International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)

ISSN (Online) 2319-183X, (Print) 2319-1821

Volume 7, Issue 6 Ver. I (Jun 2018), PP. 14-22

Paper Title (16 Bold)

Author (14)
* (M.Tech student, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, MPUAT,
Udaipur,
** (Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, MPUAT,
Udaipur)
*** (Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, MPUAT, Udaipur)
Corresponding Author: xxxx (10)

Abstract: (11 Bold) With the immense loss of life and property witnessed in the last couple of decades alone in
India, due to failure of structures caused by earthquakes. Attention is now being given to the evaluation of the
adequacy of strength in framed RC structures to resist strong ground motions. Inelastic static analysis, or
pushover analysis, has been the preferred method for seismic performance evaluation due to its simplicity. It is a
static analysis that directly incorporates nonlinear material characteristics. Inelastic static analysis procedures
include Capacity Spectrum Method, Displacement Coefficient Method and the Secant Method. The structure has
been evaluated using Pushover Analysis, a non linear static procedure, which may be considered as a series of
static analysis carried out to develop a pushover curve for the building. It is a static analysis that directly
incorporates nonlinear material characteristics.
Keywords: (11 Bold)Non-linear static procedure; reinforced concrete frame; pushover analysis; target
displacement; yield strength; pushover curve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
Date of Submission: xx-xx-xxxx Date of acceptance: xx-xx-xxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

I. INTRODUCTION (10 Bold)

Earthquakes are considered to be one of the most unpredictable and devastating natural hazards.
Earthquakes pose multiple hazards to a community, potentially inflicting large economic, property, and population
loss. One of the measures used in order to reduce the devastating effects of earthquakes is through the seismic risk
assessment of buildings. Several procedures have been developed in order to allow communities to prevent and
mitigate losses in the event of an earthquake [1].
The different analytical methods to analyze a structure can be categorized as below:
 Linear static analysis
 Linear dynamic analysis
 Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover analysis)

1.1 Linear static analysis or equivalent static analysis

Equivalent static method of analysis is a linear static procedure, in which the response of building varies
linearly with applied force. In this type of analysis the total design lateral force represented in terms of design
horizontal seismic coefficient and seismic weight of the structure as per IS 1893 : 2002 Part 1 [4]. Design
horizontal seismic coefficient depends on the zone factor of the site (z), importance of the structure (I), response
reduction factor of the lateral load resisting elements (R) and the fundamental period of the structure (T) [2].

1.2 Linear dynamic analysis

For linear dynamic analysis, response spectrum method can be utilized to analyze a structure. In this
method, peak responses of a structure during the earthquake can be obtained directly from earthquake responses.
Response spectrum represents an envelope of the peak responses of many single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
systems with different periods. The response spectrum given in IS 1893: 2002 Part 1 [4] is based on strong motion
records of eight Indian earthquakes [2].

1.3 Nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis)

Pushover analysis is a static nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the lateral force incrementally
increased step by step. With the increase in the magnitude of the loads, weak links and failure modes of the
building are found. Pushover analysis can also be utilized to find the maximum inelastic deflection under ultimate
load condition [2].

www.irjes.com 14 | Page
 Performance Based Analysis Of Structures Using Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis

Pushover analysis has become the preferred method of analysis for performance-based seismic design (PBSD)
and evaluation purposes. In this method the ultimate strength and the limit state can be effectively investigated
after yielding.

II. PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS (10 Bold)

Pushover analysis can be used as for the evaluation of buildings against earthquake loads. As the name
suggests, a structure is induced incrementally with a lateral loading pattern until the structure reaches a limit state.
The structure is subjected to the load until some structural members yield [3]. The model is then modified to
account for the reduced stiffness of the building and once again applied with a lateral load until additional members
yield. A base shear vs. displacement capacity curve and a plastic hinging model can be produced as the end product
of the analysis which gives a general idea of the behavior of the building [3].
Despite the fact that it is recognized that other types of analysis such as the dynamic time-history analysis
are more accurate, the preliminary assessment nature of the objective would allow use of simple static pushover
analysis. Several studies have also utilized this type of analysis in studying irregular buildings [5].
There are several documents available that provide guidelines to carry out a nonlinear static analysis
(static pushover analysis). These documents offer guidelines on things such as the computation of the target
displacement, and things to consider for a proper analysis such as the modelling rules [1]. The building analyzed
goes through various performance levels which describes a limiting damage condition for a building. The
performance levels are commonly defined as follows [1]:
 Immediate Occupancy (IO): Damage is light and structure retains most of its original strength and stiffness.
There may be minor cracking on the structural members [1].
 Life Safety (LS): Substantial damage to the structure and the structure may have lost a large portion of its
strength and stiffness [1].
 Collapse Prevention (CP): Post-earthquake damage state that includes damage to structural components.
Structure is unstable and is near collapse [1].

III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES (10 Bold)

Adrian and Andres [1] performed static pushover analysis using software SAP2000 [12] on a low-rise 5
story building. A concrete frame building with 3 bays at 6 meters each was modelled. A story height of 3m was
kept constant throughout each story and modelled except when the irregularity was introduced. The model was
made so that the fundamental period of vibration of the building does not exceed 1.0 second so that the first mode
of vibration dominates. Other limit such as the maximum inter-story drift was limited to 2.0%. Fig. 1 shows the
elevation of the regular building model considered [1].

Fig. 1. Building Elevation [1]

Default hinges were assigned in the analysis as given in SAP2000 [12]. M3 (rotation hinge about major
axis) hinges were assigned on beam ends and P (compression hinge), M2 (rotation hinge about minor axis) and
M3 hinges were assigned on column ends as per ATC-40 [9] recommendations. The model was pushed to a target
displacement, which can be experienced by the building during the design earthquake. This study was only being
limited to soft stories located at the first story since this is the most common case. Soft story can be determined
when the stiffness of a story is less than 70 percent of an adjacent story. On investigation, it was observed that the
main cause for soft story buildings to be more susceptible to earthquakes was the localization of seismic forces.
www.irjes.com 15 | Page
 Performance Based Analysis Of Structures Using Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis

Though the total demand on the building was smaller due to the increased height, uneven demands on the areas
of the building resulted to a local hazard. The forces were concentrated at the location of the soft story due to
reduction in stiffness. This was observed through the development of the plastic hinges and the story drift of the
buildings. It has been recognized that any building that has designed properly will be able to withstand seismic
excitation without incurring considerable damage.
Ahmed J. and Ahmed S. [2] considered the models as shown in Fig. 2 to 4 for the study, which were
having G+9 storey situated in severe seismic zone V with the response reduction factor (R) of 5. Then both linear
static analysis and non-linear static analysis i.e. pushover analysis has performed.
Various results such as base shear, displacement, performance points, performance levels and pushover
curve have been compared. Comparison of all the above mentioned results were made for the building models
considered.

Fig. 2. Plan of rectangular shaped model [2]

Fig. 3. Plan of diaphragm discontinuity model [2]

Fig. 4. Plan of Y shaped model [2]

www.irjes.com 16 | Page
 Performance Based Analysis Of Structures Using Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis

The base shear has been compared for all the models considered. The graph and tabular column shows that the
base shear for rectangular model was much greater than the other two models.

RECTANGLE DIAPHRAGM DISCONT. Y-SHAPE

6000

4000

2000

0
Fig. 5. Base shear comparison [2]

Table 1 Base shear force [2]

Models Base Shear (kN)
Rectangle 4250
Diaphragm Discontinuity 3950
Y-Shape 2280

The displacement (m) has been shown in Fig. 6 for all the models, the graph shown that the point displacement
for diaphragm discontinuity model has greater displacement than the other two models as there is an opening in
the diaphragm discontinuity model.

RECTANGLE DIAPHRAGM DISCONT. Y-SHAPE

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

Fig. 6. Displacement comparisons [2].

Kamath et al. [6] studied the performance characteristics of diagrid steel structures using nonlinear static pushover
analysis. The models studied were circular in plan with aspect ratio H/B (where H is total height and B is the base
width of structure) varying from 2.67 to 4.26. The three different angles of external brace considered were 59 o,
71o and 78o. The width of the base was kept constant at 12 m and height of the structure was varied. Seismic
response of structure in terms of base shear and roof displacement corresponding to performance point were
evaluated using nonlinear static analysis and the results were compared [6].
The model has a diameter of 12m and each of storey height 3.2 m. All the structural models were assumed
to be hinged at the base. For beams, ISLB200 sections were used. Columns were of ISWB450 sections. The
building was designed as a steel moment resisting frame and periphery brace members were considered to be
connected by pin joint. The structure was situated in seismic zone III founded on a medium soil in accordance
with IS 1893:2002 (Part I) [4].
The total seismic weight was calculated as mentioned in IS 1893:2002 (Part I) [4] to obtain base shear.
The calculated base shear was distributed uniformly along the height and was used as the lateral load in pushover
www.irjes.com 17 | Page
 Performance Based Analysis Of Structures Using Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis

analysis. ETABS [11] has been used for modelling and analysis. A basic computer model was created and user
defined plastic hinges were incorporated. For user defined hinges moment curvature data was generated for beams
and columns. The results obtained from the analysis were compared and discussed as follows [6].

Fig. 7. Diagrid steel structure model [6].

From Fig. 8 it can be observed that the lateral stiffness of the structure reduced with an increase in aspect
ratio which might be due to the increase in height of the structure. It can also be observed that the variation of
base shear with roof displacement was linear in the initial steps and thereafter it shown a non-linear relation due
to the yielding of members. Fig. 9 showed the performance points obtained by the intersection of capacity
spectrum and demand spectrum for 59 o brace angle model for varying aspect ratio.

Fig. 8. Pushover curve for 59o brace angle Fig. 9. Capacity spectrum vs. demand
spectrum for 59o brace angle [6].

Fig. 10 showed base shear variation at performance point with different brace angles for varying aspect
ratios. For 71° brace angle model, the base shear at performance was maximum for all the aspect ratios considered.
The reason for such behavior of 71° brace angle models might be due to the better contribution of 71° braces in
resisting lateral loads in comparison with 59° and 78° braces. The study of the formation of hinges also shown
that less number of hinges were formed at performance points for 71° brace angle models in comparison with 59°
and 78° brace angle models at all the aspect ratios considered in the study. From Fig. 10 it was also observed that
for 78° brace angle model there was a decrease in base shear at performance as aspect ratio increased while 59°
and 78° brace angle models did not followed this trend. It was observed from Fig. 11 that at an aspect ratio of 2.67
roof displacements at the performance was lesser for 59 o brace angle model and was higher at aspect ratio 4.26 in
comparison with roof displacements at performance of 71 o and 78o brace angle model. The probable reason might
be due to the high stiffness offered by 59 o brace for the aspect ratio of 2.67 structural models and reduction of
stiffness of the structural model at a higher aspect ratio of 4.26.
www.irjes.com 18 | Page
 Performance Based Analysis Of Structures Using Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis

Fig. 10. Variation of base shear with brace angles. Fig. 11. Variation of roof displacement at
performance with brace angles [6].

Ozuygur [7] analyzed a building by elastic response spectrum method and its seismic performance has
been checked for maximum considered earthquake by nonlinear time history analysis carried out using
PERFORM-3D software. Ozuygur [7] considered the building with 50 stories above grade and two additional
stories below grade for the study. Total height of the building from foundation level was 198 m with 3.8-m story
height above ground and 4-m story height below ground. The building has extremely irregular structural floor
plan imposed by rigid architectural requirements which is not usually suitable for tall building structures. The
vertical load bearing system of the building was consists of concrete slabs sitting on beams supported by shear
walls and columns. The lateral load carrying system of the building was consists of shear walls with coupling
beams distributed in floor plan as required by architectural needs. General slab thickness was selected as 0.16 m
by iterative analysis of vibration and long term deflection under sustained loads. The slab of corridor area between
shear walls was selected as 0.3 m in order to increase lateral stiffness of the building. The structure was considered
as two individual buildings (Building A and Building B) linked through weak corridor slabs (link slab) at most of
the stories and fully continuous floor slab (link slab) at top 13 stories.
Nonlinear time history analyses have been conducted for the evaluation of performance level utilizing
software PERFORM-3D (CSI). Ozuygur [7] observed that the approach of R = 2 usually underestimates shear
demand of walls with regard to nonlinear time history analyses and accordingly more amount of shear
reinforcement was needed based on the result of nonlinear time history analyses. It was observed that the axial
forces of shear walls at outer boundary of irregular floor plan obtained from nonlinear time history analyses were
larger than that obtained from linear elastic analysis with R = 2; and they exceed the accepted axial force limit at
lower stories. This result was probably caused by irregular distribution of shear walls at floor plan; and requires
redesign or reconsideration of their axial force capacities. The approach of providing coupling beams with
maximum possible number of reinforcing bars considering constructability issues ignoring the larger reinforcing
demand generated by linear elastic analysis was reasonable. Furthermore, the rotation profile of coupling beams
was affected by the coupling effect of sky floors as that happens in shear walls.
Naik & Annigery [8] evaluated the seismic performance of 9 storied 3D RC open ground storey (OGS)
building by carrying out pushover analysis using user defined plastic hinges for beams and columns. The response
was studied in terms of base shear and roof displacement at performance point, ductility and safety ratio and
capacity curve.
The plan of the building considered for the study was as shown in Fig. 13. The columns were assumed
to be fixed at the base. The height of the ground floor was 4.5m and upper storey heights were 3.2m. Columns and
beams were assumed having cross section of 0.45m x 0.45m and 0.25m x 0.5m respectively. The building was
considered to be situated in seismic zone III of North Goa, India and intended for office use. Naik & Annigery
[8] considered two models one with default hinges and the other with user defined hinges. Their vulnerability
was evaluated using Nonlinear Static Pushover (NSP) analysis with user defined hinges as per ATC-40 [9]
guidelines at performance levels defined in FEMA-356 [8].
Naik & Annigery [8] first designed the frame element using ETABS v9 [11] software as per load
combination specified in IS 456:2000 [10]. The moment curvature values were then generated for the beam and
the column sections with the design data for critical combination. Curvature values were then multiplied with
the length of the plastic hinge to get the rotation values. Length of plastic hinge was taken as the depth of the

www.irjes.com 19 | Page
 Performance Based Analysis Of Structures Using Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis

section. For the model with default hinges, the frame elements were assigned with the default values of the
software for beams and columns. Pushover analysis for the building model with default hinges and user defined
hinges was carried out for the lateral load and following results were obtained which are shown in Table 1, 2 and
3.

Fig. 13. Building plan [8]

The structure were considered as safe when safety ratio is equal to or more than one, and unsafe when
safety ratio is less than one. Safety can be defined as the ratio of base shear at performance point to design base
shear. From Table 2, it was observed that the building model considered with default hinges was safer as
compared to model with user defined hinges. Table 3 showed the ductility ratio values of the different model
considered. Ductility ratio can be defined as the ratio of maximum deflection to the deflection at the yield point.
Table 3 showed that bare frame model with default hinges has restricted ductility whereas model with user defined
hinges possess full ductility under the lateral loads.

Table 2 Safety ratio [8]

Design base Safety ratio
Model Base shear at PP
shear (kN) (SR)

Model with default hinges 876.84 1230.86 1.4

Model with user defined hinges 876.84 1175.00 1.34

Table 3 Ductility ratio [8]

Model Amax in mm Ay in mm Ductility ratio
(DR)
Model with default hinges 409 105.6 3.87
Model with user defined hinges 678 138 4.91

It was seen from Table 4, that the base force at performance point (PP) was higher than the design base shear
for the building models with default and user defined hinges. However the base shear force at PP was lesser in the
model with user defined hinges. However the roof displacement at PP was not varying much in both the models.

Table 4. Base force and roof displacement at performance point [8]

www.irjes.com 20 | Page
 Performance Based Analysis Of Structures Using Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis
Model Design base shear
(kN)
Base force at PP (kN) Roof displacement (mm)

Model with default hinges 1230.8 357 876.84

Model with user defined hinges 1175 362 876.84

From Fig. 14 Naik & Annigery [8] has observed that the model with user defined hinge was more ductile
compared to the model with default hinges.

Fig. 14. Pushover curve [8]

IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS (10 Bold)

The use of non-linear pushover analysis has been broadly investigated in recent years. This review paper has
presented aspects of static pushover analysis promises to be a useful and effective tool for performance levels of
the structure, which could be summarized and concluded as:
1. It was recognized that any building that has been designed properly would be able to withstand seismic
excitation without incurring considerable damage. Building structural designers should take careful note of
this area when designing soft story buildings [1].
2. Base shear for continuous structure was greater than diaphragm discontinuous structure as increase in mass
of rectangular building tends to increase in base shear [2].
3. Point displacement was greater for diaphragm discontinues model as there was an opening in the centre for
that model [2].
4. In the diagrid steel structure lower base shear has been observed at lower brace angle at performance point
for all the aspect ratios [6].
5. Special attention be paid to axial and shear force design of shear walls and columns of irregular tall buildings
by performance based static design method [7].
6. Building modelled with user defined hinges was more ductile and has shown lesser base force at performance
point compared to default hinge model. Therefore it is necessary to consider the modeling of plastic hinge
with user defined hinges for safety evaluation [8].

REFERENCES (10 Bold)

[1]. Adrian Fredrick C. Dya and Andres Winston C. Oretaa, “Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Soft Story Irregular Buildings Using
Pushover Analysis”. Procedia Engineering, 125, 2015, 925 – 932.
[2]. Ahmed J. and Ahamed S. (2014), “Seismic Vulnerability of RC Buildings by Considering Plan Irregularities Using Pushover
Analysis”, Global journal for research analysis, 3, 2014, 42-47.
[3]. A. Kadid and A. Boumrkik (2008), “Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures”. Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 9(1), 2008, 75-83.
[4]. IS: 1893 — Part I, 2002. Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[5]. S. Ahamed and J. G. Kori, “Performance Based Seismic Analysis of an Unsymmetrical Building Using Pushover Analysis”.
International Journal of Engineering Research, 1(2), 2013, 100-110.
[6]. Kamath K., Hirannaiah S. and Noronha J., “An Analytical Study on Performance of a Diagrid Structure Using Nonlinear Static
Pushover Analysis”. Special issue on Engineering and Material Sciences, 8, 2016, 90-92.
[7]. Ozuygur Ali Ruzi, “Performance-Based Seismic Design of an Irregular Tall Building – A Case Study”. Proceedia Engineering, 5,
2015, 112 – 122.

www.irjes.com 21 | Page
 Performance Based Analysis Of Structures Using Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis
[8]. Pramodini Naik and Satish Annigeri, “Performance Evaluation of 9 Storey RC Building Located In North Goa”. Procedia Engineering,
173, 2017, 1841 – 1846.
[9]. ATC 40, (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council.
[10]. IS: 456 — 2000, Plain and Reinforced concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[11]. ETABS User’s Manual, “Integrated Building Design Software”. Computer and Structure Inc. Berkeley, USA
[12]. SAP 2000 manual, “Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Structures”. Computer and Structure Inc.
Berkeley, USA.
[13]. C. Athanassiadou, “Seismic Performance of R/C Plane Frames Irregular in Elevation”. Engineering Structures, 30, 2008, 1250-1261.
[14]. Choudhary N. and Wadia M., “Pushover Analysis of R.C. Frame Building with Shear Wall”. Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering, 11, 2014, 09-13.
[15]. E. V. Valmundsson and J. M. Nau, “Seismic Response of Building Frames with Vertical Structural Irregularities”. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 123(1), 1997, 30-41.
[16]. FEMA 356, 2000. Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC.
[17]. Goel R. K., “Evaluation of Nonlinear Static Procedures Using Building Strong Motion Records”. 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 2004, Aug 1-6, 3213.
[18]. K. R. Raju, A Cinitha and Iyer N. R., “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings Designed as per Past Codes of
Practice”. Indian Academy of Sciences, 37, 2012, 281–297.
[19]. O. Merter and T. Ucar, “A Comparative Study on Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis of RC Frame Structures”. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Science, 2(3), 2013, 155-162.
[20]. Shah M. D., Desai A. N. and Patel S. B., “Performance Based Analysis of R.C.C. frames”. National Conference on Recent Trends in
Engineering & Technology, 2011, May 13-14.

www.irjes.com 22 | Page