PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC

ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MANIPAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Deepak S Bashetty
Reg.No:060918003
Under the Guidance of

Mr.S.VEERAMANI

Dr.KRISHNAMOORTHY

Chief Engineering Manager (Civil)

Professor,

Engineering Design Research Centre

Department of Civil Engineering

(Building & Factories Sector)

Manipal Institute of Technology,

ECC Division L&T, Chennai 600089

Manipal 576 104

External Guide

Internal Guide

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Introduction
Methods of analysis
Modeling Approach
Details of Analysis
Result and Discussion
Conclusion
References
2

Introduction

Performance-based Design
The basic concept of performance based seismic
design is to provide engineers with the capability to
design buildings that have a predictable and reliable
performance in earthquakes.
Thus the Performance-based seismic design is a
process that permits design of new buildings or
upgrade of existing buildings with a realistic
understanding of the risk of life, occupancy and
economic loss that may occur as a result of future
earthquakes.
4

Performance-based design begins with the selection

of design criteria stated in the form of one or more
performance objectives. Each performance objective
is a statement of the acceptable risk of incurring
specific levels of damage, and the consequential
losses that occur as a result of this damage, at a
specified level of seismic hazard.

Performance Objectives
Fully Operational,
Operational
Immediate-occupancy,
life-safety and
collapse-prevention

Selecting Performance Present

Generation
Joes

Joes
Beer!
Food!

Beer!
Food!

Beer!
Food!

Collapse

Operational

Immediate
Occupancy

Life
Safety

Prevention

Operational negligible impact on building

Immediate Occupancy building is safe to occupy but
possibly not useful until cleanup and repair has occurred
Life Safe building is safe during event but possibly not
afterward
Collapse Prevention building is on verge of
collapse, probable total loss

Performance based design

Building Damage States
Force
parameter

Immediate
occupancy

Life
safety

Collapse
prevention

Displacement
parameter

Performance Levels
Demand for specific hazard level

A simple flow chart explaining the

Performance based design

Determination of Performance
Point

10

Generally, a team of decision makers, including the

building owner, design professionals, and
building officials, will participate in the selection
of performance objectives for a building.
Once the performance objectives are set, a series
of simulations (analyses of building response to
loading) are performed to estimate the probable
performance of the building under various
design scenario events.
If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the
performance objectives, the design is complete
otherwise it has to be redesigned.
11

Advantages of Performance
Based Seismic Design
Systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building
Design individual buildings with a higher level of confidence
Design individual buildings to achieve higher performance and lower potential
losses.
Design individual buildings that fall outside of code-prescribed limits with
regard to configuration, materials, and systems to meet the performance
intended by present building codes
Assess the potential seismic performance of existing structures and estimate
potential losses in the event of a seismic event.
Performance-based seismic design offers society the potential to be both more
efficient and effective in the investment of financial resources to avoid future
earthquake losses

12

Differences between traditional approach

and performance based approach
1)

Conventional limit-states design is typically a two-level design

approach having concern for the service operational and
ultimate-strength limit states for a building, performancebased design can be viewed as a multi-level design approach
that additionally has explicit concern for the performance of a
building at intermediate limit states related to such issues as
occupancy and life-safety standards.

2)

The performance based analysis is based on quantifying

the deformation of the members and the building as a whole,
under the lateral forces of an earthquake of a certain level of
seismic hazard. Traditional Approach-Force based Design
has no measure of the deformation capability of members or
of building.
13

3) The deformation or strains are better quantities to assess

damage than stress or forces. Since the deformation are
expected to go beyond the elastic values.
4) The performance based analysis gives the analyst more
choice of performance of the building as compared to the
limit states of collapse and serviceability in a design based
on limit state method.
5)Traditional based design uses Elastic behavior where as
Performance based design uses inelastic behavior

14

Methods of analysis

15

Methods of analysis
Generally for analyzing the structure the following analysis
methods are used depending upon the requirements.
1)
2)
3)

Linear static procedure

Linear dynamic procedure
Nonlinear static procedure
1. Pushover analysis
2. Capacity spectrum method
4) Nonlinear dynamic procedure
1. Time history Analysis
Push-over and Time History analyses tools to perform non-linear
analysis are considered.
16

 pushover analysis is the one which is suitable for the

performance based seismic design, because elastic
analyses are insufficient, therefore they cannot realistically
predict the force and deformation distributions after the
initiation of damage in the building.
Inelastic analytical procedures become necessary to
identify the modes of failure and the potential for
progressive collapse.
Inelastic time-history analysis are most realistic analytical
approach for evaluating the performance of a building.
However, the inelastic time-history analysis is usually too
complex and time- consuming in the design of most
buildings.
17

What is Push-Over Analysis?

Push-over analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the
building is subjected to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., parabolic,
inverted triangular or uniform).
Building is pushed in one horizontal direction. The intensity of the lateral
load is slowly increased and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic
hinge formations, and failure of various structural components is recorded.
Proportion of applied force on each floor is constant , only its magnitude
is increased gradually (i.e., Load pattern may be 1st mode shape,
parabolic, uniform, inverted triangular etc.).
Material nonlinearity is modeled by inserting plastic hinge at potential
location.

18

Continued
A series of iterations are usually required during which, the structural
deficiencies observed in one iteration, are rectified and followed by
another.
This iterative analysis and design process continues until the design
satisfies a pre-established performance criteria.
The performance criteria for push-over analysis is generally established
as the desired state of the building given a roof-top or spectral
displacement amplitude.
Push over analysis requires a large number of assumptions and member
response curves are to be provided to the program before it can analyze.

19

Continued
roof
VB

VB

roof
20

Why Push-Over Analysis?

Static Nonlinear Analysis technique, also known as sequential yield

analysis, or simply "push-over" analysis.

To get the performance level of structure in case of seismic load.

Elastic analysis cannot predict failure mechanism and account for

redistribution of forces during progressive yielding.

The use of inelastic procedure for design and evolution is an attempt to

help engineer better understand how structures will behave when
subjected to major EQ, where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of
the structure will be exceeded.
21

What is Time History Analysis?

Time History analysis is a step by step analysis of the
dynamical response of a structure to a specified loading
that may vary with time.
The performance analysis may be
Linear
Non-linear

22

Why Linear Time History Analysis?

To get the variation of forces at each time step and to get the maximum
response under the the particular time history.
To verify the design of structure. If forces in the member are within the
design forces, then no need to do Non- Linear time history analysis.
If the forces are exceeding the design forces, then Non-Linear time
history analysis is required to understand the performance of structure.

23

Why Non-Linear Time History Analysis?

Elastic analysis cannot predict failure mechanism and account

for redistribution of forces during progressive yielding.

Certain part may yield when subject to major earthquake.
To get the performance level of structure in case of seismic

load.
The use of inelastic procedure for design and evolution is an
attempt to help engineer to better understand how the
structures will behave when subjected to major EQ.
24

Pushover Analysis Procedure

Create 2D/3D Model

Gravity Pushover
(Force controlled)
Lateral Pushover
(Displacement controlled)

Assign end offsets

Define Load case
(Lateral Load at centre of mass)

Design Structure
Analyze
Assign Hinge properties
Beams M3, V2
Columns PMM, V2
Define Static Pushover
Cases

Run analysis, Run Now

Establish Performance point

Base shear Vs Roof Displacement
Sequential Hinge Formation

25

Performance Analysis
Create Model as Designed

Define Non linear Time

History Case

Assign Plastic Hinges

(Material Nonlinearity)

Define Time History Function

Define Linear Time History cases

Define Geometric Nonlinearity

Analyze

Analyze

Check
Member Forces Design Force

No
No

Results

YES
YES

Material nonlinearity is modeled by

plastic hinge at potential location.

inserting

Check the performance of the

structure and if required, redesign

26

Modeling

27

Modeling of Beams and Columns

3D Frame Elements

Cross Sectional dimensions, reinforcement details, material type

Effective moment of inertia (As per ATC 40)

Beams

Rectangular

T-Beam

0.7 Ig

L-Beam

0.6 Ig

Columns

0.7 Ig

0.5 Ig

28

Modeling approach

Beam & column elements - nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity defining plastic hinges at both ends of the beams and columns.

Location of hinges in beams and columns:

L = Criticaldistancefromcriticalsectionof
plastichingetopointofcontraflexure
fye = yieldstrengthoftransversereinforcement
dbl= diameteroftransversereinforcement
lbeam

Lp = 0.5H

Dbeam

lcolumn

Dcolumn

Momentandshearhinge
Axial-momentandshearhinge

29

Modelling Approach
Plastic hinge is defined in terms of Force-deformation behaviour
of the member.
Values are depend on type of element, material properties,
longitudinal and transverse steel content - axial load level on the
element.

For beam, flexural hinge is assigned

For Column, axial and flexural hinges
are assigned
A-unloaded condition, B-effective
yield, C-ultimate strength, D- residual
strength and E-maximum deformation

Force-deformation Relationship
of a Typical Plastic Hinge

30

EXAMPLE-1

31

Description of Structure
Building Type

Number

Concrete compressive
strength
Yield Strength of
ofreinforcement
stories

RC frame without brick infill

25 MPa
415 MPa
Ground + 5 Storey

Plan dimensions

16 m 12 m

Building height

24.775 m above plinth level

Type of footing

Raft footing (fixed)

Seismic performance - inter-storey drift ratio, ductility, maximum base

shear, roof displacement and plastic hinge formation.

32

The beam in all storey levels is of size 300mm x 600mm with tension and
compression reinforcements of 3885mm2 and 2412mm2 respectively. The column
dimensions and area of longitudinal reinforcement (Acol) details are presented in
Table

ColumnDimensionsandAreaofLongitudinalReinforcement
Column
Label

Cross
Section
mm x mm

Acol
(mm2)

1&9

300 x 500

5892

2 & 10

300 x 500

4020

3 & 11

300 x 400

3216

4 & 12

300 x 300

3080

21& 23

300 x 300

1232

24& 26

300 x 300

905

27& 29

300 x 300

905

650 x 650

14784

600 x 600

12744

550 x 550

10620

500 x 500

7856

22

450 x 450

6372

25

300 x 300

4928

28

300 x 300

804

Acol = Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column

33

Details of Analysis
Pushover Analysis
Gravity analysis is an Force controlled.
Pushover analysis is a Displacement controlled.
Behaviour of structure characterized by capacity curve
(base shear force Vs. roof displacement)
Time-History Analysis
Step by step analysis of the dynamical response of structure
to a time varying load.
7 sets of strong ground motion in the magnitude range of 6.57.5 were selected.
The peak displacement from NTH is not correspond to
ultimate displacement from pushover analysis.
To facilitate comparison the ground motion records scaled
according to
peak roof displacement =target displacement
34

Input Ground Motions

EQ

Year

Earthquake

Recording
Station

Magnit
ude

PGA
in g

No.

EQ. Scale Factor

DBE

MCE

1979

El Centro

Array #7

7.0

0.338

0.45

0.785

1999

Duzce

Turkey

7.1

0.348

0.8

1.15

1971

San Fernando

Old Ridge

6.5

0.268

1.7

1.9

1995

Kobe

KJM

6.9

0.343

0.35

0.5

1976

Friuli

Tolmezzo

6.5

0.315

0.95

1.2

1994

Northridge

Arleta

6.7

0.344

0.6

1.0

1989

Loma Prieta

Gilroy #2

7.1

0.322

0.35

0.515

35

Base shear
Maximum base shear 571kN - 10% of seismic
weight
displacement
corresponding to base shear
- 1.02m.
Displacement ductility 2.32.
Base shear values - DBE &
MCE levels from Pushover
analysis - 116 kN & 171kN
From NTH - 151kN &
51kN.
Results from NTH are 23%
& 32% higher than
pushover analysis.

36

Target Displacement
Representthemaximumdisplacementlikelytobeexperiencedduring
thedesignearthquake
PerformancelevelsarecalculatedbasedonequationfromFEMA
356.
2

T
t C 0 C1 C 2 C 3 S a e 2 g
4
C0 = Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF
system to the roof displacement of building MDOF system
C1 = Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to
displacements calculated for linear elastic response
C2 = Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape,
stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement
response
C3 = Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic
P- effects
Te = Effective fundamental period of building, sec
Sa = Response Spectrum Acceleration at effective fundamental period and
damping ratio of building

37

Performance Point
Intersection of capacity & demand spectrum.
Performance assessed for two levels of performance - Life
Safety (LS) under Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) & Collapse
Prevention (CP) under Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE).
Base shear, roof displacement, spectral acceleration, spectral
displacement, effective time period and effective damping performance point - shown.
Displacement @ performance point in DBE level - 123mm
greater than target displacement 119mm.
Displacement @performance point in MCE level - 171mm
lesser than target displacement 177mm.
38

Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum

DBE Level
Demand Spectrum
Capacity Spectrum

MCE Level

39

Interstorey Drift

Important indicator of building performance.

Re lativedHorizontal
Displacementofadjacentfloors
Interstoreydrift
StoreyHeight

3rd storey level- the largest interstorey drift values -0.58% and 0.85% at
both DBE and MCE levels.

Interstorey drift ratio - increased with increase in storey level up to first 4

stories - thereafter - reverse trend at both levels of earthquake.

DBE level - pushover analysis over-estimated - interstorey drift ratio lower storey levels - underestimated - upper storey levels.

MCE level -pushover analysis -over-estimated - interstorey drift ratio - all

storey levels.

40

(a)ResultsfromPushoverAnalysisatDBE&
MCELevels

(b) Comparison between Pushover &

Time-history Results at DBE & MCE Levels

Figure 8.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios

(a)ResultsfromTime-historyAnalysisatDBE
Level

(b)ResultsfromTime-historyAnalysisatMCE
Level

Figure8.6InterstoreyDriftRatiosfromTimehistoryAnalysis

41

Plastic Hinge Pattern

Pushover analysis
Outer columns at all storey level yielded first
Beams showing hinges in yielding stage at one end only in
the DBE level
Beams in the MCE Level at all the storey levels except
topmost showing hinges in yielding stage.

Time History Analysis

More number of hinges at yielding in beam ends model
compared to pushover analysis at both DBE and MCE
levels.
At MCE level middle columns in upper stories also yielded;
but in the pushover analysis not showing hinges in any
column.

42

Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level

(a)PushoverAnalysis

(b)TimeHistoryAnalysis

43

Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level

(a)PushoverAnalysis

(b)TimeHistoryAnalysis

44

Plastic Hinge Pattern

Pushover analysis
At final step (frame roof pushed up to
4% of height of frame) - hinge
formation started with yielding in outer
columns at all stories
and yielding of
upper stories.

few beam ends in

Middle columns in the upper stories

start yielding
with simultaneous
yielding of base columns.
Beams experienced less number of
hinges than columns but shows
significant damage or failure stage.

45

Conclusions

Base shear from time history analysis are 23% and 32% higher
than pushover analysis at DBE and MCE levels.

Roof displacement at DBE and MCE levels indicates that frame

satisfies the requirement for Life Safety performance at DBE
level and not satisfies the requirement for Collapse Prevention
performance at MCE level.

From analyses the middle storey experience the maximum

interstorey drift ratio at both levels.

Pushover analysis over estimate the interstorey drift ratio

compared with time history analysis

46

Conclusions

No significant difference of plastic hinge pattern at

DBE and MCE levels from both analyses

Time-history analysis shows more number of beam

hinges at both levels.

From time history analysis at MCE level, middle

column shows yielding but not in pushover analysis.

The behaviour of frame designed for gravity load

shows column side sway mechanism.
47

EXAMPLE-2

48

Description of Structure
A regular four storeyed (G+3), five storeyed (G+4), six storeyed
(G+5) and a seven storeyed (G+6) building were considered in the
present study. All the buildings are rectangular in plan with same
plan dimensions and storey height. The plan view and sectional
elevation of a G+3 building is shown in Figure.

49

Results
Figure:ComparisonofVariationof
FundamentalTimePeriodusingTimeHistory
Analysis

Figure:ComparisonofVariationof
RoofDisplacementusingTimeHistoryAnalysis

50

 Analysis results shows that, hinges will be formed earlier

in frames of structures without strut action than frames of
structures with strut action
It is observed that, in all the cases, the fundamental time
period of the structure with strut action is considerably
less than the structures without strut action.
Figure, compares the roof displacement of G+3, G+4,
G+5 and G+6 frames with and without strut action.

The graph shows that roof displacement get

considerably (50%) reduced with strut action.
51

CONCLUSIONS
From the pushover and time-history analyses of 2D RC frames with
infill, the following conclusions are drawn:

It is found that the fundamental time period of the structure get

considerably reduced due to strut action. This will alter the response
of the structure to lateral loads.

In addition strut action will considerably reduce the roof

displacement. This will increase the safety level of the structure.

Hence it is recommended to model infill stiffness using equivalent

diagonal struts for any lateral load analysis.

52

References
1. Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee, Alireza Y. Motlagh and

Andrew Scanlon (2001), ComparativeEvaluation of Seismic

Assessment Methodologies Applied to a 32-Story Reinforced
Concrete Office Building, Journal of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3 ,No.1, 31-44.
2. Andreas J. Kappos, Alireza Manafpour (2001), Seismic
design of R/C buildings with the aid of advanced analytical
techniques, Engineering Structures, 23, 319332
3. Chung C. Fu and Hamed AlAyed, Seismic Analysis of
Bridges Using Displacement-BasedApproach, 1-20.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
(FEMA 356), Washington D.C. November 2000.
53

Contd
5. IS 456-2000, Indian StandardPlain and Reinforced Concrete - code
of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards.
6. IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.
7. Mehmet Inel, Hayri Baytan Ozmen, (2006) Effects of plastic hinge
properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings,
Engineering Structures, 28, 14941502.
8. SAP2000. Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and
design of structures. Ver.10.0. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers
and Structures, Inc.
9. Sashi K. Kunnath and Erol Kalkan (2004), Evaluation of Seismic
Deformation Demands using Nonlinear Procedures in Multistory
Steel and Concrete Moment Frames, ISET Journal of
Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 445, Vol. 41, No. 1, March
2004, pp. 159-181
10. ATC 40 (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings, Applied Technology Council, USA, Vol.1.
54

55

Moment curvature
relationship for singly
reinforced sections

56

Finding Mcr & cr Values

M cr

f cr I
y

f cr 0.7

f ck

3
I bD bD yt

mAst d yt

D yt yb

cr

f cr
E c yb

57

Finding M- values
Assume ec
Find k1& k2 for corresponding ec
Assume initially a value for kd , now

d kd
s c
kd

f s s Es
k1k 3 f ck bkd Ast f s
Compare the assumed kd & the calculated kd. If
matching take that value , otherwise try with new kd.

58

Finding M- values (cont)

M k1k3 f ck bkd d k 2 kd

c
kd

c < o < u

o < c < u

c o

o c

k1

- 2/3

- /3

59

Stress block

fc
k2kd
C=C3fckbkdC1
kd

T
0.002

0.0035

60

Stress block parameters

c
c
f c 0.446 f ck 2

0 c 0.002
0.002 0.002

f c 0.446 f ck 1 0.25
1
0.002

0.002 c 0.0035

61

Section considered for calculating Mrelationship

Assumed 25 mm clear cover

All dimensions in mm

62

M-values for the section considered

start

cracked

8033504.196

9.74069E-07

0.0005

8283594.419

4.05201E-06

0.001

15378489.83

7.84424E-06

0.0015

21200915.35

1.13588E-05

0.002

25649262.16

1.45742E-05

0.0025

27587840.7

1.85134E-05

0.003

28996952.56

2.22161E-05

0.0035

29959200.87

2.59188E-05

M in Nmm & in rad/mm

63

Comparison of M- values for different pt

values.

M in Nmm & in rad/mm

64