CHAPTER-3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 GENERAL
The seismic evaluation process consists of two phases, namely preliminary evaluation phase
and detailed evaluation phase. After the building is preliminary evaluated using rapid visual
screening, the detailed evaluation is carried out using pushover analysis. The basis of the
methodology is as explained below:
To develop a capacity curve i.e. the curve generated in terms of force and
displacement. The next process is to convert the capacity curve in terms of spectral
acceleration and spectral displacement.
Now develop a response spectrum curve according to the earthquake zone of the
building under consideration for 5% damping and then convert it in terms of spectral
acceleration and spectral displacement.
The next step is to plot the curve, the intersection of capacity curve and the demand
spectrum curve gives the performance point of the building under consideration.

3.2 PERFORMANCE BASED APPROACH

An approach based on satisfying not only just strength, but also a certain performance level
by a building during an earthquake, is preferred for seismic retrofit. The traditional approach
to seismic design of a building is a force based analysis and design. On the contrary, the
performance based approach is based on quantifying the inelastic deformations of the
members and the building as a whole, under the seismic loads. The deformations or strains
are considered to be better measures than stresses or forces to assess damage.
To quantify inelastic deformations a performance based approach requires a nonlinear analysis. Pushover analysis and time history analysis are static and dynamic methods of
non-linear analysis respectively. The performance based approach gives the designer more
choices of performance of the building, as compared to the demand to capacity ratio and
drift.
The performance of a building is measured by the state of damage under a certain
level of earthquake. The state of damage is expressed as a performance level. For a building
as a whole, the performance level is quantified by inelastic drift of the roof. For a member the

performance level is quantified by its deformation. The objective of seismic retrofit

constitutes of targeting a performance level of the building and the members under a certain
level of earthquake.

3.2.1 Performance based objective

An objective of performance based approach targets a building performance level under a
selected earthquake level. The selection of the two levels is based on recommended
guidelines for the type of building; a minimum performance of collapse prevention under
MCE can be selected. For important buildings, a dual level of performance of collapse
prevention under MCE can be selected. For important buildings, a dual level performance
objective that targets life safety objective is to have low risk of life threatening injury during
a moderate earthquake (as defined as DBE) and to check the collapse of the vertical load
resisting system during a severe earthquake (as defined by MCE). To check the life safety
under DBE, performance of the non-structural components also needs to be investigated. For
important buildings enhanced performance can be targeted.

3.2.2 Role of pushover analysis

Performance based approach requires a non-linear lateral load verses deformation analysis.
The pushover analysis is a static method of non-linear analysis. The pushover analysis is an
elegant method to observe the successive damage states of a building both in the existing
condition and under a proposed retrofit scheme. It addresses the deficiencies of an elastic
analysis by the following features.
The analysis considers the inelastic deformation and ductility of the members.
The sequence of yielding of sections in members and subsequent redistribution of
loads in the building are observed.

3.3 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Already the methods for the assessment off the vulnerability of buildings based on score
assignments are rather elaborate and therefore time-consuming. More sophisticated methods,
implying a more detailed analysis and more refined models, take even more time and serve
therefore for the evaluation of individual buildings only, possibly as a further step after the
rapid screening of potential hazardous buildings in multi-phase procedure. They are not

suitable for earthquake scenario projects where a large number of buildings have to be
evaluated. Nevertheless, the concept behind those methods can be valuable for the
development of new simple methods and hence, the main analysis procedures shall be briefly
outlined. 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).

3.3.1 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 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 behaviour. 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.

3.3.2 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-sumof-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 behaviour which is approximated by global
force reduction factors.

3.3.3 Non-linear static analysis

In a non-linear static analysis procedure, the building model incorporates directly the nonlinear force-deformation characteristics of individual components and elements due to
inelastic material response. Several methods exist (e.g. ATC 40 and FEMA 273). 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.

3.3.4 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 timehistory 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 timehistory 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 behaviour 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.

3.4 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis is a form of non-linear analysis where the magnitudes of the lateral loads
incrementally increased, maintaining a predefined distribution patterns along the height of the
building, until a collapse mechanism develops in the building. With the increase in the loads,
non-linear responses of the members are captured.
The pushover analysis can determine the lateral load verses deformation behaviour 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. 5 illustrates shows the
way to plot the force deformation curve.

Fig. 5 A typical capacity curve (Courtesy: ATC-40)

3.5 PURPOSE OF PUSHOVER 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
compare 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 approximate manner for the redistribution of internal forces
that no longer can be resisted within the elastic range of structural behaviour.

The pushover analysis 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 deformation demands for elements that have to be formed in

elastically in order to dissipate the energy imparted to the structure.

Consequences of the strength deterioration of the individual elements on the

behaviour 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 and 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.

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 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 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.

3.6 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 document and the other
termed as the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) included in the ATC-40(5) document (ATC,
1996). 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.
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 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 analysis 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.

3.7 METHODS TO PERFORM NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS

Two key elements of a performance-based design procedure are demand and capacity.
Demand is a representation of the earthquake ground motion. Capacity is a representation of
the structure's ability to resist the seismic demand. The performance is dependent on the
manner that the capacity is able to handle the demand. In other words, the structure must have
the capacity to resist the demands of the earthquake such that the performance of the structure
is compatible with the objectives of the design. Simplified non-linear analysis procedures
using pushover methods, such as the capacity spectrum method and the displacement
coefficient method, require determination of three important parameters: capacity, demand
(displacement) and performance. Each of these parameters is briefly discussed below.

3.7.1 Capacity

The overall capacity of a structure depends on the strength and deformation capacities of the
individual components of the structure. In order to determine capacities beyond the elastic
limits, some form of non-linear analysis, such as the pushover procedure, is required. This
procedure uses a series of sequential elastic analyses, superimposed to approximate a forcedisplacement capacity diagram of the overall structure. The mathematical model of the
structure is modified to account for reduced resistance of yielding components. A lateral
force distribution is again applied until additional components yield. This process is
continued until the structure becomes unstable or until a predetermined limit is reached. For
two dimensional models, computer programs are available that directly model non-linear
behaviour and can create a pushover curve directly. The pushover capacity curve
approximates how structures behave after exceeding their elastic limit.

3.7.2 Demand
Ground motions during an earthquake produce complex horizontal displacement patterns in
structures that may vary with time. Tracking this motion at every time-step to determine
structural design requirements is judged impractical. Traditional linear analysis methods use
lateral forces to represent a design condition. For non-linear methods it is easier and more
direct to use a set of lateral displacements as a design condition. For a given structure and
ground motion, the displacement demand is an estimate of the maximum expected response
of the building during the ground motion.

3.7.3 Performance
Once a capacity curve and demand displacement is defined, a performance check can be
done. A performance check verifies that structural and nonstructural components are not
damaged beyond the acceptable limits of the performance objective for the forces and
displacements implied by the displacement demand.

3.8 CONVERSION OF CAPACITY CURVE TO CAPACITY

SPECTRUM
To use the capacity spectrum method it is necessary to convert the capacity curve, which is in
terms of base shear and roof displacement to what is called capacity spectrum, which is a
representation of capacity curve in the Acceleration Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS)
format ( i.e. Sa versus Sd ). Application of the capacity spectrum technique requires both the

demand spectra and structural capacity (or pushover) curves be plotted in spectral
acceleration and spectral displacement domain. A spectrum plotted in this format is known as
ADRS after Mahaney in 1993. Every point on the response spectrum is associated with a
unique spectral acceleration Sa and spectral velocity Sv, spectral displacement Sd and period T.
To convert a spectrum from the standard Sa and T format found in the building code to ADRS
format as shown in Fig. 6, it is necessary to determine the value of Sdi for each point on the
curve. This can be done by using the following equation.

Fig.6 Response spectrum curve in standard and ADRS format

In order to develop a capacity spectrum from the capacity curve as shown in Fig. 7, it
is necessary to do a point to point conversion to first mode spectral coordinates. Any point of
base shear and roof displacement on the capacity curve is converted to corresponding point of
spectral acceleration (Sa) and spectral displacement (Sd).

Fig. 7 A typical capacity curve and capacity spectrum

3.9 PERFORMANCE LEVEL OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

A building performance level is a combination of the performance level of the structure and
the non structural components. The performance levels are discrete damage states identified
from a continuous spectrum of possible damage states.
The structural performance levels are as follows.
i)

Immediate Occupancy (IO)

ii)

Life safety (LS)

iii)

Collapse Prevention (CP)

The three levels are arranged according to decreasing performance of the lateral load
and the vertical load resisting system. A target performance is defined by a typical value of
the roof drift, as well as limiting value of the deformation of the structural elements, to
determine whether a building meets a specified performance objective. Response quantities
from the pushover analysis should be compared with the limits for each of the performance
level.
Typical values of roof drifts for the three performance levels as per FEMA 273
(14) are as follows.
i) Immediate Occupancy: Transient drift is about 1% with negligible permanent
drift.
ii) Life Safety: Transient drift is about 2% with 1% permanent drift.
iii) Collapse Prevention: 4% inelastic drift, transient or permanent.

Fig. 8 A typical force deformation curve

The performance level of a structural element is specified in the load deformation

curve. The values of the levels can be obtained from test results. In absence of test data, the
following values may be adapted (ATC 40).
i)

Immediate Occupancy: 0.2 from point B.

ii)

Life safety: 0.5 from point B.

iii)

Collapse Preventions: 0.9 from point B.

Here is the length of the plastic plateau

3.9.1 Frame hinge properties

SAP2000 introduces the capability of providing plastic hinges at discrete user defined hinges
along the clear length of a frame element. The plastic hinge represents the post-yield
behaviour in one or more degrees of freedom. Uncoupled moment, torsion, axial force and
shear hinges are available to be modeled along the frame element. Also, a P-M2-M3 hinge
which yields based on the interaction of axial force and bending moments at the hinge
location can be modeled. More than one type of hinge can exist at the same location, for
example, the user might assign both M3 (moment) and V2 (shear) hinge to the same end of a
frame element. Default hinge properties are provided based on FEMA-356 criteria. Hinge
length is the distance over which the plastic strain or plastic curvature is integrated. Some
guidelines in FEMA-356 give some recommendations for hinge length. Typically this length
is taken as a fraction of the element length, and is often in the order of the depth of the
section, particularly for moment-rotation hinges. Hinge length can be used to obtain full nonlinear behaviour all over the total element length. This can be achieved by inserting a
specified number of hinges each having a specified length such that the number of hinges
times the hinge length gives the total length of the element. In this study, the potential plastic
hinges are located at the ends of the element, since this is the location of the maximum
straining actions for beams or columns. The plastic deformation curve is a force-displacement
(moment-rotation) curve that gives the yield value and the plastic deformation following
yield. This is done in terms of a curve with values at five points, A-B-C-D-E. The user can
specify a symmetric curve, or one that differs in the positive and negative directions.
Force-displacement or moment-rotation curve for a hinge definition used in SAP2000
is referred to as a plastic deformation curve. The plastic deformation curve is characterized
by the following points as shown in Fig. 8.

 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.
The user may specify additional deformation measures at points immediate
occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention. These are informational measures that are
reported in the analysis results and used for performance-based design. They do not have any
effect on the behaviour of the structure. Prior to reaching point B, the deformation is linear
and occurs in the frame element itself, not in the hinge. Plastic deformation beyond point B
occurs in the hinge in addition to any elastic deformation that may occur in the element.
When the hinge unloads elastically, it does so without any plastic deformation, i.e., the
unloading path is parallel to line A-B. Curve scaling permits that the force-displacement
(moment-rotation) curve of the hinge can be defined by entering normalized values and
specify the required scale factor. Often, the normalized values are based on the yield force
(moment) and yield displacement (rotation), so that the normalized values for point B on the
curve would be (1,1). Any deformation given from A to B is not used. This means that the
scale factor on deformation is actually used to scale the plastic deformation from point B to
C, C to D, and D to E. However, it may still be convenient to use the yield deformation for
scaling. When default hinge properties are used, the program automatically uses the yield
values for scaling. These values are calculated based on the frame section properties and the
yield stress provided for the element material. In this study, only two types of hinges are used
to simulate the plastic hinge formation through the non-linear behaviour of the structure. The
first is the coupled axial and moment hinge which is assigned to the column elements. The
hinge properties of this type are created based on the interaction surface that represents where
yielding first occurs for different combinations of axial force, minor moment and major
moment acting on the section. The second type is the moment hinge which is assigned to the
beam elements. The hinge properties of this type can be considered as a special case of the
first type.

3.10 DUCTILITY
To identify the acceptable forms of damage and desirable building behaviour during
earthquakes the task of finding the ductility is important. The ability of structure to deform
without damage, without breaking suddenly is termed as ductility. With ductility a building
can continue to resist seismic forces without collapsing. Buildings can exhibit either brittle or
ductile behaviour, depending on the structural material, design and detailing. Materials like
brick, stone and plain concrete are relatively brittle. Earthquake resistant buildings,
particularly their main elements, need to be built with ductility in them. Such buildings have
the ability to sway back-and-forth during the earthquake, and to withstand earthquake effects
with some damage, but without collapse as shown in Fig. 9. Ductility is one of the most
important factors affecting the building performance. Thus, earthquake resistant design
strives to predetermine the locations where damage takes place and then to provide good
detailing at these locations to ensure ductile behaviour of the building.

Fig. 9 Building performance during earthquake - ductile and brittle

The value of ductility can be calculated by ratio of the displacement at the

performance point of the building on the push over curve to that of the total displacement of
the building up to the collapse prevention stage i.e. the maximum inelastic roof displacement
beyond which the degradation in the strength of the building takes place. The value obtained
is in terms of response reduction factor used in the seismic elastic analysis of the structure.

3.11 DRIFT INDEX

Drift index is defined as the horizontal roof displacement at the performance point to the
height of the building relative to ground as seen in Fig. 10. Lateral deformations at the
performance point displacement are to be checked against the deformation limits. The Table
3 presents the deformation limits at various performance levels as per ATC-40.

Table 2 Deformation limits

Performance level

No damage

Repairable damage

No collapse

Allowable drift index

0.005

0.010

0.020

Fig.10 A typical roof drift for a building

CHAPTER 4

CASE STUDY OF A BUILDING

4.1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND PLAN

The present building in this study is a five storey residential building located in Hyderabad
city which falls in Zone II. The building is a three bay by five bay RCC structure. As it was
designed only for gravity loads, there is a necessity for seismic evaluation of the building.
The plan of the building is shown in Fig. 11, while Fig. 12 shows the isometric view.

Fig. 11 Plan of the building

4.2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS OF THE BUILDING

The foundation system is isolated footings with a depth of the footing 1.5 m and size of the
footings are 1.5 m x 1.5 m. The column and beam dimensions are detailed in Table 3.
Table 3 Structural dimensions of building
Slab thickness

115 mm

Beam dimensions

230x380 mm , 230x450 mm , 230x530mm

Column dimensions

230x380mm, 230x450mm , 380x230mm

Fig.12 Isometric view of the building

4.3 RAPID VISUAL SCREENING

The rapid visual screening (RVS) procedure is included in IS 13935 (15) and FEMA 154 and
155. Applied Technology Council (ATC), USA, proposed a RVS procedure in the
publications of FEMA 154 and 155. The procedure uses a scoring system which is based on a
probabilistic analysis. In the data collection form for a particular type of building, the scoring
system consists of a basic structural hazard (BSH) score and a set of score modifiers. The
final score is an estimate of the probability of collapse of the building. It is compared with the
cut-off score and a decision on the need of detailed analysis is undertaken.

The Table 4 is based on FEMA-155, Rapid Visual Survey. This table suggests that
when the cutoff score of a building is less than 2, and then the detailed evaluation procedure
has to be adopted. For the building in present study, the cut off score obtained is 1.9 which is
less than 2. Hence the building has to be evaluated for seismic resistance in detail.
Table 4 Rapid visual screening based on FEMA
Region of

High Seismicity

Moderate Seismicity

Low Seismicity

Seismicity

(Zone V)

(Zone IV)

(Zone II and III)

Building Type

MRF

SW

Basic Score

2.5

2.8

Mid rise

+0.4

High rise

URM

3.2

4.4

4.8

4.4

+0.4

+0.2

+0.4

-0.2

-0.4

+0.5

+0.8

+0.4

+1.0

0.0

-0.4

-1.0

-2.0

-2.0

-2.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.0

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.8

-0.8

-0.8

-1.2

-1.0

-0.2

-1.0

-0.4

-1.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

+1.4

+2.4

N/A

+1.2

+1.6

N/A

+0.6

+0.4

N/A

Soil type I

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-0.4

Soil type II

-o.6

-0.6

-0.4

-1.0

-1.2

-1.0

-1.4

-0.8

-0.8

Soil type III

-1.2

-0.8

-0.8

-1.6

-1.6

-1.6

-2.0

-2.0

-2.0

Plan
Irregularity
Pre-code
Post- bench
mark

1.6

3.0

3.6

+0.4

+0.2

+0.2

+0.6

+0.8

+0.3

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

URM

SW

Irregularity

SW

URM

MRF

Vertical

MRF

INF

INF

INF

4.4+0.4Final Score

1.5-1.4=
1.9

Comments

Detailed analysis is required (i.e. pushover analysis is needed)

Note: MRF Moment resisting frame; SW- Shear wall; URM Unreinforced masonry;
INF Infill walls.

4.4 GENERAL DATA COLLECTION

The building is a five storey building located in zone II. Tables 5, Table 6, Table 7 present a
summary of the building parameters.
Table-5 General data collection and condition assessment of building
(Building survey data sheet)
Description

[Link].

Information

Remarks

Address of building

At Tolichowki

----

Owner

----

----

Use of building

Residential

----

Year of construction

2007

----

Plan size

16.15 m x 17.5 m

----

Building height

15 m

----

Number of storeys above ground

----

Number of basements below ground

----

Type of structure

RC frame

----

10

Open ground storey

Yes

----

11

Roof top water tank/machinery

Yes

----

12

Expansion joints

No

----

13

Maximum number of persons

11 to 50 members

----

14

Special hazards

None

----

15

Falling hazards

Parapet wall

----

Type of building

Regular frame with

IS 1893:2002

open ground storey

Clause 7.1

16
17

Horizontal floor system

Beams and slabs

----

System of interconnecting
18

Plinth beams

foundation

IS 1893:2002

19

Grade of concrete used

M20

----

20

Software used

SAP2000 V14

----

Table 6 Geotechnical and geological data

Variable
Type of soil
Type of foundation
Seismic zone

Type

Reference

Medium soil

IS 1893:2002

Isolated footing

----

II

IS 1893:2002

Table 7 Design variables for analysis

Design variable
Dead loads
(a) Masonry
(b) Concrete
Live loads
(a) Floor load
(b) Roof load

Value
20 kN/m3
25 kN/m3
2 kN/m2

Reference

IS 875:1987(part 1)

IS 875:1987(part 2)

1 kN/m2

Importance factor

1.0

IS 1893:2002

Seismic zone factor

0.10

IS 1893:2002

IS 1893:2002

0.571 sec

IS 1893:2002

0.039

IS 1893:2002

10310 kN

IS 1893:2002

Response reduction
factor
Time period
Horizontal seismic
coefficient
Seismic weight
Seismic design force

0.039x10310
= 402.09 kN

IS 1893:2002

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ON RESULTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Pushover analysis provides important features of structural response, such as the initial
stiffness of the structure, the total strength, and the yield displacement. In addition, it
provides reasonable estimates for the post peak behaviour of the structure. Lateral load
patterns involved in determining pushover curve of the building structure should represent
characteristics of inertia forces developed in the building under the input ground motion
excitation. Fixed load patterns suggested by seismic codes are usually sufficient for the
determination of the envelopes of the building inertia forces. These load patterns have
invariant distribution through the height of the building but gradually increase until a target
value of roof displacement is reached. The displacement at an ultimate state of the building,
when a global mechanism exists, is set as the target displacement for comparison purposes.
ETABS 2013

software is used to perform the pushover analysis of buildings using

displacement control strategy, where gravity loads of each building are applied prior to the
pushover analysis.

5.1.1 Fixed Lateral Load Pattern

Fixed lateral load patterns used to push the buildings are chosen such that they represent the
common patterns recommended by the seismic regulation provisions of FEMA-273.
Additionally, a fixed pattern based on the first mode of vibration for the building considering
an ultimate deformed configuration is investigated.
The common lateral load patterns of FEMA-273 are as follows:
(1) The uniform load pattern (ULP)
(2) The equivalent lateral force pattern (ELP)
(3) The first mode load pattern (FLP)

(4) Deformed shape of the building (DLP)

5.2 STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS STEPS

Pushover analysis can be performed as either force controlled or displacement controlled
depending on the physical nature of the load and behaviour expected from the structure.
Force controlled option is useful when the load is known (such as gravity loads) and the
structure is expected to be able to support the load. Displacement controlled procedure should
be used when specified drifts are sought (such as in seismic loading), where the magnitude of
applied load is not known in advance, or when the structure can be expected to lose the
strength or become unstable. Following are the general sequence of steps involved in
performing non-linear static pushover analysis using ETABS 2013 in the present study:
1. A two or three dimensional model that represents the overall structural behaviour
is created. For reinforced concrete elements the appropriate reinforcement is
provided for the cross sections.
2. Frame hinge properties are defined and assigned to the frame elements.
3. Gravity loads composed of dead loads and a specified portion of live loads are
applied to the structure model initially.
4. A predefined lateral load pattern which is distributed along the height of the
structure is the applied.
5. The non-linear static analysis cases to be used for pushover analysis are defined.
These cases include one or more pushover cases that start from previous cases
loaded with gravity and fixed loads.
6. Pushover analysis is set to run.
7. Lateral loads are increased until some members yield under the combined effect of
gravity and lateral loads.
8. Base shear and roof displacement is recorded in first yielding.
9. Analysis is repeated until the roof displacement reaches a certain level of
deformation or the structure becomes unstable.
10. The roof displacement is plotted with the base shear to get the global capacity
(pushover) curve of the structure (Fig.13).

Fig. 13 A typical pushover curve

5.2.1 Description of the terms used in pushover analysis window

A pushover case may start from zero initial condition, or it may start from the end of a
previous pushover case. However, ETABS 2013

allows plastic hinge formation during

gravity pushover analysis. ETABS 2013 can also perform pushover analysis as either
force-controlled or displacement-controlled. The "Push to Load Level Defined by Pattern"
option button is used to perform a force-controlled analysis (as shown in the Fig. 14). The
pushover typically proceeds to the full load value defined by the sum of all loads included in
the "Load Pattern" box (unless it fails to converge at a lower force value). "The Push to
Displacement Magnitude option button is used to perform a displacement-controlled
analysis. The pushover typically proceeds to the specified displacement in the specified
control direction at the specified control joint (unless it fails to converge at a lower
displacement value).
An event-to-event solution strategy is utilized by ETABS 2013

pushover analysis

and the parameters in the right-hand side of the "Options" area (Fig. 14) control the pushover
analysis. The "Minimum Saved Steps" and "Maximum Total Steps" provide control over the
number of points actually saved in the pushover analysis. Only steps resulting in significant
changes in the shape of the pushover curve are saved for output. "The Maximum Null Steps"
is a cumulative counter through the entire analysis to account for the non-convergence in a
step due to numerical sensitivity in the solution or a catastrophic failure in the structure.
"Iteration Tolerance" and "Maximum Iteration/Step" are control parameters to check static
equilibrium at the end of each step in a pushover analysis. If the ratio of the unbalanced-load
to the applied-load exceeds the "Iteration Tolerance", the unbalanced load is applied to the
structure in a second iteration for that step. These iterations continue until the unbalanced

load satisfies the "Iteration Tolerance" or the "Maximum Iterations/Step" is reached. A

constant "Event Tolerance" for all elements is used to determine when an event actually
occurs for a hinge. Geometric non-linearity can be considered through P-delta effects or Pdelta effects plus large displacements.
Modal and uniform lateral load patterns can be directly defined by ETABS 2013 in
addition to any user-defined static lateral load case. Modal load pattern is defined for any
Eigen or Ritz mode, while uniform load pattern is defined by uniform acceleration acting in
any of the three global directions (acc dir X, acc dir Y and acc dir Z). Non-linear behaviour of
a frame element is represented by specified hinges in ETABS 2013 and a capacity drop
occurs for a hinge when the hinge reaches a negative-sloped portion of its force-displacement
curve during pushover analysis

Fig 14 Pushover analysis window in ETABS 2013

Such unloading along a negative slope is unstable in a static analysis and ETABS
2013 provides three different member unloading methods to remove the load that the hinge
was carrying and redistribute it to the rest of the structure (Figure 8). In the "Unload Entire
Structure" option, when the hinge reaches point C on its force-displacement curve, the

program continues to try to increase the base shear. If this results in increased lateral
deformation, the analysis proceeds. If not, base shear is reduced by reversing the lateral load
on the whole structure until the force in that hinge is consistent with the value at point D on
its force-displacement curve. When all elements are unloaded, and lateral displacement is
reduced since the base shear is reduced. After the hinge is fully unloaded, base shear is again
increased, lateral displacement begins to increase and other elements of the structure pick up
the load that was removed from the unloaded hinge. If hinge unloading requires large
reductions in the applied lateral load and two hinges compete to unload, i.e., where one hinge
requires the applied load to be increased while the other requires the load to be decreased, the
method fails.
In the "Apply Local Redistribution" option, only the element containing the hinge is
unloaded instead of unloading the entire structure. If the program proceeds by reducing the
base shear when a hinge reaches point C, the hinge unloading is performed by applying a
temporary, localized, self-equilibrating, internal load that unloads the element. Once the
hinge is unloaded, the temporary load is reversed, transferring the removed load to
neighbouring elements. This method will fail if two hinges in the same element compete to
unloaded, i.e., where one hinge requires the temporary load to be increased while the other
requires the load to be decreased.
In the "Restart Using Secant Stiffness" option, whenever any hinge reaches point C on
force-displacement curve, all hinges that have become non-linear are reformed using secant
stiffness properties, and the analysis is restarted. This method may fail when the stress in a
hinge under gravity load is large enough that the secant stiffness is negative. On the other
hand, this method may also give solutions where the other two methods fail due to hinges
with small (nearly horizontal) negative slopes.
If "Save Positive Increments Only option box is not checked in a pushover analysis,
steps in which hinge unloading occur are also saved to represent the characteristics of
member unloading method on pushover curve. However, pushover curve will become an
envelope curve of all saved points if "Save Positive Increments Only" option box is checked.
Although pushover curves obtained from each method have same base shear capacity
and maximum lateral displacement, pushover analysis is generally performed by using
"Unload Entire Structure" unloading method with "Save Positive Increments Only" option

because "Unload Entire Structure" is the most efficient method and uses a moderate number
of total and null steps. However, "Apply Local Redistribution" requires a lot of very small
steps and null steps that the unloading branch of pushover curve could not be observed
usually. "Restart Loading Using Secant Stiffness" is the least efficient method with the
number of steps required increasing as the square of the target displacement. It is also the
most robust (least likely to fail) provided that the gravity load is not too large.
The hinge unloading method used in ETABS 2013 analysis was based on Unload
Entire Structure method and was intended to capture the response of the structure. This
method was generalized to verify the acceptable performance comparing the available
capacity to the earthquake demand.

5.3 STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE LEVELS AS PER FEMA 273

According to FEMA 273, the structural performance levels and damage states are detailed in
the Table 8. The drift values given in table are typical values provided to illustrate the overall
structural response associated with various performance levels.
Table 8 Structural performance levels
Immediate
occupancy

Type

Minor hair line

Primary
cracking.
damage
No crushing.

Drift

1% transient,
negligible permanent

Life safety
Extensive
damage to
beams.
Spalling of
cover and shear
cracking.
2% transient,
1% permanent

Collapse
prevention
Extensive cracking
and hinge
formation in
ductile elements.
Severe damage in
short columns.
4% transient or
permanent

5.4. DISCUSSION ON RESULTS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

5.4.1 Pushover curve
After modeling the structure, a push of 0.15 m is given to the structure and the pushover
curve is generated i.e., curve plotted with the base shear and roof displacement values as
shown in Fig.15. From Fig. 15 for a roof displacement of 0.141 m a maximum base shear of

1064 kN was observed. After a displacement of 0.141 m the capacity of the structure is
observed to be declining.

Fig. 15 Pushover curve

Table 9 Details of the pushover curve
TABLE: Pushover Curve
Step

Displacement

Base
Force

mm

KN

AtoB

BtoIO

IOtoLS

LStoCP

CPtoC

CtoD

DtoE

BeyondE

Total

660

660

1.756817

399.451

659

660

2.840889

604.618

604

56

660

4.683577

763.735

514

146

660

9.42082

935.102

439

221

660

11.912162

970.592

421

239

660

12.123012

972.194

419

241

660

28.140443

991.757

407

253

660

49.204669

1005.283

405

207

48

660

64.204669

1014.91

403

187

70

660

10

93.546003

1033.704

398

166

96

660

11

108.546003

1043.294

398

166

48

48

660

12

123.546003

1052.884

398

166

48

48

660

13

138.546003

1062.472

398

166

90

660

14

141.203697

1064.171

398

166

64

32

660

15

145.088157

981.123

398

166

48

48

660

150

819.193

398

166

48

48

660

16

Table 9 shows the details of base shear, roof displacement and the number of
elements falling in different performance zones like immediate occupancy, life safety and
collapse prevention. It is clearly observed that the hinges were in the elastic region (i.e. A to
B) up to a displacement of 1.75 mm and further increase in the displacement leads to
formation of one hinge as the structure enters into non-linear stage (i.e. B to IO). The
structure remains in Immediate Occupancy performance level till the displacement reaches
28.14 mm and further increase in the displacement increases the number of hinge formation
to 48 at which the performance level changes to Life Safety. With further increase in
displacement beyond 93.54 mm, more number of hinges are formed forcing the performance
level change to Collapse Prevention. At 141.20 mm displacement, the structure
performance level enters into Collapse Stage and further increase in displacement leads to
significant loss of strength due to abundant number of hinge formations. It is also observed
that the maximum inelastic roof displacement is 93.54 mm before it reaches the ductile limit
state.

5.4.2 Capacity spectrum curve

Fig. 16 Capacity curve

The Fig. 16 shows the capacity spectrum curve for a drift of 0.15 m, obtained by the
intersection of pushover curve with response spectrum curve. Firstly both these curves are
converted in terms of spectral acceleration and spectral displacement, and then they are
superimposed to give the performance point of the structure. The green colour curve seen in
the Fig. 16 is the pushover curve and the curve in yellow colour is the response spectrum
curve in terms of spectral acceleration and spectral displacement. At the intersection of the
performance point a base shear is 983 kN at a displacement of 20.993 mm, which was
obtained between steps 6th and 7th (refer Table 9), we can observe that the hinges have not
entered into Life Safety level as seen in 8th step and still the hinges are in the state of
Immediate Occupancy level. Hence, the structure is still safe at this performance point for
design based earthquake.
Table 10 Demand capacity details
TABLE: Pushover Curve Demand Capacity - ATC40
step

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Teff

Beff

0.421134
0.421134
0.439887
0.505846
0.674711
0.758738
0.766176
1.24699
1.63825
1.862633
2.227691
2.388449
2.536388
2.673703
2.697055
2.853169
3.183252

0.05
0.05
0.07362
0.144291
0.240456
0.262943
0.265002
0.360748
0.360789
0.359396
0.355807
0.353791
0.351702
0.349563
0.34918
0.405347
0.54206

SdCapacity
mm

SaCapacity

SdDemand
mm

SaDemand

0
1.408
2.317
3.843
7.917
10.214
10.405
25.605
45.215
59.247
86.726
100.777
114.831
128.888
131.379
135.178
140.017

0
0.031967
0.048199
0.060463
0.070008
0.071425
0.071355
0.066287
0.067821
0.068747
0.070353
0.071116
0.071857
0.072582
0.072709
0.066848
0.055626

11.018
11.018
10.865
11.71
14.492
15.399
15.447
21.542
28.239
32.175
39.055
41.834
44.269
47.051
47.506
48.544
54.086

0.250085
0.250085
0.226045
0.184232
0.128154
0.107682
0.105932
0.055769
0.042357
0.037334
0.031682
0.029522
0.027702
0.026496
0.026291
0.024006
0.021487

Alpha

PFPhi

1
0.809817
0.812954
0.8186
0.865638
0.880663
0.882976
0.969608
0.960614
0.956745
0.952223
0.95074
0.949588
0.948667
0.948523
0.951163
0.954401

1
1.247458
1.226236
1.21867
1.19
1.166262
1.165108
1.099039
1.088237
1.083671
1.078635
1.077094
1.075892
1.07493
1.07478
1.07331
1.0713

Note:
Step no identifies the step number in the case; Teff effective period at the associated step;
Beff effective damping at the associated step; Sd(c) and Sa(c) define a point on the ADRS

capacity spectrum curve at associated step; Sd (d) an Sa (d) define a point on the single
demand spectrum curve at associated step.
Table 10 shows the demand capacity details in terms of single demand spectrum and
ADRS capacity spectrum at various steps during the pushover analysis. The time period at
the performance point is 1.032 sec which can be seen between the steps 6th and 7th (refer Fig.
16).

5.4.3 Hinge formation in the structure at step-9

Fig. 17 Hinge pattern at step -9

The Fig. 17, captured at step-9, shows that the columns at the bottom storey have entered into
the Life Safety state. From the figure it is clear that if the building is displaced beyond the
performance point, the failure occurs first in column leading to total collapse of structure, as
the building represents weak column-strong beam concept which is not preferable for
seismic activity.

5.5 DISCUSSION ON RESULTS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

5.5.1 Pushover curve

Now a push of 0.30 m is given to the structure and the pushover curve is generated i.e., curve
plotted with the base shear and roof displacement which is shown in Fig.18. From Fig.18 it is
clear that the building has totally collapsed when a displacement of 0.30 m is given to it. It is
seen there is a small amount of ductile behaviour in the building as the capacity curve
obtained has shown total collapse.

Fig.18 Pushover curve

When the structure is laterally displaced beyond 0.15 m it is observed from Table 11 that at
step 12 there is a sudden loss of strength because the base shear has dropped from 981 kN at
step 11 to 209.46 kN at step 12. It is also observed that 12 hinges have entered into a state of
D to E i.e., from a stage of residual strength to total failure, and at step 31 a maximum of 48
hinges have entered beyond E i.e., representing the total collapse of the structure reducing the
base shear to almost zero.

Table 11 Details of pushover curve

Step
0

Displacement
0

Base
Force
0

AtoB
660

1.756817

399.451

2.840889

604.618

4.683577

4
5
6
7

BtoIO
0

IOtoLS
0

LStoCP
0

CPtoC
0

CtoD
0

DtoE
0

BeyondE
0

Total
660

659

660

604

56

660

763.735

514

146

660

9.42082

935.102

439

221

660

11.912162

970.592

421

239

660

12.123012
28.140443

972.194
991.757

419
407

241
253

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

660
660

74.416819

1021.465

401

163

96

660

108.545478

1043.294

398

166

48

48

660

10

141.203536

1064.172

398

166

64

32

660

11

145.083382

981.24

398

166

48

48

660

12

169.418899

209.467

398

166

48

30

12

660

13

169.418899

209.467

398

166

48

30

10

660

14

169.418899

209.467

398

166

48

30

14

660

15

169.729334

200.455

398

166

48

16

18

14

660

16

169.729334

200.455

398

166

48

16

14

18

660

17

169.729334

200.455

398

166

48

16

11

21

660

18

169.729334

200.455

398

166

48

16

24

660

19

170.144152

189.704

398

166

48

12

10

26

660

20

170.144152

189.704

398

166

48

12

30

660

21

170.504242

180.357

398

166

48

10

30

660

22

170.504242

180.357

398

166

48

32

660

23

170.504242

180.357

398

166

48

34

660

24

170.722646

174.653

398

166

48

36

660

25

170.722646

174.653

398

166

48

38

660

26

172.30959

122.129

398

166

48

43

660

27

172.30959

122.129

398

166

48

44

660

28

172.30959

122.129

398

166

48

45

660

29

172.30959

122.129

398

166

48

47

660

30

175.931935

22.601

398

166

48

48

660

31

177.022423

9.738

398

166

48

48

660

32

178.677191

1.162

398

166

48

48

660

33

178.854393

0.718

398

166

48

48

660

34

179.405824

0.262

398

166

48

48

660

35

209.405824

0.271

398

166

48

48

660

36

239.405824

0.279

398

166

48

48

660

5.5.2 Capacity spectrum

The Fig. 19 shows the intersection of the demand curve and pushover curve to give a
performance point. The curve in green colour is the pushover curve and the curve in the
yellow colour is the variable damping curve.

Fig. 19 Capacity curve

5.5.3 Hinge patterns

Figs. 20-24 represent the sequence of formation of hinges from the initial stage to final stage
i.e. from the elastic stage to the total collapse stage. These are colour coded and are
represented by respective colour at different pushover steps. These hinges are essential to
closely study the behaviour of the structure. On going through the sequence of hinge
formations in the structure it is observed that the structure has very low ductile performance
as hinges are first formed at bottom columns. The highest inelastic roof displacement
obtained is 93 mm and the displacement at the performance point is 20.993 mm. Hence, the
response reduction factor (i.e. ratio of elastic displacement to the total displacement at the
Collapse Prevention) of the building in the present study is 4.43. This value is greater than
3 (for ordinary RC moment resistant frame without ductile detailing) and less than 5 (for
special RC moment resistant frame with ductile detailing). It infers that the building in the
present study behaves as special RC moment resistant frame with good ductile detailing.
Hence the structure gives sufficient warning before collapse occurs.
The drift index (i.e. ratio of the horizontal roof displacement at the performance point
to the height of the building relative to ground) at the performance point is 0.0013
(20.993/15000), which is well below the permissible drift index value of 0.005 (for no
damage as per ATC-40). It infers that the lateral displacements of the structure are well
within permissible limits and no damage occurs to the structure as a whole.

Fig. 20 Hinge pattern at elastic stage

Fig. 21 Hinge pattern at immediate occupancy stage

Fig. 22 Hinge pattern at life safety stage

Fig. 23 Hinge pattern at collapse stage

Fig. 24 Hinge pattern at total failure of the structure