International Journal of

Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012

Sensitivity of pushover analysis to design parameters-an

analytical investigation
AJAY D. GOUDAR1, SHILPA KOTI2, K.S.BABUNARAYAN3
1
Mott MacDonald Chennai, India
2
STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore, India
3
Department of Civil Engineering, NITK Surathkal, India.
Email: ajaydg001@ymail.com, shilpa.koti@ymail.com

Abstract: The static pushover analysis is becoming a popular tool for seismic performance evaluation of
existing and new structures. The existing building can become seismically deficient since seismic design code
requirements are constantly upgraded and advancement in engineering knowledge. Further, Indian buildings
built over past two decades are seismically deficient because of lack of awareness regarding seismic behavior of
structures. The widespread damage especially to RC buildings during earthquakes around the world generated a
great demand for developing a simple yet efficiently accurate new method known as pushover analysis for
seismic evaluation. The expectation is that the non-linear static analysis popularly known as pushover
analysis will provide adequate information on seismic demands imposed by the design ground motion on the
structural system and its components and consumes very less time compared to non-linear dynamic analysis.
In a real structure the strength of concrete and steel may not be the same as assumed in the analysis, it may be
more or less, Since the output of the analysis is very much sensitive to design parameters, in the present thesis,
attempt is made to understand the sensitivity of design parameters like strength of concrete, strength of steel and
cover to reinforcement on performance of structures namely bare frame structure and frame with rigid slab and
compare the variation in performance within these two.

Keywords: Non-linear static Pushover analysis, sensitivity of strength of concrete and steel, seismic evaluation

1. Introduction: for everyday design use. As a compromise, a

A major challenge for the performance based
seismic engineering is to develop simple yet
efficiently accurate methods for analyzing designed
structures and evaluating existing buildings to meet
the selected performance objectives. In recent years,
the seismic design provisions necessary for the
construction of new buildings and rehabilitation of
existing structures have been witnessing some rapid
changes. Comprehensive research is now being
conducted to evaluate the current seismic design
methodology implemented in different codes and
standards. Elastic analysis are insufficient because
they cannot realistically predict the force and
deformation distributions after the initiation of
damage in the building. Inelastic analytical
procedures become necessary to identify the modes
of failure and the potential for progressive collapse.
The need to perform some form of inelastic analysis
is already incorporated in many building codes.
Currently, building evaluation guidelines permit the
use of two nonlinear analysis methods to estimate
seismic demands: Non-linear Static Procedure (NSP)
and the Non-linear Dynamic Procedure (NDP).
Nonlinear dynamic analysis of refined mathematical
models of structures subjected to site specific
earthquakes is the most accurate means to evaluate
the performance of buildings. However, the inelastic
time-history analysis is usually too complex and
time consuming in the design of most buildings.
Such an approach, for the time being, is not practical
simplified non-linear static procedure commonly
referred to as the pushover analysis was developed
to supply the necessary information to the designers.
The FEMA356, ATC40 are the most prominent
references that have presented a simplified nonlinear
static analysis technique that could be used to
estimate the dynamic demands imposed on the
structures during an earthquake episode. Therefore
nonlinear static methods are getting more
recognition as simple yet efficient methods of
estimating the seismic demands in the structures.
Thus, it represents a relatively simple alternative to
estimate the nonlinear behavior of structures. As a
matter of fact, the newly introduced provisions for
seismic design or retrofitting of the structures are to
provide the professional engineers with some easy to
use guidelines for their daily practice, which would
eliminate the need for a complicated linear or
nonlinear time-history analysis of the multi-storey
buildings in majority of the cases. However, the
development of such provisions should be based on
a reasonable approach to fulfill the requirements for
the seismic design of the structures.
The pushover analysis of a structure is a static non-
linear analysis under permanent vertical loads and
gradually increasing lateral loads. The load is
incrementally increased in accordance to a certain
predefined pattern. The analysis is carried out upto
failure, thus it enables determination of collapse load
and ductility capacity. On a building frame, plastic

IJASGE 010206 Copyright 2012 BASHA RESEARCH CENTRE. All rights reserved.
 AJAY D. GOUDAR, SHILPA KOTI, K. S. BABUNARAYAN

rotation is monitored, and a plot of the total base

shear versus top displacement in a structure is
obtained by this analysis that would indicate any
premature failure or weakness.

2. Scope and Objective

The objective of the present work is uncertainty
analysis of the pushover method for a G+2 structure
with slab modeled as shell element considering
Manders confined model. In the proposed research
following cases were studied:
Fig.2 British code recommended (CP 110-1972)
stress-strain curve for steel
1. To understand the sensitivity of pushover curve
by considering effective moment of inertia and
comparing it with results of gross moment of 5. Modeling and analysis
inertia. The general finite element package SAP2000
2. To understand the sensitivity of pushover curve (version-14) has been used for the modeling and
analysis. It is a versatile and user-friendly program
for different hinge lengths.
that offers a wide scope of features like static and
3. Comparing the analytical results with
dynamic analysis, nonlinear dynamic analysis and
experimental pushover curve.
nonlinear static pushover analysis, etc. These
3. Stress-strain model for concrete features and many more, make SAP2000 the state-
Manders model is highly popular model since it is of-the-art in structural analysis programs
simple and effective in considering the effects of (a) Geometry:
confinement. It considers increase in both the The structure is a G+2 storeyed RCC bare
strength and ductility of RC members with confined framed structure. Fig 4.1 shows the basic overall
concrete. The model is popularly used to evaluate geometry of the structure. Fig 4.2 shows the
the effective strength of the columns confined by photograph of actual test structure.
stirrups, steel jacket and even by FRP wrapping.

Fig.1 Mander Model for Stress-Strain relationship

for confined concrete

4. Stress-strain models for reinforcing steel

The idealized stress-strain curve for steel as
recommended by IS: 456-2000 is as shown in Figure
2.3(b), and by British code CP 110-1972 as in Figure Fig.3 Basic geometry of the structure
2.4, it says that the term 0.7fy is the simplification of
(a) Section properties:
fy Both beam and column sections are 150mm x
the expression fy . It gives all the 200mm in size with 2-12 bars at top and
m 2000 bottom in case of beam and 2-16 bars at top
simplified general equations which can be used for and bottom in case of columns. The transverse
any grade of steel. reinforcement for both beams and columns is
provided by 2-legged 6 stirrups/ties @ 150mm
c/c. The slab is 50 mm thick. Fig 4.3 shows the
section properties for the beams and columns.

International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 65-73
 Sensitivity of pushover analysis to design parameters-an analytical investigation
Fig.4 Details of beam and column section
(b) Material properties:
The design material properties for the structure
were;
Concrete=M20 grade
Steel=Fe415 HYSD bars.
The actual material properties from tests were found
as:
Avg. concrete strength= 35 MPa,
Avg. Reinforcement yield stress = 478 Mpa
Avg. Reinforcement ultimate stress = 665 Mpa.
6. Slab Modeling (Modeling of joints)
Slabs were modelled using the four node
quadrilateral shell elements, which is an area
element used to model slabs/plates in planar and
three dimensional structures. In the case of slab
as a shell element each joints behaves
independently. Being a rectangular slab, the
meshing was done by dividing the area into smaller
rectangular segments. Meshing improves the results
but increases the computational time by a large
extent.
7. Material Models (Stress-strain mode-ls for
concrete and steel)
Materials can be defined as concrete, steel, etc.
Material properties are used to define frame sections.
The elemental properties are defined by the
nonlinear stress-strain behavior/curve of the material
are used for generating frame hinge properties.
Many stress-strain curve models are proposed for
concrete and steel [23, 26]. Some consider that
concrete are confined with transverse reinforcement
while others dont, thus adopting confined or
unconfined models.
In the present work Manders stress-strain
model for confined concrete Figure 2.1 and the
typical steel stressstrain model Figure 2.4 for steel
are implemented in momentcurvature analysis.
8. Plastic Hinge
When a concrete element undergoes large
deformations in the post-yield stage, it is assumed
that the entire deformation takes place at a point
called plastic hinge. The hinges represent
concentrated post yield behavior in one or more
degree of freedoms. Each plastic hinge is modeled as
a discrete point hinge. Hinges can only be
International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering
ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 65-73
introduced in frame elements at any location.
SAP2000 implements the plastic hinge properties
described in FEMA-356 (or ATC-40). As shown in
Figure 4.4, five points labeled A, B, C, D, and E
define the forcedeformation behavior of a plastic
hinge. Point A is the origin, B is yield point, C is
ultimate point and points D and E are a measure of
residual strength and displacement capacity.
Fig. 5 Basic Format for Defining Hinge Properties
by SAP2000
SAP2000 also gives the choice for uncoupled
moment (M), torsion (T), axial force (P) and shear
(V) hinges and coupled P-M3, P-M2 and P-M2-M3
hinges, which yields based on the interaction of
axial force and bending moments at the hinge
location. More than one type of hinge can exist at
the same location, for example, both M3 (moment)
and V2 (shear) hinge can be assigned to the same
end of a frame element.
Default and user-defined plastic hinge options are
provided in SAP2000. User-defined hinges are better
than the default-hinges in reflecting nonlinear
behavior. However, if the default-hinge is preferred
due to simplicity, the user should be aware of what
is provided in the program. The definition of user-
defined hinge properties requires momentcurvature
analysis of each element. For the problem defined,
building deformation is assumed to take place only
due to moment under the action of laterally applied
earthquake loads. Thus user-defined M3 hinge was
assigned at member ends where flexural yielding is
assumed to occur. Moment-curvature relationship
was assigned in SAP2000 to represent the flexural
characteristics of plastic hinges at the ends. In the
present work the hinge lengths considered as 0.05L,
0.1L, 0.11L, 0.12L, 0.13L, 0.14L, 0.15L.
9. Moment-Curvature values for beam and
column
Table 1: Moment curvature values for beam
A B C D E
Points Strain Strain
Origin Yielding Ultimate
hardening hardening
fy=478 M=0 M=18.71 M=24.72 M=29.18 M=26.95
fck=35 =0 =0.023 =0.049 =0.055 =0.291
 AJAY D. GOUDAR, SHILPA KOTI, K. S. BABUNARAYAN
Table 2: Moment curvature values for column
A B C D
Points
Strain
Origin Yielding Ultimate
hardening hardening
fy=478 M=0 M=18.71 M=24.72 M=29.18 M=26.95
fck=35 =0 =0.023 =0.049 =0.055 =0.291
Since moment-curvature relationship represents the
material nonlinearity of elements, SAP2000
provides option to input moment-curvature data to
assign user-define hinge properties. Moment-
curvature relationship for reinforced concrete
sections can be generated using equilibrium and
compatibility equations and material models. The
accuracy of the analytically obtained M-C curves
depends on the accuracy of the material model used
(i.e. concrete confined and steel model).
10. Analysis considering effective moment of
inertia
In concrete beams, both variables moment of inertia
and modulus of elasticity are subject to change
during the course of loading. The variation in the
modulus of elasticity with the increasing load is
caused by the inelastic stress-strain behaviour of
concrete beyond the elastic limits, while the
variation in the moment of inertia is associated with
the cracking of concrete due to the tensile strains
greater than the cracking strain of concrete. The
cracked zones in a concrete beam are ineffective in
resisting stresses originating from applied loads and
moments. Therefore, cracking of concrete decreases
resistance of concrete beam to loading, leading to
greater deformations in the beam. The decrease in
the second moment of area of a concrete beam
during the course of loading is taken into account by
the effective moment of inertia approach, which is
summarized in the following discussion. When the
maximum moment (Mu) in a beam does not exceed
the cracking moment (Mcr), the beam is in the un-
cracked condition. The un-cracked moment of
inertia of a beam is obtained from the following
equation:
(1)
When the in-plane bending moment (M) at a cross-
section of the beam reaches Mcr, vertical flexural
cracks form in the outermost layers of the tension
zone. These cracks propagate upwards, as M
increases. The section becomes fully-cracked, when
the flexural cracks reach the neutral axis, rendering
the entire tension zone ineffective in resisting the
bending moment. The moment of inertia of the
section in the fully-cracked condition is determined
by Icr.
International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering
ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 65-73
E
(2)
Strain
b = breadth of web
d = effective depth
xu = Neutral axis depth
Ast= Tension reinforcement
Asc= Compression reinforcement
M= modular ratio= (3)
d = Effective cover
The overall moment of inertia of a concrete beam
decreases gradually from the un-cracked moment of
inertia (Ig) to the fully-cracked moment of inertia
(Icr), as flexural cracks form at discrete locations
along the span. The concrete in the un-cracked
portions of the beam between the discrete cracks
contributes to resisting tensile stresses, due to the
bond between concrete and reinforcement. The
tensile contribution of the concrete between the
cracks is known as tension-stiffening. Tension-
stiffening decreases as the applied load (or moment)
increases and more cracks from along the span. The
decrease in the tension-stiffening of concrete with
the increasing load leads to the gradual decrease in
the moment of inertia of the beam. This gradual
decrease is taken into consideration by the effective
moment of inertia approach. The following effective
moment of inertia is obtained from the following
equation from IS 456-2000 codal procedure:
(4)
Icr=Moment of inertia of the cracked section,
Mr=Cracking moment = (5)
fcr= Modulus of rupture of concrete =
0.7fck (6)
M= Maximum moment under service loads,
z = Lever arm,
d = Effective depth,
bw = Breadth of web,
b = Breadth of compression face.
In the present work we have carried out analysis by
considering the effective moment of inertia and
gross moment of inertia with varying hinge length.
Variation considered for hinge lengths are 0.05L,
0.1L, 0.11L, 0.12L, 0.13L, 0.14L, and 0.15L.
The width of the beam is calculated for effective
moment of inertia, and the modelling and analysis
was carried out considering the effective width and
gross width varying hinge lengths.
 Sensitivity of pushover analysis to design parameters-an analytical investigation

11. Calculation of effective moment of inertia (ieff)

as per is 456-2000 procedure
11.1 Effective moment of inertia (Ieff ) for Beam z = 158 mm
a) According to IS 456-2000, Annexure-C, C-2.1,
the effective moment of inertia given by,

Substituting above values in equation (4.31),

fck = 35 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/ mm2

Ieff = 41.06
Hence is satisfied.

b) Calculation of width of beam equivalent to Ieff

Keeping depth d constant and equating moment of
Solving above equation, we get Inertia to Ieff,
X1= 48.03, and X2= -105.225
Hence x = 48 mm i.e.

Solving, we get b = 93.5 mm

11.2 Effective moment of inertia (Ieff ) for

Coloumn
i.e. Icr = 35.436 106 mm4 a) fck = 35 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/ mm2

Solving above equation, we get

Fig. 6 Stress variation in beam section
X1= 56.87, and X2= -158.7
Hence x = 56.87 mm

From Fig.6 fc =

fsc i.e. Icr = 55.5 106 mm4

From Fig.7, fc =
max = 8.00 kNm

fsc

Mcr = 4.14 kNm

max = 13.86 kNm

International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 65-73
 AJAY D. GOUDAR, SHILPA KOTI, K. S. BABUNARAYAN
Fig.7 Stress variation in column section
i.e.
Mr = 4.14 kNm
z = 153.04 mm
Substituting above values in equation (4)
Ieff = 54.30
Since Ieff Icr
Hence Ieff = 55.5 106 mm4
b) Calculation of width of column equivalent to Ieff
Keeping depth d constant and equating moment of
Inertia to Ieff,
i.e.
Solving
12. Modeling in SAP2000
The following steps are included in the pushover
analysis for modeling (Ashraf habibullah-1998).
Step 1: Create the basic computer model (without
the pushover data) using the graphical interface of
SAP2000 and define the material properties,
Geometric properties. In defining the section
property, define width of beam and column as
obtained from effective moment of inertia, and gross
width of beam and column corresponding to gross
moment of inertia.
Step 2: 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
International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering
ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 65-73
preliminary analysis, but user-defined properties are
recommended for final analysis.
The user defined Moment-curvature data was
entered to define the hinge properties based on the
material nonlinearity. M3 plastic hinges (user-
defined) was assigned with varying hinge length to
beam and columns at both ends of the beams and
columns, to incorporate elemental nonlinearity.
Step 3: Define the pushover load cases. 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.
Buildings are subjected to a lateral load distributed
across the height of the building based on the
following formula (Eqn. 4.22) specified in FEMA
356:
Buildings are subjected to a lateral load distributed
across the height of the building based on the
following formula (Eqn. 4.22) specified in FEMA
356:
Wx hxk
Fx N
V (7)
W h
i 1
i i
k
Wx hxk
Cvx N
(8)
W h
i 1
i i
k
Where, Fx is the applied lateral force at level x ,
W is the storey weight, h is the story height, V is
the design base shear and N is the number of stories.
Cvx is the coefficient that represents the lateral load
multiplication factor to be applied at floor level x .
The load pattern for tests was kept as parabolic with
the load value at a storey increasing in proportion to
the square of the height of the floor from foundation
level.
We have,
Height of 1st floor from foundation level, h1 = 1800
mm
Height of 2nd floor from foundation level, h2 = 3600
mm
Height of 3rd floor (roof) from foundation level, h3 =
5400 mm
Thus,
hi2= 18002 + 36002 + 54002 = 45360000
Weightage of total force for 1st floor = h12/ hi2 =
18002/45360000 = 0.071
Weightage of total force for 2nd floor = h22/ hi2 =
36002/45360000 = 0.2857
Weightage of total force for 2nd floor = h32/ hi2 =
54002/45360000 = 0.6429
Thus the load was monotonically increased in the
ratio of 0.6429:0.2857:0.0714 9:4:1 for roof: 2nd
floor: 1st floor.
 Sensitivity of pushover analysis to design parameters-an analytical investigation

2) For I = Igross

Shell Slab , Igross

350
0.05L
300

Base Shear (kN)

0.1L
250
0.11L
200 0.12L

150 0.13L
0.14L
100
0.15L
50
EXP
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Displacement (mm)

Fig.8 Details of Load Pattern

Fig.10 Pushover Curve for Frame with shell slab and
for Igross
Step 4: Define the analysis case. Nonlinear static
pushover analysis, displacement controlled was
defined for the present study. 14. Experimental push over curve
Step 5: Run the nonlinear static pushover analysis
for the above model.
Step 6: Obtain the pushover curve.

13. Results and Discussions

With the increase in the hinge length both the

base shear and roof displacement increases for
Ieff, and Igross, because higher the hinge length
higher the rotation capacity (since the rotation
capacity = plastic hinge length curvature)
There is an increase in the base shear values
around 3% to 5% for gross moment of inertia
compared with effective moment of inertia from
0.05L hinge length to 0.11L and then from 0.12L
to 0.15L the increase is 0.4% to 1.9%
There is an increase in the displacement values
around 16% to 31.5% for effective moment of
inertia(Ieff) compared with gross moment of
inertia (Igross)
Fig.11 Experimental Pushover Curve
The maximum base shear observed was 286.5 kN
and corresponding displacement was found to be
110 mm. comparing the base shear and
corresponding displacement values obtained
experimentally with the analytical results obtained
from SAP2000 analysis for various configurations of
frames.

1) For I = Ieff 1) For I = Ieff

Shell Slab , Ieff
350

300 0.1L
0.11L
Base Shear (kN)

250
0.12L
200
0.13L
150
0.14L

100 0.15L
EXP
50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Displacement (mm)

Fig.9 Pushover Curve for Frame with shell slab and

Fig.12 Pushover Curve for Frame with shell slab and
for Ieff
for Ieff , 0.12L hinge length

From Fig. 12 frame with slab modelled as sell

element for I= Ieff and hinge length 0.12L gives
nearer to experimental values that is Base shear
value 264 kN and corresponding displacement is
113 mm

International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 65-73
 AJAY D. GOUDAR, SHILPA KOTI, K. S. BABUNARAYAN
2) For I = Igross
Fig.13 Pushover Curve for Frame with shell slab and
for Igross , 0.15L hinge length
Table 3: Maximum Base shear and Roof displacements values
15. References
[1] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40 (1996).
Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
buildings, California
[2] Ashraf Habibullah, S.E. and Stephen Pyle, S.E.,
Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static
Pushover Analysis, Published in Structure
Magazine, Winter, 1998
[3] Ali Kheyroddin and Hosein Naderpour
(2007),plastic Hinge Rotation Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Beams, International
Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 5, No.1, pp
30-46, March 2007
[4] Kadid and A. Boumrkik , Pushover Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures, Asian
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No.1,
2008, pp. 75-87.
[5] Adarsh (2009) Statistical techniques for
uncertainties in pushover analysis, MTech
Thesis, National Institute of Technology
Karnataka, Surathkal.
[6] Achuthakumat (2011), Sensitivity of Pushover
Analysis To The Hinge Properties for Confined
Concrete , M.Tech thesis, NITK Surathkal.
[7] Computers and Structures Inc; CSI. SAP2000
V-10. CSI getting started with SAP2000,
Berkeley, California, USA, 2008.
[8] Computers and Structures Inc; CSI. SAP2000
V-10.CSI analysis reference manual.
Berkeley, California, USA, 2008.
[9] Edward G. Nawy A. Samer Ezeldin (Reported
by ACI Committee 435) Control of Deflection
in Concrete Structures, ACI435R-95,2000, pp.
10-11
International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering
ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 65-73
From Figure 6.3 slab modelled as shell element
for I= Igross and hinge length 0.15L gives nearer
to experimental values that is Base shear value
274 kN and corresponding displacement is 109
mm.
15. Conclusions
From Fig. 12 to 13 we can say that frame with Shell
slab model for effective moment of inertia (I eff) and
hinge length 0.12L also gross moment of inertia
(Igross) and hinge length 0.15L gives nearer results
with experimental
[10] G. Penelis and A.J. Kappos , 3D Pushover
Analysis: The Issue of Torsion12th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper
Reference-15, Elsevier Science Ltd.
[11] Helmut Krawinkler and G. D. P. K. Seneviratna,
Pros and Cons of Pushover Analysis of seismic
Performance Evaluation, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 20, Nos 4-6, 1998, pp. 452-464,
Elsevier Science Ltd.
[12] lker Kalkan Deflection Prediction for
Reinforced Concrete Beams through Different
Effective Moment of Inertia Expressions
International Journal Engineering Research &
development, Vol.2 ,No.1, January 2010 pp 72-
79
[13] IS-456:2000, Code of practice for plain and
reinforced concrete, code practice fourth
revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, Julyn2000
[14] J.R. Pique and M. Burgos (2008) Effective
Rigidity of Reinforced Concrete Elements In
Seismic Analysis And Design 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering October
12-17, 2008, Beijing, China
[15] K. S. Babunarayan, Vimal Rokhade,
Sensitivity of Pushover Analysis To Design
Parameters- An Analytical Investigation,
Department of civil Engineering, National
Institute Of Technology, Surathkal.
[16] Mwafy A.M. and Elnashai A.S (2001), Static
pushover versus Dynamic Collpse analysis of
RC buildings, Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol. 23, pp.407-424.
 Sensitivity of pushover analysis to design parameters-an analytical investigation
[17] Mehmet Inel, Tjen Tjhin and Mark A.
Aschheim, The Significance of Lateral Load
Pattern in Pushover Analysis, Fifth National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper
No:AE-009, 26-30 May 2003, Istanbul, Turkey.
[18] M. Sabbir U. Chowdhury and Tahsin Reza
Hossain Comparison of Sway Analysis of RC
Frames using Cracked Moment of Inertia UAP
Journal of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2005
[19] Mehmet Inel and Hayri Baytan Ozmen, Effects
of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis
of reinforced concrete buildings Engineering
Structures, Vol. 28 (2006) , 14941502.
[20] M. Ahmed, M. K Dad Khan and M. Wamiq
Effect Of Concrete Cracking On The Lateral
Response of RCC Buildings asian journal of
civil engineering (building and housing) vol. 9,
no. 1 (2008) pp.25-34.
[21] Monica Thapa (2009), sensitivity of pushover
analysis to the methods of modeling , M.Tech
thesis, NITK Surathkal.
[22] Poolo Riva and M. Z. Cohn Fellow (1990),
Engineering Approach To Non-linear Analysis
of Concrete Structures, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 8 pp.
2162-2184.
[23] Poornachandra Panditha and Vimal
Rokhde(2010), Sensitivity of Pushover
Analysis To The Design Parameters-An
Analytical Investgation , M.Tech thesis, NITK
Surathkal.
International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering
ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 65-73
[24] Rajeh Zaid Al-Zaid (1997) Effective Moment
Of Inertia Of Partially Cracked RC Beams
JKAU: Eng. SCI., vol, 9, pp. 125-139
[25] Sungjin Bae and Oguzhan Bayrak, Plastic
Hinge Length of Reinforced Concrete
Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No.
3, pp 290-301, May-June 2008.
[26] S. Khalfallah (2009) Explaining The Riddle
Of Effective Moment Of Inertia Models For
FRP Concrete Beams 1st International
Conference on Sustainable Built Environment
Infrastructures in Developing Countries ENSET
Oran (Algeria) - October 12-14, 2009
[27] Toshikazu Takeda, Mete A. Sozen (1970)
Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulate
Earthqukes, Journal of Structural Division,
Vol 96, NO. 12, pp.2557-2573.
[28] Vinuta Palnkar and Naman (2011), Sensitivity
of Pushover Analysis To The Design
Parameters for Confined Concrete , M.Tech
thesis, NITK Surathkal.
[29] Veeresh (2011), Sensitivity of Pushover
Analysis To The Hinge Properties for
Unconfined Concrete , M.Tech thesis, NITK
Surathkal.
[30] Xumei Zhao, Yu-Fei Wu, A. Yt. Leung and
Heung Fai lam, Plastic Hinge Length In
Reinforced Concrete Flextural members,
Published on Elsevier, Website
https//www.elsevier.com on July 2011.