Performance Based Analysis of Seismic Capacity of Mid Rise Building

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 11, November 2013)
Performance Based Analysis of Seismic Capacity of Mid Rise

Building
Kallol Barua1, S. M. Hasanur Rahman2, Susen Das3
1,2
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stamford University Bangladesh, Bangladesh.

3
Research Assistant, University of Alberta, Canada.
The structures, whose performances are evaluated, are
designed with the provisions from BNBC (2006).
According to the BNBC equivalent static force method of
determining earthquake force is limited to the structures
having height of less than 20 meters. Hence this paper deals
with some medium rise buildings (six-storied).The
buildings investigated are assumed to be located in Dhaka,
in seismic zone 2 of seismic zoning map of BNBC 2006.
Abstract With a view of evaluating the seismic

performance of building designed as per BNBC, performance
based analysis was studied in an in-depth way. Conventionally
designed regular bare frame structures under design basis
earthquake, serviceability earthquake and maximum
earthquake were found to be adequate. Besides, due to the
effect of infill on the full in-filled frame structures,
deformation pattern was uniform and total deformation

was lower than any other type analyzed and signified
consideration of infill effect improved the performance
of the structure. But addition of infill in the upper
stories leaving the ground floor open makes extreme
soft storey case which can be fatal for earthquake .
Moreover, for the three types of structure considered
(bare, full in-filled, soft ground storey), roof
displacement was highest for bare frame and ground
floor displacement was highest for soft storey. In
addition, performance evaluation of the structure
which was designed considering only gravity loads
couldnt satisfy the acceptable performance criteria for
different types of earthquakes and the structure failed
even for small seismic load necessitating consideration
of lateral loads for design to be revised.
Keywordsdrift ratio, hinges, soft
acceleration, and spectral displacement
storey,
II. METHODOLOGY
Some medium rise (6 storied) frame structures are
modeled and designed with the help of finite element
software ETABS. Earthquake load is calculated
automatically by the program. Wind load is calculated
according to Bangladesh National Building Code by
developing an excel sheet. Standard load combinations are
taken according to BNBC.
For non-linear analysis ATC -40 is reviewed thoroughly.
Hinge property is chosen from the provided experimental
data. Allowable hinge deformation at different performance
level for beams and columns is established. Hinges are
assigned to each element. Structure are then subjected to
push over analysis which include progressive damage of
elements with plastic deformation of the hinge assigned on
the element of the structure as the structure is laterally
pushed through. Capacity spectrum method (ATC 40) is
employed for finding performance situation of the building.
Available member ductility was then compared with the
acceptable limit given in ATC-40, and find out what level
of safety they conform to.
spectral
I. INTRODUCTION
Consideration of earthquake force in structural design
has become a serious issue to building owners, engineers,
architects and developers in Bangladesh as it lies in a
seismically active region. Analysis methods specified in
BNBC (equivalent static method and dynamic response
spectrum method) have limitation since they are linear
methods. On the other hand performance based analysis or
pushover analysis is now considered most reliable and
effective inelastic analysis method to find actual behavior
of the structure in earthquake.
III. LITERATURE REVIEW

Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 2006) has
different provisions for calculation of earthquake load and
analysis procedures for structures subjected to earthquake.
Two methods are available in BNBC for determination of
seismic lateral forces on primary framing systems-
44

A. Equivalent static force method
In this method the dynamic earthquake effect is
represented by an equivalent static load at different levels
in proportion to mass at that level. In this process BNBC
devises the country into three region of different possible
earthquake ground response (0.075g, 0.15g, and 0.25g).The
total design base shear for a seismic zone is given by,
The capacity spectrum method initially characterizes

seismic demand using an elastic response spectrum. This
spectrum is plotted in spectral ordinates (ADRS) format
showing the spectral acceleration as a function of spectral
displacement. To find the point where demand and capacity
are equal, a point on the capacity spectrum need to be
selected as an initial estimate. Using the spectral
acceleration and displacement defined by this point,
reduction factors may be calculated to apply to the 5%
elastic spectrum to account for the hysteretic energy
dissipation, or effective damping, associated with the
specific point. If the reduced demand spectrum intersects
the capacity spectrum at or near the initial assumed point,
then this is the performance point where the capacity of the
structure matches the demand of the specific earthquake.
ZIC , Where, Z= seismic zone co-efficient

W
R
I= Structural importance co-efficient

C= Numerical co-efficient
1.25S
T3
Ct hn 4
3
T = Time period =
IV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BARE FRAME

STRUCTURE
A. Geometrical and Material Specification
A three dimensional bare frame structure is designed by
static design procedure as per BNBC code. Here
performance of the structure will be evaluated by static non
linear pushover analysis using ETABS. The nonlinear
analysis will be done as per ATC40 (1996). The structure is
a 6 storey, 3x3 bay residential building. Length of each bay
is 20 feet in X direction and 15 feet in Y direction. The
height of grade beam from the base is 6 feet and each
storey height is 10 feet. From calculation the slab thickness
is taken 6 inches. Initially all the beams are taken
12X15and the columns are assumed 12X12. Later the
beam and column sizes are modified according to design by
ETABS. Design code ACI 318-99 has been followed for
the design of members. Steel ratio in columns is found to
be 1.00% to 3.85% at different level. Concrete material was
used in the design of reinforced concrete beam and column
having the following properties: cylinder strength of
concrete, fc = 4 ksi, yield strength of steel, fy = 60 ksi,
modulus of elasticity, Ec = 3600 ksi, standard steel bar was
used as reinforcing material.
Where, Ct = 0.083 for moment resisting frame

= 0.073 for reinforced concrete
= 0.049 for all other structural analysis
hn = Height in meter above base level n
S = Site co-efficient
R= Response modification co-efficient
W= Total seismic dead load
Lateral force calculated from the above equation known
as base shear V, shall be distributed along the height of the
structure in accordance with the following equation
in
V = Ft +
F
i 1
Where, Fi = Lateral force applied at storey level I and Ft

= Concentrated lateral force considered at the top of the
building in addition to the force Fn.
B. Response Spectrum Method
BNBC recommends that response spectrum to be used in
dynamic analysis shall be either of the following:
Site Specific Design Spectra: A site specific design spectra
shall be developed base on the geologic, tectonic,
seismologic, and soil characteristics associated with the
specific site.
Normalized Response Spectra: In absence of a site-specific
response spectrum, the normalized response spectra shall
be used.
B. Loading Condition
Self weight is calculated automatically by the program.
In addition to self weight 30 psf of floor-finish and 40 psf
of future partition wall are considered as dead load in
typical floor level. In the typical floor live load is
considered as 40 psf. At roof dead load and live load are
considered respectively 30 psf and 20 psf. Wind load is
calculated according to BNBC.
45

Here site location Dhaka, basic wind speed 210 km/hr,
exposure A and Structure importance coefficient, C I= 1.00
(standard occupancy structure) is considered. Seismic load
was automatically calculated by program as per UBC94.
C. Performance Evaluation
The structure is evaluated here in two aspects. First
equivalent static earthquake force is compared with the
force that is got in pushover analysis. Then performance
point of the structure is analyzed with respect to local
(deformed shape and hinge formation) and global
(displacement and lateral drift) criteria.
1. Design Basis Earthquake: Performance point is
calculated according to both procedure A & B (ATC 40,
1996). The parameters that are needed to draw the demand
spectra in ETABS according to Procedure B are as like
Procedure A. For the design basis earthquake the seismic
coefficients (CA , CV ) calculated are given below:
Frame type
Bare Frame
Seismic Site Coefficient, CA
0.16
Seismic Site Coefficient, CV
0.24
Figure 2: Capacity curve of the bare frame structure
From the base shear vs. roof displacement curve

illustrated in fig 2, it is seen that up to displacement 84.8
mm (3.34 in), the structure is behaving elastically. As the
structure deflects more, it goes to inelastic deformation. At
performance point, base shear is 1636 KN (366 kip) and
displacement is 133.6 mm (5.26 in). The structure is
designed for the earthquake which will generate a force of
3320 KN or 742.8 kip (when R=2). So, the structure will be
able to resist almost the force with small degree of damage
Performance point is based on design earthquake which

usually occurs within the central portion of the damage
control performance range. From the Fig. 1 it is seen that
the performance point spectral displacement is 132 mm and
spectral acceleration is 0.12 g.
TABLE I
Number of hinges formed in the bare frame structures
No of
hinges
A-B
699
BIO
154
IOLS
28
LSCP
15
CP
-C
0
CD
0
DE
0
>
E
0
Total
896
At the performance point there are almost 15 hinges

which are in the range of LS-CP (Table 4.1). If any
earthquake occurs which reach the demand of the structure
then those structural components where hinges are in the
range of LS-CP will damage first. It is assumed that when
the extreme earthquake will come then the structural hinges
will not cross the LS (Life Safety) limit for design basis
earthquake. From the table 4.2 it is seen that the structure
satisfies this criteria for design basis earthquake. Because
the hinges are within the LS range but dont cross the LS
level.
2. Serviceability Earthquake: For the serviceability
earthquake the seismic coefficients (CA, CV ) calculated
are given below :
Figure 1: Capacity spectrum of the bare frame structure

(Procedure A)
From ETABS (procedure B) Capacity spectrum, it is

found that at the performance point spectral displacement is
106.656 mm and spectral acceleration is 0.103g. So
according to procedure A demand is higher than the
procedure B.
46
Frame type
Bare Frame
0.12
0.18

TABLE II
IO
No of
Structure has to deform a lot to meet the demand of

maximum earthquake (fig. 4). As a result elements of the
structure are stressed beyond their elastic limit and become
non linear.
LS-
CP
>
Tot
A-B
B-IO
LS
CP
-C
al
710
154
32
896
hinge
From the fig. 3 it is seen that in case of serviceability

earthquake, the capacity curve of the bare frame does not
have to deform much to meet the demand curve and the
performance point is very close to the elastic region. Which
means the serviceability earthquake would not cause
significant damage to the structure.
Figure 4: Capacity spectrum of the bare frame structure for

Maximum Considered Earthquake (Procedure A)
For maximum considered earthquake, at performance

point base shear is 1821.4 KN.
TABLE III
Figure 3: Capacity spectrum of the bare frame structure for

serviceability earthquake (Procedure A)
No of
hinge
For serviceability earthquake, at performance point base

shear is 1392.1 KN. For serviceability earthquake the
hinges in the structure must not cross the IO (Immediate
Occupancy) limit. From the table II, it is seen that the
structure satisfies this criteria for serviceability earthquake.
Bare Frame
0.195
0.285
IO
LS
LS
CP
C
PC
CD
DE
>
E
Tot
al
680
144
26
34
12
896
For maximum considered earthquake the hinges in the

structure must not cross the collapse Prevention (CP) limit.
From the table III, it is seen that the structure satisfies this
criteria for maximum considered earthquake.
3. Maximum Considered `:
For the maximum considered earthquake the seismic
coefficients (CA ,CV ) calculated are given below :
Frame type
A-B
BIO
4. Lateral Drifts:
From the figure 5, it is seen that at the performance point
displacement, the all story drift ratio is less than the
maximum IO level (0.01) for serviceability earthquake.
Moreover the all story drift ratio is less than the maximum
LS level (0.02) for design basis earthquake. So the structure
has satisfied the requirement of storey drift ratio criteria.
47

B. Performance Evaluation
After pushover analysis, it is seen that at X direction no
performance point is found. This means the structure fails
at very small load produced by earthquake. But in Y
direction performance point is found, which is evaluated
here only. For serviceability earthquake CA and CV are
respectively 0.12 and 0.18. At performance point, base
shear is 729 KN and displacement is 150 mm. But the
structure has to deform a lot to meet the demand (fig. 6).
As a result the elements are stressed beyond their elastic
limits.
Figure 5: storey drift at performance point
The process of doing performance based analysis and the

way in which the result can be used to analyze the structure
has been reflected. In this structure the design requirements
have been checked. Also the performance point
displacement and base shear have been analyzed in this
chapter. It has been seen that all the storey drift is less than
the maximum tolerable drift of the immediate occupancy
level for serviceability earthquake & life safety level for
design earthquake. In this structure no hinges cross LS
level for design basis earthquake, IO level for serviceability
earthquake & Collapse Prevention level for maximum
considered earthquake, which is quite satisfactory. From
the results of base shear and no of hinges formed at
different building performance level, it can be said that the
structure satisfies the performance objectives and the
structure is safe. So a building designed perfectly following
BNBC code is safe.
Figure 6: Capacity spectrum for serviceability earthquake
For design earthquake CA and CV are respectively 0.16

and 0.24. At performance point, base shear is 915.4 KN
and displacement is 201 mm. The performance point is
found just prior to the failure (fig. 7).
V. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A STRUCTURE

DESIGNED FOR ONLY GRAVITY LOADS
A. Salient Features of the Structure
The structure is a 6 storey 3x3 bays residential building,
located in Dhaka. Length of each bay is 15 feet. Initially all
typical floor beams have dimensions 10x12 inch and the
columns are 12x12 inch. Typical storey height is 10 feet.
The support condition is fixed. The loading condition is
same as the previous chapter. The structure is designed
only for gravity loads. During design of the structure lateral
load effect (earthquake load and wind load) is not
considered. After designing the structure, the column sizes
are chosen such that the rebar percentage remains in
between 2% to 4%.
Figure 7: Capacity spectrum for design earthquake
For the maximum earthquake, performance point is not

found. It means that, the structure fails before meeting the
demand (fig. 8).
48

Figure 9: Comparison of storey drift

Figure 8: Capacity spectrum for maximum earthquake
VI. COMPARISON OF A BARE AND AN IN-FILLED

STRUCTURE
C. Hinge Formation
At performance point hinge formation for different
types of earthquake has been shown in table IV
A. Salient Features of the Structure

The structure is a 6 storey 3x3 bays residential building,
located in Dhaka. Length of each bay is 15 feet. All typical
floor beams have dimensions 12x20 inch and the columns
are 18x18 inch. Typical storey height is 10 feet. The
support condition is fixed. The loading condition is same as
the previous chapter.
TABLE IV
Number of hinges formed in structures
Servicea
bility
EQ
A-B
BIO
IO
LS
LSCP
CP
-C
C
D
D
E
>
E
Total
646
194
32
24
896
616
206
44
28
896
fails
B. Performance Point
From the capacity spectrum of the bare frame and infilled frame it is seen that base shear at performance point
for in-filled frame is much greater than the bare frame. It is
observed that capacity of bare frame meet demand but
structure has to deform a considerable amount to meet the
demand curve. As a result some of its elements are stressed
above their elastic limit and become nonlinear. But for the
in-filled frame the deformation of the structure is less than
the bare frame (fig. 10). So the structure would not be
damaged significantly at performance point.
Design
EQ
Maxm
EQ
From the table IV, it is seen that for serviceability

earthquake there are 24 hinges in the LS-CP range, which
should not cross the IO level. Moreover, for design
earthquake there are 2 hinges at CP-C level, which should
not cross the LS level. So the structure will not sustain
during the earthquake.
D. Lateral Drifts
From the fig. 9, it is noticeable that for serviceability
earthquake the drift for ground floor crosses the maximum
Immediate Occupancy limit. The drift for ground floor also
crosses the maximum Life Safety limit for design
earthquake. So a structure designed only for gravity loads
without considering earthquake load is totally unsafe.
Figure 10: Capacity spectrum for the In-filled frame (Method A)
49

At performance point, the spectral acceleration and
spectral displacement is 0.14g and 67.41 mm for bare
frame and 0.18g and 41.67 mm for in-filled structure
(method B). By method A the spectral acceleration and
spectral displacement is 0.17g and 88.4 mm for bare frame
and 0.21g and 67.24 mm for in-filled structure. So in both
methods, the spectral displacement is small for in-filled
structure compared to bare frame.
C. Deformed Shape and Hinge Condition
The deformation pattern of an in-filled frame differs
significantly from that of a bare frame structure.
TABLE V
Number of hinges formed in structures
A-B
BIO
IO
LS
LS
CP
C
PC
CD
DE
>
E
Tot
al
682
122
90
896
715
119
62
896
Bare
Infilled
The bare frame structure can hardly meet the demand of

earthquake at a large displacement and damage of the
structure is significant. The in-filled structure gives much
better performance with no hinges in the LS-CP range. But
it is seen that for bare frame there are 2 hinges in the LSCP range. Moreover the number of hinges in the IO-LS
range is greater for bare frame structure compared to infilled frame. So performance of in-filled frame is much
better than that of bare frame. This occurs, due to taking the
effect of partition wall. When earthquake force comes, then
at first partition wall damages and subsequent damage
occurs at beam and column slightly.
Figure 12: Comparison of storey displacement
VII. EVALUATION OF A SOFT STOREY STRUCTURE

A. Description Of The Structure
A regular structure which has all the storey height same
was designed first and then to use the ground floor as a car
parking its partition walls were removed, which has
become a soft storey. Loading condition, material property
and salient features of the structure are same as the full infilled structure described in the previous article. In the
following analysis the soft storey structure will be
compared with the full in-filled frame structure.
D. Lateral Drift and Displacement

At performance point, displacement for bare frame is 84
mm, which is much larger than in-filled frame for which
displacement is 50 mm. Storey drift is maximum for
ground floor as shown in fig. 11. From the fig. 12, it is seen
that at performance point, displacement of different storey
for in-filled frame is less than that of bare frame and each
storey deforms uniformly. All the storey drift for in-filled
frame is less than the maximum IO level which is 0.01. But
for bare frame the storey drift for ground floor just cross
the Immediate Occupancy level. So considering lateral drift
and displacement it can be said that, the in-filled frame
structure has better performance than that of bare frame
structure.
D. Deformation Pattern and Hinge Condition

The deformation pattern of a soft storey structure differs
significantly from that of a full in-filled frame. Formation
of column hinges is noticeable in the soft storey structure
compared to full in-filled frame. So, soft storey structure is
considered vulnerable for earthquake.
50

TABLE VI
Number of hinges formed in the full in-filled and soft storey structure
at performance point
LSCP
C
P
C
CD
DE
>
E
Tot
al
A-B
BIO
IO
LS
Soft
storey
732
102
60
896
Infilled
715
119
62
896
E. Performance Evaluation
From the fig. 13 it is seen that, the soft storey structure is
slightly ductile than full in-filled structure. At performance
point maximum tolerable base shear for soft storey
structure is 2394 KN, which is lower than regular structure
(2526 KN).

Figure 13: Comparison of capacity spectrum
VIII. EVALUATION OF A STRUCTURE WITH NO PARTITION

WALLS ON A PARTICULAR FLOOR
The storey displacement as illustrated in fig. 15 is

highest for the bare frame and soft storey structure has
higher displacement than in-filled frame. Maximum drift as
fig. 14 occurs at ground floor which is the soft storey. So
designer should be careful about the soft storey behavior.
Drift for the both structure are below the maximum IO
limit. So, they are safe from drift criteria.
A. Description of the Structure

A regular structure which has infill masonry panel in all
the floors was designed first and then to use the fourth floor
as a commercial hall, its partition walls were removed.
Loading condition, material property and salient features of
the structure are as same as the full in-filled structure.
51

A. Performance Evaluation
By comparing capacity spectrum of full in-filled frame
and irregular structure, it is seen that irregular structure
deforms more than the full in-filled frame and at
performance point maximum tolerable base shear is slightly
greater for full in-filled frame (fig. 16).
IX. CONCLUSIONS
Both bare and in-filled frame buildings designed as per
BNBC were considered and their seismic performance and
soft storey behavior under seismic action were evaluated in
a detailed way. Performance of a regular structure designed
according to BNBC meets performance objectives for
design basis earthquake, serviceability earthquake and
maximum considered earthquake. The seismic performance
of full in-filled frame has been observed to be better than
that of bare frame. But the addition of infill in the upper
stories leaving the ground floor open makes extreme soft
storey case which can be fatal for earthquake. The overall
performance of regular structures is found to be better than
that of irregular structures.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
Figure 16: Comparison of capacity spectrum
The roof displacement is greater for irregular structure

than full in-filled frame (fig. 18). The storey drift as shown
in fig. 17 is very high for that particular soft storey. Drift
for the both structure are below the maximum IO limit. So,
they are safe from drift criteria. But the performance for
full in-filled frame is much better than irregular structure.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
52
ACI Committee 318.(2002) Building Code Requirement for

Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA.
ATC (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Building
(volume 1), Report (ATC-40), Applied Technology Council,
California, USA.
BNBC (2006) Bangladesh National Building Code, Housing and
Building Research Institute, Mirpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Computer and Structures Inc., ETABS Nonlinear Version 8.5.0,
California, USA.
FEMA 356, 273.(2002) Pre-standard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington D.C., USA.
Habibullah, A. and Pyle, S., (1998), Practical Three Dimensional
Nonlinear Pushover Analysis, Structure Magazine, Winter.
National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering (2011), EQ
tips.
Nilson, A.H., Darwin, D., and Dolan, C.W.(2003) Design of
Concrete Structure (Thirteenth edition), Mc Graw Hill, New York,
USA.
Rahman, S.M., (2007) Enhancement of Seismic Performance of Soft
Ground Storey RCC Structures, Thesis Submitted to Department of
Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering &
Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Performance Based Analysis of Seismic Capacity of Mid Rise Building

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Based Analysis of Seismic Capacity of Mid Rise Building

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering