INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. GENERAL
Starting from the very beginning of civilization, mankind has faced several threat of extinction due to invasion of severe natural disasters. Earthquake is the most disastrous among them due to its huge power of devastation and total unpredictability. Unlike other natural catastrophes, earthquakes themselves do not kill people, rather the colossal loss of human lives and properties occur due to the destruction of man-made structures. Building structures are one of such creations of mankind, which collapse during severe earthquakes, and cause direct loss of human lives. Numerous research works have been directed worldwide in last few decades to investigate the cause of failure of different types of buildings under severe seismic excitations. Massive destruction of high-rise as well as low-rise buildings in recent devastating earthquake of Gujarat on 26th January, 2001 proves that also in developing counties like ours, such investigation is the need of the hour. Post-earthquake field surveys show that torsionally irregular buildings sustain more damage compared to regular ones. Irregularities in stiffness and mass tend to influence the capacity and demand. Plan irregularities cause non-uniform damage among the structural elements of the same story due to non-uniform displacement demands
[12]

Hence, seismic behavior of asymmetric building structures has become a topic of worldwide active research since about last two decades. The previous studies were limited to planar frames and symmetric buildings. Several research efforts have been made to extend and apply the pushover analysis to unsymmetrical plan buildings whose inelastic seismic responses are intricate. Kilar and Fajfar
[25] [8] [30, 31]

, De Stefano and

Rutenberg [15], Faella and Kilar [18], Moghadam and Tso [36, 37], Ayala et al. [5], Fujii et al. and Barros and Almeida investigated on the application of pushover analysis for

seismic evaluation of unsymmetric-plan buildings. Recently, the modal pushover analysis

(MPA)

[13]

, the N2 method

[21, 22]

and a simplified seismic analysis

[32]

were extended to

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

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

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Performing pushover analysis of Symmetrical building. Performing Non-linear time history analysis of Symmetrical building. Evaluating N2 method for obtaining the target displacement for symmetrical building. Performing pushover analysis of Asymmetrical building. Performing Non-linear time history analysis of Asymmetrical building. Performing response spectrum analysis of Asymmetrical building. Evaluating N2 method for obtaining the target displacement for Asymmetrical building. Evaluating Extended N2 method for obtaining the target displacement for Asymmetrical building.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6 Details the discussions drawn based on the present work and the scope for the further study.
4

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

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER-II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. GENERAL
One of the crucial steps of performance based design procedures is the determination of the displacement demand of structures under the seismic actions defined by either acceleration time history or design response spectrum methods. The most accurate way to compute the displacement demands of a structure under a given seismic action is to carry out a nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) of the detailed three dimensional (3D) mathematical model of the structure. However, this is a tedious and time consuming procedure. Hence, nonlinear static analysis procedures (NSP)
[10, 2526] [1-2, 4]

attract the attention of both practicing engineers and the research community in the sense that it is more practical and faster to implement . Nevertheless, being an

approximate method, nonlinear static analysis has certain shortcomings and researchers have put significant efforts into overcoming these shortcomings. However, most of the research on nonlinear static analysis procedures has been limited to planar structures. Seismic damage surveys and analyses conducted on modes of failure of building structures during past severe earthquakes concluded that most vulnerable building structures are those, which are asymmetric in nature. In this context, it is of significant importance to be able to capture the variations of displacement demands within the same story due to torsional effects for reliable damage assessment of structures with asymmetric plans. As stated in the work by Chopra and Goel
[13]

, current practice is

based on judgmental extension of NSP originally developed for planar analysis of buildings to 3D analysis of structures with plan irregularities, which appear inaccurate in capturing torsional effects. More recently, efforts have been made to address and overcome the deficiencies of nonlinear static analysis procedures in estimating the response of structures with plan irregularities [5-6, 13, 18-22, 32, 51].
7

2.2. Pushover methods for 3D plan asymmetric buildings

The use of Nonlinear Static Procedures (NSPs) for the seismic assessment of plan regular buildings and bridges is widespread nowadays. Their good performance in such cases is widely supported by the extensive number of scientific studies described in the previous pages. However, the applicability of NSPs on plan-irregular 3D buildings has so far been the object of a limited number of papers. This limitation leads to a minor use of these methods to assess current existing structures, the majority of which do tend to be irregular in plan. The most important issue that controls the structural response of this kind of structures is torsion. The aforementioned NSPs are not able to reproduce in a correct manner the torsional response of plan irregular buildings; therefore one should be cautious when using these methods to assess these structures. In order to overcome the torsional problem in plan asymmetric buildings, some researchers have proposed new pushover approaches. In 1997 Kilar and Fajfar [30] have presented the use of a 3D model for the pushover analysis of plan irregular buildings. They used an invariant force pattern with an inverted triangular shape at the centre of mass of the floors. In this study the authors arrived at the conclusion that the torsional rotation was strongly dependent on the orthogonal structural elements. In 1998 Faella and Kilar
[18]

tested different location in plan to apply the lateral

forces of the pushover analysis of plan irregular buildings. Three eccentricities, measured from the centre of mass location, were applied. In this study, the target displacement was defined as the maximum response obtained from the nonlinear time-history analysis. The torsional rotation was always underestimated, even when the eccentricity was maximum. In the same year, De Stefano and Rutenberg
[15]

considered in their study the

interaction between walls and frames in a pushover analysis of 3D asymmetric multistorey wall-frame structures. They applied the pushover forces considering the design eccentricities prescribed in the Uniform Building Code
[29]

. The results obtained

were generally close to the time-history except at the flexible edges where the pushover analysis overestimated the response.

In 2000, Azuhata et al.

[7]

included the torsional effects in the pushover analysis

[38]

by introducing two factors to the analysis: the strength modification factor and deformation amplification factor, introduced originally by Ozaki et al. . Despite

leading to approximate results, the authors concluded that the method was conservative. Moghadam and Tso
[37]

proposed in 2000 a 3D pushover procedure. In this

method, the conventional pushover is performed independently in each resisting element using a planar analysis, and the target displacements are calculated considering the equal displacement rule. In fact, the target displacements of each resisting element (planar frames and walls) are calculated with an elastic response spectrum analysis of a 3D model of the building. However, it is generally recognized that the equal displacement rule may lead to small inelastic displacements in the case of: near-fault ground motions; systems with low strength; soft soil conditions; hysteresis behaviour of the elements with considerable pinching or stiffness and strength degradation. Therefore, the use of this method may lead to not so accurate results. In 2002 Ayala and Tavera
[5]

proposed a 3D pushover procedure where the load

vector was applied simultaneously in the two directions at the centre of mass of each floor and it was constituted by forces and torques. This load vector also took into account the contribution of higher modes. In the same year, Penelis and Kappos
[39, 40]

proposed a 3D pushover analysis.

The load vector is applied at the centre of mass of the floors and it is constituted by lateral forces and torques. These components of the vector are defined as the ones necessary to produce the storey displacements and torsion profiles obtained from a multimodal response spectrum analysis. This is a single run method with an invariant load vector. The equivalent SDOF capacity curve is obtained using the concept of Substitute Structure proposed by Gulkan and Sozen
[27]

. The results show that further studies are

necessary to confirm the good performance of the method, namely for predicting local responses. In 2004 Chopra and Goel
[13]

extended the application of the aforementioned

Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) to the case of plan asymmetric buildings. The method
9

was based on multi-run pushover analysis, where the load vectors in each run are proportional to each 3D elastic mode of vibration of the structure. The load vectors are constituted by modal forces in the two translational directions and by torques. The total seismic response was obtained combining the response due to each modal load. Some drawbacks can however be mentioned for this method: since each run corresponding to each mode is run independently, the yielding in one mode is not reflected in the others and no interaction between modes in the nonlinear range is considered. A three dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two ground motions was also performed by Reyes and Chopra in 2011 evaluated. Fajfar et al.
[20, 21] [45]

. In this work tall buildings were also

proposed in 2005 an extended version of the N2 method for

plan asymmetric buildings. In this proposal the pushover analysis of the 3D model is performed independently in each direction, the target displacement being calculated using the original N2 method procedure. In order to take torsional effects into account, the pushover results are amplified by torsional correction factors. These factors are computed through an elastic response spectrum analysis and a pushover analysis. No deamplification of displacements due to torsion is considered by the method. In 2009 DAmbrisi et al.
[16]

tested the Extended N2 method in an existing school, and in 2011

Koren and Kilar [33] tested the method in asymmetric base isolated buildings. In 2008, an International Workshop on Nonlinear Static Methods for Design/Assessment of 3D structures
[43]

took place in Lisbon, Portugal. Twelve famous

researchers on the topic from different countries were invited. Names like Anil Chopra, Peter Fajfar, Helmut Krawinkler, Rakesh Goel, Stavros Anagnostopoulos, Andreas Kappos, amongst others, contributed to the high quality of the presented papers, to the lively and fruitful discussions that followed and to the substantial and objective recommendations produced. At this international Workshop on 3D Pushover, several contributions were made and important results were outlined, which were compiled in the book [43]. The more relevant are described in the following:

10

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

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

11

Displacement Coefficient Method application to improve results prediction when the latter is applied to assess the seismic response of plan irregular structures. Kappos introduced an improved version of the MPA procedure for application to bridges. It seems to be a promising approach that yields more accurate results compared to the standard pushover. Bento carried out a study that aimed at scrutinizing the effectiveness with which four commonly employed Nonlinear Static Procedures (CSM, N2, MPA, ACSM) are able to reproduce the actual dynamic response of the well known SPEAR building. Other researchers have performed 3D pushover analysis on plan irregular buildings, such as: Fujii et al.
[23]

, Yu et al.

[50]

, Erduran and Ryan

[15]

, Stefano and

Pintucchi [47]. Despite the results obtained, definitive answers still need to be reached.

2.3. CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF LITERATURE REVIEW

The use of Non linear static procedure methods (NSPs) in the case of plan irregular structures has so far been studied by a limited number of authors. This fact limits the application of NSPs to assess irregular plan structures. Existing studies on this topic usually focus on the evaluation of a single NSP. In order to obtain useful elements of comparison between different methodologies, the performance of 2 commonly employed nonlinear static procedures (pushover analysis and N2 method) is evaluated and it is compared with nonlinear dynamic analysis (Time history) in this thesis.

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

12

METHODOLOGY

13

CHAPTER-III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 GENERAL
Seismic design philosophies: The seismic evaluation of structures has been generally based on a Force-Based design philosophy, where the structural elements are assessed in terms of stresses caused by the equivalent seismic forces. Therefore, the main concern within this design philosophy is to give strength to the structure rather than displacement capacity. Some procedures have been proposed in the past, such as the Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA), which has been implemented in seismic codes all over the world and is still commonly used by the majority of structural design engineers. In this procedure, the structure is considered to have an elastic behavior. The periods and the modes of vibration are calculated, and the response of the structure is computed through the application of a response spectrum. The forces in the elements are divided by a behavior factor in order to take into account the nonlinearity of the materials. A complete description of the method can be found in [53]. More recently, Priestley [42] published a critical review on the drawbacks of this method. The main fallacies pointed out are the following: 1) A response spectrum is obtained from an accelerogram by running this record in several single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems with different periods of vibration. The value of the response spectrum corresponding to a certain period is obtained taking the maximum response of the SDOF with that period. As a consequence the duration effects of the dynamic response are ignored, which may not be valid in the case of plastic responses; 2) The response spectrum analysis uses the combination of modal responses, so the final response is a combination of the response associated with each mode of

14

vibration. Thus, this principle leads to internal forces that do not respect the equilibrium; 3) The stiffness degradation is not taken into account. The method considers a mean value of this parameter which may produce wrong estimations of internal forces; 4) The design forces obtained from the modal combination are reduced using a behavior factor, in order to take into account the ductility and over strength of the structure. The use of a single value to reduce the internal forces seems to be a rough solution to represent the nonlinearity of the materials. In fact, the higher modes may not be controlled by the same level of ductility of the fundamental mode. Therefore, using the same force reduction factor in all modes may underestimate the higher mode effects in terms of internal forces; In recent years the need for changes in the existing seismic design methodology implemented in codes has been generally recognized. The structural engineering community has been creating a new generation of design and rehabilitation procedures based on a new philosophy of performance-based engineering concepts. It has become widely accepted that one should consider damage limitation as an explicit design consideration [35]. In fact, the damage and behavior of the structures during an earthquake is mainly governed by the inelastic deformation capacity of the ductile members. Therefore, the seismic evaluation of structures should be based on the deformations induced by the earthquake, instead of the element stresses caused by the computed equivalent seismic forces, as happens in the Force-Based philosophy. In recent years, several attempts have been made to introduce displacement-based methodologies in seismic engineering practice. These methodologies can be divided into two main groups: displacement-based design methods for the design of new structures
[42, 43]

, and

displacement-based evaluation methods for the seismic performance assessment of predesigned or existing structures. Two key elements of a performance-based procedure are demand and capacity. The demand represents the effect of the earthquake ground motion (it can be defined by means of a response spectrum or an accelerogram). The capacity of a structure represents its ability to resist the seismic demand. The performance depends on how the capacity is
15

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

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

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

3.2 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

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

3.2.1 Linear static analysis

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

16

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

3.2.2 Linear dynamic analysis

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

The seismic input is modeled using either modal spectral analysis or time history analysis. Modal spectral analysis assumes that the dynamic response of a building can be found by considering the independent response of each natural mode of vibration using linear elastic response spectra. Only the modes contributing significantly to the response need to be considered. The modal responses are combined using schemes such as the square-root-sum-of-squares. Time-history analysis involves a time-step-by-step

evaluation of building response, using recorded earthquake acceleration data as base motion input. In both cases the corresponding internal forces and displacements are determined using again linear elastic analysis. The advantage of these linear dynamic procedures with respect to linear static procedures is that higher modes can be considered which makes them suitable for irregular buildings. However, again they are based on linear elastic response and hence their applicability decreases with increasing non-linear behavior which is approximated by global force reduction factors.

17

3.2.3 Non-linear static analysis

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

3.2.4 Non-linear dynamic analysis

In a non-linear dynamic analysis procedure, the building model is similar to the one used in non-linear static procedures incorporating directly the inelastic material response using general finite elements. The main difference is that the seismic input is modeled using a time-history analysis which involves time-step-by-time-step evaluation of the building response. This is the most sophisticated analysis procedure for predicting forces and displacements under seismic input. However, the calculated response can be very sensitive to the characteristics of the individual ground motion used as seismic input, therefore several time-history analysis are required using different ground motion

18

records. The major advantage of non-linear dynamic procedures is that it acts as a research tool with the objective to simulate the behavior of a building structure in detail, i.e. to describe the exact state of the art displacement profiles, the propagation of cracks, the distribution of vertical and shear stresses, the shape of the hysteretic curves, etc.

3.3 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

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

19

Figure 3.2 Inverted triangular loading for pushover analysis

Figure 3.3 Global capacity curve of structure

20

Figure 3.4 Global capacity (pushover) curve

3.5 TYPES OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Presently, there are two non-linear static analysis procedures available, one termed as the Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM) included in the FEMA-356(4) document and the other termed as the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) included in the ATC-40(1) document. Both of these methods depend on the lateral load-deformation variation obtained by using the non-linear static analysis under the gravity loading and idealized lateral loading due to the seismic action. This analysis is generally called as the pushover analysis.

3.5.1 Capacity spectrum method(3)

A nonlinear static analysis procedure that provides a graphical representation of the expected seismic performance of the existing or retrofitted structure by the intersection of the structures capacity spectrum with a response spectrum (demand spectrum) representation of the earthquakes displacement demand on the structure. The intersection is the performance point, and the displacement coordinate, dp, of the performance point is the estimated displacement demand on the structure for the specified level of seismic hazard.

21

3.5.2 Displacement coefficient method(29)

A nonlinear static analysis procedure that provides a numerical process for' estimating the displacement demand on the structure, by using a bilinear representation of the capacity curve and a series of modification factors, or coefficients, to calculate a target displacement. The point on the capacity curve at the target displacement is the equivalent of the performance point in the capacity spectrum method.

Various elastic (linear) and inelastic (non-linear) methods are available for the analysis of existing concrete buildings. Elastic analysis methods available include static lateral force procedures, dynamic lateral force procedures and elastic procedures using demand capacity ratios. The most basic inelastic analysis method is the complete nonlinear 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 analyses procedures help demonstrate how buildings really work by identifying modes of failure and the potential for progressive collapse. The use of inelastic procedures for design and evaluation is attempts to help engineers better understand how structures will behave when subjected to major earthquakes, where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of the structure will be exceeded. This resolves some of the uncertainties associated with elastic procedures. The capacity spectrum method, a non-linear static procedure that
22

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.

3.4.2 Pushover analysis in ATC-40(1)

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings commonly referred to as ATC-40(1) was developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) with funding from the California Safety Commission. Although the procedures recommended in this document are for concrete buildings, they are applicable to most building types. ATC-40(1) recommends the following steps for the entire process of evaluation and retrofit: Initiation of a Project: Determine the primary goal and potential scope of the project. Selection of Qualified Professionals: Select engineering professionals with a demonstrated experience in the analysis, design and retrofit of buildings in seismically hazardous regions. Experience with PBSE and non-linear procedures are also needed. Performance Objective: Choose a performance objective from the options provided for a specific level of seismic hazard. Review of Building Conditions: Perform a site visit and review drawings. Alternatives for Mitigation: Check to see if the non-linear procedure is appropriate or relevant for the building under consideration. Peer Review and Approval Process: Check with building officials and consider other quality control measures appropriate to seismic evaluation and retrofit. Detailed Investigations: Perform a nonlinear static analysis if appropriate. Seismic Capacity: Determine the inelastic capacity curve also known to pushover curve. Covert to capacity spectrum.
23

 Seismic Hazard: Obtain a site specific response spectrum for the chosen hazard level and convert to spectral ordinates format. Verify Performance: Obtain performance point as the intersection of the capacity spectrum and the reduced seismic demand in spectral ordinates (ADRS) format. Check all primary and secondary elements against acceptability limits based on the global performance goal. 3.5 N2 method: In recent years, a breakthrough of simplified inelastic analysis and performance evaluation methods has occurred. Such methods combine the non-linear static (pushover) analysis of a multi degree-of-freedom (MDOF) model and the response spectrum analysis of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model. They can be used for a variety of purposes such as design verification for new buildings and bridges, damage assessment for existing structures, determination of basic structural characteristics in direct displacement based design, and rapid evaluation of global structural response to seismic ground motion of different intensities. An example is the N2 method, which has been implemented into the final version of the Eurocode 8 standard (CEN 2003). 3.5.1 SUMMARY OF THE N2 METHOD: The N2 method (N comes from Nonlinear analysis and 2 comes from 2 mathematical models) was developed at the University of Ljubljana in mid-eighties. The formulation of the method in the acceleration displacement format enables the visual interpretation of the procedure and of the relations between the basic quantities controlling the seismic response. The basic version of the N2 method, limited to planar structural models. In the N2 method, first the pushover analysis of the MDOF model is performed. Pushover curve is then transformed to the capacity diagram. The seismic demand for the equivalent SDOF system with a period T can be determined as follows: Elastic demand in terms of acceleration Sae and displacement Sde is determined from the elastic spectrum. The inelastic acceleration demand Sa is equal to the yield acceleration Say, which represents the acceleration capacity of the inelastic system. The strength reduction factor

24

due to ductility R, which will be denoted in this paper as R (R R), can be determined as the ratio between the accelerations corresponding to the elastic and inelastic system. The ductility demand is then calculated from inelastic spectra, which are defined by the period dependent relation between reduction factor and ductility (R--T relation), and the inelastic displacement demand Sd is computed as Sd = (/R)Sde . The target displacement, which represents the seismic demand of the MDOF model, is obtained as Dt = Sd , where is the transformation factor from the MDOF to the SDOF system. In principle any R--T relation can be used. A very simple and fairly accurate R--T relation is based on the equal displacement rule in the medium- and long-period range. This relation is used in the basic variant of the N2 method. It has been implemented in Eurocode 8 and is discussed below. For many years, the ductility factor method has been used in seismic codes. The basic assumption of this method is that the deformations of a structure produced by a given ground motion are essentially the same, whether the structure responds elastically or yields significantly. This assumption represents the equal displacement rule. Using this rule, the ductility dependant reduction factor R is equal to ductility factor . The simple chart in Fig.1 is essential for understanding of the concept of reduction factors and of the ductility factor method. The educational value of the figure can be greatly increased by using the AD format, introduced by Freeman. In AD format, Fig.3.5 (force has to be divided by mass) can be combined with demand spectra (Fig.3.6.). Fig.3.6, which enables a visualization of the basic variant of the N2 method, resembles to the basic chart in capacity spectrum method. The main difference is in inelastic demand, which is defined by an inelastic spectrum rather than by an equivalent highly damped elastic spectrum. Inelastic spectrum in medium and long-period range in Fig.3.6 is based on the equal displacement rule.

25

Figure 3.5. Basic diagram explaining the ductility factor method

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

In Fig.3.6 the quantities relevant for the seismic response of an ideal elasto-plastic SDOF system can be visualized. Seismic demand is expressed in terms of accelerations and displacements, which are the basic quantities controlling the seismic response. Demand is compared with the capacity of the structure expressed by the same quantities. Fig.3.6 helps to understand the relations between the basic quantities and to appreciate the effects of changes of parameters. The intersection of the radial line corresponding to the elastic period of the idealised bilinear system T with the elastic demand spectrum Sae defines the
26

acceleration demand (strength) required for elastic behaviour, and the corresponding elastic displacement demand Sde. The yield acceleration Say represents both the acceleration demand and capacity of the inelastic system. The reduction factor R is equal to the ratio between the accelerations corresponding to elastic (Sae) and inelastic systems (Say). If the elastic period T is larger than or equal to TC, which is the characteristic period of ground motion, the equal displacement rule applies and the inelastic displacement demand Sd is equal to the elastic displacement demand Sde. From triangles in Figs.3.5 and 3.6 it follows that the ductility demand is equal to R. Fig.3.6. also demonstrates that the displacements Sdd obtained from elastic analysis with reduced seismic forces, corresponding to design acceleration Sad, have to be multiplied by the total reduction factor, which is the product of the ductility dependent factor R and the overstrength factor, defined as Say/Sad. The intersection of the capacity diagram and the demand spectrum, called also performance point, provides an estimate of the inelastic acceleration and displacement demand, as in the capacity spectrum method. This feature allows the extension of the visualisation to more complex cases, in which different relations between elastic and inelastic quantities and different idealisations of capacity diagrams are used. Fig.3.6. can be used for both traditional force-based design as well as for the increasingly popular deformation-controlled (or displacement-based) design. In these two approaches, different quantities are chosen at the beginning. Let us assume that the approximate mass is known. The usual force-based design typically starts by assuming the stiffness (which defines the period) and the approximate global ductility capacity. The seismic forces (defining the strength) are then determined, and finally displacement demand is calculated. In direct displacement based design, the starting points are typically displacement and/or ductility demands. The quantities to be determined are stiffness and strength. The third possibility is a performance evaluation procedure, in which the strength and the stiffness (period) of the structure being analysed are known, whereas the displacement and ductility demands are calculated. Note that, in all cases, the strength corresponds to the actual strength and not to the design base shear according to seismic codes, which is in all practical cases less than the actual strength. Note also that stiffness and strength are usually related quantities. All approaches can be easily visualized with the help of Fig.3.6. The relations apply to SDOF systems.
27

However, they can be used also for a large class of MDOF systems, which can be adequately represented by equivalent SDOF systems.

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

3.7 Extended N2 method for Plan Asymmetric Buildings: The original N2 method is, like other simplified non-linear methods, restricted to 2D analysis. In order to extend the applicability of the method to plan-asymmetric buildings, which require a 3D structural model, a procedure based on pushover analysis of a 3D building model was proposed in (Fajfar 2002) and implemented in (Fajfar et al. 2002).

3.8 SUMMARY OF THE EXTENDED N2 METHOD: Fajfar and his co-workers worked on the seismic behavior of plan-asymmetric buildings and observed that the torsional effects are mostly pronounced in the elastic range and early stages of plastic behavior and tend to decrease with an increase in the plastic deformations [21, 22]. Hence, the amplifications in the displacement demands due to torsional effects computed from elastic dynamic analysis can be used as a rough and conservative estimate both in the elastic and inelastic range. Based on this observation, Fajfar et al. [21] developed the extension of the N2 method to plan asymmetric buildings. The fundamental steps of the procedure are summarized below: The N2 method was included in Eurocode 8 [11] as the recommended nonlinear static procedure. The fundamental steps of the procedure are summarized below: 1. Pushover analysis of the 3D mathematical model of the building is performed independently in two horizontal directions and the target roof displacement for each horizontal direction is computed using the N2 method [21].

28

2. A linear response spectrum analysis of the 3D model is carried out independently in two horizontal directions and the results are combined using the SRSS rule. 3. The correction factors to be applied to the relevant results of pushover analysis are determined. The correction factor is defined as the ratio between the normalized roof displacements obtained by elastic modal analysis and by pushover analysis. The normalized roof displacement is the ratio of the roof displacement at an arbitrary location to the roof displacement at the center of mass (CM). If the normalized roof displacement obtained from elastic response spectrum analysis is less than 1.0, it is taken as 1.0. 4. All the relevant quantities obtained by pushover analysis are multiplied with the appropriate correction factors. Examples for the relevant quantities may be the deformation demand of the ductile elements and the force demand of the brittle elements. 3.9 Time History Analysis It is an analysis of dynamic response of the structure at each increment of time, when its base is subjected to specific ground motion history. This means the method requires site specific ground motion studies. Dynamic analysis using either Time History method or response spectrum, method shall be performed for following buildings. a) Regular buildings : These buildings having height greater than 40 m In Zone IV and V, and those greater than 90 m height in Zone II and III. b) Irregular buildings: All buildings higher the 12 m in Zone IV and V greater than 40m in height Zone II and III. , and those

However, for irregular buildings having height less than 40 m in Zone II and III, even though not mandatory, dynamic analysis is recommended. Thus, in general,

dynamic analysis shall be performed for building in Zone IV and V while for buildings having height less than 40m simple in application. in Zone II and III seismic coefficient method which is

29

3.9.1 OVERVIEW OF TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS Time-history analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of a structure to arbitrary loading. The dynamic equilibrium equations to be solved are given by: ................... 3. 3 Where K is the stiffness matrix; C is the damping matrix; M is the diagonal mass matrix; and are the displacements, velocities, and accelerations of the

structure; and r is the applied load. If the load includes ground acceleration, the displacements, velocities, and accelerations are relative to this ground motion. Any number of time-history Load Cases can be defined. Each time-history case can differ in the load applied and in the type of analysis to be performed. There are several options that determine the type of time-history analysis to be performed: Linear vs. Non linear. Modal vs. Direct-integration: These are two different solution methods, each with advantages and disadvantages. Under ideal circumstances, both methods should yield the same results to a given problem. Transient vs. Periodic: Transient analysis considers the applied load as a one-time event, with a beginning and end. Periodic analysis considers the load to repeat in definitely, with all transient response damped out. Periodic analysis is only available for linear modal time-history analysis. Initial Conditions The initial conditions describe the state of the structure at the beginning of a timehistory case. These include: Displacements and velocities Internal forces and stresses Internal state variables for non linear elements Energy values for the structure External loads

30

The accelerations are not considered initial conditions, but are computed from the equilibrium equation. For linear transient analyses, zero initial conditions are always assumed. For periodic analyses, the program automatically adjusts the initial conditions at the start of the analysis to be equal to the conditions at the end of the analysis.

Time Steps Time-history analysis is per formed at discrete time steps. Number of output time steps are specified with parameter n step and the size of the time steps with parameter dt. The time span over which the analysis is carried out is given by n stepdt. For periodic analysis, the period of the cyclic loading function is assumed to be equal to this time span. Responses are calculated at the end of each dt time increment, resulting in nstep+1 values for each output response quantity. Response is also calculated, but not saved, at every time step of the input time functions in order to accurately capture the full effect of the loading. These time steps are called load steps. For modal time-history analysis, this has little effect on efficiency. For direct-integration time-history analysis, this may cause the stiffness matrix to be resolved if the load step size keeps changing. For example, if the output time step is 0.01 and the input time step is 0.005, the program will use a constant internal time- step of 0.005. However, if the input time step is 0.075, then the input and output steps are out of synchrony, and the loads steps will be: 0.075, 0.025, 0.05, 0.05,0.025, 0.075, and so on. For this reason, it is usually advisable to choose an output time step that evenly divides, or is evenly divided by, the input time steps. 3.9.2 CLASSIFICATION Time-history analysis is a step-by-step anal sis of the dynamical response of a structure to a specified loading that may vary with time. The analysis may be linear or non-linear. Linear Time History analysis: A Linear Time History analysis overcomes all the disadvantages of modal response spectrum analysis, provided non-linear behaviour is not involved. This method requires greater computational efforts for calculating response quantities at discrete times. One interesting advantage of such procedure is that the relative signs of response quantities
31

are preserved in the response histories. This is important when interaction effects are considered in design among stress resultants. Non-Linear Time History analysis: A seismically deficient building will be subjected to inelastic action during earthquake motion. The Non-Linear T.H.A off the building under strong ground motion brings out the regions of weakness and ductility demand of the structure. This is the most rational method available for assessing building performance. There are computer programs available to perform this type of analysis. However, there are complexities with regard to biaxial non linear response of the columns, modelling of joints behaviour, interaction of flexural and shear strength and modelling of degrading characteristics of member. The methodology is used to ascertain deficiency and post elastic response under strong ground shaking. Modal time history analysis: Modal superposition provides a highly efficient and accurate procedure for performing time-history analysis. Closed-form integration of the modal equations is used to compute the response, assuming linear variation of the time functions between the input data time points. Therefore, numerical instability problems are never encountered, and the time increment may be any sampling value that is deemed fine enough to capture the maximum response values. One-tenth of the time period of the highest mode is usually recommended; however, a larger value may give an equally accurate sampling if the contribution of the higher modes is small. If all of the spatial load vectors pi, are used as starting load vectors for Ritz-vector analysis, then the Ritz vectors will always produce more accurate results than if the same number of eigenvectors is used. Since the Ritz-vector algorithm is faster than the eigenvector algorithm, the former is recommended for time-history analyses. To determine if the Modes calculated by the program are adequate to represent the time history response to the applied load, these things should be checked. That enough Modes have been computed That the Modes cover an adequate frequency range

32

That the dynamic load (mass) participation mass ratios are adequate for the Load Patterns and/or Acceleration Loads being applied. That the modes shapes adequately represent all desired deformations.

Direct-Integration Time-History Analysis: Direct integration for the solution of the differential equations of motion is available in SAP2000 for linear and nonlinear time history analysis. For linear analysis, modal superposition can be used instead with greater efficiency than the direct integration method. When using direct integration for nonlinear transient analysis, all types of nonlinearities (material, geometric) are considered in the algorithm. A nonlinear direct-integration time-history analysis can be initiated from zero initial conditions (unloaded structure) or continued from a nonlinear static analysis (pushover) or another direct-integration time-history nonlinear analysis. The geometric nonlinearity is taken as the previous analysis case. For the analysis of undamaged building structures, nonlinear time history analysis is conducted including only the effects of gravity loads. While modal superposition is usually more accurate and efficient, directintegration does offer the following advantages for linear problems: Full damping that couples the modes can be considered Impact and wave propagation problems that might excite a large number of modes may be more efficiently solved by direct integration For non linear problems, direct integration also allows consideration of more types of nonlinearity that does modal superposition. Direct integration results are extremely sensitive to time-step size in a way that is not true for modal super position. Therefore the direct-integration analyses should always be run with decreasing time-step sizes until the step size is small enough that results are no longer affected by it. In particular, stiff and localized response quantities should be checked. For example, much smaller time step may be required to get accurate results for the axial force in a stiff member than for the lateral displacement at the top of a structure.

33

3.7.3 Damping For the damping calculations, there are three options in SAP2000. These are direct specification, specifying modal damping by period and specifying damping by frequency options. In direct specification option, the damping values are entered considering mass and stiffness proportional coefficients. In specify modal damping by period option, the damping values with the first and second periods are assigned Using these values, the program calculates the mass proportional and stiffness proportional coefficients. The specify modal damping by frequency has the same interface but this time frequency values instead of periods are assigned. In the analyses of the analytical models specify modal damping by period option is used. In direct-integration time-history analysis, the damping in the structure is modelled using a full damping matrix. Unlike modal damping, this allows coupling between the modes to be considered. Direct-integration damping has three different sources, which are described in the following. Damping from these sources is added together. Proportional Damping from the Load Case: For each direct-integration time-history Load Case, proportional damping has coefficients that apply to the structure as a whole. The damping matrix is calculated as a linear combination of the stiffness matrix scaled by specifying a coefficient and the mass matrix scaled by specifying a second coefficient. These two coefficients may be specified directly, or they may be computed by specifying equivalent fractions of critical modal damping at two different periods or frequencies. Stiffness proportional damping is linearly proportional to frequency. It is related to the deformations within the structure. Stiffness proportional damping may excessively damp out high frequency components. Mass proportional damping is linearly proportional to period. It is related to the motion of the structure, as if the structure is moving through a viscous fluid. Mass proportional damping may excessively damp out long period components. Due to the limitations of the response spectrum analysis procedure to approximate the dynamic nonlinear response of a complex three-dimensional structural systems, nonlinear time-history analysis is strongly recommended instead. Nonlinear

34

time history analysis accounts for the nonlinearities or strength degradation of different elements of the building, as well as the load pattern or ground motion intensity and characteristics used during a nonlinear dynamic analysis. The loading in a time history analysis is foundation displacement or ground motion acceleration, not externally applied loads at the joints or members of the structure. The design displacements are not established using a target displacement, but instead are determined directly through dynamic analysis using suites of ground motion records. Inertial forces are produced in the structure when the structure suddenly deforms due to ground motion and internal forces are produced in the structural members. For complex three-dimensional structures such as curved structures, the direction of the earthquake that produces the maximum stresses, in a particular member or at a specified point, is not apparent. For all building types time history analysis must therefore be performed using several different earthquake motions at various input angles to assure that all the significant modes are excited and the critical earthquake direction is captured, producing the peak response and estimating accurately the seismic demand on the structure. Another approach is to use a larger suite of earthquake ground motion records of three components at one angle of input. Since seismic motions can excite the higher frequencies of the structure, neglecting higher modes of the building system could introduce a significant error in the dynamic analysis results. The main disadvantage of the time history analysis method is the high computational and analytical effort required and the large amount of output information produced. During the analysis, the capacity of the main building components is evaluated as a function of time, based on the nonlinear behaviour determined for the elements and materials. This evaluation is carried out for several input ground motions applied at different angles, and the response of the structure is recorded at every time step. Despite these challenges, the evaluation of the capacity using the THA method at each time step produces superior results, since it allows for redistribution of internal forces within the structure. Each member is therefore not designed for maximum peak values, as required by the response spectrum method, but for the actual forces produced in the structure during dynamic excitation.
35

The recent development of computer hardware has allowed to reduce the required computational time and made it more practical to run many time history analyses for complex building structures. In addition, the seismic demand can be estimated through statistical approximations, using the mean and standard deviation values of joint displacements and element forces to determine the peak response expected for the structure. 3.10 Earthquake Ground Motion: The earthquake ground motion of sufficient strength that affect human and their environment (strong ground motion) are of interest for earthquake resistant design. The strong motions are measured by accelerographs and its recorded history is time history of acceleration (accelerogram).The temporal evolution of accelerogram is composed of three parts viz. Rise, strong motion and decay. The motion strongly depends on source parameters such as fault shape, its area, and maximum fault dislocation, complexity of slipping process and the distance of fault from the ground surface. The elastic properties of the material through which the generated seismic waves travel also influence the strong motion. The effect of ground shaking is mostly dependent on duration on strong motion part.

3.10.1 Input Ground Motions: Input ground motions should be selected and scaled so as to accurately represent the specific hazard of interest. As outlined in ASCE 7, the ground motions should reflect the characteristics of the dominant earthquake source at the building site, such as fault mechanism, distance to the fault, site conditions, and characteristic earthquake magnitude. Recent studies have further shown that the shape of the ground motion response spectra is an important factor in choosing and scaling ground motions, particularly for higher intensity motions (Baker and Cornell 2006). While a

comprehensive discussion on the selection and scaling of ground motion records is beyond the scope of this Technical Brief, the following are some of the issues to consider. 3.10.2 Target hazard spectra or scenario:

36

While the earthquake hazard is a continuum, building codes typically define specific ground motion hazard levels for specific performance checks. Generally, the hazard is defined in terms of response spectral accelerations with a specified mean annual frequency of expedience, although other definitions are possible including scenario earthquakes, e.g., an earthquake with a specified magnitude and distance from the site, or deterministic bounds on ground motion intensities. 3.10.3 Source of ground motions For building assessment and design, the input earthquake ground motions can either be (1) actual recorded ground motions from past earthquakes, (2) spectrally matched ground motions that are created by manipulating the frequency content and intensity of recorded ground motions to match a specific hazard spectrum, or (3) artificially simulated motions. Opinions differ as to which types are most appropriate. Recorded ground motions are generally scaled to match the hazard spectrum at one or more periods. For example, ASCE 7 specifies rules for scaling the ground motions based on their spectral acceleration values for periods between 0.2T to 1.5T, where T is the fundamental period of vibration of the structure. When structures are expected to

respond in multiple modes, such as in tall buildings, spectral matching may be more appropriate, since scaling of actual recorded motions to a uniform hazard spectrum may bias the analysis results to either overestimate the response at short periods or underestimate it at longer periods.

3.10.4 Number of ground motions: Given the inherent variability in earthquake ground motions, design standards typically require analyses for multiple ground motions to provide statistically robust measures of the demands. For example, ASCE 7 requires analyses for at least seven ground motions (or ground motion pairs for three-dimensional analyses) to determine mean values of demand parameters for design. In concept, it is possible to obtain reliable mean values with fewer records, such as through the use of spectrally matched records, but there is currently no consensus on methods to do so. Moreover, while one could calculate additional statistics besides the mean, e.g., the standard deviation of the demand
37

parameters, the reliability of such statistics is questionable when based on only seven ground motions. This is especially true when spectrally matched records are used, where the natural variability in the ground motions is suppressed.

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

38

CASE STUDY

39

CHAPTER-IV

CASE STUDY
4.0 GENERAL
Two different buildings of similar height but with significantly different characteristics were selected to assess the performance using Non linear dynamic Analysis (Time history) and Non linear static Analysis methods. One building is symmetrical with 5 bays in X direction and 3 bays in Y direction; and another is Asymmetric in plan with 5 bays in X direction and 3 bays in Y direction, as shown in fig. 4.1 and 4.2. The preliminary building data required for analysis assumed are presented in the following table.

Table 4.1 Assumed Preliminary data required for the Analysis of the frame Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Variable Type of structure Number of Stories Floor height Imposed Load Materials Size of Columns Size of Beams Specific weight of RCC Specific weight of infill Type of soil Data Moment Resisting Frame 6 stories 3m 5 kN/m Concrete M20 and Grade of Steel Fe-415 450 x 450 mm 300 x 300 mm 25 kN/m 20 kN/m Rock
3 3

40

4.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS OF THE BUILDING: The foundation system is isolated footings with a depth of the footing 1.5 m and sizes of the footings are 1.5 m x 1.5 m. The column and beam dimensions are detailed in Table 4.

In the calculation of dead loads, the unit weights of the materials have been taken according to the IS-875 (Part 1) and the seismic load considerations according to IS1893 (Part 1): 2002[20].

Figure 4.1 Asymmetrical Plan and isometric view of a building

41

Figure 4.2. Symmetrical Plan and isometric view of a building

The building is a six storey building located in zone II. Tables 4.0 and Table 4.2 present a summary of the building parameters. Table 4.2 General data collection and condition assessment of building Sl.No. Description Information Remarks 1 Building height 18 m Above the ground 2 Number of storeys above ground 6 ---3 Number of basements below ground 0 ---4 Open ground storey No ------5 Special hazards None ---6 Falling hazards Parapet wall IS 1893:2002[20] 7 Type of building Regular frame Clause 7.1 8 Horizontal floor system Beams ---9 Software used SAP2000 v15 ---4.2 ANALYSIS USING EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS METHOD AND DESIGN ACCORDING TO IS- 1893: 2002[20] The load cases for the structure is defined in the SAP 2000 [21] as Dead load, Live load and Earthquake loads in x and y directions according to IS1893:2002. The lumped mass is given on each floor using floor diaphragm with Dead load and 25% of live load. Following fig 4.3 & 4.4 show the details of the analysis case. The static analysis is run
42

and the members are designed for the analysis results obtained, by IS-456:2000 design specifications.

Figure. 4.3. Load cases defined for analysis.

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

43

Figure 4.5 Reinforcement details of beams and columns 4.3 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS CASES Pushover analysis provides important features of structural response, such as the initial stiffness of the structure, total strength and yield displacement. In addition, it provides reasonable estimates for the post peak behavior 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. SAP2000
[]

software is used to perform the

pushover analysis of buildings using displacement control strategy, where gravity loads (set as nonlinear) of each building are applied prior to the pushover analysis. 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

44

FEMA-273[2]. 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[2] are as follows: The uniform load pattern (ULP) The equivalent lateral force pattern (ELP) The first mode load pattern (FLP) Deformed shape of the building (DLP) (Adaptive Pushover Analysis) The DLP is used for performing the analysis by the SAP2000 method, which is incorporated from the ATC-40
[21] [1] [21]

as a default

document.

For defining the POA case we start with the assignment of the hinges to the members of the structure. The SAP2000 package gives the choice to the user for selecting or

defining the type of hinges required for analysis.

Figure. 4.6 Frame hinge properties for a typical member.

45

Figure. 4.7 Hinge assignments at the ends of the beams and columns. Default hinge definitions according to the FEMA-356 guidelines have been provided at the ends, where the formation of the potential plastic hinges is more probable for beams and columns with degree of freedom as M3 and the shear value for the hinge is taken from the Dead load case. The hinges are set so that they drop the load after reaching the point E of the performance level.

Fig. 4.8. Performance levels according to hinge states. Force-displacement or moment-rotation curve for a hinge definition used in SAP2000 [21] is referred to as a plastic deformation curve. The plastic deformation curve is characterized by the following points as:
46

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 behavior 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 forcedisplacement (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 behavior of the structure. The first is the coupled
47

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. After assignment of the hinges, the pushover cases are defined under the conjugate monitored displacement. The Dead loads case is assigned to non-linear static case, and the pushover case data is given as shown in the Fig 4.9. The top displacement of the structure is set to 1% of the total height of the structure at one of the top storey nodes. The degree of freedom (U1) for the structure is in the direction of the application of the pushover loads i.e., along the x-axis. The RSM and Load cases are set to run at first, the structure is then designed according to IS-456: 2000 and then pushover cases are run on the designed structure, for the analysis results.

Figure 4.9 Pushover Analysis Case of 1st mode

48

4.4 Response Spectra Analysis:

To perform the extended N2 method, Pushover analysis and response spectrum analysis of a building has to be carried out. From the results of these two analysis correction factor is calculated. Response spectra analysis is performed using the chamba earthquake spectra, for which accelerogram has to be first converted to spectra, for this purpose Seismospect software[] is used. In the figure 4.10- 4.14 showing accelerogram is being converted to spectra and uploaded to SAP2000. Response spectra analysis is performed and results are obtained from it.

Figure 4.10 chamba earthquake data into seismospect

49

Figure 4.11 seismospect converted accelerogram into response spectra.

Figure 4.12 Response spectra of chamba earthquake in SAP2000

50

Figure 4.13 performing response spectra analysis of building

Figure 4.14 Deformed shape of building after response spectrum analysis

51

4.5 Time History Analysis cases:

4.5.1 Modeling: 4.5.1.1 Natural Earthquake Records The behaviour of multi-story buildings during an earthquake event depends on the Characteristics of the earthquake ground motion such as the amplitude of its peak ground acceleration (PGA), as well as the duration and frequency content of the earthquake. Also, the type of foundation and the soil characteristics at site have important influence on the behaviour of the building. In addition, the building characteristics including the stiffness, damping and modal properties play a significant role in the way the building responds to the earthquake excitation. A main factor in earthquake-resistant design is the amplitude of the pseudo acceleration which corresponds to the fundamental period of the building using the response spectrum curve for the earthquake ground motion. If the pseudo-acceleration corresponding to the fundamental period of the building is high, then significant inertia forces will be developed in the building during the earthquake event and vice-versa. Hence, the response spectra of a number of earthquakes need to be investigated for adequate evaluation of the building behavior under different seismic actions. The structural performance of the reinforced concrete and steel buildings in this study is estimated based on considering natural ground motion records chamba. These records were obtained from the strong motion database of the Earthquake Station chamba in Himachal Pradesh, Fig show the acceleration time history for Earthquake. 4.5.2. Chamba Earthquake Data

Fig4.15: Acceleration time-history of chamba Earthquake

52

4.5.3 Sample collection of Acceleration data points

-.579E-02 0.476E-01 -.454E-01 .141E-01 0.320E-01 .330E-01 0.115E+00 0.306E-01 -.116E+00 0.468E-01 -.128E+00 0.421E-01 0.320E-01 0.809E-01 0.205E-01 .428E-01 -.455E-01 .859E-01 -.155E-01 .858E-02 -.238E-02 0.790E-01 -.134E-01 0.962E-02 0.959E-02 0.331E-01 -.918E-02 0.126E-01 -.944E-01 -.136E-01 0.490E-01 0.979E-01 -.283E-01 -.134E+00 0.394E-01 0.198E-01 -.364E-01 0.301E-02 0.430E-01 -.614E-01 0.870E-01 -.587E-01 -.121E+00 -.282E-01 0.831E-01 0.117E+00 -.425E-01 0.419E-01 -.330E-01 -.254E-01 0.543E-01 0.120E+00 -.117E+00 0.409E-01 0.366E-01 -.303E-01 -.690E-01 -.779E-02 0.120E-01 0.203E-01 0.192E-01 0.204E-01 -.393E-01 -.830E-03 -.753E-01 -.352E-01 0.436E-01 0.817E-01 0.531E-01 -.476E-02 -.163E-01 -.167E-02 0.262E-01 0.270E-03 -.202E-01 -.631E-01 0.163E-01 0.723E-01 0.633E-01 0.161E-01 -.114E-01 -.840E-02 -.242E-02 -.196E-01 0.486E-02 -.146E-01 -.544E-01 0.286E-01

4.6 Modeling of building using time history analysis in SAP Collecting of Earth Quake data (Chamba). Defining Time History Function Import the data of ground accelerations. Display graph Defining time history case.

Following are the general sequence of steps involved in performing linear time history analysis using SAP2000 in the present study: A two or three dimensional model that represents the overall structural behavior is created. For reinforced concrete elements the appropriate reinforcement is provided for the cross sections. Beams and columns are modelled as linear finete elements with lumped plasticity at start and end of each element. Beams and columns are modelled by 3d frame elements. While modelling the beams and columns, the important properties to be assigned are cross sections, reinforcement details and types of materials used. Plinth beams should
53

also be modelled as frame element. Columns at the end of foundation can be modelled by considering the degree of fixity provided by the foundation. All the beam column joints are considered as rigid. 4.7 UPLOAD ACCELEROGRAMS TO SAP2000 Define the accelerogram in SAP2000 An accelerogram is basically the time-history of the acceleration experienced by the ground in a given direction during a seismic event We need to input the accelerogram as a generic function defined in SAP2000 starting from a TXT file Once the mechanical model of the structural system under investigation has been created, SELECT from the menu bar: DEFINE -> FUNCTIONS -> TIME HISTORIES. Define the accelerogram in SAP2000 The accelerogram must be uploaded to SAP2000 as FUNCTION FROM FILE , an option which can be selected from the drop-down list Define the accelerogram in SAP2000. We can select:

Name of the function (e.g. Chamba earthquake) Location of the file by using the button BROWSE. Number of lines to skip (1 for chamba database) Number of points per line (8 for chamba database)

54

Fig 4.16: Define the time history function from file.

Fig 4.17: Defining the function name and displaying function graph: Define the accelerogram in SAP2000 By clicking on DISPLAY GRAPH we can visually check the waveform. Define Loads Cases

55

A load case defines how loads are to be applied to the structure, and how the structural response is to be calculated. An unlimited number of named load cases of any type can be defined in SAP2000. The load case(s) is selected when the model is analyzed. Note: Load patterns by themselves do not create any response (deflections, stresses, and so forth). A load case must be defined to apply the load. Before defining load cases, define any load patterns or functions that will be needed:

For seismic analysis, the ground-acceleration loads are already built-in and do not need to be defined. For all other loads, use the Define menu > Load Patterns command to define the loads to be applied.

For response-spectrum analysis, use the Define menu > Response Spectrum Functions command to create the necessary input acceleration functions.

For time-history analysis, use the Define menu > Time History Functions command to input the time functions

Define the accelerogram in SAP2000 In order to be used in a seismic simulation, the waveform previously defined must be properly assigned to an ANALYSIS CASE To do this, SELECT from the menu bar: DEFINE -> ANALYSIS CASES...

Define the accelerogram in SAP2000 The analysis case in presence of accelerogram is a TIME HISTORY , which can be selected from a drop-down list after clicking on the ADD NEW CASE... button

Define the accelerogram in SAP2000 The appropriate analysis in presence of accelerogram is a TIME HISTORY case, which can be selected from the drop-down list

56

Define the accelerogram in SAP2000 This leads to a more complicated windows, in which few parameters must be input

Define the accelerogram in SAP2000

In particular: The load type is an acceleration of the ground (first drop-down list) For a planar model, the ground shaking is generally assumed to happen in the X direction, i.e. Load name U1 (second drop-down list) The records from the ground motion are given in units of g, so the scale factor would be 9.81 m/s 2 or 981 cm/s 2 , depending on the units selected in the model of SAP2000

The number of time steps should be given by the duration of the accelerogram divided by the sampling time: For example: 40 s / 0.01 s = 4,000 steps

Fig 4.18: Defining the modal case window

57

Fig 4.19: Showing the run analysis window. RUN THE ANALYSIS AND DISPLAY THE RESULTS Run the dynamic analysis Once the accelerogram has been defined in SAP2000, it is possible to run the timehistory analysis as any other type of analysis. Run the dynamic analysis
o

Once the analyses are complete, results from tables and diagrams

Display the results Analysis type Linear: In a linear time history analysis, all objects behave

linearly. Only the linear properties assigned to link elements are considered in a linear time history analysis. Modal damping Use the Modal Damping form to specify or modify the modal damping. For convenience, specify that a damping applies to all modes and then, if desired, overwrite the damping for any mode(s). The following three options are available: Damping for All Modes: Enter the damping for all modes in this form. This is a percent critical damping. For example a damping that is 5% 0f critical damping is entered as 0.05.

58

Number of output time steps: The number of output time steps is the number of equally spaced steps at which the output results are reported. Do not confuse this with the number of time steps in input time history function. The number of output time steps can be different from the number of time steps in input time history function. The number of output time steps times the output time step size is equal to the length of time over which output results are reported. Output time step size: The output time step size is the time in seconds between each of the equally spaced output time steps. Do not confuse this with the time step size in your input time history function. The number of output time step size can be different from the input time step size in your input time history function. The number of output time steps time the output time step size is equal to the length of time over which output results are reported.

4.8 Load Assignments Load: The Load may either be a defined static load case, acc dir 1, acc dir 2 or acc dir 3. The three accelerations (acc dir 1, acc dir 2 and acc dir 3) are ground accelerations in the local axes directions of the time history. Positive acc dir 3 corresponds to the positive global Z direction always. See the discussion of the Angle item in this area for information about acc dir 1 and acc dir 2. When you specify one of these three ground accelerations your input function defines how the ground acceleration varies with time. Function: In this the function name display which is given in the time history function. So we select the function according to our use. Scale factor: The Scale Factor item is used as a multiplier on the input function values. The units for the scale factor depend on the type of load specified in the Load drop-down box. If the load is specified as a ground acceleration (that is, acc dir 1, acc dir 2 or acc dir 3), this scale factor has units of Length/seconds2. If the load is a static load case, this scale factor is unit less. The scale factor can be any positive or negative number, or zero.

59

Arrival time: The arrival time is the time that a particular load assignment starts. Assume that you want to apply the same ground acceleration that lasts 30 seconds to your building in global X and global Y directions. Further assume that you want the ground acceleration in the global Y direction to start 10 seconds after the ground acceleration in the global X direction begins. In that case you could specify an arrival time of 0 for the load assignment for the global X direction shaking and arrival time of 10 for the load assignment for the global Y direction shaking. The arrival time can be zero or any positive or negative time. The time history analysis for a given time history case always starts at time zero. Thus if you specify a negative arrival time for a load assignment, any portion of its associated input function that occurs before time zero is ignored. Before we run analysis we set the parameters to run dynamic analysis.

4.9 Summary: In this chapter the building description and plan of the building was discussed. The structural systems of the building and general data collected, geological and geotechnical data collected were presented in this chapter. Modeling of the building using SAP2000 was presented and steps for uploading the accelerogram were presented.

60

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

61

CHAPTER-V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.0 GENERAL
Results obtained from analysis and design investigations are the Lateral displacements; Pushover Curves and comparing base shears. 5.1 RESULTS For ease, results are briefly described and classified into three categories i.e. pushover analysis results, N2 method results and Time history results.

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

5.3 Pushover analysis results of Symmetrical building: Figure 5.1 shows a capacity curve (pushover curve) of a symmetrical structure in X-direction, the following curve is obtained under displacement control for in Mode 2. Initially monitored displacement given to the structure is 0.72m (5 % of structure height). It has been observed that the maximum base shear 1132 KN is obtained at a displacement of 0.52 m and this is further applied for calculating target displacement using N2 method.

62

Figure 5.1 Pushover Curve for Symmetrical structure in X direction Figure 5.2 shows a capacity curve (pushover curve) of a symmetrical structure in Y-direction, the following curve is obtained under displacement control in Mode 1. Initially monitored displacement given to the structure is 0.72m (5 % of structure height). It has been observed that the maximum base shear 1073 KN is obtained at a displacement of 0.53 m and this is further applied for calculating target displacement using N2 method.

Figure 5.2 Pushover Curve for Symmetrical structure in Y direction

63

5.4 Pushover Results of Asymmetrical building: Figure 5.3 shows a capacity curve (pushover curve) of a Asymmetrical structure in X-direction, the following curve is obtained under displacement control in Mode 2. Initially monitored displacement given to the structure is 0.72 m (5 % of structure height). It has been observed that the maximum base shear 1124 KN is obtained at a displacement of 0.49 m but it also observed that the structure is failing at earlier displacement of 0.57 m instead of 0.72 m. So, with this observation we can say that the failure occur in Asymmetrical structure earlier when compared to Symmetrical structures. This type of earlier failure in Asymmetrical structures is due to lateral force with torsional force effect.

Figure 5.3 Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure in X direction

Figure 5.4 shows a capacity curve (pushover curve) of a Asymmetrical structure in Y-direction, the following curve is obtained under displacement control in Mode 1. Initially monitored displacement given to the structure is 0.72 m (5 % of structure height). It has been observed that the maximum base shear 1062 KN is obtained at a displacement of 0.52 m but it also observed that the structure is failing at earlier displacement of 0.68 m instead of 0.72 m. So, with this observation we can say that the failure occur in Asymmetrical structure are critical when compared to Symmetrical
64

structures. As it has been seen that building plan in asymmetrical in X-direction and Symmetrical in Y-direction, for this symmetry in y direction the displacement at failure and monitored displacement are very near to each other.

Figure 5.4 Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure in Y direction

5.5 Comparison of pushover for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical buildings

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -2.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.00E+00 4.00E+00 6.00E+00 8.00E+00 Asymmetry -X symmetry-X

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

65

Figure 5.5 shows capacity curve (pushover curve) for Symmetrical structure in Xdirection with maximum base shear of 1132KN at displacement of 0.52 m and Asymmetrical structure in X-direction with maximum base shear of 1124 KN at

displacement of 0.49 m respectively. The variation of base shear and displacement is due to Asymmetry in X-direction in both structures.

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Asymmetry -Y symmetry -Y

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

Figure 5.6 shows capacity curve (pushover curve) for Symmetrical structure in Ydirection with maximum base shear of 1073KN at displacement of 0.53 m and Asymmetrical structure in X-direction with maximum base shear of 1062 KN at

displacement of 0.52 m respectively. The small variation of base shear and displacement is due to symmetry in Y-direction in both structures.

5.6 Conventional pushover analysis results of symmetrical building: Both the building models are analyzed using non-linear static (pushover) analysis. At first, the pushover analysis is done for the gravity loads (DL+0.25LL) incrementally under load control. The Conventional pushover analysis (in X & Y-direction) is followed after the gravity pushover, under full load pattern. The building is pushed in lateral directions until the formation of collapse mechanism. The capacity curve (base shear versus roof displacement) is obtained from the analysis.
66

Figure 5.7 Conventional Pushover Curve for Symmetrical structure in X direction

Figure 5.7 shows a conventional pushover curve for Symmetrical structure in Xdirection. To obtain curve joint 7 displacement is obtained against base shear of structure. As we can see from figure maximum base shear is 847 KN with a displacement of 0.0947 m.

Figure 5.8 Conventional Pushover Curve for Symmetrical structure in Y direction

67

Figure 5.8 shows a conventional pushover curve for Symmetrical structure in Ydirection. To obtain curve joint 7 displacement is obtained against base shear of structure. As we can see from figure maximum base shear is 778 KN with a displacement of 0.0930 m. 5.7 Conventional pushover results of Asymmetrical building:

Figure 5.9 Conventional Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure in X direction

Figure 5.9 shows a conventional pushover curve for Asymmetrical structure in Xdirection. To obtain curve joint 169 (centre of mass) displacement is obtained against base shear of structure. As we can see from figure maximum base shear is 819 KN with a displacement of 0.096 m.

68

Figure 5.10 Conventional Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure in Y direction

Figure 5.10 shows a conventional pushover curve for Asymmetrical structure in X- direction. To obtain curve joint 169 (centre of mass) displacement is obtained against base shear of structure. As we can see from figure maximum base shear is 787 KN with a displacement of 0.096 m.
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 Assymmetrical in X direction Symmetrical in X direction

Fig. 5.11: Comparison of conventional pushover curves of both buildings in X direction

69

Figure 5.11 shows comparison of conventional pushover curves of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Structure. Two pushover curves are overlapped with each other; in this case it has been observed that variation in base shear of Asymmetrical building with 819 KN and Symmetrical building with 847 KN. And variation is due to Asymmetrical in plan in X-direction.
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.00E+00 2.00E-02 4.00E-02 6.00E-02 8.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.20E-01 Assym in Y direction symmetrical in Y direction

Fig. 5.12: Comparison of conventional pushover curves of both buildings in Y direction

Figure 5.12 shows comparison of conventional pushover curves of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Structure. Two conventional pushover curves are overlapped with each other; in this case it has been observed that there is very small variation in base shear due to symmetry in Y-direction. The observed base shear for Asymmetrical structure is 787 KN and Symmetrical structure is 778 KN with a difference percentage of 1%.

5.8 N2 method Results: The capacity curves obtained from the pushover analysis of the Asymmetrical and symmetrical structure, under invariant force distributions proportional to the first and second mode shapes are presented in figures (Fig.5.1 to Fig.5.4) The capacity curve of

70

each mode was then converted to the force-deformation relationship of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system (D* vs. F*) in figure 5.14. The single-degreeof-freedom (SDOF) curve is converted to bilinear curve shown in figure 5.15. Now this curve is passed over a demand curve which is obtained from IS1893-2000 and from this overlapping of two curves target displacement is calculated. with the new target displacement pushover curve is obtained.

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

pushover curve

Figure 5.13 Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure in X direction

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.05

D* vs F*

D* vs F*

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Figure 5.14 Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure of Equivalent SDOF

71

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.05

bilenar curve

bilenar curve

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Figure 5.15 Bilinear Pushover Curve for Asymmetrical structure of Equivalent SDOF

2.5

1.5

bilinear pushover curve Response spectra

0.5

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 5.16 Demand spectra for ground motions and Capacity diagram
72

5.9 Extended N2 method: Extended N2 method is carried out to calculate the correction factor for Asymmetrical Building. is called correction factor.

For each combination and for each frame the following normalized displacement is computed:

=1.06

Where

is the i frame top displacement and

is the CM

top Displacement; consequently, maximum is assumed as the reference

are computed for each frame and their ;

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

= 1.02

Where top displacement;

is the i frame top displacement and

is the CM

For each frame, 4 correction factors are computed:

=1.03

Where

and

are the reference value are considered;

73

5.10 Time history Analysis Results Base shear-versus-roof displacements curve is an important parameter to understand the difference between two buildings with different level of asymmetry. Results of Chamba ground motion data are presented separately for convenience. Figs. 5.17 and 5.19 represents time vs. base shear for chamba ground motion, Figs. 5.18 and 5.20 presents the time vs. roof displacement for chamba earthquake ground motion.

Fig. 5.17: Time-versus- Base shear data for Chamba Earth Quake ground motion for symmetrical building

74

Fig. 5.18 : Time-versus- roof displacement data for Chamba Earth Quake ground motion for Symmetrical building

Fig. 5.19: Time-versus- Base shear data for Chamba Earth Quake ground motion for Asymmetrical building

75

Fig. 5.20: Time-versus- roof displacement data for Chamba Earth Quake ground motion for Asymmetrical building

Table 5.1 showing the values of base shear and roof displacement of Asymmetrical and symmetrical building Base Shear (KN) Roof Displacement (m)

Asymmetrical Building

842

0.015

Symmetrical Building

775

0.0046

76

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

1000 842 800 600 400 200 0 Asymmetrical 800

916 775 804

945.52557

Symmetrical

Time history analysis of Asymmetrical and symmetrical building n2 method conventional pushover analysis

Figure. 5.21: comparison of Base shear of Time history, Conventional pushover and N2 method

1200 1000

1104

1136

842 800 600 400 200 0 1% Pushover analysis

842

2% Time History Analysis

Fig. 5.22: Comparing base shears of Time history analysis and pushover analysis of Asymmetrical building

77

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

78

CONCLUSIONS

79

CHAPTER-VI
CONCLUSIONS
6.1 GENERAL
The use of Nonlinear Static Procedures (NSPs) for the seismic assessment of plan irregular buildings is challenging. The most common pushover-based approaches have led to adequate results in regular buildings, and hence, there is a need to improve and verify the validity of such methods on the assessment of irregular structures. Fajfar and his team have developed the Extended N2 method [4, 8] from orignal N2 method, which is able to capture the torsional behaviour of plan-asymmetric buildings. This procedure is based on the application of correction factors to the pushover results obtained with the N2 method. The correction factors depend on a dynamic elastic analysis and on a pushover analysis. The main objective of this chapter is to assess the seismic behaviour of the buildings, evaluating the accuracy of the pushover analysis, orignal N2 method and Extended N2 method with non linear dynamic analysis (Time history analysis).

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

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

It is been observed from the figure (5.21) that conventional pushover analysis over estimates the base shear. Whereas N2 method is predicting the base shear which is nearly equal to non linear dynamic analysis.

Figure (5.22) shows comparison of base shear of pushover analysis with 1% and 2% monitored displacement of building height with non linear dynamic analysis of Asymmetrical building. It is observed that pushover analysis is over estimating
80

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

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

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

81

References
1. Applied Technology Council. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings ATC 40. California; 1996. 2. Applied Technology Council. Improvements of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Redwood City (CA): FEMA-440; 2005. 3. ASCE, 2002, Standard Methodology for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings. Standard No. ASCE-31. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 4. ASCE, American Society of civil Engineers. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-356. Washington D.C., 2000. 5. Ayala AG, Tavera EA. A new approach for the evaluation of the seismic performance of asymmetric buildings. In: Proc. of the 7th national conference on earthquake engineering. 2002. 6. Aydinoglu MN. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2003;1(1): 336. 7. Azuhata, T., Saito, T., Takayama, M., and Nagahara, K. Seismic performance of asymmetric buildings based on the capacity spectrum method. Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No. 2322. Auckland, New Zealand, 2000. 8. Barros RC, Almeida R. Pushover analysis of asymmetric three-dimensional building frames. J Civil Eng Manag 2005;XI(1):312. 9. Biot, MA. Analytical and experimental methods in engineering seismology. ASCE Transactions. 1942, Vol. 108, pp. 365408. 10. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP/Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings", Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C Report No. FEMA-273 (1997). 11. CEN. Eurocode-8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1, Pr-EN 1998 1, Final Draft. Brussels (BEL): European Committee for Standardization; 2003.

82

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

83

23. Fujii, K., Nakano, Y., Sanada, Y. Simplified nonlinear analysis procedure for asymmetric buildings. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No. 149. Vancouver, Canada, 2004. 24. Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analysis: SAC buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2004;20(1):22554. 25. Gupta B, Kunnath SK. Adaptive spectra-based pushover for seismic evaluation of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(2):36792. 26. Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2000;29(9): 1287305. 27. Gulkan P., Sozen M. Inelastic response of reinforced concrete structures to earthquakes motions. ACI Journal . 1974, Vol. 71, pp. 604-610. 28. IS 1893(Part 1):2002 - Indian Standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures (5th revision), 2002. 29. ICBO 1997. Uniform Building Code - 1997 Edition, Vol. 2: Structural Engineering Design Provisions, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, U.S.A. 30. Kilar V, Fajfar P. Simple push-over analysis of asymmetric buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1997;26:23349.

31. Kilar V, Fajfar P. On the applicability of pushover analysis to the seismic performance evaluation of asymmetric buildings. Eur Earthq Eng 2001;15: 2031. 32. Kosmopoulos AJ, Fardis MN. Estimation of inelastic deformations in asymmetric multistory RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007;36(9):120934. 33. Koren D., Kilar V. The applicability of the N2 method to the estimation of torsional. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2011, Vol. 40, pp. 867 886. 34. Lin JL, Tsai KC. Simplified seismic analysis of asymmetric building systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:45979. 35. Marusic D, Fajfar P. On the inelastic seismic response of asymmetric buildings under bi-axial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34:94363.

84

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

85

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

86