RajeshM TeshProject2013

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/291349086
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A MULTI-STORIED FRAME WITH SHEAR WALL AND

JACKETED COLUMNS
Thesis · October 2013
CITATIONS READS
0 4,535
2 authors, including:
Balaji Kvgd
GITAM University
143 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF ELEVATED TEMPERATURES ON MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF TERNARY BLENDED CONCRETE using METAKAOLIN AND MICRO SILICA View
project
INFLUENCE OF k4 AND OFFSHORE WIND VELOCITY FACTORS ON 40 M OPEN LATTICE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Balaji Kvgd on 22 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A MULTI-STORIED FRAME WITH
SHEAR WALL AND JACKETED COLUMNS
A Thesis submitted to Department of Civil Engineering

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of Degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND
NATURAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT
Submitted By
RAJESH JAKKA
(1221108101)
Under The Guidance of
Dr. K.V.G.D.BALAJI Ph.D.

Professor of Civil Engineering, GITAM University
DEPATMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GITAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
GITAM UNIVERSITY
(Est. U/s 3 of UGC act 1956)
VISAKHAPATNAM-530045
OCTOBER, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GITAM UNIVERSITY
(Est. U/s 3 of UGC act 1956)
VISAKHAPATNAM-530045
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the thesis entitled “PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A MULTI-

STORIED FRAME WITH SHEAR WALL AND JACKETED COLUMNS”
submitted by RAJESH JAKKA, Regd. No. 1221108101 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of degree of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering with
specialization in Structural Engineering and Natural Disaster Management, GANDHI
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY is accorded to the student’s own work, carried out by him
in department of Civil Engineering during the year 2008-2010 under our supervision and
guidance. Neither his thesis nor any part of this thesis, has been submitted for any
degree/diploma or any other academic award anywhere before.
Dr. K.V.G.D.Balaji Ph.D. Dr M. Ramesh Ph.D.

Professor Professor &Head of Department
Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering
GITAM University GITAM University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis is completed with the help of many people who had given me their full support
and encouragement all the time. However I would like to specially acknowledge and extend
my heart- full gratitude to the few people who made this thesis completion possible.
I would like to thank Dr. K.V.G.D BALAJI, who has given me his valuable time,
stimulated suggestions and encouragement in this thesis work.
I would like to thank Mr. T.SANTHOSH KUMAR, who has given me his
experienced suggestions in doing the report.
I would like to thank Dr. K.V.RAMESH, who has given me his support and
suggestions from the beginning.
I would like to thank Dr. M.POTHA RAJU, who has given me his length support in
doing this thesis.
I would like to thank Dr. P.C.KUMAR, who has given me his time and
encouragement.
I would like to thank Dr. V.SOWJANYA VANI, who has given me her advices and
support from the beginning.
I would like to thank Mrs. K. REKHA, who has given me her advices from the
beginning.
I would like to thank Ms. S. KANAKA DURGA, who has given me her advices and
support from the beginning.
I would like to thank specially Dr. M. Ramesh, Head of Department, Civil

Engineering, who had given a special care and attention for me in submitting the report.
I would like to show my special gratitude to my parents for their affection and love all
the time.
I would like to thank my friends who had given me support even at the critical times.
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GITAM UNIVERSITY
M.Tech THESIS EVALUATION REPORT

This thesis entitled “Pushover Analysis of a Multi-Storied Frame with Shear
Wall and Jacketed Columns” submitted by RAJESH JAKKA in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of
Technology in Civil Engineering with specialization in Structural Engineering
and Natural Disaster Management of GITAM University, Visakhapatnam has
been approved.
EXAMINERS
1. …………………………………… Thesis Supervisor
2. …………………………………… External Examiner
3. …………………………………… Head of the department

Civil Engineering
Visakhapatnam
Date:
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work done in this thesis entitled “Pushover Analysis of
a Multi-Storied Frame with Shear Wall and Jacketed Columns” has been
carried out by me, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of
degree of Master of Engineering in Civil Engineering with spe cialization in
Structural engineering and Natural Disaster Management of GITAM Institute of
Technology, GITAM University and further declare that neither this thesis nor
any part of this thesis has not been su bmitted for any degree/diploma or any
other academic award anywhere before.
Place: Visakhapatnam RAJESH

JAKKA
Date:
ABSTRACT
In past earthquakes (2001 Bhuj earthquake) many concrete structures have been
severely damaged or collapsed, have indicated the need for evaluating the seismic adequacy
of existing buildings. In particular, the seismic rehabilitation of older concrete structures in
high seismicity areas is a matter of growing concern, since structures venerable to damage
must be identified and an acceptable level of safety must be determined. To make such
assessment, simplified linear-elastic methods are not adequate
Although different procedures are possible, the non-linear static analysis, also known
as the Pushover analysis, also known as collapse analysis is considered to be a convenient
method for evaluating the performance. On this study, the method is used to evaluate the
performance of RC plane frames. Reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings are becoming
increasingly common in urban India due to increase in population and safety in such situation
is much more important.
The static pushover analysis is becoming a popular tool for seismic performance
evaluation of existing and new structures. The expectation is that the pushover analysis will
provide adequate information on seismic demands imposed by the design ground motion on
the structural system and its components. The purpose of the paper is to summarize the basic
concepts on which the pushover analysis can be based, assess the accuracy of pushover
predictions, identify conditions under which the pushover will provide adequate information
and, perhaps more importantly, identify cases in which the pushover predictions will be
inadequate or even misleading.
This paper deals with the non linear analysis of an RCC frame and also the non-linear
analysis of an RCC frame with shear walls at different levels. The main aim is to carry out the
difference in the push-over curves of the RCC frames and to calculate the displacement in the
frames.
The analysis is carried out using ETABS software .Push-over curves for both the frames are
obtained and comparison is carried out.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 2
1.2 Objective 3
1.3 Scope 3
1.4 Methodology 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
3. STRUCTURAL MODELLING 18
3.1 Materials 19
3.2 Structural Elements 21
3.2.1 Beams & Columns 21
3.2.2 Beam-Column Joints 21
3.2.3 Foundations 21
3.3 Loads 21
3.4 Load Combinations 22
4. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF FRAMES 23
4.1 Necessity Of NLSP Analysis 24
4.1.1 What is Non-Linear Static Push-over Analysis? 24
4.1.2 Purpose of Push-over Analysis 25
4.1.3 Non-Linear Static Analysis for Buildings 27
4.2 Capacity Spectrum Method 30
4.3 Seismic Load Distribution 31
4.4 Load Deformation Behaviour of Elements 31
4.5 Different Hinge Properties in NLSP Analysis 32
4.6 Limitations of Push Over Analysis 34
5. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS ( Etabs) 35
5.1 Modeling of Frame 36
5.2 Member Properties 36
5.3 Member Loading 36
5.4 Push-Over cases 36
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS 37

6.1 Results 38
6.2 Discussions 119
6.3 Conclusions 119
7. REFERENCES 120
LIST OF FIGURES
S.No Description of Figures
1 Fig 3.1 Plan Considered 20
7 Fig 4.1 Push-over Analysis Curve 29
8 Fig 4.2 Strength Deformation Curve 29
9 Fig 4.3 Capacity Spectrum Curve 30
10 Fig 4.4 ATC Performance Curve 32
11 Fig 6.1 RCC Frame plan 39
12 Fig 6.2 RCC Frame (3D view) 40
13 Fig 6.3 RCC Frame (3D view)-External wall loading 41
14 Fig 6.4 RCC Frame (3D view)-Internal wall loading 42
15 Fig 6.5 RCC Frame Hinge formation step-1 43
20 Fig 7.0 RCC Frame with Shear wall Plan 48
21 Fig 7.1 RCC Frame with Shear wall (Upto stilt floor) plan 49
Fig 7.2 RCC Frame Hinge formation with Shear wall (Upto stilt
22 floor) step-1 50
23 floor) step-2 51
24 floor) step-3 52
25 floor) step-4 53
26 Fig 7.6 RCC Frame with Shear wall (Upto Ground floor) plan 54
Fig 7.7 RCC Frame Hinge formation with Shear wall (Upto
27 ground floor) step-1 55
28 Fig 7.8 RCC Frame Hinge formation with Shear wall (Upto 56
ground floor) step-2
31 Fig 8.1 RCC Frame with Shear wall (Upto First floor) plan 59
Fig 8.2 RCC Frame Hinge formation with Shear wall (Upto First
32 floor) step-1 60
Fig 8.3 RCC Frame Hinge formation with Shear wall (Upto first
33 floor) step-2 61
Fig 8.4 RCC Frame Hinge formation with Shear wall (Upto first
34 floor) step-3 62
35 Fig 8.5 RCC Frame with Shear wall (Upto Second floor) plan 63
36 Second floor) step-1 64
39 Fig 8.9 RCC Frame with Shear wall (Upto Third floor) plan 67
Fig 9.0 RCC Frame Hinge formation with Shear wall (Upto Third
40 floor) step-1 68
42 floor) step-2 69
43 floor) step-3 70
44 Fig 9.3 RCC Frame with Shear wall (Upto Fourth floor) plan 71
45 Fourth floor) step-1 72
Fig 9.7 RCC Frame Hinge formation for jacketed columns
49 without Shear wall step-1 75
52 Fig 10.0 RCC Frame Hinge formation for jacketed columns 78
without Shear wall step-4
53 with Shear wall (Upto stilt floor) step-1 79
54 with Shear wall (Upto stilt floor) step-2 80
Fig 10.3 RCC Frame Hinge formation for jacketed columns with
55 Shear wall (Upto stilt floor) step-3 81
56 Shear wall (Upto ground floor) step-1 82
57 Shear wall (Upto ground floor) step-2 83
58 Shear wall (Upto First floor) step-1 84
59 Shear wall (Upto first floor) step-2 85
60 Shear wall (Upto first floor) step-3 86
61 Shear wall (Upto Second floor) step-1 87
62 with Shear wall (Upto Second floor) step-2 88
63 Shear wall (Upto Second floor) step-3 89
64 Shear wall (Upto Third floor) step-1 90
67 Shear wall (Upto Fourth floor) step-1 93
LIST OF TABLES
S.No Description Of Tables
1 Tab 6.1 RCC Frame Pushover curve – Lateral push 104
Tab 6.2 RCC Frame Pushover curve With shear wall (Upto stilt
2 floor) 105
Tab 6.3 RCC Frame Pushover curve With shear wall (Upto
3 Ground floor) 106
Tab 6.4 RCC Frame Pushover curve With shear wall (Upto First
4 floor) 107
5 second floor) 108
Tab 6.6 RCC Frame Pushover curve With shear wall (Upto Third
6 floor) 109
7 Fourth floor) 110
Tab 6.8 RCC Frame Pushover curve for jacketed columns –
8 Lateral push 111
Tab 6.9 RCC Frame Pushover curve for jacketed columns With
9 shear wall (Upto Stilt floor) 112
10 shear wall (Upto Ground floor) 113
11 shear wall (Upto First floor) 114
12 shear wall (Upto Second floor) 115
13 shear wall (Upto Third floor) 116
14 shear wall (Upto Fourth floor) 117
15 Tab 8.1 Pushover curves of frames 118
1. INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Back Ground:
The major criteria now-a-days in designing RCC structures in seismic zones is control of
lateral displacement resulting from lateral forces. In this thesis effort has been made to
investigate the effect of Shear Wall position on lateral displacement and Base Shear in RCC
Frames. RCC Frames with stilt + G+4 are considered with varying shear wall levels and
increased stilt column dimensions.
Non-linear static analysis (pushover analysis) was carried out for the frames and the
frames were then compared with the push over curves. Displacement and Base shear is
calculated from the curves and compared.
The nonlinear analysis of a frame has become an important tool for the study of the
concrete behavior including its load-deflection pattern and cracks pattern. It helps in the study of
various characteristics of concrete member under different load conditions.
2
1.2 OBJECTIVES:
 To study the performance of RC plane frames under lateral loads (Earthquake loads).
 To study the inelastic response of RC plane frames using Pushover analysis
 To study the variation of pushover curve for a plane framed structure and for a framed
structure with shears walls.
1.3 SCOPE:
 Only multi-storey frames are considered.
 Plan irregularities are not considered.
 Shear walls are considered for the frame at different levels for the study of push over
analysis.
 Jacketed columns are also done for shear walled frame
 Push over analysis is used as a non-linear static method to predict the actual performance
of the RC Frames under lateral loadings.
1.4 METHODLOGY:
For the purpose of study a plan of Stilt+ G+4 floor levels were considered.
For push over study, RC plane frames in each floor were analyzed and designed for gravity loads
as per IS 456:2000 and lateral loads (earthquake loads) as per IS 1893 (part-1):2002.
3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
4
ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings
The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a non-profit, tax exempt corporation

established in 1971 through the efforts of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
ATC is guided by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives appointed by the American
Society of Civil Engineers, the Structural Engineers Association of California, the Western
States Council of Structural Engineers Associations, and four at large representatives concerned
with the practice of structural engineering.
The purpose of ATC is to assist the design practitioner in structural engineering in the task of
keeping abreast of and effectively using technological developments. ATC also identifies and
encourages needed research and develops consensus opinions on structural engineering issues in
a nonproprietary format.
This document is organized into two volumes. Volume one contains the main body of the
evaluation and retrofit methodology, presented in 13 chapters, with a glossary and a list of
references. This volume contains all of the parts of the document required for the evaluation and
retrofit of buildings. Volume two consists of appendices containing supporting material related
to the methodology.
FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of the Buildings
The preparation of this prestandard was originally undertaken with two principle and
complimentary objectives. The first was to encourage the wider application of the NEHRP
Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273, by converting it into
mandatory language. Design professionals and building officials thus would have at their
disposal a more resistant to earthquake. This volume fully meets this first objective.
The second objective was to provide a basis for a nationally recognized, ANSI-approved
standard that would further help in disseminating and incorporating the approaches and
technology of the prestandard into the mainstream of the design and construction practices in the
United States.
5
LITERATURE REVIEW ON PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
K.V.G.D BALAJI et al (2012) explained non-linear analysis of various symmetric and

asymmetric structures constructed on plain as well as sloping grounds subjected to various kinds
of loads. Different structures constructed on plane ground and inclined ground of 30o slope is
considered in the present study . Various structures are considered in plan symmetry and also
asymmetry with difference in bay sizes in mutual directions. The analysis has been carried out
using SAP-2000 and ETABS software. Pushover curves have been developed and compared for
various cases. It has been observed that the structures with vertical irregularity are more critical
than structures with plan irregularity.
The nonlinear static procedure or pushover analysis is increasingly used to
establish the estimations of seismic demands for building structures. Since structures exhibit
nonlinear behavior during earthquakes, using the nonlinear analysis is inevitable to observe
whether the structure is meeting the desirable performance or not (ATC 40).
The pushover procedure consists of two parts. First, a target displacement for
the building is established. The target displacement is an estimation of the top displacement of
the building when exposed to the design earthquake excitation. Then a pushover analysis is
carried out on the building until the top displacement of the building equals to the target
displacement and the second one force controlled type in which the total amount of force acting
is estimated and applied to the structure and the analysis is carried out.
In order to consider the torsion effects in the nonlinear static analysis of the
asymmetric buildings is carried out by defining the target displacement for each resisting
element until failure (Emrah erduran(2008)). The base shear is applied in incremental order until
the target displacement is reached.
The main objective of the thesis is to consider the effect of the changes in the
structures modal properties of asymmetric-plan buildings during the pushover analysis (Chatpan
Chintanapakde (2004))and the application of the displacement based adaptive pushover
procedure (Kazem shakeri(2012)). The analysis part of structures is carried out in ETABS, SAP
and STAAD. Results obtained in all the cases arecompared with remaining two cases and found
satisfactory results, so as to carry out the analysis in ETABS and SAP. Nonlinear analysis has
been carried out for structures with irregularities in both plan and elevation which undergo
torsion effect due to vertical irregularity. The various results obtained from the analysis are
presented.
BAI JiuLin et al (2011) explained the structural failure under severe ground motions is
primarily caused by their unreasonable seismic failure mode (SFM). This paper provides a
methodology aiming at the SFM improvement of reinforced concrete frame structure. An RC
frame is modelled and three types of failure criterion are defined as the premise of SFM. Static
pushover analysis is adopted to identify the SFM. The dominant failure modes and failure paths
of the structure are obtained in three lateral load patterns (inverted triangular distribution,
uniform distribution and adaptive distribution). Based on the pushover analysis, the sequential
failure of components and the probability of the occurrence of plastic hinges are determined. By
this, weak components of the structure are detected and herein are strengthened. The project cost
6
of the proposed strengthening strategy increases by 2.4%. Capacity spectrum method is used to
study the performance of the strengthening structure. Pushover analysis is conducted again to
present the improvement of strength and ductility. Lateral drift and local response through IDA
are also studied to indicate that the strengthening of some columns and beams can improve the
SFM to enhance the seismic capacity of structure.
During the design life, the structure is generally subjected to
a number of varying loads and their combinations, and the action of seismic load is usually the
key factor for structural design in seismic regions. A redundant structure has numerous seismic
failure modes because of the significant randomness and uncertainty of earthquake, and the
structural failure under severe earthquake loads is primarily caused by their unreasonable seismic
failure mode (SFM).Failure mode is a basic concept in earthquake-resistant limit state design of
structures and failure mode analysis is recognized as useful and indispensable in the calculation
of structural system reliability. Usually, only the dominant SFM contributes to the structural
system failure probability while others have a very low probability of occurring . Thus, the
identification of dominant failure modes is extremely important for structural reliability
calculation and disaster prevention.
In recent years, earthquake disaster frequently occurred in the whole world.
Earthquake damage investigations show that aseismatic structures have better behaviors than that
without seismic fortification, but the resisting progressive collapses ability is inferior to what we
expect, especially in 5·12 Wenchuan earthquake. The most outstanding reason for this is the
structural unreasonable seismic failure node. Therefore, how to improve, optimize and control
the SFM is a major challenge for the performance-based seismic design. SFMs vary rapidly in
different ground motions and the search of SFMs must consider the right way, such as pushover
analysis ,or IDA method .The optimization of SFM of building structures may be an effective
way to improve the earthquake-resistant collapse capacity. Ou et al. presented the concept of the
weakest failure mode. If it can be eliminated, the structures will have more capacity to resist
earthquake. In the meantime, a new structure system may be derived from the optimization and
control of failure modes. Starting from this consideration, an RC frame structure is established in
the study. The nonlinear static pushover procedure is adopted to identify the dominant seismic
failure modes. Three different lateral load distribution patterns are used to represent the seismic
actions, under which the structure’s failure modes are gained. Considering the failure path and
the probability of the occurrence of plastic hinges,a strengthening strategy is proposed. The
nonlinear analyses (pushover analysis and incremental dynamic analysis) and project cost
analysis are presented for the feasibility and validity of the SFM improvement.
Mrugesh D. Shah et al (2011) explained the Nonlinear static analysis is an iterative procedure
so it is difficult to solve by hand calculation and that’s why software is required to do nonlinear
static analysis. ETABS 9.7 have features to perform nonlinear static analysis. This is an approach
to do nonlinear static analysis in simplify and effective manner.
The nonlinear analysis of a structure is an iterative procedure. It depends on the final

displacement, as the effective damping depends on the hysteretic energy loss due to inelastic
deformations, which in turn depends on the final displacement. This makes the analysis
procedure iterative. Difficulty in the solution is faced near the ultimate load, as the stiffness
matrix at this point becomes negative definite due to instability of the structure becoming a
7
mechanism. Software available to perform nonlinear static (pushover) analysis are ETABS,
SAP,ADINA, SC Push3D Extended Three Dimensional Buildings Systems (ETABS) and
Structural
Analysis Program finite element program that works with complex geometry and monitors
deformation at all hinges to determine ultimate deformation. It has built-in defaults for ACI 318
material properties and ATC-40 and FEMA 273 hinge properties. Also it has capability for
inputting any material or hinge property. ETABS 9.7 deals with the buildings only. The analysis
in ETABS 9.7 involves the
following four step.1)Modeling,2)Static analysis, Designing 4)Pushover analysis
Steps used in performing a pushover analysis of a simple three-dimensional building.
1. Creating the basic computer model (without the pushover data) in the usual manner.
2. Define properties and acceptance criteria for the pushover hinges. The program includes
several built-in default hinge properties that are based on average values from ATC-40 for
concrete members and average values from FEMA-273 for steel
members. These built in properties can be useful for preliminary analyses, but user defined
properties are recommended for final analyses.
3. Locate the pushover hinges on the model by selecting one or more frame members and
assigning them one or more hinge properties and hinge locations.
4. Define the pushover load cases. In ETABS 9.7 more than one pushover load case can be run in
the same analysis. Also a pushover load case can start
from the final conditions of another pushover load case that was previously run in the same
analysis.Typically a gravity load pushover is force controlled and lateral pushovers are
displacementcontrolled.
5. Run the basic static analysis and, if desired, dynamic analysis. Then run the static nonlinear
pushover analysis.
6. Display the pushover curve and the table.
7. Review the pushover displaced shape and sequence of hinge formation on a step-by-step basis.
Abhilash R et al (2009) explained the pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which
the magnitude of the structural loading is incrementally increased in accordance with a certain
predefined pattern. With the increase in the magnitude of the loading, weak links and failure
modes of the structure are found. Static pushover analysis is an attempt by the structural
engineering profession to evaluate the real strength of the structure and it promises to be a useful
and effective tool for performance based design. The performance point of the structure depends
on the lateral load pattern applied on the structure. Commonly applied load patterns are inverted
triangle and uniformly distributed. Then guidelines like FEMA- 257 & 356 provide guidelines
for lateral loads and doing pushover analysis. Here pushover analysis is done a typical RCC
structure by applying different lateral load patterns using ETABS and SAP2000. The lateral load
patterns used here are uniform load distribution and equivalent lateral force distribution as per
FEMA-257, lateral loads from response spectrum analysis as per IS-1893(2002) and the lateral
load pattern as per Upper-Bound Pushover analysis method.
Analysis methods are broadly classified as linear static, linear dynamic, nonlinear
static and nonlinear dynamic analysis. In these the first two is suitable only when the structural
loads are small and at no point the load will reach to collapse load. During earthquake loads the
structural loading will reach to collapse load and the material stresses will be above yield
8
stresses. So in this case material nonlinearity and geometrical nonlinearity should be
incorporated into the analysis to get better results. Non Linear Static analysis or Push-over
analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the building is subjected to a lateral load of
a certain shape (i.e., parabolic, triangular or uniform). The intensity of the lateral load is slowly
increased and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic hinge formations, and failure of various
structural components is recorded. In the structural design process a series of iterations are
usually required during which, the structural deficiencies observed in iteration is rectified and
followed by another. This iterative analysis and design procedure continues until the design
satisfies pre-established performance criteria.
The performance criteria for pushover analysis are generally established as the desired
state of the building, given roof- top displacement amplitude. The non-linear static analysis is
then revisited to determine member forces and deformations at target displacement or
performance point. This analysis provides data on the strength and ductility of the structure
which otherwise cannot be predicted. Base shear versus top displacement curve of the structure,
called pushover curves, are essential outcomes of pushover analysis. These curves are useful in
ascertaining whether a structure is capable of sustaining certain level of seismic load.
This method is considered as a step forward from the use of linear analysis, because
they are based on a more accurate estimate of the distributed yielding within a structure, rather
than an assumed, uniform ductility. The generation of the pushover curve also provides the
nonlinear behaviour of the structure under lateral load. However, it is important to remember that
pushover methods have no rigorous theoretical basis, and may be inaccurate if the assumed load
distribution is incorrect. For example, the use of a load pattern based on the fundamental mode
shape may be inaccurate if higher modes are significant, and the use of any fixed load pattern
may be unrealistic if yielding is not uniformly distributed, so that the stiffness profile changes as
the structure yields. Here lateral load pattern recommended by FEMA-273, Upper bound
pushover analysis and the lateral load obtained by dynamic analysis based on response spectra in
IS-1893(2002) are used.
Pushover analysis is done on a regular single bay four storied RCC structure using
SAP2000 and ETABS. Four load patterns are applied and the variations in performance point are
checked.
Y.M.Fahan et al ( 2009) explained the proper modeling of the shear walls is very important for
both linear and nonlinear analyses of building structures. In linear analyses of structures,
Reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls are modeled utilizing different techniques either using
shell elements or combination of frame elements. In the nonlinear analyses, the nonlinear
material model of mid-pier frame is generally based on plastic hinge concept located on the
plastic zones at the end of the structural elements or distributed along the member span length.
The nonlinear behavior of the shell elements is generally modeled using multi layer shell element
with layered material model. In this approach, the concrete and the reinforcement inside the
structural elements are modeled respectively with different layers. In this study, different
approaches for linear and nonlinear modeling of the shear walls in structural analyses of
buildings are studied and applied to RC building with shear walls. The analyses results of
different approaches are compared in terms of overall behavior of the structural systems.
9
In the countries with active seismicity, reinforced concrete structural walls are widely used in
multi-storey structure systems. Therefore, a proper modeling of the shear walls is very important
for both linear and nonlinear analyses of building structures.
In linear analyses of structures, shear walls are modeled utilizing different techniques
either using shell elements or combination of frame elements. The most common modeling
technique is to use a composition of mid-pier frame to represent the shear wall stiffness and a
horizontal frame (rigid arm) to allow proper connections with intersecting beams and slab
components. Shell elements formulations generally consist of out-of-plane (plate) and in-plane
(membrane) degree of freedoms (Kubin et al, 2008).
In practice, even though, the nonlinear analysis procedures for frame structural systems
(columns, beams) are well-developed, the nonlinear models for shear walls need further
researches to adopt it to the structural engineering applications. Different analytical models for
the material nonlinearity of the shear walls are used depending on either mid-pier frame or a
composition of shell elements.
The nonlinear model of mid-pier frame is generally based on plastic hinge concept and
a bilinear moment-rotation relationship. Taking into account the analysis purpose, the plastic (P-
M-M Interaction) hinges can be assumed either on the plastic zones at the end of the structural
elements or distributed along the member span length (Otani, 1980). More comprehensive hinge
model can be considered using a fiber model to predict the plastic behavior of the hinge.
The nonlinear material of the shell elements can be modeled using layered shell
element with directional material model (dorninger and Rammerstorfer, 1990). In this model, the
concrete and the reinforcement inside the structural elements are modeled respectively with
different fibers so that the cyclic behavior of material can be properly simulated. On the other
hand, most of the applications do not include nonlinear shear models for such members.
In this study, a nonlinear static Pushover analysis is performed for RC frame building
with shear walls. The shear walls are modeled either with Mid-Pier frame elements or with shell
elements. The nonlinear material for the Mid-Pier model is assumed to be plastic (P-M-M
Interaction) hinge; while a multi layer model considering the concrete and reinforcement as a
layered shells. The results of different models are compared in terms of overall behavior of the
structural systems.
LINEAR MODELS FOR SHEARWALLS

Application of the finite element method for the analysis of building structures with shear walls
requires an understanding of the approximations involved in the modeling assumptions to build
these elements. The two modeling procedure and assumptions are explained below:
1. Frame Elements Based Model
The shear walls are modeled using a set of frame elements. The most common modeling
technique is to use a composition of mid-pier frame to represent the shear wall stiffness and a
horizontal frame (rigid arm) to allow proper connections with intersecting beams and slab
components (Figure 1). The most critical point for this model is the proper selection of rigidity
and stiffness property for the horizontal frame. Infinite rigidity of the upper frame can highly
overestimate the bending moments especially at the connecting beams. This model is used
widely in practice to model planar shear walls in building structures for linear and nonlinear
analyses. This model might have no reliable results for very long, interacting or complex shear
walls with openings.
10
2. Shell Elements Based Model
The shell element can be used efficiently for the analysis of building structures with shear walls.
The shell element considered in most of the design software has six degrees of freedom at each
node and an in-plane rotational degree of freedom, which makes it compatible with three-
dimensional beam-type finite element models. It is worth to know that a bilinear shape functions
are used to define the displacement field of the quadrilateral elements, Wilson (2002). Therefore,
shear wall modeling requires a mesh discretization in order to get realistic behavior. The
advantage of using shell elements is the ability to model very long, interacting and complex
shear walls within the three dimensional model. Although the shell element formulations include
the drilling degree of freedom, analytical results show inconsistency and sensitivity of the
drilling moment to mesh sizes and loading conditions. This shortcoming has significant effects
on the bending moment of the in-plane beams connected to the shear wall. To resolve this
problem, in engineering practice, the beam connecting to shear wall are generally modeled to
some extend inside the shear wall shell elements.
NONLINEAR MATERIAL MODELS SHEAR WALLS

The nonlinear element models of shear walls are ranged from three dimensional nonlinear solid
elements, two dimensional nonlinear shell elements to simplified models using frame elements.
1 Continuum Finite Element Models
The shear wall is modeled with continuum elements using nonlinear solid elements existed in
many advanced finite element analyses’ software as ANSYS, ABAQUS, etc. The continuum
elements offer superiority in accurately modeling the concrete and reinforcement details (Nicolae
and Reynouard, 2000). Reinforcement can be defined in three different directions. The plasticity
model for concrete is based on the flow theory of plasticity, Von Mises yield criterion, isotropic
hardening and associated flow rule. The continuum elements also capture important behavioral
responses such as axial-flexure interaction, inelastic shear deformation, steel confining effect on
concrete behavior, concrete compression softening, and concrete tension stiffening (Spacone and
El-Tawil, 2004). Even though, the continuum element models require larger amounts of input
parameters, they are very effective in analysis of one or more RC element members. In the other
hand, the continuum elements model still is not practically applicable for the analysis and design
of full-size building structure.
2 Multi-Layer Shell Element
The shear wall is modeled using a fine mesh of smeared multi-layer shell elements. The multi-
layer shell element is based on the principles of composite material mechanics and it can
simulate the coupled in-plane/out-plane bending and the coupled in-plane bending-shear
nonlinear behaviors of RC shear walls (Miao et al, 2006). The shell element is made up of many
layers with different thickness. And different material properties are assigned to various layers.
This means that the reinforcement rebars are smeared into one layer or more. During the finite
element calculation, the axial strain and curvature of the middle layer can be obtained in one
element. Then according to the assumption that plane remains plane, the strains and the
curvatures of the other layers can be calculated. And then the corresponding stress will be
calculated through the constitutive relations of the material assigned to the layer. From the above
principles, it is seen that the structural performance of the shear wall can be directly connected
with the material constitutive law. For performance based design, the recommendation of ACI 40
11
and FEMA 356 define the performance criteria for the flexural RC members in terms of plastic
rotations. Therefore for practical engineering, further development of this model is needed. In the
case of the wall or wall segment behavior is governed by shear, shear drift ratio as the
deformation measure can be used as defined in ATC-40.
3 Frame Element Plastic (P-M-M Interaction) Hinge
The shear wall is model with a composition of frame elements. Equivalent frame model can be
assume of Mid-Pier and rigid beams. The material nonlinearity of the shear wall can be modeled
considering a plastic hinge on Mid-Pier element.The plastic hinge frame structure is analyzed by
placing a rigid plastic spring at the location where yielding is expected. The part of a member
between the two rigid plastic springs remains perfectly elastic. All inelastic deformation is
assumed to occur in these springs (Otani, 1980). This one-component model was generalized by
Giberson (1967). The nonlinear model of mid-pier frame is generally based on plastic hinge
concept and a bilinear moment-rotation relationship. Taking into account the analysis purpose,
the plastic (P-M-M Interaction) hinges can be assumed either on the plastic zones at the end of
the structural elements or distributed along the member span length (Otani, 1980). FEMA 356
proposes plastic hinge properties for the shear walls with bilinear moment-rotation relationship
that define the acceptance criteria. More comprehensive plastic (P-M-M) hinge model can be
computed using a fiber model to predict the plastic behavior of the hinge. In practical
engineering, the plastic hinge assigned to Mid-Pier model can be used directly for nonlinear
analysis of shear walls.
A.Kadid et al (2008) explained the The Boumerdes 2003 earthquake which has devastated a
large part of the north of Algeria has raised questions about the adequacy of framed structures to
resist strong motions, since many buildings suffered great damage or collapsed. To evaluate the
performance of framed
buildings under future expected earthquakes, a non linear static pushover analysis has been
conducted. To achieve this objective, three framed buildings with 5, 8 and 12 stories respectively
were analyzed. The results obtained from this study show that properly designed frames will
perform well under seismic loads.
The recent earthquakes including the last Algerian earthquake in which many
concrete structures have been severely damaged or collapsed, have indicated the need for
evaluating the seismic adequacy of existing buildings. In particular, the seismic rehabilitation of
older concrete structures in high seismicity areas is a matter of growing concern, since structures
venerable to damage must be identified and an acceptable level of safety must be determined. To
make such assessment, simplified linear-elastic methods are not adequate. Thus, the structural
engineering community has developed a new generation of design and seismic procedures that
incorporate performance based structures and is moving away from
simplified linear elastic methods and towards a more non linear technique. Recent interests in the
development of performance based codes for the design or rehabilitation of buildings in seismic
active areas show that an inelastic procedure commonly referred to as the pushover analysis is a
viable method to assess damage vulnerability of buildings. Basically, a pushover analysis is a
series of incremental static analysis carried out to develop a capacity curve for the building.
Based on the capacity curve, a target displacement which is an estimate of the displacement that
the design earthquake will produce on the building is determined. The extent of damage
12
experienced by the structure at this target displacement is considered representative of the
damage experienced by the building when subjected to
design level ground shaking. Many methods were presented to apply the nonlinear static
pushover (NSP) to structures. These methods can be listed as: (1) the capacity spectrum method
(CSM) (ATC), (2) the displacement coefficient method (DCM) (FEMA-356) , (3) modal
pushover analysis (MPA). The approach has been developed by many researchers with minor
variation in computation procedure. Since the behaviour of reinforced concrete structures may be
highly inelastic under seismic loads, the global inelastic performance of RC structures will be
dominated by plastic yielding effects and consequently the accuracy of the pushover analysis
will be influenced by the ability of the analytical models to capture these effects. In general,
analytical models for the pushover analysis of frame structures may be divided into two main
types: (1) distributed plasticity (plastic zone) and
(2) concentrated plasticity (plastic hinge). Although the plastic hinge approach is simpler than
the plastic zone, this method is limited to its incapacity to capture the more complex member
behaviour that involve severe yielding under the combined actions of compression and bi-axial
bending and buckling effects. In this paper, are presented the results of pushover analysis of
reinforced concrete frames designed according to the Algerian code.
F. Khoshnoudian et al (2011) explained the proposal lateral load pattern for pushover analysis
is given in two forms for symmetric concrete
buildings: 1-(X/H)0.5 for low-rise and mid-rise buildings, 2- Sin(ΠX/H) for high-rise buildings.
These two forms give more realistic results as compared to conventional load patterns such as
triangular and uniform load patterns. The assumed buildings of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 30 story
concrete buildings are special
moment frame which have been designed according to 2800 standard. Then using conventional
load patterns and proposal load patterns, the pushover analysis has been done and results have
been compared with the outcomes of nonlinear time history analysis. Results show the accuracy
of proposed load pattern in comparing to the load patterns proposed by standards such as
FEMA356.
In the last ten years, much attention has been paid to performance-based seismic design
in earthquake engineering research. This new method requires designing a building for several
expected performance levels associated with different earthquake hazard levels. To meet this
objective, a more rational design procedure based on inelastic displacement rather than elastic
force is needed. At present, the method has been suggested in some recommended or guidance
codes and documents.
An important step in performance-based design is to estimate the nonlinear seismic
response of buildings. There are two procedures: nonlinear time history analysis and simplified
nonlinear analysis, herein referred to as pushover analysis. The nonlinear time history analysis
can provide more realistic results for a given earthquake ground motion. However, such
analytical methods tend to be highly sensitive to the earthquake input. It is difficult to provide
suitable earthquake time histories as earthquake motion for general design use in codes.
Pushover analysis is not as complicated as nonlinear time history analysis and can use response
spectrum as demand diagram to estimate the seismic response of structures.
Therefore it is generally recommended in performance-based design.
13
In pushover analysis, the first step is to suppose a certain lateral load pattern, then
perform a static analysis of the structural model under this pattern. The load pattern is applied
step by step until a predetermined target displacement isreached. Thus, the relationship between
base shear and roof displacement is obtained, which is referred to as the capacity curve of
building. It is clear that different load patterns will result in different capacity curves. If the curve
over-or-underestimates the seismic capacityof the building, thenthe steps used to estimate the
displacement response based on this curve and design demand diagram would not be realistic.
Therefore, the selection of a reasonable lateral load pattern is particularly important in pushover
analysis.
Several lateral load patterns have been suggested. They are:
(1) inverted triangle distribution (modal pattern); (2) uniform distribution; (3) load distribution
based on linear elastic dynamic analysis or response spectrum analysis of the building ;(4) the
adaptive distribution, which is varied as the inter story resistance changes in each load step ;(5)
distribution proportional to the product of the mass and fundamental mode shape, which is
used initially until the first yielding takes place. Then the lateral forces are determined based on
the product of the current floor displacement and mass at each step ; (6) a distribution based on
mode shapes derived from secant stiffness at each load step.
The last three distributions are adaptive patterns,which try to establish equivalent lateral
load distribution based on a certain theoretical basis. However, their superiorityover the simple
fixed load patterns has not been demonstrated.
It was also noted that the first two patterns might result in the lower and upper bound of
pushover curves, respectively.
In present paper, numerous time history analyses are carried out for 4, 8, 12, 16, 20
and 30 story concrete buildings, which were selected to represent a variety of structures, to
obtain the capacity curves of these buildings under earthquake excitations. Then, pushover
analysesare conducted under different load patterns including conventional and proposed load
patterns, the obtained capacity curves are compared with those obtained from time history
analysis, the effectiveness of different load patterns is examined and suitable load patterns are
suggested for different types of structures. RC buildings have been designed according toIranian
earthquake standard. Then pushover and nonlinear time history analysis are applied to each
building by means of FEMA356.
Pushover analysis is done by applying of triangular load, uniform load as well as
proposed load patterns then the building capacity curve is drawn for each pattern. These curves
are compared with those obtained from time history capacity of the building. The best lateral
load pattern can be given by comparison of building’s capacity curve while applying of different
lateral load patternswith exact capacity curve obtained from time history nonlinear analysis.
M. K. Rahman et al explained the Western region of Saudi Arabia lies in a moderate seismic
zone and seismic events of magnitude 5.7 were recorded in 2009 in areas near the holy city
of Madinah. A historical event involving ground cracking and fissuring with volcanic
activity took place in the year 1256. The recent seismic events have led to concerns on safety and
vulnerability of RC buildings, which were designed only for gravity loads in the past devoid of
any ductile detailing of joints. This paper presents a 3D nonlinear static analysis for seismic
performance evaluation of an existing eight-story reinforced concrete frame-shear wall building
in Madinah. The building has a dome, reinforced concrete frame, elevator shafts and ribbed and
14
flat slab systems at different floor levels. The seismic displacement response of the RC frame-
shear wall building is obtained using the 3D pushover analysis. The 3D
static pushover analysis was carried out using SAP2000 incorporat ing inelastic material
behavior for concrete and steel. Moment curvature and P-M interactions of frame
members were obtained by cross sectional fiber
analysis using XTRACT. The shear wall was modeled using mid-pier approach. The damage
modes includes a sequence of yielding and failure of members and structural levels were
obtained for the target displacement expected under design earthquake and retrofitting
strategies to strengthen the building were evaluated.
Recent awareness of a potential seismic events in low to moderate seismicity regions of

Saudi Arabia such as Otaibah, Makkah (2005), Haradh, Eastern Province (2006) , Al-Hadama,
Al-Amid, Al-Qarasa and Yanbu (2009), Eastern Province (August,2010) have led to concerns of
safety and vulnerability of
reinforced concrete buildings, in which ductile detailing has not been provided explicitly in the
design process. Majority of the structures built in Saudi Arabia in the seismically active
Western region are designed primarily for combination of gravity and wind loads and are
not able to resist seismic loading.
Gravity load designed RC frames in Saudi Arabia have limited lateral load
resistance and are susceptible to column-side sway or soft-story mechanisms under
earthquake effects. In some cases, for relatively taller buildings in Saudi Arabia, the design
may have considered lateral forces due to wind loads, it is still important to carry out a complete
seismic evaluation, since higher mode effects sometimes lead to soft-story mechanisms in the
mid to upper levels of the building. Also non ductile detailing practice employed in these
structures makes them prone to potential damage and failure during earthquake. Therefore
analysis of such buildings are required which have not been designed to take care of seismic
forces. The nonlinear static approach is used to evaluate the seismic response of the
building.Modeling of shear wall is done by mid-pier approach. The nonlinear model of the mid
-pier frame is generally based on plastic hinge concept and a bilinear moment -rotation
relationship. Taking into account the analysis purpose, the plastic hinges (P-M-M
Interaction) can be assumed either on the plastic zones at the end of the structural elements or
distributed along the member span length (Otani, 1980).
This paper presents a 3D nonlinear static analysis for seismic performance evaluation
of an existing eight-story reinforced concrete frame-shear wall building in Madinah. The
building has a dome, reinforced concrete frame, elevator shafts and ribbed and flat slab
systems at different floor levels. The seismic displacement response of the RC frame-shear
wall building obtained using the 3D pushover analysis. The 3D static pushover analysis
was carried out using SAP2000 incorporating inelastic material behavior for concrete and
steel. Moment curvature and P-M interactions of frame members were obtained by cross
sectional fiber analysis using XTRACT. The shear wall was modeled using mid pier
approach.
15
Anil K. Chopra et al explained the Developed herein is an improved pushover analysis
procedure based on structural dynamics theory,
which retains the conceptual simplicity and computational attractiveness of current procedures
with invariant force distribution. In this modal pushover analysis (MPA), the seismic demand
due to individual terms in the modal expansion of the e<ective earthquake forces is determined
by a pushover analysis using the inertia force distribution for each mode. Combining these
‘modal’ demands due to the three terms of the expansion provides an estimate of the total
seismic demand on inelastic systems. When applied to elastic systems, the MPA procedure is
shown to be equivalent to standard response spectrum analysis (RSA). When the peak inelastic
response of a 9-storey steel building determined by the approximate MPA procedure is compared
with rigorous non-linear response history analysis, it is demonstrated that MPA estimates the
response of buildings responding well into the inelastic range to a similar degree of accuracy as
RSA in estimating peak response of elastic systems. Thus, the MPA procedure is accurate
enough for practical application in building evaluation and design.
Helmut Krawinkler et al (1998)

In the simplest case, seismic design can be viewed as a two step process. The first, and
usually most important one, is the conception of an effective structural system that needs
to be configured with due regard to all important seismic performance objectives, ranging
from serviceability con-siderations to life safety and collapse prevention. This step
comprises the art of seismic engineering, since no rigid rules can, or should, be imposed
on the engineer's creativity to devise a system that not only fulfills seismic performance
objectives, but also pays tribute to functional and economic constraints imposed by the
owner, the architect, and other professionals involved in the design and construction of a
building. By default, this process of creation is based on judgment, experience, and
understanding of seismic behavior, rather than rigorous mathematical formulations. Rules of
thumb for strength and stiffness targets, based on the fundamental knowledge of ground
motion and elastic and inelastic dynamic response characteristics, should suffice to
configure and rough-size an effective structural system. Elaborate mathematical/physical
models can only be built once a structural system has been created. Such models are
needed to evaluate seismic performance of an existing system and to modify component
behavior characteristics (strength, stiffness, deformation capacity) to better suit the
specified performance criteria. This second step of the design process should involve a
demand/capacity evaluation at all important performance levels, which requires
identification of important capacity parameters and prescription of acceptable values of
these parameters, as well as the prediction of the demands imposed by ground motions.
Suitable capacity parameters and their acceptable values, as well as suitable methods for
demand prediction will depend on the performance level to be evaluated. This paper is
concerned only with demand prediction at low performance levels, such as life safety and
collapse prevention, at which it is expected that the structure will have to undergo
significant inelastic deformations. In an ideal world there would be no debate about the
proper method of demand prediction and performance evaluation at low performance levels.
Clearly, inelastic time history analysis that predicts with sufficient reliability the forces and
cumulative deformation (damage) demands in every element of the structural system is the
final solution. The implementation of this solution requires the availability
16
of a set of ground motion records (each with three components) that account for the
uncertainties and differences in severity, frequency characteristics, and duration due to
rupture characteristics and distances of the various faults that may cause motions at the
site. It requires further capability to model adequately the cyclic load- deformation
characteristics of all important elements of the three-dimensional soil-foundation structure
system, and the
availability of efficient tools to implement the solution process within the time and
financial constraints imposed on an engineering office. Moreover, it requires the adequate
knowledge of element deformation capacities with due regard to deterioration
characteristics that define the limit state of acceptable performance. We need to work
towards this final solution, but we also need to recognize the limitations of today's states
of knowledge and practice. It is fair to say that at this time none of the afore-mentioned
capabilities have been adequately developed and that efficient tools for implementation do
not exist. Recognizing these limitations, the task is to perform an evaluation process
that is relatively simple, but captures the essential features that significantly affect the
performance goal. In this ,context, the accuracy of demand prediction is desirable, butt it
may not be essential, since
neither seismic input nor capacities are known with accuracy. The inelastic pushover
analysis, which is the subject of this paper, serves this purpose provided its limitations and
pitfalls are fully recognized.
17
3. STRUCTURAL MODELLING
18
Modelling: All the beam members and column members are drafted in auto cad and
imported to staad.pro. The loads and properties were assigned there and then imported to the
respective software i.e., SAP and E-tabs. The analysation there was performed and results
tabulated. The plan considered was represented below.
Fig: 3.1 PLAN CONSIDERED
19
3.1 MATERIALS
The modulus of elasticity of reinforced concrete as per IS 456:2000 is given by
For the steel rebar, the necessary information is yield stress, modulus of elasticity and
2
ultimate strength. High yield strength deformed bars (HYSD) having yield strength 415 N/mm
is widely used in design practice and is adopted for the present study.
3.2 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

In this section, the details of the modeling adopted for various elements of the frame are given
below.
3.2.1 Beams and Columns

Beams and columns were modelled as frame elements. The elements represent the
strength, stiffness and deformation capacity of the members. While modelling the beams and
columns, the properties to be assigned are cross sectional dimensions, reinforcement details and
the type of material used.
3.2.2 Beam-Column Joints

The beam-column joints are assumed to be rigid.
3.2.3 Foundation Modelling

Fixed supports were provided at the ends of supporting columns.
3.3 LOADS
All loads acting on the building except wind load were considered. These are
1. Dead Load
2. Live Load
3. Lateral Load due to Earthquake
It was assumed that wind load will not govern the demands on the members.
20
3.4 LOAD COMBINATIONS
The load combinations considered in the analysis according to IS 1893:2002 are given below.
COMB1 = 1.5(DL+LL)
For Pushover analysis the load cases are as follows.

a. Gravity push (Push1), which is used to apply gravity load (DL+LL). The
percentage of imposed load was selected from the Table-8, IS 1893:2002. It is 25% for imposed
2
load less than 3 kN/m .
b. Lateral push (Push 2) in X- direction, after Gravity push.
21
4. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF
FRAMES
22
Pushover analysis of frames
Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the lateral
loads is incrementally increased, maintaining a predefined distribution pattern along the height of
the building. Pushover analysis can determine the behavior of a building, including the ultimate
load and the maximum inelastic deflection. Local nonlinear effects are modeled and the structure
is pushed until a collapse mechanism is developed. At each step, the base shear and the roof
displacement can be plotted to generate the pushover curve.
4.1 Necessity of Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis (NLSA)
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 wide spread damage especially to RC
buildings during earth quakes exposed the construction practices being adopted around the
world, and generated a great demand for seismic evaluation and retrofitting of existing building
stocks
4.1.1 What is Non-Linear Static Push-over Analysis?
The pushover analysis of a structure is a static non-linear analysis under permanent vertical loads
and gradually increasing lateral loads. The equivalent static lateral loads approximately represent
earth quake induced forces. 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. The analysis is
carried out up to failure, thus it enables determination of collapse load and ductility capacity. O a
building frame, and plastic rotation is monitored, and lateral inelastic force versus displacement
response for the complete structure is analytically computed. This type of analysis enables
weakness in the structure to be identified. The decision to retrofit can be taken in such studies.
The seismic design can be viewed as two step process. The first, and usually most important one,
is the conception of an effective structural system that needs to be configured with due regard to
all important seismic performance objectives, ranging from serviceability considerations. This
step comprises the art of seismic engineering. The rules of thumb for the strength and stiffness
23
targets, based on fundamental knowledge of ground motion and elastic and inelastic dynamic
response characteristics, should suffice to configure and rough-size an effective structural
system.
Elaborate mathematical/physical model can only be built once a structural system has
been created. Such models are needed to evaluate seismic performance of an existing system to
modify component behavior characteristics (strength, stiffness, deformation capacity) to better
suit the specified performance criteria.
The second step consists of the design process that involves demand/ capacity evaluation at all
important capacity parameters, as well as the prediction of demands imposed by ground motions.
Suitable capacity parameters and their acceptable values, as well as suitable methods for demand
prediction will depend on the performance level to be evaluated.
The implementation of this solution requires the availability of a set of ground motion records
(each with three components) that account for the uncertainties and differences in severity,
frequency characteristics, and duration due to rupture characteristics distances of the various
faults that may cause motions at the site. It requires further the capability too model adequately
the cyclic load deformation characteristics of all important elements of the three dimensional
soil foundation structure system, and the availability of efficient tools to implement the solution
process within the time and financial constraints on an engineering problem.
4.1.2 Purpose of Push-over Analysis
The purpose of pushover analysis is to evaluate the expected performance of structural

systems by estimating performance of a structural system by estimating its strength and
deformation demands in design earthquakes by means of static inelastic analysis, and comparing
these demands to available capacities at the performance levels of interest. The evaluation is
based on an assessment of important performance parameters, including global drift, inter-story
drift, inelastic element deformations (either absolute or normalized with respect to a yield value),
deformations between elements, and element connection forces (for elements and connections
that cannot sustain inelastic deformations), The inelastic static pushover analysis can be viewed
as a method for predicting seismic force and deformation demands, which accounts in an
24
approximate manner for the redistribution of internal forces that no longer can be resisted within
the elastic range of structural behavior.
The pushover is expected to provide information on many response characteristics that cannot be
obtained from an elastic static or dynamic analysis. The following are the examples of such
response characteristics:
• The realistic force demands on potentially brittle elements, such as axial force demands on
columns, force demands on brace connections, moment demands on beam to column
connections, shear force demands in deep reinforced concrete spandrel beams, shear force
demands in unreinforced masonry wall piers, etc.
• Estimates of the deformations demands for elements that have to form in elastically in order
to dissipate the energy imparted to the structure.
• Consequences of the strength deterioration of individual elements on behavior of structural

system.
• Consequences of the strength deterioration of the individual elements on the behavior of the
structural system.
• Identification of the critical regions in which the deformation demands are expected to be high
and that have to become the focus through detailing.
• Identification of the strength discontinuities in plan elevation that will lead to changes in the
dynamic characteristics in elastic range.
• Estimates of the inter-story drifts that account for strength or stiffness discontinuities and that
may be used to control the damages and to evaluate P-Delta effects.
25
• Verification of the completeness and adequacy of load path, considering all the elements of the
structural system, all the connections, the stiff nonstructural elements of significant strength, and
the foundation system.
The last item is the most relevant one as the analytical model incorporates all elements, whether
structural or non structural, that contribute significantly to the lateral load distribution. Load
transfer through across the connections through the ductile elements can be checked with
realistic forces; the effects of stiff partial-height infill walls on shear forces in columns can be
evaluated; and the maximum overturning moment in walls, which is often limited by the uplift
capacity of foundation elements can be estimated.
These benefits come at the cost of the additional analysis effort, associated with
incorporating all important elements, modeling their inelastic load-deformation characteristics,
and executing incremental inelastic analysis, preferably with three dimensional analytical
models.
4.1.3 Non-Linear Static Analysis for Buildings
Seismic analysis of buildings can be categorized depending upon the sophistication of

modeling adopted for the analysis. Buildings loaded beyond the elastic range can be analyzed
using Non-Linear static analysis, but in this method one would not be able to capture the
dynamic response, especially the higher mode effects. This is pushover analysis. There is no
specific code for NLSA. This procedure leads to the capacity curve which can be compared with
design spectrum/DCR of members and one can determine whether the building is safe or needs
strengthening and its extent.
The capacity of structure is represented by pushover curve. The most convenient way to
plot the load deformation curve is by tracking the base shear and the roof displacement. The
pushover procedure can be presented in various forms can be used in a variety of forms for the
use in a variety of methodologies. As the name implies it is a process of pushing horizontally,
26
with a prescribed loading pattern, incrementally, until the structure reaches the limit state. There
are several types of sophistication that can be used over for pushover curve analysis.
Level-1: It is generally used for single storey building, where at a single

concentrated horizontal force equal to base shear applied at the top of the
structure and displacement is obtained.
Level-2: In this level, lateral force in proportion to storey mass is applied at

different floor levels in accordance with IS: 1893-2002 (Part-I) procedure,
and story drift is obtained.
Level-3: In this method lateral force is applied in proportion to the product of

storey masses and first mode shape elastic model of the structure. The
pushover curve is constructed to represent the first mode response of
structure based on the assumption that the fundamental mode of vibration
is the predominant response of the structure. This procedure is valid for
tall buildings with fundamental period of vibration upto 1 sec.
Level-4: This procedure is applied to soft storey buildings, wherein lateral force in
proportion to product of storey masses and first mode of shape of elastic
model of the structure, until first yielding, the forces are adjusted with the
changing the deflected shape.
Level-5: This procedure is similar to level 3 and level 4 but the effect of higher
mode of vibration in determining yielding in individual structural element
are included while plotting the pushover curve for the building in terms of
the first mode lateral forces and displacements. The higher mode effects
can be determined by doing higher mode pushover analysis. For the higher
modes, structure is pushed and pulled concurrently to maintain the mode
shape.
27
Fig 4.1 push over analysis
Fig 4.2 Strength – deformation for a frame structure
28
4.2 CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD
The nonlinear static pushover analysis is a comprehensive method of evaluating earth
quake response of structures explicitly considering nonlinear behavior of structure elements. The
capacity spectrum method is on approach for implementing pushover analysis that compares
structure capacity with ground shaking demand to determine peak response during an
earthquake.
The capacity spectrum method estimates peak response by expressing both structure
capacity and ground shaking demand in terms of spectral acceleration and displacement (hence
the name capacity spectrum)
A capacity spectrum is the base shear versus roof displacement curve. When the demand
spectrum is plotted along with the capacity spectrum in an Acceleration Displacement Response
Spectrum (ADRS) format, the two curves may meet to give a performance point. The
performance point represents the maximum deformation and the degree of damage that the
building will sustain the applied static forces.
Fig 4.3 capacity spectrum curve
29
4.3 SEISMIC LOAD DISTRIBUTION:
Pushover analysis requires the seismic load distribution with which the structure
will be displaced incrementally. The load distribution is based on the first three mode
shapes.
4.4 LOAD-DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF ELEMENTS:
In pushover analysis, it is necessary to model the non-linear load-deformation behavior of
the elements. Beams and columns should have moment versus rotation and shear force versus
shear deformation hinges. For columns, the rotation of the moment hinge can be calculated for
the axial load available from the gravity load analysis. All compression struts have to be modeled
with axial load versus axial deformation hinges.
An idealized load-deformation curve is shown in Fig (3.4). It is a piece-wise linear curve defined
by five points as explained below.
(i) Point ‘A’ corresponds to the unloaded condition
(ii) Point ‘B’ corresponds to the onset of yielding.
(iii) Point ‘C’ corresponds to the ultimate strength.
(iv) Point ‘D’ corresponds to the residual strength. For the computational stability, it is
recommended to specify non-zero residual strength. In absence of the modeling of the
descending branch of a load-deformation curve, the residual strength can be assumed to be 20%
of the yield strength.
(v) Point ‘E’ corresponds to the maximum deformation capacity with the residual strength. To
maintain computational stability, a high value of deformation capacity equal to 15Δ can be
y
assumed, where Δ is the deformation at the onset of yielding.

y
30
Fig 4.4 Performance levels (ATC 40)
4.5 DIFFERENT HINGE PROPERTIES IN PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

There are three types of hinge properties in E-Tabs. They are
1) Default hinge properties,
2) User-defined hinge properties and
3) Generated hinge properties.
Only default hinge properties and user-defined hinge properties can be assigned to frame
elements. When these hinge properties are assigned to a frame element, the program
automatically creates a different generated hinge property for each and every hinge.
Default hinge properties cannot be modified. They also cannot be viewed because the
default properties are section dependent. The default properties cannot be fully defined by the
program until the section that they apply to is identified. Thus to see the effect of the default
properties, the default property should be assigned to a frame element, and then the resulting
generated hinge property should be viewed. The built-in default hinge properties are typically
based on FEMA-273 and/or ATC-40 criteria. For example of default properties, we have
Default-M3, Default-P, Default-P-M-M and Default-V2. Usually moment hinge properties
(Default-M3) are assigned to beams and interacting hinge properties (Default-P-M-M) are
assigned to columns.
31
In addition to moment-rotation relationships, a three dimensional interaction surface with
axial force-bending moment interaction diagrams has to be defined for columns. Although E-
Tabs could not update the moment-rotation relationships due to variations in axial load levels
during pushover analysis, the yield and ultimate moment values are updated by using the three
dimensional interaction surfaces. Axial force-bending moment interaction diagrams about two
major axes of each column section are utilized to determine three dimensional interaction
surfaces.
User-defined hinge properties can be either based on default properties or they can be
fully user-defined. When user-defined properties are based on default properties, the hinge
properties cannot be viewed because, again, the default properties are section dependent. When
user-defined properties are not based on default properties, then the properties can be viewed and
modified.
The generated hinge properties are used in the analysis. They can be viewed, but they cannot
be modified. Generated hinge properties have an automatic naming convention of Label H#,
where Label is the frame element label, H stands for hinge, and # represents the hinge number.
The program starts with hinge number 1 and increments the hinge number by one for
each consecutive hinge applied to the frame element. For example if a frame element label is
F23, the generated hinge property name for the second hinge applied to the frame element is
F23H2.
The main reason for the differentiation between defined properties (in this context, defined
means both default and user-defined) and generated properties is that typically the hinge
properties are section dependent. Thus different frame section type in the model. This could
potentially mean that a very large number of hinge properties would need to be defined by the
user.
32
4.6 LIMITATIONS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS:
Although pushover analysis has advantages over elastic analysis procedures, underlying
assumptions, the accuracy of pushover predictions and limitations of current pushover
procedures must be identified. The estimate of target displacement, selection of lateral load
patterns and identification of failure mechanisms due to higher modes of vibration are important
issues that affect the accuracy of pushover results.
Static pushover analysis neglects dynamic effects. Hence, during an earthquake, the
inelastic structural behavior can be described by balancing the dynamic equilibrium at every time
step. As pushover analysis focuses only on the strain energy of the structure during a monotonic
static push, it neglects other sources of energy mainly associated with dynamic components of
forces such as kinetic energy and viscous damping energy.
Target displacement is the global displacement expected in a design earthquake. The roof
displacement at mass center of the structure is used as target displacement. The accurate
estimation of target displacement associated with specific performance objective affect the
accuracy of seismic demand predictions of pushover analysis.
33
5. ANALYSIS OF FRAMES (E-Tabs)
34
5.1 MODELLING OF FRAME:
All the preliminary modeling was done in staad.pro and the modelled frame was imported
into E-Tabs. A four storey frame was modeled in STAAD Pro. and imported to E-Tabs. Along
with the above frame, another frame with shear walls was modelled in another frame and
imported to E-Tabs. The main aim is to derive the difference in displacement & Base Shear
between these two frames.
5.2 MEMBER PROPERTIES:

 All the beams in the frame were sized to 0.23m X 0.45m
 All the columns in the frame were sized to 0.3m X 0.45m in case-1.
 All the columns in the frame were sized to 0.3m X 0.45m and stilt column dimensions
are changed to 0.3 X 0.6m in case-2.
 The slab of 0.1m thickness was taken for the analysis purpose and assigned to each floor.
 Default M3hinge was assigned to beams.
 Default P-M-M hinge was assigned to columns.
5.3 MEMBER LOADING:

All the members were assigned the following loadings.
 Self Weight
 External Wall Load--- 12 KN/m
 Internal Wall Load--- 7 KN/m
 Live Load----------- 2 KN/m
 Earth Quake Loading----- as per IS-code:1983-2002
 It was assumed that the wind force was not governing the frame efficiency.
5.4 PUSH OVER CASES:

Two pushover cases were defined for the analysis.
 Push-1 also known as Gravity push which is done for gravity loading ( DL+LL) for
which it is done in load defined pattern
 Push-2 also known as lateral push in which the governing load is lateral load (EQ) for
which it is done in displacement defined pattern.
35
6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
36
6.1 RESULTS:
The results from the analysis are the deflected shape and the formation of hinges with
increasing load and their performance levels.
The main difference between the frames can be found from the displacement and base
reaction plots i.e., push-over curves. Capacity Spectrum curves can be drawn from the
analysed plot.
From the capacity spectrum curve the existence of performance point can be noted. If
the performance point doesn’t exist, the structure fails to achieve the target performance
level.
6.1.1
Pushover curve have been developed for multi-storey frame with and without shear wall.
CASE-1: Multi Storey Frame without Shear Wall
CASE-2: The shear wall have been placed upto Stilt Floor, Ground Floor, First floor,
. Second Floor, Third Floor & Fourth Floor separately
CASE-3: Jacketed columns in Multi Storey Frame without Shear Wall
CASE-4:For Jacketed Columns Shear Wall have been placed upto Stilt Floor, Ground
Floor, First floor, Second Floor, Third Floor & Fourth Floor separately.
37
Fig: 6.1 RCC frame (Plan) in ETABS
38
Fig: 6.2 RCC frame (3D view)
‘
39
Fig: 6.3 RCC frame (3D view) – External Wall Loading
40
Fig: 6.4 RCC frame (3D view) – Internal Wall Loading
41
Fig: 6.5 RCC frame deformed shape (Lateral-step 1)
42
Fig: 6.6 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 2)
43
44
45
46
Fig: 7.0 RCC frame with shear wall (Plan)
47
Fig: 7.1 RCC frame with shear wall upto Stilt Floor(3D view)
48
1.FORMATION OF HINGES (RCC PLANE FRAME) SHEAR WALL
UPTO STILT FLOOR :
Fig: 7.2 RCC frame deformed shape (Lateral-step 1)
49
50
51
52
Fig: 7.6 RCC frame with shear wall upto Ground Floor(3D view)
53
2. FORMATION OF HINGES (SHEAR WALL UPTO GROUND FLOOR)
54
55
56
57
Fig: 8.1 RCC frame with shear wall upto First Floor(3D view)
58
3. FORMATION OF HINGES (SHEAR WALL UPTO FIRST FLOOR) :
59
60
61
Fig: 8.5 RCC frame with shear wall upto Second Floor(3D view)
62
4. FORMATION OF HINGES (SHEAR WALL UPTO SECOND
FLOOR) :
63
64
65
Fig: 8.9 RCC frame with shear wall upto Third Floor(3D view)
66
5. FORMATION OF HINGES (SHEAR WALL UPTO THIRD FLOOR)
67
68
69
Fig: 9.3 RCC frame with shear wall upto Fourth Floor(3D view)
70
6. FORMATION OF HINGES (SHEAR WALL UPTO FOURTH
FLOOR)
71
72
73
7. FORMATION OF HINGES (JACKETED COLUMNS WITHOUT
SHEAR WALL)
74
75
76
77
8. FORMATION OF HINGES (JACKETED COLUMNS WITH SHEAR
WALL UPTO STILT FLOOR)
78
79
80
WALL UPTO GROUND FLOOR)
81
82
WALL UPTO FIRST FLOOR)
83
84
85
10.FORMATION OF HINGES (JACKETED COLUMNS WITH SHEAR
WALL UPTO SECOND FLOOR)
86
87
88
WALL UPTO THIRD FLOOR)
89
90
91
WALL UPTO FOURTH FLOOR)
92
93
94
PUSH-OVER CURVES
Tab: 6.1 RCC frame Push Over curve -LATERAL PUSH
95
Tab: 6.2 RCC frame Push Over curve with SHEAR WALL (upto stilt floor) -
LATERAL PUSH
96
Tab: 6.3 RCC frame Push Over curve with SHEAR WALL (upto Ground floor) -
LATERAL PUSH
97
Tab: 6.4 RCC frame Push Over curve with SHEAR WALL (upto First floor) -
LATERAL PUSH
98
Tab: 6.5 RCC frame Push Over curve with SHEAR WALL (upto Second floor) -
LATERAL PUSH
99
Tab: 6.6 RCC frame Push Over curve with SHEAR WALL (upto Third floor) -
LATERAL PUSH
100
Tab: 6.7 RCC frame Push Over curve with SHEAR WALL (upto Fourth floor) -
LATERAL PUSH
101
Tab: 6.8 RCC frame Push Over curve for JACKETED COLUMNS -LATERAL
PUSH
102
Tab: 6.9 RCC frame Push Over curve for JACKETED COLUMNS with SHEAR
WALL(upto Stilt Floor) -LATERAL PUSH
103
WALL(upto Ground Floor) -LATERAL PUSH
104
WALL(upto First Floor) -LATERAL PUSH
105
WALL(upto Second Floor) -LATERAL PUSH
106
WALL(upto Third Floor) -LATERAL PUSH
107
WALL(upto Fourth Floor) -LATERAL PUSH
108
PUSH-OVER CURVES OF FRAMES
DISPLACEMENT BASEFORCE DISPLACEMENT BASEFORCE

TYPE (mm) (KN) TYPE (mm) (KN)
without SW 161 1301 Jacketed Columns without SW 178.9 1421
with SW Jacketed Columns with SW

(SF) 131.5 1330 (SF) 166.5 1509

(GF) 147.2 1525 (GF) 98 1527

(FF) 156.4 1722 (FF) 115.1 1544

(SF) 164.3 1765 (SF) 130..5 1827

(TF) 166 1780 (TF) 142.8 1881

(FF) 170 1875 (FF) 153.8 1934
Table: 8.1 Push-Over Curves of Frames.
109
6.2 DISCUSSIONS:
Discussion-1:
From Table 8.1, It can be observed that the maximum displacement,Shear Wall
RCC frame that can withstand up to elastic limit is 170 mm and the base reaction
3
corresponding to this displacement is 1.875x10 KN
Also from the above push-over curve table it can be noted that the maximum
displacement, the Shear Wall RCC frame for jacketed columns that can with stand up to the
3
elastic limit is 153.8 mm and the corresponding base reaction is 1.934x10 KN
6.3 CONCLUSIONS:
 From the push-over curves(with shear-wall), it can be concluded that shear wall
placing upto first floor is more significant in case of base shear and displacement
and above than that i.e.,(2nd , 3rd and 4th floors),there is a slight increase in base
shear, so it is optional.
 From the pushover curves, it can be concluded that RCC Frames with Shear Walls
are able to resist more base-shear than that of normal RCC Frames.
 From the push-over curves in Jacketed Columns, it can be concluded that shear wall
placing upto Second floor is more significant in case of base shear and displacement
and above than that i.e.,( 3rd and 4th floors),there is a slight increase in base shear, so
it is optional.
110
7. REFERENCES:
1. ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings—volume 1 (ATC-40). Report No.
SSC 96-01. Redwood City (CA): Applied Technology Council; 1996.
2. FEMA. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 273). Washington
(DC): Building Seismic Safety Council; 1997.
3. FEMA 356 NEHRP Pre standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. (2000).
4. Art Chianello, Rupa Purasinghe “Push Over Analysis Of A Multi-Storey Concrete

Perforated Shear Wall” 29th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 25 -
26 August 2004, Singapore.
5. A. Shuraim, A. Charif. Performance of pushover procedure in evaluating the seismic

adequacy of reinforced concrete frames. King Saud University ashuraim@gmail.com. (2007).
6. AliReza Habibi(2010), “Nonlinear sensitivity analysis of reinforced concrete frames” ,

Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 46 (2010), pg 571-584.
7. Abolfazl Shamsai, Loghman Rahemi, Kamal Rahmani and Saber Peroti “Arrangements of
Shear Walls in Control of Lateral Displacement of Concrete Frames” , Department of Civil
Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, Department of Civil Engineering,
Mahabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mahabad, Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal 17
(10): 1324-1330, 2012 ISSN 1818-4952, IDOSI Publications, 2012.
8. Chan CM, Zou XK. Optimal inelastic drift design of reinforce concrete structures under
pushover loading. In: The second China–Japan–Korea joint symposium on optimization of
structural and mechanical systems, (2002).
9. Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1995.
111
10. Erolkalkan(2007), “Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic
evaluation of buildings” , Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 305-316.
11. Juan C. Reyes(2011), “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, Earthquake Engg Struct.
Dyn. vol 40: pg789-806.
12. Kazem shakeri(2010), “A story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure for
estimating seismic demands of buildings”, Engineering Structures 32 (2010), pg 174-
183.
13. M. Ajmal ,M.K. Rahman and M.H. Baluch ,”Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis of a
ShearWall Building in Madinah, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. International workshop on Role of Research Infrastructures in
Seismic Rehabilitation” 8-9 feb-2012, Istanbul.
14. Ned .M. Cleland, Shockey Industries Inc, Winchester, Virginia “Design for Lateral
Force Resistance with Precast Concrete Shear Walls.” PCI Journal, September-
October 97.
15. Oscar Möller, Ricardo O. Foschi, Laura M. Quiroz, Marcelo Rubinstein. Structural optimization
for performance-based design in earthquake engineering: Applications of neural networks.
Structural Safety 31, 490–499. (2009).
16. R.Hasan (2002), “Push-over analysis for performance-based seismic design”

Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 2483-2493.
17. Rahul RANA, Limin JIN and Atila ZEKIOGLU, “Pushover Analysis Of A 19 Storey Concrete
Shear Wall Building” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada. August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 133.
112
18. Sun-Pil Kim(2008), “An alternative pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic
displacement demands” Engineering Structures 30 (2008), pg 3793-3807.
19. Swapnil b. Kharmale and Siddhartha Ghosh, “Seismic Lateral Force Distribution
For ductility-based design of steel plate Shear walls” Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Mumbai 400076, India. 16 June 2011.
20. Tolga Akis, “Lateral Load Analysis of Shear Wall-Frame Structures” The
Department of Engineering Sciences, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
January 2004.
21. Tysh Shang Jan(2004), “An upper-bound pushover analysis procedure for estimating
the seismic demands of high-rise buildings”, Engineering Structures 26 (2004), pg 117-
128.
22. X.-K. Zou, C.-M. Chan. Optimal seismic performance-based design of reinforced
concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover analysis. Department of Civil
Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong,
China.. Available online 10 May 2005.
113
View publication stats

RajeshM TeshProject2013

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RajeshM TeshProject2013

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A MULTI-STORIED FRAME WITH SHEAR WALL AND

Thesis · October 2013

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Thesis submitted to Department of Civil Engineering

Dr. K.V.G.D.BALAJI Ph.D.

DEPATMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Certified that the thesis entitled “PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A MULTI-

Dr. K.V.G.D.Balaji Ph.D. Dr M. Ramesh Ph.D.

I would like to thank specially Dr. M. Ramesh, Head of Department, Civil

M.Tech THESIS EVALUATION REPORT

1. …………………………………… Thesis Supervisor

2. …………………………………… External Examiner

3. …………………………………… Head of the department

Place: Visakhapatnam RAJESH

6. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS 37

 To study the inelastic response of RC plane frames using Pushover analysis

 Only multi-storey frames are considered.

 Plan irregularities are not considered.

 Jacketed columns are also done for shear walled frame

of the RC Frames under lateral loadings.

The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a non-profit, tax exempt corporation

K.V.G.D BALAJI et al (2012) explained non-linear analysis of various symmetric and

The nonlinear analysis of a structure is an iterative procedure. It depends on the final

LINEAR MODELS FOR SHEARWALLS

NONLINEAR MATERIAL MODELS SHEAR WALLS

Recent awareness of a potential seismic events in low to moderate seismicity regions of

Helmut Krawinkler et al (1998)

Fig: 3.1 PLAN CONSIDERED

3.2 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

3.2.1 Beams and Columns

3.2.2 Beam-Column Joints

3.2.3 Foundation Modelling

For Pushover analysis the load cases are as follows.

b. Lateral push (Push 2) in X- direction, after Gravity push.

4.1 Necessity of Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis (NLSA)

4.1.1 What is Non-Linear Static Push-over Analysis?

4.1.2 Purpose of Push-over Analysis

The purpose of pushover analysis is to evaluate the expected performance of structural

• Consequences of the strength deterioration of individual elements on behavior of structural

4.1.3 Non-Linear Static Analysis for Buildings

Seismic analysis of buildings can be categorized depending upon the sophistication of

Level-1: It is generally used for single storey building, where at a single

Level-2: In this level, lateral force in proportion to storey mass is applied at

Level-3: In this method lateral force is applied in proportion to the product of

Fig 4.2 Strength – deformation for a frame structure

Fig 4.3 capacity spectrum curve

assumed, where Δ is the deformation at the onset of yielding.

4.5 DIFFERENT HINGE PROPERTIES IN PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

5.2 MEMBER PROPERTIES:

5.3 MEMBER LOADING:

5.4 PUSH OVER CASES:

Fig: 7.2 RCC frame deformed shape (Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 7.7 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 8.2 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 8.6 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 9.0 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 9.4 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 9.7 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 10.1 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 10.4 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 10.6 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)

Fig: 10.9 RCC frame deformed shape ( Lateral-step 1)