 9617.20 kN. The base shear at performance point was around 4163 kN
109
and corresponding displacement 146 mm. Comparing it with G+4 building model
without infill, there was not much difference in base shear but the displacement at
performance point of this model was doubled. The reason is, as the height of building
is more; the overall stiffness of building under lateral loading reduces, which increase
the lateral displacement of the building under applied lateral load. The performance
point was in linear range and hence the building was found safe against predicted
earthquake. Table 6.11 shows the number of hinges at different steps.
Table 6.11 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 bare frame 44 bays
(PUSH-2)
110
the hinges of the building was in failure stage. Thus, the overall building is safe and
its overall performance said to be in Life Safety to Collapse Prevention.
111
Fig. 6.22 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum curve of G+10 with wall
(PUSH-2)
The base shear at performance point was 12335.91 kN and corresponding
displacement 86 mm. The behavior of the building under lateral loading was similar
to that of G+4 building model with infills as membrane wall. Table 6.12 shows the
tabular format of pushover curve. There were seven steps of analysis. The base shear
was much higher compared to previous model. Under lateral push, initially the hinges
were started forming in columns in B-IO range. Subsequently these hinges have gone
into higher ranges.
Table 6.12 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 with membrane wall
Fig.6.23 shows the hinges formation at performance point. It shows that when
demand equals the capacity. The overall building is safe and its overall performance
said to be in Immediate occupancy to Life Safety level.
112
Fig. 6.23 Hinge formation G+10 with infill as membrane at performance point
(PUSH-2)
6.8.2.3 G+10 model 44 bays with infill as equivalent strut without soft story
The model was created by providing equivalent strut from ground floor to top
floor. The pushover curve and capacity spectrum curve is shown in fig. 6.24
Fig. 6.24 Pushover curve and Capacity Spectrum curve of G+10 with strut
(PUSH-2)
113
Table 6.13 shows the tabular format of pushover curve. There were five steps
of analysis.
Table 6.13 Tabular format of pushover curve for G+10 with membrane wall
114
Name
Bare Frame
Infill as Membrane
(GF soft story)
Infill as Strut
(without soft story)
Bare Frame
Infill as Membrane
(GF soft story)
Infill as Strut
(without soft story)
Bare Frame
10
Infill as Membrane
(GF soft story)
11
12
Infill as Strut
(without soft story)
13
Bare Frame
(2m bay)
14
Bare Frame
Bays
mance
point X
Displace- Perfor
ment X mance
level
Performance
point
Displacement at
(Meter)
(kN)
(Meter)
44
4163.29
0.146
LS-CP
3230.50
0.261
44
12335.91
0.086
IO-LS
8683.06
0.113
44
6963.66
0.138
CP
5583.71
0.190
44
6734.12
0.129
CP
5569.25
0.163
33
2419.50
0.144
LS-CP
1901.13
0.253
33
6501.66
0.106
IO-LS
5232.66
0.131
33
4068.28
0.135
CP
3705.12
0.219
33
3840.35
0.129
CP
3191.84
0.156
22
1156.34
0.145
LS-CP
923.22
0.240
22
2852.65
0.114
IO-LS
2657.72
0.145
22
1904.81
0.142
CP
1977.06
0.221
22
1850.42
0.136
CP
1545.55
0.157
44
3208.87
0.094
LS-CP
2231.30
0.170
44
5510.87
0.138
LS-CP
5510.87
0.138
115
(kN)
15
Infill as Membrane
(GF soft story)
16
Infill as Strut
(without soft story)
44
12546.46
0.058
IO-LS
12546.46
0.058
44
8450.71
0.130
CP
8450.71
0.130
Similar results shows for G+10 which was discussed for G+4.
Comparing results of G+10 with G+4, there is not much difference in base
shear but the displacement at performance point of this model was doubled. The
reason is, as the height of building is more; the overall stiffness of building under
lateral loading reduces, which increase the lateral displacement of the building under
applied lateral load.
116
Number
Name
Storey
G+4
44
G+4
44
G+4
44
G+4
44
G+4
44
G+4
44
G+10
44
G+10
44
direction
117
G+10 are as per Table 6.1 and Table 6.4 respectively. All structural members were of
M25 grade concrete and Fe415 steel. The slabs were considered as rigid floor
diaphragm.
7.3 ELEVATION OF BUILDING IN x DIRECTION
118
119
middle storeys i.e third, fifth , and seventh storeys. Yielding in beams of the upper
and lower storeys took place after this. The columns of the fifth and sixth storeys
yielded after the hinge formation in the upper and lower storey beams. In case of the
G+10 storied building with 100% infills, the beams of ground storey started yielding
after most of the masonry strut had yielded. Subsequently, the beams in the middle
storey yielded. Columns of the middle stores (3rd, 5th and 7th) yielded in next stage. It
was observed for this case that most of the beams and columns in the top three storeys
had not yielded. fig.7.26 and fig 7.27 present the yield patterns for the G+10 storied
building with 100 % infills
Fig.7.10 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 0% Infill (outer frame)
Fig.7.11 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 0% Infill(Inner frame)
121
Fig.7.12 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill (outer frame)
Fig.7.13 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill(Inner frame)
122
Fig.7.14 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill (outer frame)
Fig.7.15 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill(Inner frame)
123
Fig.7.16 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill (outer frame)
Fig.7.17 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill(Inner frame)
124
Fig.7.18 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill (outer frame)
Fig.7.19 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 50% Infill(Inner frame)
125
Fig.7.20 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 100% Infill (outer frame)
Fig.7.21 Deflected shape at performance point and ultimate point for X direction
in G+4 storied bldg. with 100% Infill(Inner frame)
126
Fig.7.23 Deflected shape at ultimate point in X direction for G+10 storied bldg.
with 0% Infill (Inner frame)
127
Fig.7.25 Deflected shape at ultimate point in X direction for G+10 storied bldg.
with 50% Infill(Inner frame)
128
Fig.7.27 Deflected shape at ultimate point in X direction for G+10 storied bldg.
with 100% Infill (Inner frame)
7.4.2 Capacity curves and performance levels
A comparative study has been made of different configurations of the multistoried building with respect to their performance levels for Design Basis Earthquake
129
(DBE) and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). The fig.7.28 and fig.7.29
present the capacity curves for various infill wall densities for the two building
configurations considered in this study. In general, it has been observed that presence
of infills improves the strength of the frames but reduces ductility.
The relatively low infill wall density of 50%, did not improve the shear
capacity, but reduced roof displacements by a significant amount. Further increase in
the infill density improved the base shear capacity but reduced displacement capacity
of the frames.
The performance point for DBE and MCE are displayed using the symbols by
and
130
C16,C17,
C7,C10,
C11,C12,
No.
C18,C27
C22,C23
C24,C26
680350
760220
220760
Up
C4,C5
to 450450
third
16-20
16-20
10-20
10-20
floor
8@100cc
8@100cc
8@100cc
8@100cc
After
450450
680350
760220
220760
Third
12-20
12-20
10-12
10-12
floor
8@100cc
8@100cc
8@100cc
8@100cc
131
B2
230115
Cross section
Beam Bars
B7
230420
5-20
8-12
8@100cc
8@100cc
115350
B8
230420
4-12
8-12
8@100cc
8@100cc
132
Cross section
B3
B4
B5
B6
230420
B9
230115
9-12
5-12
8@100cc
8@100cc
115320
B10
350260
8-12
9-12
8@100cc
8@100cc
230260
B11
230580
5-12
10-20
8@100cc
8@100cc
115420
B12
230350
8-12
7-20
8@100cc
8@100cc
133
134
One water tank was modeled at the top of the building. Columns at the
location of water tank were extended to the top of tank. The bottom slab of tank was
100mm thick and water load was calculated considering tank full and applied as area
load on the base slab.
Property was kept same for both the models.
135
where there are the beam column junctions as shown in Fig. 8.4. The load of the wall
was calculated and applied to the beams below it.
8.4 ASSIGN FRAME NONLINEAR HINGE PROPERTY
For pushover analysis, nonlinear hinges were to be provided to the frame
structural elements. All the beams were provided with default moment (M3) hinge
and user defined shear hinge at both the ends. All the columns were provided with
default PMM hinge. The size of beams, columns and the reinforcement provided were
provided into the software. Depending upon this data the program will calculate the
yield moments and corresponding displacement which is used for nonlinear static
analysis
8.5. NONLINEAR STATIC LOAD CASES & ANALYSIS OF EXISTING
BUILDING
Before carrying out nonlinear analysis, nonlinear static load cases were to be
defined. Three load cases were defined one having gravity load pattern (PUSH1),
second having lateral load pattern in X dirn (PUSH2) and third having lateral load
pattern in Y dirn (PUSH3). Unloading method used was Unload Entire Structure
and geometric nonlinearity was also considered. PUSH1 case was load controlled,
PUSH2 and PUSH3 case was displacement controlled and was considered started at
the end of PUSH1 case.
Static linear and dynamic analysis was performed before performing pushover
analysis. Once the pushover analysis is performed, the software creates a LOG file
which contains all the details of the iterations and steps involved into the pushover
analysis.
136
The base shear at performance point for loading in X-dirn was 1127.37 kN and
corresponding displacement was 69mm. In case of lateral loading in Y-dirn., the base
shear at performance point was 1167.01kN and corresponding displacement was 62
mm.
Table 8.3 shows the hinge development of structure under lateral loading in
X-dirn.
Table8.3 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing Building without strut
in X-dirn.
137
Table8.4 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing Building without strut
in Y-dirn.
In case of loading in Y-dirn., from Table 8.4, in step 2 the base shear was
1903.53 kN and two hinges were C-D stage. These hinges were the shear hinges in
beams. Shear failure in the beams was not considered as the total failure of the
building and hence the analysis proceeded. Thus the overall building was considered
to be in Life Safety level in case of predicted earthquake in Y-dirn.
138
Fig. 8.7 Hinge formation Existing building without strut X-dirn. at performance point
Fig. 8.8 Hinge formation Existing building without strut Y-dirn. at performance point
139
140
Table8.5 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing Building with strut in Xdirn.
From Table 8.6, for loading in Y-dirn, at performance point, out of 1846
assigned hinges, 1501 hinges were in linear range, 168 were in B-IO range, 75 were in
IO-LS range and 41 hinges were in LS-CP range and 60 in CP-C range. Thus the
overall building was considered to be in Collapse prevention level in case of predicted
earthquake in Y-dirn.
Table8.6 Tabular format of pushover curve for Existing Building with strut in Ydirn.
141
Fig.8.11 Hinge formation Existing building with strut X-dirn. at performance point
Fig.8.12 Hinge formation Existing building with strut X-dirn. at performance point
As discussed in chapter 6, similar results and behavior of structure obtained for real
life structure.
142
As new building has been designed for an earthquake forces prior to nonlinear
analysis its performance was found satisfactory, overall.
G+4 and G+10 story building model without infill has an overall performance
in Life Safety to Collapse Prevention.
G+4 and G+10 story building model with infill as membrane wall has an
overall performance in Immediate Occupancy level.
G+4 and G+10 story building model with infill as equivalent strut has an
overall performance in Collapse Prevention level.
From the results for G+4 and G+ 10 story building, Bare frame without infill
having lesser lateral load capacity (Performance point value) as compared to
bare frame with equivalent strut and bare frame with equivalent strut has lesser
lateral load capacity compared to bar frame with membrane wall.
As the no of bays increases lateral load carrying capacity increases but with
the increase in bays corresponding displacement does not increases.
As the no of storey increases lateral load carrying capacity does not increase
but corresponding displacement increases.
It has been observed that, building models without infill show flexure
(moment- M3) hinge formation, while building models with infill wall as
membrane element shown axial moment interaction (PMM) hinge formation.
i.e. for bare frame beams were yielded first while for infill as membrane
element columns were yielded first.
However, for building models with equivalent strut shown axial hinges
formation in strut because of brittle property assigned to strut members.
143
In case of building models without infills at GF, soft storey effect has been
seen remarkably.
Bulding with infilled frame has high initial stiffness, attracts most of the
lateral forces, but fails prematurely because of the brittle behaviour. In such
cases RC frames must have sufficient backup strength to avoid the collapse of
the structure.
The nature and characteristics of pushover curve and capacity spectrum curve
obtained for all building models were comparable to the literature.
Existing Building
Pushover curve for an existing building in X-dirn. and Y-dirn. were more or
less same in nature but different in magnitude.
Even though an existing building is safe for predicted earthquake, some of the
members which yielded extensively need an immediate attention - either
retrofit or restrengthen.
An existing building made with considering infill strut shows its performance
in CP range, i.e. building is called safe against predicted earthquake.
Results and behaviour of existing building observed were nearly same as new
building.
Infill as equivalent strut is universally adopted for masonry wall but infill as
masonry membrane wall gives better performance so one may use shearwall
(reinforced concrete wall) for performance based analysis.
144
Developing
and
validating
pushover
curve
after
retrofitting
and
145
Appendix-I
MODELING OF INFILL WALLS
For lateral load resisting frame, the stiffness of infill wall and strength
contribution has to be considered. Non-integral infill frame subjected to lateral load
behaves like a diagonally braced frame. Hence, appropriately, infill wall can be
replaced by an equivalent compression only strut in the analysis model.
146
[B3]
a 0.175 1hcol
0.4
rinf
147
I. Crushing failure
The diagonal load causing local crushing (Rc) is given by the following
equation [D1].
Rc = C tinf sec fm
The length of contact at the column (C) at the compression diagonal corner is
calculated using the following formula
Here is the relative stiffness of the infill to the frame. It can be expressed as
[B3]
1/ 4
Emetinf sin 2
1
4 E fe I col hinf
Here,
hcol
hinf
Efe
Eme
148
Icol
Linf
tinf
Where, fm = The bond shear strength between the masonry and mortar. It is varies
from 0.24 Mpa for low strength mortar to 0.69 Mpa for high strength mortar . Again
to be in conservative side fm is taken as 0.24 for the calculation.
Lower of RC and RS is the axial strength (R or FC) of the equivalent strut. Yield
deformation (Y or DC) is to be calculated using the following formula.
149
APPENDIX II
A.1 CALCULATION OF SHEAR CAPACITY OF R.C. MEMBER
Calculation of shear hinge properties for beams and columns, the yield shear
force for the hinge is calculated considering shear capacities of both concrete and
steel. Detailed calculations using excel sheet is given below,
Properties
fCK = 25
Mpa
fY = 415
Mpa
EC = 25000
Mpa
ES = 2E+05
Mpa
Cover
B= 300
mm
D= 450
mm
d= 40
mm
d= 410
mm
Length of member
L= 4000
mm
At= 390
mm2
Pt= 0.3107
Shear Reinforcement
Dia. of bar
= 8
Spacing
= 250
No. of Legs
= 2
ASv= 101.12
mm
mm2
Axial Load
Pu= 0
CALCULATION
As per Clause cl:40.4(a) of IS: 456-2000
VsY = 59.875 kN
Where,
150
kN
Where,
= 9.1532
c= 0.4040
Shear capacity of concrete
VC = 49.70 kN
Total Shear Capacity V = VSY + VC
V = 109.57 kN
OUT PUT
VU = 109.579 kN
0.2 VU = 21.91 kN
U = 0.000281 m
m = 0.00421 m
151
shear
strength
21.91579
21.91579
115.0579
109.579
0
-109.579
-115.058
-21.9158
-21.9158
shear
deformation
0.006312
0.000421
0.000421
0.000281
0
-0.00028
-0.00042
-0.00042
-0.00631
152
fCK = 25
Mpa
fY = 415
Mpa
EC = 25000
Mpa
ES = 2E+05
Mpa
Modulus of rupture
= 3.5
Cover
Length of member
B= 300
mm
D= 450
mm
d= 40
mm
d= 410
mm
L= 4000
mm
AS= 390
mm2
AS= 392
mm2
Tension steel
Pt= 0.3107
Pt= 0.3107
Compression steel
Solution
1, Before cracking
The modulus of ratio n = ES/EC = 8
A = 140460 mm2
153
Centroid of transformed section is given by taking moments of the areas about the top
edge of the section
Y = 225 mm
Hence the moment of inertia is given by
I = (bD3/12)+ (bD( -(D/2))2 + ((n-1)AST( -d)2)+ ((n-1)ASC( -d)2)
I = 2464993500 mm4
Cracking will occur when the modulus of rupture = 3.5 reached in bottom fiber.
=34.2962233 kN-m
= 5.56532E-07 rad/mm
= 0.000556532 rad/m
K = 0.190628704
Kd = 78.15776877 mm
Now,
S = 0.002075
154
= 143239.2438 N = 143.239 kN
= 34401.00014 N = 34.401 kN
Therefore, total compressive force is 177.64 kN acting @
= 28.75 mm
jd = d-
= 381.246 mm
155
Now, fS = S ES
But CC + CS = T
CC = fCba
where = 0.85
CS = ASCfY
T = ASTfY
Solving this 5 eq we get Quadratic Equation :
Xa2 + Ya + Z = 0
X= 13.53
Y = 385
Z = -27200
= 77.92 kN-m
= 7.20136E-05 rad/mm
= 0.072013 rad/m
ab = y+p
156
ab = ylp+ (u-p) lp
Where lp = (0.054L)+(0.022fydbl)
lp = 289.04 mm
Rotation at yielding point
y = ylp = 0.00180
Plastic Rotation
p = (u-p) lp = 0.0190
Ultimate Rotation
Moment (kN-m)
100
80
77
62
60
40
34
20
0
Moment (kN-m)
ab = y+p = 0.0208
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
77
62
34
13
0
Curvature
13
0
0.01
0.02
Rotation
0.03
0.04
157
Appendix-III
CALCULATION OF CA AND CV
An Elastic Response Spectrum, for each earthquake hazard level of interest at a site is
based on the site seismic coefficients CA and CV. The seismic coefficient C A
represents the effective peak acceleration (EPA) of the ground. A factor of about 2.5
times CA represents the average value of peak response of a 5 % damped short period
system in the acceleration domain. The seismic coefficient C V represents 5 % damped
response of a 1-second system and when divided by period defines acceleration
response in the velocity domain.
158
T = 0.4
CV = 2.5*0.16*0.4=0.16
The value of CA and CV is calculated for all the zones for considering soil conditions.
These values of CA and CV are tabulated in Table-1.
Table-1 Coefficient of Acceleration and Coefficient of Velocity
Seismic coefficient, CA
Zone II
Zone III
Zone IV
Zone V
(0.10)
(0.16)
(0.24)
(0.36)
Type I
0.1
0.16
0.24
0.36
Type II
0.1
0.16
0.24
0.36
Type III
0.1
0.16
0.24
0.36
Soil
Seismic coefficient, CV
Type I
0.1
0.16
0.24
0.36
Type II
0.1375
0.22
0.33
0.495
Type III
0.1675
0.268
0.402
0.603
159
P. PAPER
1. A.J carr and P.J. Moss, P-Delta effects in the seismic Response of Ductile
Reinforced Concrete Frames, Pacific conference on Earthquake engineering,
New Zealand, November 1991.
2. M J N Priestley, Performance Based Seismic Design,12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, February 2000.
3. V.K.R.Kodur, M.A.Erki and J.H.P.Quenneville, Seismic design and analysis
of masonry-infilled frames, National research center Canada, June 1995.
4. Helmut Krawinkler and G. D. P. K. Seneviratna, Pros and cons analysis of
seismic evaluation Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, Nos 4-6, pp. 452-464,
1998.
5. Ashraf Habibullah, Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static Pushover
Analysis, Published in Structure Magazine, Winter 1998.
160
10. Farzad Naeim, Hussain Bhatia, Roy M. Lobo. Performance Based Seismic
Engineering Seismic Design Handbook, 2001.
11. Robin davis, Praseetha krishnan, Devdas menon, Meher prasad, Effeect of
infill stiffness on seismic performance of multi story r/c frame building in
India, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , August 2004.
W. WEB SITE
1. Farzad Naeim, Hussain Bhatia, Roy M. Lobo, The seismic design
handbook,2001
www.scribd.com/doc/22696678/The-Seismic-Design-HandBook
2. Prakash Siyani, Saumil Tank, and Paresh V. Patel, Learning of ETABS
software, may 2009
www.scribd.com/doc/38226024/ETABS-Examples-Manual
B. BOOKS
1. ATC-40, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied
Technology Council, November 1996.
2. FEMA-273, NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings,
Fedral emergency management agency, October 1997.
3. FEMA-302 Prestandard and Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, Fedral emergency management agency , November 2000
4. P. C. Varghese, Advanced Reinforced Concrete Design, Text Book, New
Delhi.
5. SAP 2000 manual, Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis and
Design of Structures, Computer and Structure Inc. Berkeley, June 1998
161
D. DISSERTATIONS
1. DARJI RAMKRISHNA V, M.Tech Thesis, Performance based analysis of
R.C.C buildings, NIRMA University, May 2005.
2. Amrish M. Bhavsar, M.E Thesis, M- Curvature of Pushover analysis,
Sardar patel University, 2008
3. Prakash K. Siyani, M.Tech Thesis, Performance based design of shear wall
building, NIRMA University, May 2009.
4. Fulvio Parisi, PhD Thesis, Non-Linear Seismic Analysis of Masonry
Buildings, University of Naples Fedrico II, 2010.
5. Sudhanshu Sood, M.E Thesis, Performance seismic design of Buildings,
Thapar University, July 2010.
162