Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 71

1

INTRODUCTION






2

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. GENERAL
Starting from the very beginning of civilization, mankind has faced several threat
of extinction due to invasion of severe natural disasters. Earthquake is the most disastrous
among them due to its huge power of devastation and total unpredictability. Unlike other
natural catastrophes, earthquakes themselves do not kill people, rather the colossal loss of
human lives and properties occur due to the destruction of man-made structures. Building
structures are one of such creations of mankind, which collapse during severe
earthquakes, and cause direct loss of human lives. Numerous research works have been
directed worldwide in last few decades to investigate the cause of failure of different
types of buildings under severe seismic excitations. Massive destruction of high-rise as
well as low-rise buildings in recent devastating earthquake of Gujarat on 26th January,
2001 proves that also in developing counties like ours, such investigation is the need of
the hour.
Post-earthquake field surveys show that torsionally irregular buildings sustain
more damage compared to regular ones. Irregularities in stiffness and mass tend to
influence the capacity and demand. Plan irregularities cause non-uniform damage among
the structural elements of the same story due to non-uniform displacement demands
[12]
.
Hence, seismic behavior of asymmetric building structures has become a topic of
worldwide active research since about last two decades. The previous studies were
limited to planar frames and symmetric buildings. Several research efforts have been
made to extend and apply the pushover analysis to unsymmetrical plan buildings whose
inelastic seismic responses are intricate. Kilar and Fajfar
[30, 31]
, De Stefano and
Rutenberg
[15]
, Faella and Kilar
[18]
, Moghadam and Tso
[36, 37]
, Ayala et al.
[5]
, Fujii et al.
[25]
and Barros and Almeida
[8]
investigated on the application of pushover analysis for
seismic evaluation of unsymmetric-plan buildings. Recently, the modal pushover analysis
3

(MPA)
[13]
, the N2 method
[21, 22]
and a simplified seismic analysis
[32]
were extended to
the asymmetric-plan buildings.
Asymmetric building structures are almost unavoidable in modern construction due to
various types of functional and architectural requirements. The lateral-torsional coupling
due to eccentricity between centre of mass (CM) and centre of rigidity (CR) in
asymmetric building structures generates torsional vibration even under purely
translational ground shaking. During seismic shaking of the structural systems, inertia
force acts through the centre of mass while the resistive force acts through the centre of
rigidity as shown in Fig. 1.1. Due to this non-concurrency of lines of action of the inertia
force and the resistive force a time varying twisting moment is generated which causes
torsional vibration of the structure in addition to the lateral vibration. As an approximate
method, the early stage NSP has certain shortcomings on well considering the torsion
effects of the buildings. Starting in 1997, many researchers put significant efforts into
extending pushover analysis to asymmetric-plan buildings.

Figure 1.1: Generation of torsional moment in asymmetric structures during seismic
excitation





4

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
To perform pushover analysis of Symmetrical building and Asymmetrical
building.

To perform Non-linear time history analysis of Symmetrical building and
Asymmetrical building.

Evaluating N2 method for obtaining the target displacement for symmetrical
building & Asymmetrical building.

To perform response spectrum analysis of Asymmetrical building.

Evaluating Extended N2 method for obtaining the target displacement for
Asymmetrical building.


1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS
Chapter 1 This introductory chapter presents the background and motivation behind this
study.
Chapter 2 deals with brief report on the literature survey of nonlinear static procedures.

Chapter 3 covers the complete study on pushover analysis, N2 method and Non linear
time history analysis and the procedure to be adopted in the present analysis.

Chapter 4 completely takes care of the case study of a building under consideration.

Chapter 5 copes with the numerical study and presentation of results of pushover
analysis, N2 method, extended N2 method and time history analysis.

Chapter 6 Details the discussions drawn based on the present work and the scope for the
further study.



5

1.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, the importance of earthquake and the post disaster effects of it and
some light has been thrown on torsional effects occurring in asymmetrical buildings and
its effects. The objectives are also been discussed. Based on the objective of the present
study, research papers were collected and studied thoroughly. The review of research
papers is discussed in the next chapter named as literature review.



















6






LITERATURE REVIEW











7

CHAPTER-II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. GENERAL
One of the crucial steps of performance based design procedures is the
determination of the displacement demand of structures under the seismic actions defined
by either acceleration time history or design response spectrum methods. The most
accurate way to compute the displacement demands of a structure under a given seismic
action is to carry out a nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) of the detailed three
dimensional (3D) mathematical model of the structure. However, this is a tedious and
time consuming procedure. Hence, nonlinear static analysis procedures (NSP)
[1-2, 4]

attract the attention of both practicing engineers and the research community in the sense
that it is more practical and faster to implement
[10, 2526]
. Nevertheless, being an
approximate method, nonlinear static analysis has certain shortcomings and researchers
have put significant efforts into overcoming these shortcomings. However, most of the
research on nonlinear static analysis procedures has been limited to planar structures.
Seismic damage surveys and analyses conducted on modes of failure of building
structures during past severe earthquakes concluded that most vulnerable building
structures are those, which are asymmetric in nature. In this context, it is of significant
importance to be able to capture the variations of displacement demands within the same
story due to torsional effects for reliable damage assessment of structures with
asymmetric plans. As stated in the work by Chopra and Goel
[13]
, current practice is
based on judgmental extension of NSP originally developed for planar analysis of
buildings to 3D analysis of structures with plan irregularities, which appear inaccurate in
capturing torsional effects. More recently, efforts have been made to address and
overcome the deficiencies of nonlinear static analysis procedures in estimating the
response of structures with plan irregularities
[5-6, 13, 18-22, 32, 51]
.
8

2.2. Pushover methods for 3D plan asymmetric buildings
The use of Nonlinear Static Procedures (NSPs) for the seismic assessment of plan
regular buildings and bridges is widespread nowadays. Their good performance in such
cases is widely supported by the extensive number of scientific studies described in the
previous pages. However, the applicability of NSPs on plan-irregular 3D buildings has so
far been the object of a limited number of papers. This limitation leads to a minor use of
these methods to assess current existing structures, the majority of which do tend to be
irregular in plan. The most important issue that controls the structural response of this
kind of structures is torsion. The aforementioned NSPs are not able to reproduce in a
correct manner the torsional response of plan irregular buildings; therefore one should be
cautious when using these methods to assess these structures.
In order to overcome the torsional problem in plan asymmetric buildings, some
researchers have proposed new pushover approaches. In 1997 Kilar and Fajfar
[30]
have
presented the use of a 3D model for the pushover analysis of plan irregular buildings.
They used an invariant force pattern with an inverted triangular shape at the centre of
mass of the floors. In this study the authors arrived at the conclusion that the torsional
rotation was strongly dependent on the orthogonal structural elements.
In 1998 Faella and Kilar
[18]
tested different location in plan to apply the lateral
forces of the pushover analysis of plan irregular buildings. Three eccentricities, measured
from the centre of mass location, were applied. In this study, the target displacement was
defined as the maximum response obtained from the nonlinear time-history analysis. The
torsional rotation was always underestimated, even when the eccentricity was maximum.
In the same year, De Stefano and Rutenberg
[15]
considered in their study the
interaction between walls and frames in a pushover analysis of 3D asymmetric
multistorey wall-frame structures. They applied the pushover forces considering the
design eccentricities prescribed in the Uniform Building Code
[29]
. The results obtained
were generally close to the time-history except at the flexible edges where the pushover
analysis overestimated the response.
9

In 2000, Azuhata et al.
[7]
included the torsional effects in the pushover analysis
by introducing two factors to the analysis: the strength modification factor and
deformation amplification factor, introduced originally by Ozaki et al.
[38]
. Despite
leading to approximate results, the authors concluded that the method was conservative.
Moghadam and Tso
[37]
proposed in 2000 a 3D pushover procedure. In this
method, the conventional pushover is performed independently in each resisting element
using a planar analysis, and the target displacements are calculated considering the equal
displacement rule. In fact, the target displacements of each resisting element (planar
frames and walls) are calculated with an elastic response spectrum analysis of a 3D
model of the building. However, it is generally recognized that the equal displacement
rule may lead to small inelastic displacements in the case of: near-fault ground motions;
systems with low strength; soft soil conditions; hysteresis behaviour of the elements with
considerable pinching or stiffness and strength degradation. Therefore, the use of this
method may lead to not so accurate results.
In 2002 Ayala and Tavera
[5]
proposed a 3D pushover procedure where the load
vector was applied simultaneously in the two directions at the centre of mass of each
floor and it was constituted by forces and torques. This load vector also took into account
the contribution of higher modes.
In the same year, Penelis and Kappos
[39, 40]
proposed a 3D pushover analysis.
The load vector is applied at the centre of mass of the floors and it is constituted by
lateral forces and torques. These components of the vector are defined as the ones
necessary to produce the storey displacements and torsion profiles obtained from a multi-
modal response spectrum analysis. This is a single run method with an invariant load
vector. The equivalent SDOF capacity curve is obtained using the concept of Substitute
Structure proposed by Gulkan and Sozen
[27]
. The results show that further studies are
necessary to confirm the good performance of the method, namely for predicting local
responses.
In 2004 Chopra and Goel
[13]
extended the application of the aforementioned
Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) to the case of plan asymmetric buildings. The method
10

was based on multi-run pushover analysis, where the load vectors in each run are
proportional to each 3D elastic mode of vibration of the structure. The load vectors are
constituted by modal forces in the two translational directions and by torques. The total
seismic response was obtained combining the response due to each modal load. Some
drawbacks can however be mentioned for this method: since each run corresponding to
each mode is run independently, the yielding in one mode is not reflected in the others
and no interaction between modes in the nonlinear range is considered. A three
dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two ground motions was
also performed by Reyes and Chopra in 2011
[45]
. In this work tall buildings were also
evaluated.
Fajfar et al.
[20, 21]
proposed in 2005 an extended version of the N2 method for
plan asymmetric buildings. In this proposal the pushover analysis of the 3D model is
performed independently in each direction, the target displacement being calculated using
the original N2 method procedure. In order to take torsional effects into account, the
pushover results are amplified by torsional correction factors. These factors are computed
through an elastic response spectrum analysis and a pushover analysis. No de-
amplification of displacements due to torsion is considered by the method. In 2009
DAmbrisi et al.
[16]
tested the Extended N2 method in an existing school, and in 2011
Koren and Kilar
[33]
tested the method in asymmetric base isolated buildings.
In 2008, an International Workshop on Nonlinear Static Methods for
Design/Assessment of 3D structures
[46]
took place in Lisbon, Portugal. Twelve famous
researchers on the topic from different countries were invited. Names like Anil Chopra,
Peter Fajfar, Helmut Krawinkler, Rakesh Goel, Stavros Anagnostopoulos, Andreas
Kappos, amongst others, contributed to the high quality of the presented papers, to the
lively and fruitful discussions that followed and to the substantial and objective
recommendations produced. At this international Workshop on 3D Pushover, several
contributions were made and important results were outlined, which were compiled in the
book
[4]
. The more relevant are described in the following:
11

Kunnath examined one subset of issues related to the sensitivity of nonlinear
material models, element formulations, analysis assumptions, etc, in seismic
demand estimation in the inelastic range. It was clear that due attention and care
should be paid to modelling issues (e.g. by means of accurately devised sensitivity
studies) prior to the actual comparison between different seismic assessment
methods.
Goel presented a generalized pushover curve, defined as a relationship between the
scaling factor that is applied to the modal force distribution during the pushover
analysis versus displacement at any selected reference location. Since this
generalized pushover curve does not explicitly need the base shear, it can be
developed for three-dimensional structures for which modes excited during the
earthquake ground motion may induce little or no base shear.

Savoia proposed a new procedure, termed Force/Torque Pushover (FTP) analysis,
to select storey force distributions for 3D pushover analysis of plan irregular RC
frame structures.
Krawinkler demonstrated that pushover analysis is readily capable of accurately
revealing P-Delta (or deterioration) structural sensitivity, when the latter contributes
in a significant manner to seismic response. This needs, however, to be
complemented with appropriately derived rules for computation of the target
displacement, which should equally account for 2
nd
order effects and deterioration,
something that seems not to be regularly recognized by analysts. Caution was also
recommended in the use of the pushover analysis in an intensity range for which
results may become collapse sensitive, given the uncertainty introduced by record-
to-record variability, and the consequent effects on the results obtained.
Moghadam calibrated, by means of an extensive parametric study considering 150
steel buildings, a modification factor that may be introduced within the scope of a
12

Displacement Coefficient Method application to improve results prediction when
the latter is applied to assess the seismic response of plan irregular structures.
Kappos introduced an improved version of the MPA procedure for application to
bridges. It seems to be a promising approach that yields more accurate results
compared to the standard pushover.
Bento carried out a study that aimed at scrutinizing the effectiveness with which
four commonly employed Nonlinear Static Procedures (CSM, N2, MPA, ACSM)
are able to reproduce the actual dynamic response of the well known SPEAR
building.
Other researchers have performed 3D pushover analysis on plan irregular
buildings, such as: Fujii et al.
[23]
, Yu et al.
[50]
, Erduran and Ryan
[15]
, Stefano and
Pintucchi
[47]
. Despite the results obtained, definitive answers still need to be reached.
2.3. CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF LITERATURE REVIEW
The use of Non linear static procedure methods (NSPs) in the case of plan
irregular structures has so far been studied by a limited number of authors. This fact
limits the application of NSPs to assess irregular plan structures. Existing studies on this
topic usually focus on the evaluation of a single NSP. In order to obtain useful elements
of comparison between different methodologies, the performance of 2 commonly
employed nonlinear static procedures (pushover analysis and N2 method) is evaluated
and it is compared with nonlinear dynamic analysis (Time history) in this thesis.

2.4. SUMMARY
The present chapter deals with the various literatures that have been published on
pushover analysis, N2 method and Extended N2 method. The literature available
emphasizes on the evaluation of a single NSP. Hence the present study aims at
comparison between different methodologies (pushover analysis, N2 method and Time
history) using SAP2000
(48)
as a tool.

13









METHODOLOGY








14


CHAPTER-III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 GENERAL
Seismic design philosophies: The seismic evaluation of structures has been
generally based on a Force-Based design philosophy, where the structural elements are
assessed in terms of stresses caused by the equivalent seismic forces. Therefore, the main
concern within this design philosophy is to give strength to the structure rather than
displacement capacity. Some procedures have been proposed in the past, such as the
Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA), which has been implemented in seismic codes all
over the world and is still commonly used by the majority of structural design engineers.
In this procedure, the structure is considered to have an elastic behavior. The periods and
the modes of vibration are calculated, and the response of the structure is computed
through the application of a response spectrum. The forces in the elements are divided by
a behavior factor in order to take into account the nonlinearity of the materials.

More recently, Priestley
[42]
published a critical review on the drawbacks of this method.
The main fallacies pointed out are the following:

1) A response spectrum is obtained from an accelerogram by running this record in
several single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems with different periods of
vibration. The value of the response spectrum corresponding to a certain period is
obtained taking the maximum response of the SDOF with that period. As a
consequence the duration effects of the dynamic response are ignored, which may
not be valid in the case of plastic responses;
2) The response spectrum analysis uses the combination of modal responses, so the
final response is a combination of the response associated with each mode of
15

vibration. Thus, this principle leads to internal forces that do not respect the
equilibrium;
3) The stiffness degradation is not taken into account. The method considers a mean
value of this parameter which may produce wrong estimations of internal forces;
4) The design forces obtained from the modal combination are reduced using a
behavior factor, in order to take into account the ductility and over strength of the
structure. The use of a single value to reduce the internal forces seems to be a
rough solution to represent the nonlinearity of the materials. In fact, the higher
modes may not be controlled by the same level of ductility of the fundamental
mode. Therefore, using the same force reduction factor in all modes may
underestimate the higher mode effects in terms of internal forces;

In recent years the need for changes in the existing seismic design methodology
implemented in codes has been generally recognized. The structural engineering
community has been creating a new generation of design and rehabilitation procedures
based on a new philosophy of performance-based engineering concepts. It has become
widely accepted that one should consider damage limitation as an explicit design
consideration
[35]
. In fact, the damage and behavior of the structures during an earthquake
is mainly governed by the inelastic deformation capacity of the ductile members.
Therefore, the seismic evaluation of structures should be based on the deformations
induced by the earthquake, instead of the element stresses caused by the computed
equivalent seismic forces, as happens in the Force-Based philosophy. In recent years,
several attempts have been made to introduce displacement-based methodologies in
seismic engineering practice. These methodologies can be divided into two main groups:
displacement-based design methods for the design of new structures
[42, 43]
, and
displacement-based evaluation methods for the seismic performance assessment of pre-
designed or existing structures.
Two key elements of a performance-based procedure are demand and capacity.
The demand represents the effect of the earthquake ground motion (it can be defined by
means of a response spectrum or an accelerogram). The capacity of a structure represents
its ability to resist the seismic demand. The performance depends on how the capacity is
16

able to handle the demand. The structure must have the capacity to resist the demands of
the earthquake such that its performance is compatible with the design objectives.

Within this context, nonlinear seismic analyses of structures are extremely
important in order to correctly assess their seismic performance, Figure 3.1



Figure 3.1 Use of inelastic analysis procedures to estimate inelastic forces and
deformations for given seismic ground motions and a nonlinear analysis model of
the building [2].

3.2 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The analysis procedures can be divided into linear procedures (linear static and
linear dynamic) and non-linear procedures (non-linear static and non-linear dynamic).

3.2.1 Linear static analysis
In a linear static analysis procedure, the building is modeled as an equivalent
single degree of freedom (SDOF) system with a linear elastic stiffness and an equivalent
viscous damping. The seismic input is modeled by an equivalent lateral force with the
objective to produce the same stresses and strains as the earthquake it represents. Based
on an estimation of the first fundamental frequency of the building using empirical
relationships or Rayleighs method, the spectral acceleration is determined from the
17

appropriate response spectrum which, multiplied by the mass of the building, results in
the equivalent lateral force. The coefficients take into account not only issues like second
order effects, stiffness degradation, but also force reduction due to anticipated inelastic
behavior. The lateral force is then distributed over the height of the building and the
corresponding internal forces and displacements are determined using linear elastic
analysis.
These linear static procedures are used primarily for design purposes and are
incorporated in most codes. Their expenditure is rather small. However, their
applicability is restricted to regular buildings for which the first mode of vibration is
predominant.

3.2.2 Linear dynamic analysis
In a linear dynamic analysis procedure the building is modeled as a multi-degree-
of-freedom (MDOF) system with a linear elastic stiffness matrix and an equivalent
viscous damping matrix.

The seismic input is modeled using either modal spectral analysis or time history
analysis. Modal spectral analysis assumes that the dynamic response of a building can be
found by considering the independent response of each natural mode of vibration using
linear elastic response spectra. Only the modes contributing significantly to the response
need to be considered. The modal responses are combined using schemes such as the
square-root-sum-of-squares. Time-history analysis involves a time-step-by-step
evaluation of building response, using recorded earthquake acceleration data as base
motion input. In both cases the corresponding internal forces and displacements are
determined using again linear elastic analysis. The advantage of these linear dynamic
procedures with respect to linear static procedures is that higher modes can be considered
which makes them suitable for irregular buildings. However, again they are based on
linear elastic response and hence their applicability decreases with increasing non-linear
behavior which is approximated by global force reduction factors.

18

3.2.3 Non-linear static analysis
In a non-linear static analysis procedure, the building model incorporates directly
the non-linear force-deformation characteristics of individual components and elements
due to inelastic material response. Several methods exist (e.g. ATC 40
[1]
and FEMA
356
(4)
). They all have in common that the non-linear force-deformation characteristic of
the building is represented by a pushover curve, i.e. a curve of base shear verses top
displacement, obtained by subjecting the building model to monotonically increasing
lateral forces or increasing displacements, distributed over the height of the building in
correspondence to the first mode of vibration, until the building collapses. The maximum
displacements likely to be experienced during a given earthquake are determined using
either highly damped or inelastic response spectra. Clearly, the advantage of these
procedures with respect to the linear procedures is that they take into account directly the
effects of non-linear material response and hence, the calculated internal forces and
deformations will be more reasonable approximations of those expected during an
earthquake. However, only the first mode of vibration is considered and hence these
methods are not suitable for irregular buildings for which higher modes become
important.

3.2.4 Non-linear dynamic analysis
In a non-linear dynamic analysis procedure, the building model is similar to the
one used in non-linear static procedures incorporating directly the inelastic material
response using general finite elements. The main difference is that the seismic input is
modeled using a time-history analysis which involves time-step-by-time-step evaluation
of the building response. This is the most sophisticated analysis procedure for predicting
forces and displacements under seismic input. However, the calculated response can be
very sensitive to the characteristics of the individual ground motion used as seismic input,
therefore several time-history analysis are required using different ground motion
records. The major advantage of non-linear dynamic procedures is that it acts as a
research tool with the objective to simulate the behavior of a building structure in detail,
i.e. to describe the exact state of the art displacement profiles, the propagation of cracks,
the distribution of vertical and shear stresses, the shape of the hysteretic curves, etc.
19

3.3 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
In Pushover analysis, a static horizontal force profile, usually proportional to the
design force profiles specified in the codes, is applied to the structure. The force profile is
then incremented in small steps and the structure is analyzed at each step. As the loads
are increased, the building undergoes yielding at a few locations. Every time such
yielding takes place, the structural properties are modified approximately to reflect the
yielding. The analysis is continued till the structure collapses, or the building reaches
certain level of lateral displacement. With the increase in the loads, non-linear responses
of the members are captured.
The pushover analysis can determine the lateral load verses deformation behavior
of the building corresponding to the incremental loads. Programs supporting pushover
analysis provide elegant visualization of the damage state for each load step and the
redistribution of the internal forces in the members. At each step, the base shear and the
roof displacement can be plotted to generate the capacity curve or pushover curve. It
gives an idea of the lateral strength and the maximum inelastic drift the building can
sustain. For regular buildings it can also give a rough estimate of the lateral stiffness of
the building. Fig. 3.2 illustrates shows the way to plot the force deformation curve.

20

Figure 3.2 Inverted triangular loading for pushover analysis

Figure 3.3 Global capacity curve of structure

Figure 3.4 Global capacity (pushover) curve
3.4 TYPES OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Presently, there are two non-linear static analysis procedures available, one
termed as the Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM) included in the FEMA-356
(4)

document and the other termed as the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) included in the
21

ATC-40
(1)
document. Both of these methods depend on the lateral load-deformation
variation obtained by using the non-linear static analysis under the gravity loading and
idealized lateral loading due to the seismic action. This analysis is generally called as the
pushover analysis.
3.4.1 Capacity spectrum method
(3)
A nonlinear static analysis procedure that provides a graphical representation of
the expected seismic performance of the existing or retrofitted structure by the
intersection of the structures capacity spectrum with a response spectrum (demand
spectrum) representation of the earthquakes displacement demand on the structure. The
intersection is the performance point, and the displacement coordinate, dp, of the
performance point is the estimated displacement demand on the structure for the specified
level of seismic hazard.
3.4.2 Displacement coefficient method
(29)
A nonlinear static analysis procedure that provides a numerical process for'
estimating the displacement demand on the structure, by using a bilinear representation of
the capacity curve and a series of modification factors, or coefficients, to calculate a
target displacement. The point on the capacity curve at the target displacement is the
equivalent of the performance point in the capacity spectrum method.

Various elastic (linear) and inelastic (non-linear) methods are available for the
analysis of existing concrete buildings. Elastic analysis methods available include static
lateral force procedures, dynamic lateral force procedures and elastic procedures using
demand capacity ratios. The most basic inelastic analysis method is the complete non-
linear time history analysis, which at this time is considered more complex and
impractical for general use. Available simplified non-linear analysis methods, referred to
as non-linear static analysis procedures, include the capacity spectrum method (CSM)
that uses the intersection of the capacity (pushover) curve and a reduced response
spectrum to estimate maximum displacement; the displacement coefficient method
(FEMA-273) that uses pushover analysis and a reunified version of the equal
displacement approximation to estimate maximum displacement; and the secant method
22

that uses a substitute structure and secant stiffness. A non-linear static procedure in
general focuses on the capacity spectrum method. This method has not been developed in
detail previously. It provides a particularly rigorous treatment of the reduction of seismic
demand for increasing displacement.
Although elastic analysis gives a good indication of the elastic capacity of
structures and indicates where first yielding will occur, it cannot predict failure
mechanisms and account for redistribution of forces during progressive yielding. Inelastic
analyses procedures help demonstrate how buildings really work by identifying modes of
failure and the potential for progressive collapse. The use of inelastic procedures for
design and evaluation is attempts to help engineers better understand how structures will
behave when subjected to major earthquakes, where it is assumed that the elastic capacity
of the structure will be exceeded. This resolves some of the uncertainties associated with
elastic procedures. The capacity spectrum method, a non-linear static procedure that
provides a graphical representation of the global force-displacement capacity curve of the
structure (i.e., pushover) and compares it to the response spectra representations of the
earthquake demands, is a very useful tool in the evaluation and retrofit design of existing
concrete buildings. 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 building's response to earthquake demands.

3.5 Pushover analysis in ATC-40
(1)

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings commonly referred to as
ATC-40
(1)
was developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) with funding from
the California Safety Commission. Although the procedures recommended in this
document are for concrete buildings, they are applicable to most building types.
ATC-40
(1)
recommends the following steps for the entire process of evaluation and
retrofit:
Initiation of a Project: Determine the primary goal and potential scope of the
project.
23

Selection of Qualified Professionals: Select engineering professionals with a
demonstrated experience in the analysis, design and retrofit of buildings in
seismically hazardous regions. Experience with PBSE and non-linear procedures
are also needed.
Performance Objective: Choose a performance objective from the options
provided for a specific level of seismic hazard.
Review of Building Conditions: Perform a site visit and review drawings.
Alternatives for Mitigation: Check to see if the non-linear procedure is
appropriate or relevant for the building under consideration.
Peer Review and Approval Process: Check with building officials and consider
other quality control measures appropriate to seismic evaluation and retrofit.
Detailed Investigations: Perform a nonlinear static analysis if appropriate.
Seismic Capacity: Determine the inelastic capacity curve also known to pushover
curve. Covert to capacity spectrum.
Seismic Hazard: Obtain a site specific response spectrum for the chosen hazard
level and convert to spectral ordinates format.
Verify Performance: Obtain performance point as the intersection of the capacity
spectrum and the reduced seismic demand in spectral ordinates (ADRS) format.
Check all primary and secondary elements against acceptability limits based on
the global performance goal.
3.6 N2 method:
In recent years, a breakthrough of simplified inelastic analysis and performance
evaluation methods has occurred. Such methods combine the non-linear static (pushover)
analysis of a multi degree-of-freedom (MDOF) model and the response spectrum analysis
of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model. They can be used for a variety
of purposes such as design verification for new buildings and bridges, damage
assessment for existing structures, determination of basic structural characteristics in
direct displacement based design, and rapid evaluation of global structural response to
seismic ground motion of different intensities. An example is the N2 method, which has
been implemented into the final version of the Eurocode 8 standard (CEN 2003).
24


3.6.1 SUMMARY OF THE N2 METHOD:
The N2 method (N comes from Nonlinear analysis and 2 comes from 2
mathematical models) was developed at the University of Ljubljana in mid-eighties. The
formulation of the method in the acceleration displacement format enables the visual
interpretation of the procedure and of the relations between the basic quantities
controlling the seismic response. The basic version of the N2 method, limited to planar
structural models.
In the N2 method, first the pushover analysis of the MDOF model is performed.
Pushover curve is then transformed to the capacity diagram. The seismic demand for the
equivalent SDOF system with a period T can be determined as follows: Elastic demand in
terms of acceleration Sae and displacement Sde is determined from the elastic spectrum.
The inelastic acceleration demand Sa is equal to the yield acceleration Say, which
represents the acceleration capacity of the inelastic system. The strength reduction factor
due to ductility R, which will be denoted in this paper as R (R R), can be determined
as the ratio between the accelerations corresponding to the elastic and inelastic system.
The ductility demand is then calculated from inelastic spectra, which are defined by the
period dependent relation between reduction factor and ductility (R--T relation), and the
inelastic displacement demand Sd is computed as Sd = (/R)Sde . The target
displacement, which represents the seismic demand of the MDOF model, is obtained as
Dt = Sd , where is the transformation factor from the MDOF to the SDOF system. In
principle any R--T relation can be used. A very simple and fairly accurate R--T relation
is based on the equal displacement rule in the medium- and long-period range. This
relation is used in the basic variant of the N2 method. It has been implemented in
Eurocode 8 and is discussed below.
For many years, the ductility factor method has been used in seismic codes. The
basic assumption of this method is that the deformations of a structure produced by a
given ground motion are essentially the same, whether the structure responds elastically
or yields significantly. This assumption represents the equal displacement rule. Using
this rule, the ductility dependant reduction factor R is equal to ductility factor . The
simple chart in Fig.1 is essential for understanding of the concept of reduction factors and
25

of the ductility factor method. The educational value of the figure can be greatly
increased by using the AD format, introduced by Freeman. In AD format, Fig.3.5 (force
has to be divided by mass) can be combined with demand spectra (Fig.3.6.). Fig.3.6,
which enables a visualization of the basic variant of the N2 method, resembles to the
basic chart in capacity spectrum method. The main difference is in inelastic demand,
which is defined by an inelastic spectrum rather than by an equivalent highly damped
elastic spectrum. Inelastic spectrum in medium and long-period range in Fig.3.6 is based
on the equal displacement rule.



Figure 3.5. Basic diagram explaining the ductility factor method

26


Figure 3.6. Elastic and inelastic demand spectra versus capacity diagram.

In Fig.3.6 the quantities relevant for the seismic response of an ideal elasto-plastic SDOF
system can be visualized. Seismic demand is expressed in terms of accelerations and
displacements, which are the basic quantities controlling the seismic response. Demand is
compared with the capacity of the structure expressed by the same quantities. Fig.3.6
helps to understand the relations between the basic quantities and to appreciate the effects
of changes of parameters. The intersection of the radial line corresponding to the elastic
period of the idealised bilinear system T with the elastic demand spectrum Sae defines the
acceleration demand (strength) required for elastic behaviour, and the corresponding
elastic displacement demand Sde. The yield acceleration Say represents both the
acceleration demand and capacity of the inelastic system. The reduction factor R is equal
to the ratio between the accelerations corresponding to elastic (Sae) and inelastic systems
(Say). If the elastic period T is larger than or equal to TC, which is the characteristic
period of ground motion, the equal displacement rule applies and the inelastic
displacement demand Sd is equal to the elastic displacement demand Sde. From triangles
in Figs.3.5 and 3.6 it follows that the ductility demand is equal to R. Fig.3.6. also
demonstrates that the displacements Sdd obtained from elastic analysis with reduced
seismic forces, corresponding to design acceleration Sad, have to be multiplied by the
total reduction factor, which is the product of the ductility dependent factor R and the
overstrength factor, defined as Say/Sad. The intersection of the capacity diagram and the
demand spectrum, called also performance point, provides an estimate of the inelastic
27

acceleration and displacement demand, as in the capacity spectrum method. This feature
allows the extension of the visualisation to more complex cases, in which different
relations between elastic and inelastic quantities and different idealisations of capacity
diagrams are used. Fig.3.6. can be used for both traditional force-based design as well as
for the increasingly popular deformation-controlled (or displacement-based) design. In
these two approaches, different quantities are chosen at the beginning. Let us assume that
the approximate mass is known. The usual force-based design typically starts by
assuming the stiffness (which defines the period) and the approximate global ductility
capacity. The seismic forces (defining the strength) are then determined, and finally
displacement demand is calculated. In direct displacement based design, the starting
points are typically displacement and/or ductility demands. The quantities to be
determined are stiffness and strength. The third possibility is a performance evaluation
procedure, in which the strength and the stiffness (period) of the structure being analysed
are known, whereas the displacement and ductility demands are calculated. Note that, in
all cases, the strength corresponds to the actual strength and not to the design base shear
according to seismic codes, which is in all practical cases less than the actual strength.
Note also that stiffness and strength are usually related quantities. All approaches can be
easily visualized with the help of Fig.3.6. The relations apply to SDOF systems.
However, they can be used also for a large class of MDOF systems, which can be
adequately represented by equivalent SDOF systems.

3.6.2 Limitations of N2 method:
The N2 method is, like any approximate method, subject to several limitations.
Applications of this methods are time being, restricted to the planar analysis of
structures.
[21]
This method is restricted to symmetrical structures.

3.7 Extended N2 method for Plan Asymmetric Buildings:
The original N2 method is, like other simplified non-linear methods, restricted to
2D analysis. In order to extend the applicability of the method to plan-asymmetric
buildings, which require a 3D structural model, a procedure based on pushover analysis
28

of a 3D building model was proposed in (Fajfar 2002) and implemented in (Fajfar et al.
2002).

3.7.1 SUMMARY OF THE EXTENDED N2 METHOD:
Fajfar and his co-workers worked on the seismic behavior of plan-asymmetric
buildings and observed that the torsional effects are mostly pronounced in the elastic
range and early stages of plastic behavior and tend to decrease with an increase in the
plastic deformations [21, 22]. Hence, the amplifications in the displacement demands due
to torsional effects computed from elastic dynamic analysis can be used as a rough and
conservative estimate both in the elastic and inelastic range. Based on this observation,
Fajfar et al. [21] developed the extension of the N2 method to plan asymmetric buildings.
The fundamental steps of the procedure are summarized below:
The N2 method was included in Eurocode 8 [11] as the recommended nonlinear static
procedure.
The fundamental steps of the procedure are summarized below:
1. Pushover analysis of the 3D mathematical model of the building is performed
independently in two horizontal directions and the target roof displacement for each
horizontal direction is computed using the N2 method [21].
2. A linear response spectrum analysis of the 3D model is carried out independently in
two horizontal directions and the results are combined using the SRSS rule.
3. The correction factors to be applied to the relevant results of pushover analysis are
determined. The correction factor is defined as the ratio between the normalized roof
displacements obtained by elastic modal analysis and by pushover analysis. The
normalized roof displacement is the ratio of the roof displacement at an arbitrary
location to the roof displacement at the center of mass (CM). If the normalized roof
displacement obtained from elastic response spectrum analysis is less than 1.0, it is
taken as 1.0.
4. All the relevant quantities obtained by pushover analysis are multiplied with the
appropriate correction factors. Examples for the relevant quantities may be the
deformation demand of the ductile elements and the force demand of the brittle
elements.
29

3.8 Time History Analysis
It is an analysis of dynamic response of the structure at each increment of time,
when its base is subjected to specific ground motion history. This means the method
requires site specific ground motion studies. Dynamic analysis using either Time History
method or response spectrum, method shall be performed for following buildings.
a) Regular buildings : These buildings having height greater than 40 m In Zone IV and
V, and those greater than 90 m height in Zone II and III.
b) Irregular buildings: All buildings higher the 12 m in Zone IV and V , and those
greater than 40m in height Zone II and III.

However, for irregular buildings having height less than 40 m in Zone II and III,
even though not mandatory, dynamic analysis is recommended. Thus, in general,
dynamic analysis shall be performed for building in Zone IV and V while for buildings
having height less than 40m in Zone II and III seismic coefficient method which is
simple in application.

3.8.1 OVERVIEW OF TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
Time-history analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of a structure to
arbitrary loading. The dynamic equilibrium equations to be solved are given by:
................... 3. 3
Where K is the stiffness matrix; C is the damping matrix; M is the diagonal mass
matrix; and are the displacements, velocities, and accelerations of the
structure; and r is the applied load. If the load includes ground acceleration, the
displacements, velocities, and accelerations are relative to this ground motion.
Any number of time-history Load Cases can be defined. Each time-history case can differ
in the load applied and in the type of analysis to be performed.
There are several options that determine the type of time-history analysis to be
performed:
Linear vs. Non linear.
30

Modal vs. Direct-integration: These are two different solution methods, each with
advantages and disadvantages. Under ideal circumstances, both methods should
yield the same results to a given problem.
Transient vs. Periodic: Transient analysis considers the applied load as a one-time
event, with a beginning and end. Periodic analysis considers the load to repeat in
definitely, with all transient response damped out. Periodic analysis is only
available for linear modal time-history analysis.
Initial Conditions
The initial conditions describe the state of the structure at the beginning of a time-
history case. These include:
Displacements and velocities
Internal forces and stresses
Internal state variables for non linear elements
Energy values for the structure
External loads
The accelerations are not considered initial conditions, but are computed from the
equilibrium equation. For linear transient analyses, zero initial conditions are always
assumed. For periodic analyses, the program automatically adjusts the initial conditions
at the start of the analysis to be equal to the conditions at the end of the analysis.

Time Steps
Time-history analysis is per formed at discrete time steps. Number of output time
steps are specified with parameter n step and the size of the time steps with parameter dt.
The time span over which the analysis is carried out is given by n step dt. For periodic
analysis, the period of the cyclic loading function is assumed to be equal to this time
span. Responses are calculated at the end of each dt time increment, resulting in nstep+1
values for each output response quantity.
Response is also calculated, but not saved, at every time step of the input time
functions in order to accurately capture the full effect of the loading. These time steps are
called load steps. For modal time-history analysis, this has little effect on efficiency.
31

For direct-integration time-history analysis, this may cause the stiffness matrix to be re-
solved if the load step size keeps changing. For example, if the output time step is 0.01
and the input time step is 0.005, the program will use a constant internal time- step of
0.005. However, if the input time step is 0.075, then the input and output steps are out of
synchrony, and the loads steps will be: 0.075, 0.025, 0.05, 0.05,0.025, 0.075, and so on.
For this reason, it is usually advisable to choose an output time step that evenly divides,
or is evenly divided by, the input time steps.

3.8.2 CLASSIFICATION
Time-history analysis is a step-by-step anal sis of the dynamical response of a
structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. The analysis may be linear or
non-linear.
Linear Time History analysis:
A Linear Time History analysis overcomes all the disadvantages of modal response
spectrum analysis, provided non-linear behaviour is not involved. This method requires
greater computational efforts for calculating response quantities at discrete times. One
interesting advantage of such procedure is that the relative signs of response quantities
are preserved in the response histories. This is important when interaction effects are
considered in design among stress resultants.
Non-Linear Time History analysis:
A seismically deficient building will be subjected to inelastic action during
earthquake motion. The Non-Linear T.H.A off the building under strong ground motion
brings out the regions of weakness and ductility demand of the structure. This is the most
rational method available for assessing building performance. There are computer
programs available to perform this type of analysis. However, there are complexities with
regard to biaxial non linear response of the columns, modelling of joints behaviour,
interaction of flexural and shear strength and modelling of degrading characteristics of
member. The methodology is used to ascertain deficiency and post elastic response under
strong ground shaking.
32

Modal time history analysis:
Modal superposition provides a highly efficient and accurate procedure for
performing time-history analysis. Closed-form integration of the modal equations is used
to compute the response, assuming linear variation of the time functions between the
input data time points.
Therefore, numerical instability problems are never encountered, and the time
increment may be any sampling value that is deemed fine enough to capture the
maximum response values. One-tenth of the time period of the highest mode is usually
recommended; however, a larger value may give an equally accurate sampling if the
contribution of the higher modes is small.
If all of the spatial load vectors pi, are used as starting load vectors for Ritz-vector
analysis, then the Ritz vectors will always produce more accurate results than if the same
number of eigenvectors is used. Since the Ritz-vector algorithm is faster than the
eigenvector algorithm, the former is recommended for time-history analyses.
To determine if the Modes calculated by the program are adequate to represent the
time history response to the applied load, these things should be checked.
That enough Modes have been computed
That the Modes cover an adequate frequency range
That the dynamic load (mass) participation mass ratios are adequate for the Load
Patterns and/or Acceleration Loads being applied.
That the modes shapes adequately represent all desired deformations.
Direct-Integration Time-History Analysis:
Direct integration for the solution of the differential equations of motion is available
in SAP2000 for linear and nonlinear time history analysis. For linear analysis, modal
superposition can be used instead with greater efficiency than the direct integration
method. When using direct integration for nonlinear transient analysis, all types of
nonlinearities (material, geometric) are considered in the algorithm.
A nonlinear direct-integration time-history analysis can be initiated from zero
initial conditions (unloaded structure) or continued from a nonlinear static analysis
(pushover) or another direct-integration time-history nonlinear analysis. The geometric
33

nonlinearity is taken as the previous analysis case. For the analysis of undamaged
building structures, nonlinear time history analysis is conducted including only the effects
of gravity loads.
While modal superposition is usually more accurate and efficient, direct-
integration does offer the following advantages for linear problems:
Full damping that couples the modes can be considered
Impact and wave propagation problems that might excite a large number of modes
may be more efficiently solved by direct integration
For non linear problems, direct integration also allows consideration of more types of
nonlinearity that does modal superposition.
Direct integration results are extremely sensitive to time-step size in a way that is not true
for modal super position. Therefore the direct-integration analyses should always be run
with decreasing time-step sizes until the step size is small enough that results are no
longer affected by it. In particular, stiff and localized response quantities should be
checked. For example, much smaller time step may be required to get accurate results for
the axial force in a stiff member than for the lateral displacement at the top of a structure.
3.8.3 Damping
For the damping calculations, there are three options in SAP2000. These are direct
specification, specifying modal damping by period and specifying damping by
frequency options. In direct specification option, the damping values are entered
considering mass and stiffness proportional coefficients. In specify modal damping by
period option, the damping values with the first and second periods are assigned
Using these values, the program calculates the mass proportional and stiffness
proportional coefficients. The specify modal damping by frequency has the same
interface but this time frequency values instead of periods are assigned. In the analyses of
the analytical models specify modal damping by period option is used.
In direct-integration time-history analysis, the damping in the structure is modelled
using a full damping matrix. Unlike modal damping, this allows coupling between the
modes to be considered. Direct-integration damping has three different sources, which
are described in the following. Damping from these sources is added together.
34

Proportional Damping from the Load Case:
For each direct-integration time-history Load Case, proportional damping has
coefficients that apply to the structure as a whole. The damping matrix is calculated as a
linear combination of the stiffness matrix scaled by specifying a coefficient and the mass
matrix scaled by specifying a second coefficient.
These two coefficients may be specified directly, or they may be computed by
specifying equivalent fractions of critical modal damping at two different periods or
frequencies.
Stiffness proportional damping is linearly proportional to frequency. It is related
to the deformations within the structure. Stiffness proportional damping may excessively
damp out high frequency components.
Mass proportional damping is linearly proportional to period. It is related to the motion of
the structure, as if the structure is moving through a viscous fluid. Mass proportional
damping may excessively damp out long period components.
Due to the limitations of the response spectrum analysis procedure to
approximate the dynamic nonlinear response of a complex three-dimensional structural
systems, nonlinear time-history analysis is strongly recommended instead. Nonlinear
time history analysis accounts for the nonlinearities or strength degradation of different
elements of the building, as well as the load pattern or ground motion intensity and
characteristics used during a nonlinear dynamic analysis.
The loading in a time history analysis is foundation displacement or ground
motion acceleration, not externally applied loads at the joints or members of the structure.
The design displacements are not established using a target displacement, but instead are
determined directly through dynamic analysis using suites of ground motion records.
Inertial forces are produced in the structure when the structure suddenly deforms due to
ground motion and internal forces are produced in the structural members. For complex
three-dimensional structures such as curved structures, the direction of the earthquake
that produces the maximum stresses, in a particular member or at a specified point, is not
apparent. For all building types time history analysis must therefore be performed using
several different earthquake motions at various input angles to assure that all the
35

significant modes are excited and the critical earthquake direction is captured, producing
the peak response and estimating accurately the seismic demand on the structure.
Another approach is to use a larger suite of earthquake ground motion records of
three components at one angle of input. Since seismic motions can excite the higher
frequencies of the structure, neglecting higher modes of the building system could
introduce a significant error in the dynamic analysis results.
The main disadvantage of the time history analysis method is the high
computational and analytical effort required and the large amount of output information
produced. During the analysis, the capacity of the main building components is evaluated
as a function of time, based on the nonlinear behaviour determined for the elements and
materials.
This evaluation is carried out for several input ground motions applied at different
angles, and the response of the structure is recorded at every time step. Despite these
challenges, the evaluation of the capacity using the THA method at each time step
produces superior results, since it allows for redistribution of internal forces within the
structure. Each member is therefore not designed for maximum peak values, as required
by the response spectrum method, but for the actual forces produced in the structure
during dynamic excitation.
The recent development of computer hardware has allowed to reduce the required
computational time and made it more practical to run many time history analyses for
complex building structures. In addition, the seismic demand can be estimated through
statistical approximations, using the mean and standard deviation values of joint
displacements and element forces to determine the peak response expected for the
structure.
3.9 Earthquake Ground Motion:
The earthquake ground motion of sufficient strength that affect human and their
environment (strong ground motion) are of interest for earthquake resistant design. The
strong motions are measured by accelerographs and its recorded history is time history of
acceleration (accelerogram).The temporal evolution of accelerogram is composed of
three parts viz. Rise, strong motion and decay. The motion strongly depends on source
parameters such as fault shape, its area, and maximum fault dislocation, complexity of
36

slipping process and the distance of fault from the ground surface. The elastic properties
of the material through which the generated seismic waves travel also influence the
strong motion. The effect of ground shaking is mostly dependent on duration on strong
motion part.

3.9.1 Input Ground Motions:
Input ground motions should be selected and scaled so as to accurately represent
the specific hazard of interest. As outlined in ASCE 7, the ground motions should reflect
the characteristics of the dominant earthquake source at the building site, such as fault
mechanism, distance to the fault, site conditions, and characteristic earthquake
magnitude. Recent studies have further shown that the shape of the ground motion
response spectra is an important factor in choosing and scaling ground motions,
particularly for higher intensity motions (Baker and Cornell 2006). While a
comprehensive discussion on the selection and scaling of ground motion records is
beyond the scope of this Technical Brief, the following are some of the issues to
consider.
3.9.2 Target hazard spectra or scenario:
While the earthquake hazard is a continuum, building codes typically define
specific ground motion hazard levels for specific performance checks. Generally, the
hazard is defined in terms of response spectral accelerations with a specified mean annual
frequency of expedience, although other definitions are possible including scenario
earthquakes, e.g., an earthquake with a specified magnitude and distance from the site, or
deterministic bounds on ground motion intensities.

3.9.3 Source of ground motions
For building assessment and design, the input earthquake ground motions can
either be (1) actual recorded ground motions from past earthquakes, (2) spectrally
matched ground motions that are created by manipulating the frequency content and
intensity of recorded ground motions to match a specific hazard spectrum, or (3)
artificially simulated motions. Opinions differ as to which types are most appropriate.
Recorded ground motions are generally scaled to match the hazard spectrum at one or
37

more periods. For example, ASCE 7 specifies rules for scaling the ground motions based
on their spectral acceleration values for periods between 0.2T to 1.5T, where T is the
fundamental period of vibration of the structure. When structures are expected to
respond in multiple modes, such as in tall buildings, spectral matching may be more
appropriate, since scaling of actual recorded motions to a uniform hazard spectrum may
bias the analysis results to either overestimate the response at short periods or
underestimate it at longer periods.

3.9.4 Number of ground motions:
Given the inherent variability in earthquake ground motions, design standards
typically require analyses for multiple ground motions to provide statistically robust
measures of the demands. For example, ASCE 7 requires analyses for at least seven
ground motions (or ground motion pairs for three-dimensional analyses) to determine
mean values of demand parameters for design. In concept, it is possible to obtain reliable
mean values with fewer records, such as through the use of spectrally matched records,
but there is currently no consensus on methods to do so. Moreover, while one could
calculate additional statistics besides the mean, e.g., the standard deviation of the demand
parameters, the reliability of such statistics is questionable when based on only seven
ground motions. This is especially true when spectrally matched records are used, where
the natural variability in the ground motions is suppressed.

3.10 SUMMARY
In this chapter the basic theory, seismic methods and different analysis procedures
were discussed .The code based procedure for seismic analysis, methods for seismic
evaluation, overview and different types of time history analysis, earthquake ground
motion.





38










CASE STUDY









39


CHAPTER-IV

CASE STUDY

4.1 GENERAL

Two different buildings of similar height but with significantly different
characteristics are modeled to assess the performance using Non linear dynamic Analysis
(Time history) and Non linear static Analysis methods. One building is symmetrical and
another is Asymmetric (in plan), as shown in fig. 4.1 and 4.2. The preliminary building
data required for analysis assumed are presented in the following table.


Table 4.1 Preliminary data required for the Analysis
Sl. No Variable Data
1 Type of structure Moment Resisting Frame
2 Number of Stories 6 stories
3 Floor height 3 m
4 Imposed Load 5 kN/m

5 Materials Concrete M20 and Grade of Steel Fe-415
6 Size of Columns 450 x 450 mm
7 Size of Beams 300 x 300 mm
8 Specific weight of RCC 25 kN/m
3
9 Specific weight of infill 20 kN/m
3
10 Type of soil Rock
11
Number of storeys
above ground
6
12 Type of building Regular frame


40

The foundation system is isolated footings with a depth of the footing 1.5 m and
sizes of the footings are 1.5 m x 1.5 m. The building is a six storey building located in
zone II.
In the calculation of dead loads, the unit weights of the materials has been taken
according to the IS-875 (Part 1) and the seismic load considerations according to IS-
1893 (Part 1): 2002
[20]
.




Figure 4.1 Asymmetrical plan and isometric view of a building



41


Figure 4.2 Symmetrical plan and isometric view of a building

4.2 ANALYSIS USING EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD:
The load cases for the structure is defined in the SAP 2000
[48]
as Dead load, Live
load and Earthquake loads in x and y directions according to IS1893:2002. The lumped
mass is given on each floor using floor diaphragm with Dead load and 25% of live load.
Following fig 4.3 & 4.4 show the details of the analysis case. The static analysis is run
and the members are designed for the analysis results obtained, by IS-456:2000 design
specifications.


Figure. 4.3. Load cases defined for analysis.

42





Figure.4.4 Details of mass source and analysis cases to rum

Figure 4.5 Reinforcement details of beams and columns


4.3 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS CASES:
The pushover cases are defined in the direction of defined shapes from modal
analysis. Default hinge definitions according to the FEMA-356 guidelines have been
provided at the ends, where the formation of the potential plastic hinges is more probable
43

for beams and columns with degree of freedom as M3 and the shear value for the hinge is
taken from the Dead load case. The hinges are set so that they drop the load after
reaching the point E of the performance level.

Fig. 4.6. Performance levels according to hinge states.
Force-displacement or moment-rotation curve for a hinge definition used in SAP2000
[21]
is referred to as a plastic deformation curve. The plastic deformation curve is
characterized by the following points as:
Point A represents the origin.
Point B represents the yielding state. No deformation occurs in the hinge up to
point B, regardless of the deformation value specified for point B. The
displacement (rotation) at point B will be subtracted from the deformations at
points C, D, and E. Only the plastic deformation beyond point B will be exhibited
by the hinge.
Point C represents the ultimate capacity for pushover analysis.
Point D represents the residual strength for pushover analysis.
Point E represents total failure. Beyond point E the hinge will drop load down to
point F directly below point E on the horizontal axis. If the users do not want the
hinge to fail this way, a large value for the deformation at point E can be
specified.



44


Figure. 4.7 Frame hinge properties for a typical member.


Figure. 4.8 Hinge assignments at the ends of the beams and columns.

45


Figure 4.9 Pushover Analysis Case of 1
st
mode

4.4 N2 method:
The capacity curves obtained from the pushover analysis of the Asymmetrical and
symmetrical structure, under invariant force distributions proportional to the first and
second mode shapes are presented in figures (Fig.5.1 to Fig.5.4) The capacity curve of
each mode was then converted to the force-deformation relationship of an equivalent
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system (D* vs. F*) in figure 4.11. The single-degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) curve is converted to bilinear curve shown in figure 4.12. Now this
curve is passed over a demand curve which is obtained from IS1893-2000 and from this
overlapping of two curves target displacement is calculated. with the new target
displacement pushover curve is obtained.

46


Figure 4.10 Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure in X direction



Figure 4.11 Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure of Equivalent SDOF

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
pushover curve
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
D* vs F*
D* vs F*
47


Figure 4.12 Bilinear Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure of Equivalent
SDOF


Figure 4.13 Demand spectra for ground motions and Capacity diagram

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
bilinar curve
bilenar curve
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 5 10 15 20 25
bilinear pushover curve
Response spectra
48


4.5 Response Spectra Analysis:
To perform the extended N2 method, Pushover analysis and response spectrum
analysis of a building has to be carried out. From the results of these two analysis
correction factor is calculated. Response spectra analysis is performed using the chamba
earthquake spectra.





Figure 4.14 chamba earthquake data into seismospect


49


Figure 4.15 seismospect converted accelerogram into response spectra.






Figure 4.16 Response spectra of chamba earthquake in SAP2000
50



Figure 4.17 Response spectra case in SAP2000

4.6 Time History Analysis cases:
4.6.1 Modeling:
The structural performance of the reinforced concrete buildings in this study is
estimated based on considering natural ground motion records chamba earthquake. This
record is obtained from the strong motion database of the Earthquake Station chamba in
Himachal Pradesh. Fig 4.15 show the acceleration time history for Earthquake. Load case
is defined for the time history in SAP2000 as shown in fig 4.16 and nonlinear dynamic
analysis is performed for the structure.
4.6.2. Chamba Earthquake Data
Fig4.18: Acceleration time-history of chamba Earthquake

51

Fig 4.19: Defining the modal case window
Fig 4.20: Showing the run analysis window.
4.7 Summary:
In this chapter the building description and plan of the building was discussed.
The structural systems of the building and general data collected, geological and
geotechnical data collected were presented in this chapter. Modeling of the building using
SAP2000 was presented.
52














RESULTS AND DISCUSSION










53

CHAPTER-V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 GENERAL
Results obtained from analysis and design investigations are the lateral
displacements, base shears & pushover curves.

5.2 RESULTS
For ease, results are briefly described and classified into three categories i.e. pushover
analysis results, N2 method results and Time history results.

5.3 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS RESULTS
Both the building models (Symmetrical & Asymmetrical) are analyzed using non-linear
static (pushover) analysis. At first, the pushover analysis is done for the gravity loads
(DL+0.25LL) incrementing under load control. The lateral pushover analysis (in X & Y-
direction) is followed after the gravity pushover, under displacement control. The
building is pushed in lateral directions until the formation of collapse mechanism. The
capacity curve (base shear versus roof displacement) is obtained from the analysis.

5.3.1 Pushover analysis results of Symmetrical building:
Fig 5.1 shows capacity curve of symmetrical structure when pushover analysis is
performed in X-direction, the monitored displacement assigned to the structure was 0.72
m which is 4 % of structure height. The maximum base shear obtained was 1132 kN for a
displacement of 0.52 m. Fig 5.2 shows capacity curve of symmetrical structure when
pushover analysis is performed in Y-direction, the monitored displacement assigned to
the structure was 0.72 m which is 4 % of structure height. The maximum base shear
obtained was 1073 kN for a displacement of 0.53 m.
54


Figure 5.1 Pushover Curve for Symmetrical structure in X direction


Figure 5.2 Pushover Curve for Symmetrical structure in Y direction




55

5.3.2 Pushover Results of Asymmetrical building:
Fig 5.3 shows capacity curve of Asymmetrical structure when pushover analysis
is performed in X-direction, the monitored displacement assigned to the structure was
0.72 m which is 4 % of structure height. The maximum base shear obtained was 1124 kN
for a displacement of 0.49 m. Fig 5.4 shows capacity curve of Asymmetrical structure
when pushover analysis is performed in Y-direction, the monitored displacement
assigned to the structure was 0.72 m which is 4 % of structure height. The maximum base
shear obtained was 1062 kN for a displacement of 0.52 m. So, with this observation we
can say that the failure occur in Asymmetrical structure earlier when compared to
Symmetrical structures. This type of earlier failure in Asymmetrical structures is due to
lateral force with torsional force effect.

Figure 5.3 Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure in X direction

56


Figure 5.4 Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure in Y direction

5.4 Comparison of pushover curves for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical buildings:
Fig 5.5 compares the capacity curves of the symmetrical and Asymmetrical
structures when the pushover analysis is performed in X-direction. Whereas fig 5.6
compares the same when the pushover analysis is performed in Y-direction




57


Fig. 5.5: Comparison of pushover curves of both buildings in X direction




Fig. 5.6: Comparison of pushover curves of both buildings in Y direction

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
-2.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.00E+00 4.00E+00 6.00E+00 8.00E+00
Asymmetry -X
symmetry-X
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
-2 0 2 4 6 8
Asymmetry -Y
symmetry -Y
58

5.5 N2 method Results:
For the results obtained from pushover analysis, N2 method (Described in chapter
3) is made used and target displacement for symmetrical and Asymmetrical are
calculated.The following table shows the displacement obtained.
Table 5.1 representing calculated target displacement for N2 method
Structure Target displacement
Asymmetrical 0.058
symmetrical 0.05

5.6 Extended N2 method:
Extended N2 method is carried out to calculate the correction factor for
Asymmetrical Building. is called correction factor.
For each combination and for each frame the following normalized displacement is
computed:





=1.06

Where is the i frame top displacement and is the CM
top Displacement; consequently, are computed for each frame and their
maximum is assumed as the reference ;

For model the NLSA with the maximum target displacement is considered; consequently,
maximum normalized displacements are obtained for each frame:





= 1.02

Where is the i frame top displacement and is the CM
top displacement;


59

For each frame, 4 correction factors are computed:




=1.03

Where and are the reference value are considered;

5.7 Time history Analysis Results
From the Nonlinear time history analysis for chamba ground motion earthquake
the following results were obtained.


Fig. 5.7: Time-versus- Base shear data for Chamba Earth Quake ground motion for
symmetrical building
60


Fig. 5.8 : Time-versus- roof displacement data for Chamba Earth Quake ground motion
for Symmetrical building

Fig. 5.9: Time-versus- Base shear data for Chamba Earth Quake ground motion for
Asymmetrical building

61


Fig. 5.10: Time-versus- roof displacement data for Chamba Earth Quake ground motion
for Asymmetrical building



Table 5.2 showing the values of base shear and roof displacement of Asymmetrical
and symmetrical building

Base Shear
(KN)
Roof Displacement
(m)
Asymmetrical Building 842 0.015
Symmetrical Building 775 0.0046




62

5.8 Comparison of results of Pushover, N2 method and Time history analysis


Figure. 5.11: comparison of Base shear of Time history, pushover and Extended N2
method






842
800
1124
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Asymmetrical
Time History Analysis
Extended N2 method
pushover analysis
775
804
1132
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Symmetrical
Time history analysis
N2 method
pushover analysis
63

Figure. 5.12: comparison of Base shear of Time history, pushover and N2 method


Fig. 5.13: Comparing base shears of Time history analysis and pushover analysis of
Asymmetrical building

5.9 Summary
This chapter copes with the numerical study and presentation of results of
pushover analysis and N2 method for both the buildings under study; the results are
compared and are represented in the form of graphs. The results were studied and based
on the study, the conclusions were drawn. The detail conclusions for the present study are
given in the next chapter









975
1084
842 842
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1% 2%
Pushover Analysis Time History Analysis
64










CONCLUSIONS







65

CHAPTER-VI

CONCLUSIONS

6.1 GENERAL
The use of Nonlinear Static Procedures (NSPs) for the seismic assessment of plan
irregular buildings is challenging. The most common pushover-based approaches have
led to adequate results in regular buildings, and hence, there is a need to improve and
verify the validity of such methods on the assessment of irregular structures.
Fajfar and his team have developed the Extended N2 method
[20-22]
from orignal
N2 method, which is able to capture the torsional behaviour of plan-asymmetric
buildings. This procedure is based on the application of correction factors to the pushover
results obtained with the N2 method. The correction factors depend on a dynamic elastic
analysis and on a pushover analysis.
The main objective of this chapter is to assess the seismic behavior of the
buildings, evaluating the accuracy of the pushover analysis, original N2 method and
Extended N2 method with non linear dynamic analysis (Time history analysis).

6.2 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the study of the structural performance of the model,

It is observed from figure (5.5) that the Asymmetrical building collapse earlier
than the symmetrical building

It is been observed from the figure (5.12) that pushover analysis over estimates
the base shear. Whereas N2 method is predicting the base shear which is nearly
equal to non linear dynamic analysis.

Figure (5.13) shows comparison of base shear of pushover analysis with 1% and
2% monitored displacement of building height with non linear dynamic analysis
66

of Asymmetrical building. It is observed that pushover analysis is over estimating
the base shear with 1% and 2% of monitored displacement of building height. For
Asymmetrical cases judgment through pushover analysis is not appropriate.

The Extended N2 method produces results in a good fashion when compare to the
nonlinear dynamic results for all the buildings analyzed and through the seismic
intensity tested. This method shows, for these case studies, a much better
performance in estimating the torsional behavior of the buildings than the
conventional pushover analysis and original N2 method.

6.3 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY
In the present study, the analysis has been carried out for the G+5 storey
buildings. This study can further be extended for tall buildings.
In the present study asymmetric plan in one direction is considered, this study can
be further extended to asymmetric plan in both directions.
In the present analysis for symmetrical elevation carried out and it can be further
extended for asymmetrical elevation.
N2 method can be further studied and verify for higher modes of building.









67

References

1. Applied Technology Council. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings
ATC 40. California; 1996.
2. Applied Technology Council. Improvements of nonlinear static seismic analysis
procedures. Redwood City (CA): FEMA-440; 2005.
3. ASCE, 2002, Standard Methodology for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings.
Standard No. ASCE-31. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
4. ASCE, American Society of civil Engineers. Prestandard and commentary for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-356. Washington D.C., 2000.
5. Ayala AG, Tavera EA. A new approach for the evaluation of the seismic
performance of asymmetric buildings. In: Proc. of the 7th national conference on
earthquake engineering. 2002.
6. Aydinoglu MN. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on
inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2003;1(1): 336.
7. Azuhata, T., Saito, T., Takayama, M., and Nagahara, K. Seismic performance of
asymmetric buildings based on the capacity spectrum method. Proceedings of 12
th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No. 2322. Auckland, New
Zealand, 2000.
8. Barros RC, Almeida R. Pushover analysis of asymmetric three-dimensional building
frames. J Civil Eng Manag 2005;XI(1):312.
9. Biot, MA. Analytical and experimental methods in engineering seismology. ASCE
Transactions. 1942, Vol. 108, pp. 365408.
10. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP/Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation
of buildings", Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C Report
No. FEMA-273 (1997).
11. CEN. Eurocode-8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1, Pr-EN 1998
1, Final Draft. Brussels (BEL): European Committee for Standardization; 2003.
68

12. Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using
generic frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2003;32:41742.
13. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover procedure for estimating seismic
demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2002;31:56182.
14. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover procedure to estimate seismic demands for
unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2004;33:90327.
15. De Stefano M, Rutenberg A. Predicting the dynamic response of asymmetric multi-
storey wall-frame structures by pushover analysis: two case studies. In: Proceedings
of the 11th european conference on earthquake engineering.1998.
16. D'Ambrisi A., Stefano M., Tanganelli M. Use of Pushover Analysis for Predicting
Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings: a Case Study. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering. 2009, Vol. 13, pp. 1089-1100.
17. Erduran E., Ryan K. Effects of torsion on the behaviour of peripheral steel-braced
frame systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2010,
DOI:10.1002/eqe.1032.
18. Faella G, Kilar V. Asymmetric multi-storey R/C frame structures: push-over versus
nonlinear dynamic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on
earthquake engineering. 1998.
19. Fajfar P, Marusic D, Perus I. Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic
analysis of buildings. J Earthq Eng 2005;9(6):83154.
20. Fajfar P, Marusic D, Perus, Kereslin M. The N2 method for asymmetric buildings. In
Workshop of nonlinear static methods for design/assessment of 3D structures. 2008
21. Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design.
Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(3):57392.
22. Fajfar P. Structural analysis in earthquake engineeringA breakthrough of
simplified nonlinear methods. In: Proc. of 12th European conference on earthquake
engineering. 2002.
69

23. Fujii, K., Nakano, Y., Sanada, Y. Simplified nonlinear analysis procedure for
asymmetric buildings. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Paper No. 149. Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
24. Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analysis: SAC
buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2004;20(1):22554.
25. Gupta B, Kunnath SK. Adaptive spectra-based pushover for seismic evaluation of
structures. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(2):36792.
26. Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2000;29(9): 1287305.
27. Gulkan P., Sozen M. Inelastic response of reinforced concrete structures to
earthquakes motions. ACI Journal . 1974, Vol. 71, pp. 604-610.
28. IS 1893(Part 1):2002 - Indian Standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures (5
th
revision), 2002.
29. ICBO 1997. Uniform Building Code - 1997 Edition, Vol. 2: Structural Engineering
Design Provisions, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
California, U.S.A.
30. Kilar V, Fajfar P. Simple push-over analysis of asymmetric buildings. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 1997;26:23349.
31. Kilar V, Fajfar P. On the applicability of pushover analysis to the seismic
performance evaluation of asymmetric buildings. Eur Earthq Eng 2001;15: 2031.
32. Kosmopoulos AJ, Fardis MN. Estimation of inelastic deformations in asymmetric
multistory RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2007;36(9):120934.
33. Koren D., Kilar V. The applicability of the N2 method to the estimation of torsional.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2011, Vol. 40, pp. 867 886.
34. Lin JL, Tsai KC. Simplified seismic analysis of asymmetric building systems. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:45979.
35. Marusic D, Fajfar P. On the inelastic seismic response of asymmetric buildings
under bi-axial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005;
34:94363.
70

36. Moghadam AS, Tso WK. Pushover analysis for asymmetrical multi-storey buildings.
In: Proceedings of the 6th US national conference on earthquake engineering.
Oakland (CA): EERI; 1998.
37. Moghadam AS, Tso WK. Pushover analysis for asymmetric and set-back multi-
storey buildings. In: Proc. of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering.
2000. Paper No. 1093
38. Ozaki, M., Azuhata, T., Takahashi, T., and Mu, S. Inelastic deformation of one-story
asymmetric-plan systems subjected to strong earthquake ground motions.
Earthquake Spectra. 1994, Vol. 10(4), pp. 777-790.
39. Penelis G.G., Kappos A.J. 3D pushover analysis: the issue of torsion. Proceedings of
12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No. 015. London, UK,
2002.
40. Penelis G.G., Kappos A.J. Inelastic torsional effects in 3D pushover analysis of
buildings. Proceedings of 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of
irregular and complex structures. Paper No. 51. Greece, 2005.
41. Perus I, Fajfar P. On the inelastic torsional response of single storey structures under
bi-axial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005;34:934
41.
42. Priestley, MJN. Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering (Revisited). Pavia :
IUSS Press, 2003. Seismic assessment of existing buildings using NSPs A new 3D
Pushover Procedure 248.
43. Priestley, M.J.N. Performance based seismic design. Proceedings of 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No. 2831. New Zealand, 2000.
44. Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J. Displacement Based Seismic Design of
Structures. Pavia, Italy : IUSS Press - Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori, 2007.
45. Reyes J.C., Chopra A.K. Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings
subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for tall
buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2011, Vol. 40, pp.
789806. Seismic assessment of existing buildings using NSPs A new 3D Pushover
Procedure
71

46. R. Bento, R. Pinho. 3D Pushover 2008 Nonlinear Static Methods for Design
Assessment of 3D Structures. IST Press, 2009, http://www.3dpushover.org/
47. Stefano M., Pintucchi B. Predicting torsion-induced lateral displacements for
pushover analysis: influence of torsional system characteristics. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2010, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1002.
48. SAP2000 V15, Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, CA.
49. Seong-Hoon J, Elnashai AS. New three-dimensional damage index for RC buildings
with plan irregularities. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 2006;132(9):1482
90.
50. Yu, Q. S. K., Pugliesi, R., Allen, M., Bischoff, C. Assessment of modal pushover
analysis procedure and its application to seismic evaluation of existing building.
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No.
110. Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
51. Zarate A, Ayala AG. Validation of single story models for the evaluation of seismic
performance of multi-storey asymmetric buildings. In: Proc. of 13th world
conference on earthquake engineering. 2004.

Вам также может понравиться