See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236961128

Nonlinear static analysis to assess seismic performance and vulnerability of

code-conforming RC buildings

Article  in  WSEAS Transactions on Applied and Theoretical Mechanics · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

10 487

3 authors:

Cinitha A Umesha Pk
CSIR Structural Engineering Research Centre Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi
44 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   136 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nagesh R. Iyer
Indian Institute of Technology Dharwad
422 PUBLICATIONS   1,552 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NWP2941/CSIR Network project View project

MLP14741 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Umesha Pk on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

Nonlinear Static Analysis to Assess Seismic Performance and

Vulnerability of Code - Conforming RC Buildings

A. CINITHA.A1*, P.K. UMESHA2 , NAGESH R. IYER3

CSIR- Structural Engineering Research Centre

CSIR Campus, Taramani, Chennai – 600113, INDIA
Email: 1cinitha@sercm.org, 2pku@sercm.org, 3nriyer@sercm.org

Abstract :- The seismic zone map of Indian subcontinent emphasis that more than 60% of land is under severe
to moderate earthquake and approximate hábitat requirement is 20-25 lakhes of buildings in each year. The
adequacy of post occupancy of buildings after an earthquake is highly demanded. This paper investigates
seismic performance and vulnerability analysis of 4-storey and 6-storey code-conforming (IS: 456-2000, Indian
standard for plain and reinforced concrete code and IS: 1893-2002, Indian standard criteria for earthquake re-
sistant design of structures) reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. The buildings are designed for two different
cases such as ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) and special moment resisting frame (SMRF). The non-
linear static analysis (pushover analysis) is used to capture initial yielding and gradual progressive plastic be-
haviour of elements and overall building response under seismic excitations. The deformation characteristics of
structural elements are essential to simulate the plastic hinge formation in the process of generation of capacity
curve during the pushover analysis. An analytical procedure is developed to evaluate the yield, plastic and ulti-
mate rotation capacities of beams and columns along with different plastic hinge lengths. In the present study,
user defined plastic hinge properties of beams and columns are modeled using analytical expressions developed
based on Eurocode 8 and incorporated the same in pushover analysis using SAP2000. The nonlinear static
analysis is carried out for load patterns proportional to fundamental mode. The analysis gives an estimate of
seismic capacity of the structural system and its components based on its material characteristics and detailing
of member dimensions. A 100% dead load plus 50% live load is applied prior to the lateral load in the push-
over analysis. The building performances are assessed with the capacity curve generated. Performance levels
are used to describe the limiting damage condition, which may be considered satisfactory for a building under
specific earthquake. The performance levels are expressed in terms of target displacement, defined by limiting
values of roof drift, as well as deformation of structural elements. The three performance levels considered in
the present study are immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention. The vulnerability of the build-
ings is estimated in terms of vulnerability index to assess the performance of the building.
Key-words: Post occupancy, Plastic hinge length, Seismic performance, Nonlinear static analysis, Perform-
ance levels, Vulnerability index

1 Introduction levels of performance is an important step towards

performance evaluation of building. The nonlinear
The nonlinear static analysis, to evaluate the seis- static analysis procedures to estimate the seismic
mic performance of buildings, represents the cur- performances of structures are described in Na-
rent trend in structural engineering and promises a tional Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
reasonable prediction of structural behaviour. The (NEHRP) guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation
analysis provides adequate information on seismic of buildings [6-8]. It require realistic values of the
demands imposed by the design ground motion on effective cracked stiffness of reinforced concrete
the structural system and its components. The me- (RC) members up to yielding for reliable estimation
thod there by evaluates the seismic performance of the seismic force and deformation demands. [9,
of the structure and quantifies its characteristic be- 12, 13, 18,and 22-23] have shown that linear elastic
haviour (strength, stiffness and deformation capac- analysis with 5% damping can satisfactorily ap-
ity) under design ground motion. This information proximate inelastic seismic deformation demands.
can be used to check the specified performance cri- The present paper aims to compare the influence of
teria [1-10] and [14-17, 21]. Modelling the inelas- the different assumptions of ATC 40, FEMA 356
tic behaviour of the structural elements for different

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 39 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

and Eurocode 8 for the assessment of Indian code seismic loads design ground acceleration of 0.36g
conforming buildings via nonlinear static analysis. and 0.16g with medium soil are assumed. Both the
The first part of the paper presents the modeling buildings are designed for two cases, such as ordi-
issues. The models must consider the nonlinear be- nary moment resisting frame (OMRF) and special
haviour of structure/elements. Such a model re- moment resisting frame (SMRF). Material proper-
quires the determination of the nonlinear properties ties are assumed to be 25MPa for the concrete
of each component in the structure that are quanti- compressive strength and 415MPa for the yield
fied by strength and deformation capacities. The strength of longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
deformation capacity of RC components, are mod- ments. The OMRF buildings are designed with
eled in the form of plastic hinges using FEMA 356, transverse reinforcement spacing of 250mm and
ATC 40 and Eurocode 8 and analysis procedure is SMRF buildings are with 100mm. The column and
based on [11,14-15]. The ultimate deformation ca- beam dimensions and the details of arrangement of
pacity of a component is assumed to depend on the longitudinal reinforcement are shown in Fig.1.
ultimate rotation and plastic hinge length. Several
empirical expressions for plastic hinge length has 3 Building Performance Levels
been proposed in the literature, some of them are
adopted and implemented in SAP2000 for the anal- The performance levels are discrete damage states
ysis. Five different empirical expressions are con- identified from a continuous spectrum of possible
sidered for the estimation of plastic hinge length damage states. A building performance level is a
and incorportaed the same in the analysis. In the combination of the performance levels of the struc-
present study, user defined plastic hinge properties ture and non-structural components. The desired-
of beams and columns are modeled using analytical structural performance levels to be found are
expressions developed based on Eurocode 8 and Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and
incorporated the same in analysis. The analysis is Collapse Prevention (CP). These levels are based
carried out for load patterns proportional to fun- on the condition of the building under gradually
damental mode. The building performances are increased lateral loads. Three levels in a base shear
assessed with the capacity curve generated in each versus roof displacement curve for a building with
case. Performance levels are used to describe the adequate ductility is discussed in the following sec-
limiting damage condition, which may be consid- tions. Similar to the structural performance levels,
ered satisfactory for a building under specific the member performance levels are discrete, dam-
earthquake. The performance levels are expressed age states in the load versus deformation behaviour
in terms of target displacement, defined by limiting of each member, as shown in Fig.2. For the beams
values of roof drift, as well as deformation of struc- and columns of a lateral load resisting frame, the
tural elements. The three performance levels con- following curves relating the loads and deforma-
sidered in the present study are immediate tions are necessary.
occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention. The 1. Moment versus rotation
vulnerability index, which is a measure of damage 2. Shear force versus shear deformation
is estimated for the two designed cases, each case For a column, the moment versus rotation
has been modeled for five different expressions of curve is calculated in presence of the axial load. In
plastic hinges. The vulnerability index, defined as a a nonlinear analysis [20], for each member, the re-
scaled linear combination (weighted average) of spective curve is assigned at the location where the
performance measures of the hinges in the compo- deformation is expected to be largest. In the case of
nents, is calculated from the performance levels of existing RC buildings with low concrete strength
the components at the performance point or at the and an insufficient amount of transverse steel, the
point of termination of the nonlinear static analysis. shear failure of members need to be considered,
which is irrelevant in the present study. For RC
2 Description of Structures members, the moment versus rotation curves are
calculated based on conventional analysis of sec-
Two framed structures are considered to represent
tions [10].
low- and medium- rise RC buildings for the study.
These consists of two typical beam-column RC
frame buildings with no shear walls, located in high 4 Performance Based Objective
and medium seismicity regions of India. 4- and 6- The objective of a performance based approach is
storey buildings are designed according to the code to target a building performance level under a spe-
(IS:456 and IS:1893), considering both gravity and cified earthquake level. The selection of the levels

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 40 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

B3 B3 B3 B3
10.79+1.88 10.79+1.88 10.79+1.8 10.79+1.8
B3 B3 B3 B3
10.79+1.88 10.79+1.88 10.79+1.8 10.79+1.8 C6 C6
C5 C6
27.81+5 27.81+5
27.81+5 27.81+5
C6 C6
C5 C6
27.81+5 27.81+5 27.81+5
27.81+5
B2 B2 B2 B2
C3 C4 C4 C4
B2 B2 B2 B2 27.81+5 27.81+5
27.81+5 27.81+5
C3 C4 C4 C4
27.81+5 27.81+5 27.81+5 27.81+5 B2 B2 B2 B2
C3 C4 C4 C4 C3
B2 B2 B2 B2
22.96+5 22.96+5 22.96+5 22.96+5
C3 C4 C4 C4 C3
22.96+5 22.96+5 22.96+5 22.96+5
B1 B1 B1 B1
B1 B1 B1 B1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C1
C1 C2 C2 C2 C1

550 C1 600 C2 550 C3

C2
600 450 C3
550 C1
18-28Ø 24-28Ø 14-25Ø
16-28Ø 12-20Ø 550 600 550
16-25Ø
550 450

C4
600
450 C5 550 C6
550 C4
450 550 C6
C5 16-28Ø 12-25Ø
600 450 12-20 550
14-25Ø Ø
550 8-20Ø 10-20Ø
450 550

450 B1 450 B2 300 B3

B2 300 B3 2-18Ø 2-18

450 450 4-12Ø
B1 450 Ø 450 Ø+2-12Ø 300

2-18Ø+2-16Ø 4-16Ø
2-20Ø+2-16Ø 300 2-20Ø+2-16Ø
450 6-25Ø+2-16Ø
450 6-25Ø+2-16Ø 8-20 4-20
Ø+2-12Ø 6-20
Ø+2-12Ø Ø+2-12Ø

Fig.1(a)Four Storey-OMRF Frame Fig.1(b)Four storey –SMRF Frame

with reinforcement details reinforcement details
B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2
B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1

C4 C4 C4 C4

5
C3 C3 C3 C3
5

B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2
B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1

C4 C4 C4 C4

5
C3 C3 C3 C3
5

B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2
B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1

C5 C5 C5 C5
C2 C6 C6 C2 5
5

B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2
B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1
C4 C4 C4 C4
5

C2 C6 C6 C2
5

B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2
B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1
C3 C3 C3 C3
5

C2 C5 C5 C2
5

B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2 B2 B3 B2
B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1
4.1

C2 C2 C2 C2
4.1

C2 C5 C5 C2 B1 B1 B1
1.1

C1 C1 C1 C1
B1 B1 B1
1.1

C1 C4 C4 C1
7.5 7.5 7.5
7 .5 7 .5 7 .5 A ll U nits are in m
A ll U n its ar e in m
BEAM S
300 300 30 0
30 0 BEAMS 300 5# - 25Ø 7# - 25 Ø 2 # - 2 5Ø
600

600

600

4# - 25Ø 3 # - 25 Ø
600

600

5# - 25Ø 6# - 20Ø 5 # - 2 0Ø

3# - 25Ø 4 # - 25 Ø B1 B2 B3

B1 5 00 COLUMNS
B2 6 00
50 0 5 00 50 0 500
C O LU M N S
500

12 # - 2 5 Ø
600

6 00
500

6 00 1 6 # - 25 Ø 1 0 # - 25 Ø
500
500

500

500 500 18 # - 25 Ø 18 # - 25 Ø 1 2 # - 25 Ø
C5
8 # - 25 Ø
600
600

8 # - 2 5Ø 6# - 2 5 Ø
500

500

12#- 25Ø 50 0
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
1 0 # - 2 5Ø A ll U n its are in m m
500

C2 C3 C
C1 4

A ll U n its a re in m m C6

Fig.1(c) Six Storey-OMRF Frame Fig.1(d) Six Storey-SMRF Frame

with reinforcement details with reinforcement details

structure. Designing of structures to remain elastic

under very severe earthquake ground motion is
very difficult and economically infeasible. The
most common design approach is to design the
buildings based on the two-level seismic concept.

1. Buildings should resist moderate earth-

quakes, i.e. design basis earthquake (DBE)
with essentially no structural damage
(elastic behaviour).
Fig.2 Typical Moment vs. Rotation curves
2. Building should resist catastrophic earth-
quake, i.e. maximum considered earth-
is based on recommended guidelines for the type quake (MCE) with some structural
of building, economic considerations and engi- damage, but without collapse and major
neering judgment. injuries of loss of life. (inelastic response
within acceptable level)
Severe earthquakes have an extremely low
probability of occurrence during the life of a

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 41 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

From the safety point of view the seismic resistant seismic demand for low- and medium-rise moment
design of moment resisting building frames are resisting frames. In the present study, the pushover
classified as Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames, analysis is carried out for load patterns propor-
(OMRF), Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames, tional to fundamental mode. A 100% dead load
(IMRF) and Special Moment Resisting Frames, plus 50% live load is applied prior to the lateral
(SMRF) as referred [4,21]. The yield mechanisms load on the structure.
adopted in earthquake resistant design are (i)
strong column and weak beam, (ii) flexural yield- 6 Development of user-defined hinge
ing in beams, (iii) prevent shear failure or yielding
in beams and columns and flexural yielding at
properties and nonlinear static
base of beams. The performance based design analysis
which ensures safety under a specified earthquake The analyses had performed using “SAP2000”,
by estimating the capacity against the demand, is adopting a member-by-member modelling ap-
better approach than conventional code based de- proach. Inelastic beam and column members are
sign. This paper aims to study the behaviour of modelled as elastic elements with plastic hinges at
modern code-conforming OMRF and SMRF under their ends, the effective rigidity of beams is taken
designed earthquake condition for low and me- equal to 40% of the gross section rigidity (EIg)
dium rise buildings. while for columns as 80% [3]. The moment rota-
tion characteristics of the plastic hinges are esti-
mated from section analysis using appropriate
5 Nonlinear Static Analysis non-linear constitute laws for concrete and steel.
Generally the deformations are quantified and ex-
The understanding of structural behaviour is great-
pressed in terms of chord rotations. The lumped
ly facilitated by a study of the static load-
plasticity approach is commonly used in SAP2000
deformation responses that identify the elastic and
for modelling deformation capacity estimates. The
inelastic behaviour characteristics of the structures.
various parameters which are directly related with
The nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis) is
these deformations are i) steel ductility, ii) bar pul-
gaining popularity for this purpose. In the push-
lout from the anchorage zone, iii) axial load ratio,
over analysis, non-linear finite element model of a
iv) shear-span ratio and v) concrete strength. An
given structure (eg. a building frame) subjected to
analytical procedure based on Eurocode-8 is used
gravity loads, is laterally loaded until either a pre-
to study the deformation capacity of beams and
defined target displacement is met, or the model
columns in terms of yield, plastic and ultimate ro-
collapses. The reliable post-yield material model
tations (θu, θpl, θy) and it defines the state of dam-
and inelastic member deformations are extremely
age in the structure through three limit states of the
important in nonlinear analysis. The evaluation is
NEHRP Guidelines (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000),
based on an assessment of important parameters,
namely i) Limit State “Near Collapse” (NC) level,
including global drift, inter-storey drift, inelastic
corresponding to the “Collapse prevention”(CP)
element deformations (either absolute or normal-
level ii) Limit State of “Significant Damage” (SD)
ized with respect to yield value), deformations be-
level , corresponding to the “ Life Safety”(LS)
tween elements, and element and connection
level and to the single performance level for which
forces (for elements and connections that cannot
new structures are designed according to current
sustain inelastic deformations). The inelastic static
Indian seismic design code iii) Limit State of
pushover analysis can be viewed as a method for
Damage Limitation (DL) level, corresponding to
predicting seismic force and deformation demands,
the “ Immediate Occupancy” (IO) level. The drift
which accounts in an approximate manner for
or chord rotation of a member over the shear span
the redistribution of internal forces occurring due
(Ls) is a primary parameter which captures the ma-
to inertia forces that no longer can be resisted
croscopic behaviour of the member. FEMA guide-
within the elastic range of structural behavior. The
lines imply values of yield rotation approximately
two key steps in applying this method, i.e. lateral
equal to 0.005 rad for RC beams and columns, or
force distribution and target displacement are
to 0.003 rad for walls, to be added to plastic hinge
based on the assumption that the structural re-
rotations for conversion into total rotations, which
sponse is mainly from the fundamental mode, and
that the mode shapes remain unchanged after are approximately equal to the chord rotation θ or
structure gets into the inelastic region. The nonlin- drift of the shear span. According to these codes
ear static analysis provides accurate estimate of chord rotation θ is the summation of yield rotation

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 42 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

(θy) plus plastic rotation (θP). Acceptable limiting N

values of these plastic rotations have been speci- A = ρ + ρ' + ρv +
bdf y
fied for primary or secondary components of the
structural system under collapse prevention earth- N
B = ρ + ρ ' δ ' + 0 .5 ρ v ( 1 + δ ' ) + (2)
quake as a function of the type of reinforcement, bdf y
axial and shear force levels and detailing of RC N N
members. For primary components acceptable A = ρ + ρ' + ρ v − ≈ ρ + ρ' + ρ v −
ε c Es bd 1.8nbdfc '
chord rotations or drifts for collapse prevention
earthquake are taken as 1.5 times lower than the B = ρ + ρ ' δ ' + 0 .5 ρ v ( 1 + δ ' ) (3)
ultimate drifts or rotations. For life safety earth- Considering the lower yield curvature, the yield
quake, the acceptable chord rotations or drifts for moment is computed as
primary and secondary components are taken as
about 1.5 or 2 times lower than the ultimate rota-  k y2
 (4)
 k  E  ρ
tions or drifts. The yield, plastic and ultimate rota-
My
bd 3
= φy Ec ( ) ( )
0.5( 1 + δ ' ) − y  + s  1 − k y ρ + k y − δ ' ρ' + v 1 − δ '
3 2
( )(1 − δ ) '

 2  6  
tion capacities in terms of non-dimensional The deformation corresponding to chord rotation
numbers is estimated. User defined P-M-M (P-M- at yield, plastic and ultimate rotations are
M hinges are assigned at the ends of column  L + αvz   h  ε y d bf y
members which are subjected to axial force and θy = φy v  + 0 .00135  1 + 1 .5  + d − d ' 6 f
 3   L v  c
bending moments) and M3 (M- hinges are as-
signed at the ends of beam members which are (5)
( ) 0.3  f yw 
 αρ 
subjected to bending moments) curves are devel- pl
θum =
1
(  max 0.01; ω' 
0.0145 0.25 ν  ) 
L 
f c0.2  v 
0.35
25
 sx f 
 c 
(1.275 100 ρ d
)
γel  max (0.01; ω )   h 
oped using the rotation capacities of mem-
bers/elements. The default-hinge option in (6)
( )
 f 
SAP2000 assumes average values of hinge proper-  max 0.01; ω 
0.225 0.35  αρ sx yw 
( )  Lv 
(1.25 )
'
1  f c  100 ρ d
θ um = 0.016 0.3ν  fc    25 
ties instead of carrying out detailed calculation for γ el  max(0.01; ω)   h 
each member. The default-hinge model assumes
the same deformation capacity for all columns re- (7)
gardless of their axial load and their weak and The confinement effectiveness factor is
strong axis orientation. Hence nonlinear static ana-  s  s  ∑ bi 
2
lyses are carried out using user- defined plastic α =  1− h  1 − h  1 −
 
hinge properties. Definition of user- defined hinge  2bc  2 hc  6 bc hc  (8)
properties requires moment rotation characteristics The moment-rotation analysis are carried out
of each element. Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001 considering section properties and a constant axial
defined the yield curvature φy as the point that load on the structural element. In the development
marks onset of nonlinearity in the moment- of user-defined hinges for beams, axial forces are
curvature diagram (owing to either yielding of ten- assumed to be zero and for the columns they are
sion reinforcement or nonlinearity in concrete- for assumed to be equal to maximum load due to sev-
compressive strains exceeding 90% of the strain at eral possible combinations considered while de-
peak stress of uni-axially loaded concrete): signing. Following, the calculation of the ultimate
'
fy 1.8f c rotation capacity of an element, acceptance criteria
ϕ y = min{ ; } (1) are defined and labeled as IO, LS and CP as shown
E s ( 1 − k y )d E ck yd
in Fig 2 .The typical user defined M3 and P-M-M
hinge used for the analysis are shown in Fig 3.
This study defines these three points as 0.2∆, 0.5∆
The compression zone depth at yield ky (normal- and 0.9∆. Where, ∆ is the length of plastic hinge
ized to d) is k y = ( n 2 A2 + 2nB )1 / 2 − nA , in which plateau.
n=Es/Ec and A, B are given by Eq. (2) or (3) , de-
pending on whether yielding is controlled by the The acceptance criteria for performance with in
yielding of tension steel or by nonlinearity in the the damage control performance range are ob-
compression zone; tained by interpolating the acceptance criteria pro-
vided for the IO and the LS structural performance
levels. Acceptance Criteria for performance with
in the limited safety structural performance range
are obtained by interpolating the acceptance crite-
ria provided for the life safety and the collapse

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 43 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

prevention structural performance levels. A target 8 Plastic Hinge Length

performance is defined by a typical value of roof
drift, as well as limiting values of deformation of Plastic hinges form at the maximum moment re-
the structural elements. To determine whether a gions of RC members. The accurate assessment of
building meets performance objectives, response plastic hinge length is important in relating the
quantities from the pushover analysis are consid- structural level response to member level response.
ered with each of the performance levels. The length of plastic hinge depends on many fac-
tors. The following is a list of important factors
that influence the length of a plastic hinge 1) level
of axial load 2) moment gradient 3) level of shear
stress in the plastic hinge region 4) mechanical
properties of longitudinal and transverse rein-
forcement 5) concrete strength and 6) level of con-
finement and its effectiveness in the potential
hinge region. From the literature the following
expressions are adopted for the present study

L p = 0.18L s + 0.025a sl d b f y (9)

Fig. 3 Typical User- Defined moment-rotation
hinge properties L p = 0.8h + 0.025a sl d b f y (10)
Note:SF is scale w.r.t yield point
L p = 0 .5 h (11)

7. Evaluation of Seismic Perform- Lp=0.08L + 0.022 fy dbl ≥ 0.044 fy dbl (12)

ance of Buildings
The seismic performance of a building is measured 0.24d bl f y
Lpl = 0.1LV + 0.17h +
by the state of damage under a certain level of fc
seismic hazard. The state of damage is quantified (13)
by the drift of the roof and the displacement of the The nonlinear static analyses are carried out for
structural elements. Pushover analysis is a nonlin- two designed cases of low and medium rise build-
ear static analysis in which the magnitude of the ings, in each case separate analyses were carried
lateral load is gradually increased, maintaining a out by varying the plastic hinge length estimated
predefined distribution pattern along the height of through the above mentioned expressions and thus
the building. At each step, the base shear and the totally five cases are studied. They are namely
roof displacement relationship are plotted to gen- case1, case2, case3, case4 and case5 correspond-
erate the pushover/capacity curve. It gives an in- ing to Eq.9-13. The capacity curves observed in
sight into the maximum base shear that the each case are shown in Fig.4-7.
structure is capable of resisting. Building perform-
ance level is a combination of the performance The roof displacement obtained in this study
levels of the structure and the non-structural com- obviously show that the demands of 4-storey
ponents. The performance level describes a limit- buildings are higher than those of 6-storey ones.
ing damage condition which may be considered Therefore, it is difficult to precisely estimate
satisfactory for a given building with specific which building group is more vulnerable during a
ground motion. The three global performance lev- seismic event. However SMRF building shows
els (FEMA356) considered are as follows. i) Im- higher capacity compared to OMRF. The study
mediate Occupancy: Transient drift is about 1% or also reveals that the amount of transverse rein-
negligible permanent drift, ii) Life Safety: Tran- forcement plays an important role in seismic per-
sient drift is about 2% or 1% permanent drift, iii) formance of buildings, as the amount of transverse
Collapse Prevention: 4% transient drift or perma- reinforcement increases the sustained damage de-
nent drift. creases. A profound variation in capacity and dis-
placement are brought out by varying the plastic
hinge length and designing the building as OMRF

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 44 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

and SMRF. Table 1 shows the inelastic response

displacements of the frame. It is observed that ine-
lastic displacement of all the frames are within
collapse prevention.

Table.1 Inelastic response displace-

ments (storey drifts in meter)
Details IO LS CP
4-storey- 0.012 0.023 0.046
OMRF
4-storey- 0.019 0.038 0.023
SMRF
6-Storey- 0.003 0.005 0.010
OMRF
Fig.6 Capacity curves of six storey –OMRF
6-Storey- 0.004 0.009 0.017
SMRF

Case1 Case2 Case3

Case4 Case5

3000
2500
Base Shear (kN)

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Fig.7 Capacity curves of six storey-SMRF
Roof Displacement (m)
Fig.4 Capacity curves of four storey –OMRF 9 Vulnerability Analysis
The vulnerability index is a measure of the dam-
age in a building [11] obtained from the pushover
Case1 Case2 Case3
analysis. It is defined as a scaled linear combina-
Case4 Case5
tion (weighted average) of performance measures
3000 of the hinges in the components, and is calculated
2500 from the performance levels of the components
Base Shear (kN)

2000 at the performance point or at the point of termina-

tion of the pushover analysis. The vulnerability
1500
index of a building is assessed with the expression
1000
as follows
500

0 1 . 5 ∑ ic N ic x i + ∑ bj N bj x j
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 VI bldg =
Displacement (m)
∑ ic N + ∑ bj N
(14)
Fig.5 Capacity curves of four storey- SMRF
Where N ic and N bj are the numbers of hinges
in colunmns and beams, respectively, for the ith
and jth performance range. A weightage factor (xi )
is assigned for columns and (xj) is assigned for

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 45 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

beams to each performance range, the weightage Table 3 Vulnerability Index based on Nonlin-
factor is shown in Table.2 . ear Static Analysis
Details 4- sto- 4- 6- sto- 6-
VIbldg is a measure of the overall vulnerability rey storey rey storey
of the building. A high value of VIbldg reflects OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF
poor performance of the building. However, this Case1 0.354 0.304 0.1897 0.0011
index may not reflect a soft storey mechanism. Case2 0.013 0.003 0.0357 0.017
Case3 0.301 0.263 0.0357 0.017
Table.2 Weightage Factors for Perform- Case4 0.202 0.127 0.0513 0.0513
ance Range Case5 0.016 0.188 0.0513 0.054
Serial Performance Weightage
Number Range (i) Factor
(xi)
9 Conclusions
1 <B 0 This study has illustrated the nonlinear static anal-
2 B-IO 0.125 ysis responses of OMRF and SMRF building
3 IO-LS 0.375 frames under designed ground motions. The ca-
4 LS-CP 0.625 pacity against demand is observed significantly
5 CP-C 0.875 higher for SMRF building frames compared to
6 C-D,D-E, and 1.00 OMRF. The user defined hinge definition and de-
>E velopment methodology is also described. The
user- defined hinges takes into account the orienta-
A soft storey mechanism is difficult to trace tion and axial load level of the columns compared
with this method. A storey vulnerability index to the default hinge. The influence of plastic hinge
(VI storey ) defined to quantify the possibility of a on capacity curve is brought out by deploying five
soft/weak storey with the formation of flexural cases of plastic hinge length. The study reveals
hinges. For each storey VI storey is defined as that plastic hinge length has considerable effects
on the displacement capacity of frames. Based on
the analysis results it is observed that inelastic dis-
∑ N ic xi placement of the modern code-conforming build-
VI storey = c
ing frames are within collapse prevention level.
∑ N ic (15) The vulnerability index which is a measure of
i damage is estimated for both SMRF and OMRF
are presented for 4- and 6-storey buildings. From
Where N ic is the number of column hinges in the the study it is apparent that, the OMRF framed
storey under investigation for a particular per- buildings are more vulnerable than SMRF. The
formance range. In a given building, the presence vulnerability index of the building quantitatively
of soft/weak storey is reflected by a relatively high express the vulnerability of the building as such,
value of VI storey for that storey, in relation to the where as storey vulnerability index assist to locate
other storeys. The vulnerability Index of the the columns in the particular storey in which sig-
buildings studied is shown in the Table. 3. The nificant, slight or moderate level of damages have
vulnerability index of storey (VI storey) is observed taken place.
to be almost very neglibible in the case of four
storey building. Where as it is considerable in the Acknowledgement
case of 6-storey OMRF building, where column
The paper is published with kind permis-
damages are observed in the ground floor itself.
sion of Director, CSIR-Structural Engineering
From the study it is apparent that, the OMRF
Research Centre, Chennai, India.
framed buildings are more vulnerable than SMRF
and storey vulnerability index of zero indicate that
most of the hinges are formed in beams rather than
in columns.

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 46 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

Notations δ ' d’/d where d’ is the distance of the centre of

asl is a coefficient = 1 if slippage of longitudinal the compression reinforcement from the ex-

steel from its anchorage zone beyond the end treme compression fibre

section is possible , otherwise it is zero

b0 and h0 is the dimension of confined core to Θy is Rotation at yield in radians

the centerline of the hoop, Θp is plastic rotation in radians

bi is the centerline spacing of longitudinal (in- Θum is ultimate rotation in radians

dexed by i) laterally restrained by a stirrup cor- ρ sx is Asx/bwsh, ratio of transverse steel parallel to
ner or a cross-tie along the perimeter of the the direction x of loading (sh=stirrup spacing)
cross-section. ρ d is the steel ratio of diagonal reinforcement
d depth of the cross- section
Φy is the yield curvature of the end section
d b is diameter of the tension reinforcement
dbl is diameter of longitudinal reinforcement ω , ω ' is the mechanical reinforcement ratio of the
fc and fyw are the concrete compressive strength tension (including the web reinforcement)
(MPa) and the stirrup yield (MPa) strength and compression, respectively, longitudinal
respectively reinforcement,
fc’ uniaxial (cylindrical) concrete strength (MPa)
References
f y is steel yield stress (MPa)

h is the depth of cross-section [1] IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Indian Standard Crite-
ria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Struc-
Ec Young’s modulus of the reinforced concrete tures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
Es Young’s modulus of the steel 110002.
[2] IS 456-1964, 1978, 2000 Indian Standard
Ky compressive zone depth Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced
Lp is the length of plastic hinge Concrete, Indian Standards Institution, New
L v is M/V , the distance from the critical section Delhi-110002
[3] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40,
of the plastic hinge to the point of contra (1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
flexure Concrete Buildings”, Vol.1 and 2, California.
[4] ACI Manual of Concrete Practice
N is axial force 2008,Part3,American Concrete Institute
V is N/bhfc ( b width of compression zone, N axial [5] Eurocode 8-Design of structures for earth-
quake resistance-Part3: Assessment and retro-
force positive for compression) fitting of buildings, BS EN 1998-3:2005.
α is the confinement effectiveness factor [6] FEMA273, “NEHRP Guidelines for the seis-
mic rehabilitation of Buildings”, 1997, Build-
α V z is the tension shift of the bending moment ing Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C
diagram
[7] FEMA 356, “Pre-standard and Commentary
γ el is equal to 1.5 for primary seismic elements for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”,
ASCE for the Federal Emergency Manage-
and to 1.0 for secondary seismic elements
ment Agency, Washington, D.C, 2000.
[8] FEMA 440 , “ Improvement of Nonlinear
Static Seismic Analysis Procedures”, ATC-

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 47 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

 WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS A. Cinitha, P. K. Umesha, Nagesh R. Iyer

55 for the the Federal Emergency Manage- and Earthquake engineering, vol. 27, 2007,
ment Agency, Washington, D.C, 2005. pp. 223-233,
[9] Fib Bulletin 24 ,“Seismic Assessment and [18] Dimova., S.L, Negro.,P, “Seismic assess-
retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings” ment of an industrial frame structure de-
State-of-art-report, August 2003. signed according to Eurocodes. Part 2:
[10] EN 1998-3:2005, Eurocode 8: “Design of Capacity and vulnerability”, Journal of en-
structures for earthquake resistance: As- gineering structures, vol. 27, 2005, pp. 724-
sessment and retrofitting of buildings”,2005. 735,
[11] Lakshmanan.,N, “Seismic evaluation and [19] Mohammad Reza Tabeshpour, Ali Bakhshi,
retrofitting of buildings and structures”, and Ali A. Golafshani, “Seismic Vulnerabil-
ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, ity, Performance and Damage analyses of
vol.43, 2006, pp. 31-48 Special Structures”, 13th world conference
[12] Kappos.,A.J,Chryssanthopoulos.,M.K, and on earthquake engineering Vancouver, B.C.,
Dymiotis.,C, “Uncertainty analysis of Canada August 1-6, 2004.
strength and ductility of confined reinforced [20] Sharany Haque., Khan Mahmud Amanat.,
concrete members”, Journal of engineering “ Seismic Vulnerability of Columns of RC
structures, vol.21, 1999, pp. 195-208,. framed Buildings with soft ground Floor”,
[13] Panagiotakos.,B, Michael., N. Fardis, “De- WSEAS Int. Journal of mathematical mod-
formations of Reinforced Concrete Mem- els and methods in Applied Sciences, Vol.2,
bers at Yielding and Ultimate”, ACI 2008, pp.364-371.
Structural Journal, vol.98, 2001, pp. 135- [21] SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design Rec-
148. ommendations of the SEAOC Seismology
[14] Mehmet Inel, Hayri baytan Ozmen, and Committee, Structural Engineers Associa-
Huseyin Bilgin, “Re- evaluation of building tion of California.
damage during recent earthquakes in Tur- [22] Popescu.,T.D, “ Time-Frequency Analysis
key”, Journal of engineering structure, vol. in Structures Monitoring Subject to Extreme
30, 2008, pp. 412-427 Dynamic Loads”, Proc. Of the 9th WSEAS
[15] Mehmet Inel, Hayri Baytan Ozmen, “Ef- Int.Conf. on Mathematical methods and
fects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear Computational Techniques in Electrical En-
analysis of reinforced concrete buildings”, gineering, Arcachon, October 13-15,2007,
Journal of engineering structures, vol. 28, pp.58-63.
2006, pp. 1494-1502. [23] Mirlohi.,J,Memarzadeh.,P, Behnamfar.,F,
[16] Lin Shibin, Xie Lili, Gong Maosheng, Li “The effect of soil-flexibility on seismic re-
Ming, “Performance-based methodology for sponse of a typical steel plate shear wall
assessing seismic vulnerability and capacity subjected to Duzce Earthquake”. Proc. Of
of buildings”, Journal of Earthquake Engi- the 4th WSEAS Int.Conf.on Engineering
neering and Engineering Vibration, vol.9, Mechanics, Structures, Engineering Geol-
2010, pp. 157-165, ogy, Corfu Island, Greece, July 14-16,2011,
[17] Bardakis., V.G, Dritsos., S.E, “Evaluating pp.407-412.
assumptions for seismic assessment of exist-
ing buildings”, Journal of Soil Dynamics

E-ISSN: 2224-3429 48 Issue 1, Volume 7, January 2012

View publication stats