Effects of Earthquake in Hossana Town Selected buildings

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENIVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Effects of Earthquake in Hosanna Town Selected buildings

Aklilu Tadesse

A thesis submitted to the school of graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University

Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Civil Engineering

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

November, 2015
 Effects of Earthquake in Hossana Town Selected buildings

Plagiarism Declaration

I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented

as a thesis for a degree in elsewhere in any other universities. All sources of materials

used in this thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Name: Aklilu Tadesse

Signature _____________

Date November, 2015

 Effects of Earthquake in Hossana Town Selected buildings

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOO OF CIVIL AND ENIVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Aklilu Tadesse, entitled: Effects of
Earthquake in Hosanna Town Selected buildings and submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering complies with
the regulations of the university and meets the accepted standards with respect to
originality and quality.

Signed by the examining Committee:

1.
Advisor Signature Date
2.
External Examiner Signature Date

3.
Internal Examiner Signature Date

4.
School Dean Signature Date
Acknowledgement

First of all I would like to thank the almighty God, who gave me the commitment and

tolerance to pass various obstacles and come up to the accomplishment of this thesis.

I am very grateful for my research advisor; Dr. Eng Adil Zekaria Who has encouraged,

directed, and given me academic advisory throughout the research work with good heart

and patient.

Jimma University, my sponsor, also deserves thanks for its financial support to the

completion of the study.

Last but not least, Getachew Tadesse, who is always with me, supporting and

encouraging deserves respect and thank for his help.

AAIT i
Abstract

Effects of Earthquake in Hosanna Town Selected buildings

Aklilu Tadesse

Addis Ababa University, 2015

This thesis is conducted to investigate the effects of December 19, 2010 and November

24, 2011 earthquakes in Hosanna town. Due to the limitation of the available data only

seven buildings were selected for the investigation. The paper examines the five

buildings by qualitative analysis and two of buildings, both qualitative and quantitative

studies.

The qualitative method was based on the damage evaluation method using FEMA and

EMS. The results of the qualitative evaluation of buildings show that the damages were

mainly non-structural and minor structural damages. The quantitative study of the two

buildings was performed by using pushover analysis with SAP2000 software as per

ATC-40 life safety performance criteria. Results of case study 01 showed that some

structural members of building are heavily damaged, whereas the structural members of

case study 02 building are in the safe range. Therefore, in order to sustain future

earthquake some of the structural members of case study 01 need to be strengthened.

Keywords: Seismic evaluation; Damage, Nonlinear Static Analysis; pushover curve;

Performance point

AAIT ii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1. General ..............................................................................................................1
1.2. Objectives .........................................................................................................2
1.3. Methodology .....................................................................................................3
1.4. Limitations of the study .....................................................................................3
1.5. Organization of the thesis ..................................................................................3
2. Literature Review……………………………………………………………………4
2.1. Seismic Evaluation Documents..........................................................................4
2.1.1. FEMA 310 –Handbook for the seismic Evaluation of Building [21]: ..........4
2.1.2. Euro Code-8 Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures-
parts 1-4 General Rules for Strengthening and Repair of Buildings ..........................7
2.2. Summary of Evaluation procedures ...................................................................8
2.3. Damage Classification Reinforced Concrete Structure [19].............................. 10
2.4. Seismic performance assessment of buildings .................................................. 11
2.5. Pushover analysis ............................................................................................ 14
2.6. Developing Pushover Curve [21]: .................................................................. 15
2.7. Summary of literature review .......................................................................... 16
3. Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation……………………………………………17
3.1. Qualitative Evaluation Method ........................................................................ 17
3.1.1. General..................................................................................................... 17
3.1.2. Visual Inspection [24] .............................................................................. 18
3.1.3. Non-destructive test [4] ............................................................................ 20
3.2. Quantitative Evaluation Method ...................................................................... 21
3.2.1. General..................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2. Non-linear Time history analysis .............................................................. 21
3.2.3. Capacity Demand analysis ........................................................................ 21

AAIT iii
 3.2.4. Pushover analysis ..................................................................................... 22
3.2.5. Quantitative Analysis of case study buildings using pushover analysis ..... 24
4. Analysis of selected buildings by Qualitative and Quantitative methods………….26
4.1. Case Study building descriptions ..................................................................... 26
4.2. Qualitative analysis of Case study buildings .................................................... 26
4.2.1. Case study 01 Building ............................................................................. 26
4.2.2. Case study 02 Building ............................................................................. 31
4.2.3. Case Study 03 Building: ........................................................................... 35
4.2.4. Case Study 04 Building ............................................................................ 39
4.2.5. Case Study 05 Building ............................................................................ 44
4.3. Quantitative analysis of Case study buildings .................................................. 46
4.3.1. Case study buildings descriptions ............................................................. 46
4.3.2. The target displacement δt [4] .................................................................. 48
5. Results and Discussions…………………………………………………………….50
5.1. General ............................................................................................................ 50
5.2. Pushover Curves .............................................................................................. 50
5.2.1. Pushover Curves of Case Study 01 ........................................................... 51
Pushover Curve in positive X Direction Loading: .................................................. 51
Pushover Curve in negative X Direction Loading of Case Study 01: ...................... 52
Pushover Curve in negative Y Direction Loading:.................................................. 53
5.2.2. Pushover Curve (Base shear versus top displacement) of case study 02 .... 55
Pushover Curve in positive X Direction Loading: .................................................. 55
Pushover curve in positive y Direction Loading of case study 02: .......................... 56
5.3. Performance Point and Hinge State.................................................................. 57
5.3.1. Performance Point and Hinge State of Case Study 01 ............................... 57
5.3.2. Performance Point and Hinge State of Case Study 02 ............................... 64
6. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………68
6.1. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 68
6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... ……………..69
References………………………………………………………………………………..70
APPENDIX A-Case Study Structural Drawings………………………………………...74
Appendix B –Hinge state of Case Study Buildings……………………………………...78
Appendix C- PUSHOVER ANALYSIS STEPS………………………………………...81

AAIT iv
List of Tables

Table 2.1: FEMA 310 and Eurocode 8 Evaluation guidelines...........................................8

Table 2.2: Classification of damage to reinforced Concrete buildings ............................ 10
Table 4.1: Case study building description ..................................................................... 26
Table 4.2:Visual inspection chart for case study 01 ........................................................ 27
Table 4.3: Visual inspection chart for Case study 03 building ........................................ 36
Table 4.4: Visual inspection of Selame building ............................................................ 40
Table 4.5 Visual inspection............................................................................................ 44
Table 4.6: Asbuilt Design data ....................................................................................... 46
Table 5.1: Plastic hinge Pattern for pushover analysis at different damage level of case
study 01in positive x direction loading:.......................................................................... 60
Table 5.2: Elements States at Performance Step and other Steps of case study 01 Y
direction loading: ........................................................................................................... 62
Table 5.3: Computed limit states for the case 02 studied building in +X direction case
study 02. ........................................................................................................................ 65
Table 5.4: Elements State at performance point of case study 02 .................................... 67

AAIT v
List of Figures

Figure 2.1: FEMA 310 Evaluation Procedures .................................................................6

Figure 2:2: Eurocode 8-Evaluation Procedure ..................................................................7
Figure 2:3: performance levels described by a pushover curve [8]................................. 12
Figure 2:4: Procedures for Performance Assessment [3] ................................................ 13
Figure 2:5 Pushover Curve and Hinge state................................................................ 16
Figure 3:1: FEMA Visual inspection guidelines ............................................................. 19
Figure 4:1: Front view of case study 01 ......................................................................... 26
Figure 4:2: Case study 01 actual damage photo .............................................................. 28
Figure 4:3: Case study01 damage view photo ................................................................ 29
Figure 4:4: Case Study 01 actual damage photo ............................................................. 30
Figure 4:5: Case study 02 Front view ............................................................................. 31
Figure 4:6: Case study02 actual damage view photo ...................................................... 33
Figure 4:7: Case study02 actual damage view photo ...................................................... 34
Figure 4:8: Figure Front view of Case study 03 building ............................................... 35
Figure 4:9 : Actual damage view photos of case study 03 building................................. 37
Figure 4:10: Actual damage view photo of case study 03 building ................................. 38
Figure 4:11: Front view of Case Study 04 Building........................................................ 39
Figure 4:12: Damage photo of Case Study 04 Building .................................................. 41
Figure 4:13 : Damage photo of Case study 04 Building ................................................. 42
Figure 4:14: Damage photo of Case Study 04 Building .................................................. 43
Figure 4:15: Damage photo of case study 05 .................................................................. 45
Figure 5:1: The pushover curve positive X direction loading of case study 01................ 51
Figure 5.2: Pushover Curve in negative X Direction Loading of Case Study 01 ............. 52
Figure 5:3: The pushover curve for direction –Y of case study 01 .................................. 53
Figure 5:4: The pushover curve) for positive X direction of case study 02 ..................... 55
Figure 5:5: The pushover curve) for positive y direction of case study 02 ...................... 56
Figure 5:6: Capacity Spectrum, demand Spectrum and parameter of ATC-40 method for
positive X direction of case study 01.............................................................................. 58
Figure 5:7: Presents the overall yielding pattern of the structure at the Performance point
of case study 01 at positive X direction Loading ............................................................ 59
Figure 5:8: Capacity Spectrum, demand Spectrum and parameter of ATC-40 method for
+y direction of case study 01 ......................................................................................... 61
Figure 5:9: presents the overall yielding pattern of the structure at the Performance point
of Case study 01 y direction Loading ............................................................................ 62
Figure 5:10: Capacity Spectrum, demand Spectrum and parameter of ATC-40 method for
positive X direction of case study 02: ............................................................................ 64
Figure 5:11: presents the overall yielding pattern of the structure at the Performance point
of case study 02 X direction Loading. ........................................................................... 65
Figure 5:12: Capacity Spectrum, demand Spectrum and parameter of ATC-40 method for
+y direction case study 02.............................................................................................. 66
Figure 5:13: presents the overall yield pattern of the structure at the Performance point
case study 02 ................................................................................................................. 67

AAIT vi
 1. Introduction

1.1.General

Hosanna town situated in Hadiya Zone in Southern regional state of Ethiopia. It is located

at 230km away from Addis Ababa. It covers about 40.7 Km2 of land. Based on 2007

census and using the regional grow rate 2.9, the population of the town is approximately

74,074 in 2009.

It is geographically located at 7○34’60” North and 37○52’60” East longitude with an

elevation of 2177 meters above sea level, which is found at the western margin of the

main Ethiopian Rift Valley that runs from northeast to southwest almost dissecting

Ethiopia into two parts. Seismic activity is frequent in this region. The earthquakes which

occurred in Dec.19, 2010 has a PGA of 0.35cm/s2 which is much less than a design

earthquake and Nov.24, 2011 which is not recorded, had created heavy damages and the

collapse of some buildings of Hosanna town. This damage highlights the need of giving

focus while designing for earthquakes.

In the Hosanna town, starting from past 10 years there is strong growth in the number of

high rise buildings, residential houses, schools, health centers and other infrastructure

constructions.

The most of buildings were not designed as per a strict earthquake resistant building

guidelines and proper quality control procedures to assure compliance with some basic

AAIT 1
requirements of the country’s building code standards. Obviously this leads to the

question “how much damage will be sustained when a major earthquake occurred?”

After each major earthquake in seismically active countries, there is a group of

professionals who evaluates the damage in affected buildings and vulnerability of

existing buildings for future earthquake. The vulnerability assessment may include

qualitative and quantitative techniques with the aim of studying the level of damage

and/or predicting the expected performance and safety of existing buildings as well as for

carrying out necessary rehabilitation, if required.

Seismic evaluation of existing buildings after each earthquake happened is common with

other countries for the purpose of safety of occupants. In our country Ethiopia especially

in Hosanna town two major earthquakes are occurring during 2010 and 2011; however no

seismic evaluations has been done. Here in this paper qualitative and quantitative seismic

evaluation of selected existing buildings are studied.

1.2. Objectives

 To investigate qualitatively the level of damage of buildings in Hosanna due

to the two earthquakes.

 To make quantitative investigation of selected buildings for future

earthquakes.

 To create awareness for the need for seismic design of buildings and

introduce the evaluation techniques from international practice.

AAIT 2
1.3. Methodology

The complete work of this thesis is divided into two stages. The first part involves

qualitative evaluation of actual damage occurred during past earthquakes using seismic

evaluation guidelines. The second stage involves performing a quantitative evaluation

using nonlinear static analysis of buildings whose design data were available.

1.4. Limitations of the study

Limitations

a) Due to the scarcity of building data only seven buildings were investigated, out of

which five qualitative and the remaining two for both qualitative and quantitative studies.

b) The unavailability of the actual acceleration time history data to evaluate the actual

damage with analytical study.

1.5. Organization of the thesis

The thesis has a total of six chapters. Chapter one introduction, it also includes the

objective of the thesis work, scope and limitations of the thesis, as well as organization of

the thesis. Chapter two is totally devoted to a literature review, to summarize the seismic

evaluation methods. Chapter three devotes on qualitative and quantitative methodology.

Analysis of Selected buildings discussed in chapter four. The results and findings are

discussed in chapter five. Chapter Six contains the conclusion and indicates points for

further researches. Appendix-A Structural drawings of Case study buildings, Appendix-B

hinge state of the element at performance point, Appendix-C pushover analysis steps.

AAIT 3
 2. Literature Review

General

To provide a detailed review of the literature related to seismic evaluation of existing

structures in it’s entirely would be difficult to address in this chapter. A brief review of

previous studies on the seismic evaluation using qualitative and quantitative methods is

presented in this section.

2.1.Seismic Evaluation Documents

2.1.1. FEMA 310 –Handbook for the seismic Evaluation of Building

[21]:

It is probably the most advanced seismic evaluation procedure for buildings developed in

the USA in the recent years, which grew out of the earlier document NEHRP Handbook

for seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings. The Evaluation procedure is based on a

rigorous approach to determine structural Conditions. Buildings are evaluated for certain

extent of structural damage that is expected in the building when subjected to earthquake.

This level of damage (or performance level) is determined by the design professional

considering the importance of building and consequences of damage.

FEMA 310 Considers two levels of performance defined as Life Safety and Immediate

Occupancy during design earthquake. For Life Safety performance, the building can

sustain significant damage to both structures non structural components with the margin

against either partial or total structural collapse such that the level of risk for life –treating

injury and getting trapped is low. Immediate occupancy building performance means

AAIT 4
very limited damage to both structures non structural components during the design

earthquake.

 Site Visit and Collection of Data

 Determining Region of seismicity and
Expected

Benchmach
Yes Mark building

No
Tier 1: Screening Phase
 Global Level Analysis
 Complete the structural and Non-
structural Checklists

 Foundation Checklists

No Deficiencies

Yes

Tier 2: Evaluation Phase

 Full-Building or deficiency-only
Evaluation
 Component Level Analysis
 Linear static procedure
 Linear Dynamic procedure

AAIT 5
 Y
X

No Deficiencies

Yes

Tier 3: Detailed Evaluation Phase

Nonlinear Analysis
(Comprehensive Investigation)

Deficiencies
No

Yes

Building Building does not

complies comply

Final Evaluation and Report

Rehabilitation

Figure 2.1: FEMA 310 Evaluation Procedures

AAIT 6
 2.1.2. Euro Code-8 Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of

Structures-parts 1-4 General Rules for Strengthening and Repair of

Buildings

The scope of this document is to provide criteria for the evaluation of seismic

performance of existing individual structures, to describe the approach of selecting

necessary corrective measures and to set forth criteria for the design of the

repair/strengthening measures.
 data Collection
 Identification of Structural System

Determining modified material strengths

and partial Safety factors related to
resistance

Analysis using:
 Standard Method
 Time-domine Dynamic Nonlinear
analysis
 Approximate static Nonlinear
Methods

Structural Intervention and Decision

Making

Figure 2:2: Eurocode 8-Evaluation Procedure

AAIT 7
 2.2. Summary of Evaluation procedures

All Evaluation Procedures follow similar assessment steps which can be broadly grouped

into two categories: (a) Configuration- related and (b) strength-related checks

Table 2.1: FEMA 310 and Eurocode 8 Evaluation guidelines

FEMA 310 EUROCODE 8

GENERAL
Three tired approaches with Sound principles for two tired
increasing complexity and assessments, but lacks
decreasing conservatism specificity
very thorough and detailed

CONFUGIRATION RELATED CHECKS

Load path The structure shall contain A complete load path should be
one load path available from top to bottom
Soft storey The stiffness of the lateral
force resisting system in any
storey shall not be less than
70% of the stiffness of
adjacent storey
Weak storey The strength of the lateral
force resisting system in any
storey shall not be less than
80% of strength in an
adjacent storey

Geometry There shall be no changes in Criteria for regularity in plan

the horizontal dimension of and elevation are checked
a lateral resisting system of
more than 30% in a storey
relative to adjacent stores

AAIT 8
Effective mass There shall be no change in There should not be abrupt
effective mass more than changes in the mass of the
50% from one store to next individual storey

Torsion Distance between storey Frame, dual and wall system

mass center and storey shall possess a minimum
center of rigidity shall be Torsional rigidity
less than 20% of the >0.80
building width in either plan
dimension
Adjacent Buildings An adjacent building shall 2 2
  1   2
not be located next structure
being evaluated closer than
4% of the height.

STRENGTH RELATED CHECKS

Analysis philosophy Calculates the pseudo lateral Evaluation consists of the
force to impose the expected verification of the seismic
actual deformation of the resistance of an existing
structure in its yielded state damaged or undamaged
when subjected to design building, taking into account
earthquake motions. both non-seismic and seismic
actions for the period of its
intended lifetime.

Table 2.1: Continued

AAIT 9
2.3. Damage Classification Reinforced Concrete Structure [19]

The way in which a building deforms under earthquake loading depends on the building

type. As a broad categorization one can group together types of masonry buildings as

well as buildings of reinforced concrete.

Table 2.2: Classification of damage to reinforced Concrete buildings

Damage Grade Description of Damage

Grade 1 Negligible to slight damage

(No structural damage, slight non-structural damage)
Fine cracks in plaster over framing members
Or in walls at the base. Fine cracks in partitions and in fills.
Grade 2 Moderate damage
(Slight structural damage, moderate non-structural damage)
Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in structural walls.
Cracks in partition and infill walls; fall of brittle cladding and plaster.
Falling mortar from the joints of wall panels.
Grade 3 Substantial to heavy damage
(Moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
Cracks in columns and beam column joints of frames at the base and at
joints of coupled walls. Spalling of concrete cover, buckling of reinforced
rods. Large cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of individual infill
panels.
Grade 4 Very heavy damage
(Heavy structural damage, very heavy non-structural damage)
Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of concrete
and fracture of rebars; bond failure of beam reinforced bars; tilting of
columns. Collapse of a few columns or on a single upper floor.
Grade 5 Destruction (very heavy structural damage)
Collapse of ground floor or parts (e. g .Wings) of buildings.

AAIT 10
 2.4. Seismic performance assessment of buildings

The seismic performance of buildings [4] is measured by the state of damage under a

certain level of seismic hazard. The state of damage is quantified by the drift of the roof

and the displacement of the structural elements. Initially, gravity push is carried out

using the force control method. It is followed by a lateral push with displacement control

using SAP2000 [6]. For carrying out displacement based pushover analysis, target

displacement needs to be defined. Pushover analysis gives an insight into the

maximum base shear that the structure is capable of resisting. A building

performance level is a combination of the performance levels of the structure and

the nonstructural components. A performance level describes a limiting damage

condition which may be considered satisfactory for a given building with specific ground

motion. The performance levels as per [5] and [4] are:

Immediate occupancy (IO): damage is relatively limited; the structure retains a

significant portion of its original stiffness and most if not all of its strength.

Life safety level (LS): substantial damage has occurred to the structure, and it

may have lost a significant amount of its original stiffness. However, a substantial

margin remains for additional lateral deformation before collapse would occur.

Collapse prevention (CP): at this level the building has experienced extreme

damage, if laterally deformed beyond this point; the structure can experience instability

and collapse.

AAIT 11
 Figure 2:3: performance levels described by a pushover curve [8]

Whittaker A summarizes the next (second) generation tools and procedures for

performance-based earthquake engineering in the United States [2]. The methodology,

which is described in detail in the draft Guidelines for the Seismic Performance

Assessment of Buildings, builds on the first generation deterministic procedures, which

were developed in the ATC-33 project in the mid 1990s and in ASCE Standard:

ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings.

The procedures and methodologies described in these guidelines include an explicit

treatment of the large uncertainties in the prediction of losses due to earthquakes. This

formal treatment of uncertainty and randomness represents a substantial advance in

performance based engineering and a significant departure from the first generation

deterministic procedures. Fig.2-4: identifies the five basic steps proposed for a next-

generation seismic performance assessment. Unlike prior assessment procedures that

addressed either structural damage or repair cost, three measures of seismic

AAIT 12
 performance are proposed in the guidelines: 1) direct economic loss (repair cost),

2) indirect economic loss (downtime or business interruption), and 3) casualties

(including injuries and death). Each of three performance measures is treated as a

potential loss. Section 2 of the paper introduces the three types of performance

assessment that can be performed using the draft Guidelines and identifies the

basic procedure for each. Section 3 describes the five steps for seismic performance

assessment.

Define Building Characterize

Configuration 1 Earthquake
Hazards 2

Building
Assess Building Compute
Response
Damage 4 Building Losses
Simulation 3
5

Figure 2:4: Procedures for Performance Assessment [3]

The procedures set forth in these guidelines represent a substantial departure from the

deterministic tools and procedures used at this time because uncertainty and randomness

is captured explicitly in every step of the proposed procedures. Fragility functions,

damage states and building-level consequence functions, are used in the proposed

procedures to compute losses.

AAIT 13
2.5. Pushover analysis

Pushover Analysis option will allow engineers to perform pushover analysis as per ATC

40 and FEMA 356. Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure using the simplified

nonlinear technique to estimate seismic structural deformations. It is an incremental

static analysis used to determine the force-displacement relationship, or the capacity

curve, for a structure or structural element. The analysis involves applying

horizontal loads, in a prescribed pattern, to the structure incrementally, i.e. pushing

the structure and plotting the total applied shear force and associated lateral

displacement at each increment, until the structure or collapse condition. [21] Pushover

analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the building is subjected to a lateral

load of a certain shape (i.e., inverted triangular or uniform). The intensity of the lateral

load is slowly increasing and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic hinge

formation, and failure of various structural components is recorded. Pushover

analysis can provide a significant insight into the weak links in seismic

performance of a structure. 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 criterion for

pushover analysis is generally established as the desired state of the building given

rooftop or spectral displacement amplitude. Static Nonlinear Analysis technique, also

known as sequential yield analysis, or simply “pushover” analysis has gained

significant popularity during the past few years.

AAIT 14
2.6. Developing Pushover Curve [21]:

As per FEMA 310 after assigning all properties of the models, the displacement

controlled pushover analysis of the models is carried out. The models are pushed in the

monotonically increasing order until target displacement is reached or structure loses

equilibrium which occurs first. For this purpose, target displacement at roof level and the

number of steps in which this displacement must be defined. In this study, target

displacement takes 4% of building height. Pushover curve is the base shear force versus a

roof displacement curve. The peak of this curve represents the maximum lateral load

carrying capacity of the structure. The initial stiffness of the structure are obtained from

the tangent at pushover at zero level. The collapse is assumed when the structure loses

75% strength and corresponding roof displacement is called “maximum roof

Displacement.” It is plot drawn between base shear and roof displacement. Performance

point and location of hinges in various stages can be obtained from pushover curve. The

range AB is elastic range, B to IO is a range of immediate occupations. IO tools are a

range of life safety and LS to CP is arranged of collapse prevention. When a hinge

reaches appoint C on its force displacement curve that hinge must begin to drop a load.

The way load is dropped from a hinge that has reached point C is that pushover force

(base shear) is reduced until the force in that hinge is consistent with force at point D. As

the force is dropped, all elements unloaded, and the displacement is reduced. Once the

yielded hinge reaches the point D force level, the pushover force is again increased and

the displacement begins to increase again. If all the hinges are within the CP limit, then

the structure is said to be safe. However, depending upon the importance of the structure

the hinge after IO range may also need to be retrofitted.

AAIT 15
 b B

IO
IO LS CP LS
B a C CP
Force
C
D E
D

E
A Displacement

Figure 2:5 Pushover Curve and Hinge state

Slope of BC percentage (0-10%) of elastic slope which represents a strain hardening and

ordinate C- represents strength hardening.

2.7. Summary of literature review

Many qualitative and analytical works have been done by many researchers in the

area of seismic evaluation of existing buildings. A number of conclusions can be drawn

from the above review of seismic evaluations. Firstly, pushover analysis is becoming a

standard seismic assessment and design tools for quantitative evaluations. Secondly,

different countries evaluation guidelines are used for the purpose of qualitative

evaluations. This research is concerned with the pushover analysis of the selected

RCC buildings and qualitative damage evaluation of past earthquakes.

AAIT 16
 3. Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation

3.1. Qualitative Evaluation Method

3.1.1. General

The qualitative evaluation is based on the inspection of the building as a whole and in

detail and on the examination of:

 the structural and architectural design of the building;

 the plotting of the building, its members and details considered significant in

the assessment of the protection level, whenever the original design is not

available or when the building of the structure fails to comply with the design,

or when the building has suffered structural transformations during its service

life without any purpose-made documentation;

 the designs and documentation on which previous interventions were based, as

well as other information on the history of the structure;

 information on the building behavior during previous seismic events;

 considerations related to the norms on which the design of the building was

based or, if necessary, related to the date practices compared with the present

specifications in force;

 the plotting of the possible damage and deterioration;

 the building as a whole and in detail.

AAIT 17
The object of the qualitative assessment is the structural system as well as the non-

structural internal or external members that are likely to cause accidents during seismic

events (partition walls, parapets, ornaments, blind walls, chimneys, etc.).

The qualitative methods are generally analyzed by two methods: visual inspection and

nondestructive tests.

3.1.2. Visual Inspection [24]

Visual inspection provides the most valuable information, as it can be used to identify

any configuration issues, and it allows the measurement of component dimensions, and

the determination of whether the degradation is present. The basic procedure of visual

inspection indicated as follows:

Verifying and Updating the building Identification

Information:
 Number of stories
 Year built
 Screener identifications
 Total floor area

Plan and elevation view

Determining soil type

Determining and documenting occupancy

 Occupancy
 Occupancy load

Identifying potential nonstructural falling

hazards

AAIT 18
 Identifying the lateral-load resisting system and
documenting the related basic score
 Fifteen building type FEMA specified
 Identifying the lateral-force resisting system
 An interior inspection
 Screening building with more than one
lateral force resisting system

Identifying seismic performance attributes and

recording score modifiers:
 Mid rise buildings
 High rise buildings
 Vertical irregularity
 Pre-code
 Post-Bench mark
 Soil type

Photographing the building

Determining the final score

Comment section

Figure 3:1: FEMA Visual inspection guidelines

AAIT 19
 3.1.3. Non-destructive test [4]

The physical conditions of components dictate the need for certain destructive and

nondestructive test methods. Such methods may be used to determine the degree of

damage or presence, contamination, and to improve understanding of the internal

condition and quality of the concrete.

Guidelines and procedures for destructive and nondestructive tests that may be used in

the condition assessment. The following paragraphs identify those nondestructive

examination (NDE) methods having the greatest use and applied to condition assessment.

Surface NDE methods include infrared thermography, delamination sounding, surface

hardness measurement, and crack mapping. These methods may be used to find surface

degradation in Components such as service-induced cracks, corrosion, and construction

defects.

Volumetric NDE methods, including radiography and ultrasound, may be used to

identify the presence of internal discontinuities, as well as to identify loss of section.

Impact-echo ultrasonic is particularly useful because of ease of implementation and

proven capability in concrete.

Structural condition and performance may be assessed through on-line monitoring using

acoustic emissions and strain gauges, and in-place static or dynamic load tests.

Monitoring is used to determine if active degradation or deformations are occurring,

while nondestructive load testing provides direct insight on load-carrying capacity.

AAIT 20
3.2.Quantitative Evaluation Method

3.2.1. General

The quantitative evaluation method aims at:

 Determining the conventional capacity to bear the seismic loads of the inspected

building;

 Identifying highly vulnerable members/areas of the structure;

3.2.2. Non-linear Time history analysis

The method consists of performing a time-history analysis in the nonlinear domain.

The seismic action is directly applied, by means of accelerograms, at the base of the

structure. The use of at least 3 significant accelerograms consistent with the site

conditions of the building is needed. Although it is the most rigorous method from the

theoretical point of view, this approach has important limitations due especially to the

large amount of time required. For the analysis in the case of big structures, as well as the

high level of technical knowledge needed for design engineers.

3.2.3. Capacity Demand analysis

Capacity/Demand (C/D) method: The method has been initially presented by Applied

Technology Council (ATC).The forces and displacements resulting from an elastic

analysis for design earthquake are called demand. These are compared with the capacity

of different members to resist these forces and displacements. A (C/D) ratio less than one

indicates member failure and thus needs retrofitting. The seriousness of the deficiencies

can be easily be assessed by listing the seismic-demand –to-capacity ratio in descending

order. The C/D procedures have been subjected to more detailed examination in the light

AAIT 21
of recent advances in earthquake response studies. The main difficulty encountered in

using this method: there is no relationship between member and structure ductility factor

because of nonlinear behavior and the demand involves gravity effects, the ratio of

demand to capacity of an element may not be necessary to be a good indicator of the

seriousness of hazards due to earthquake hazard.

3.2.4. Pushover analysis

The pushover analysis of a structure is a static nonlinear analysis under permanent

vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral loads. The equivalent static lateral loads

approximately represent earthquake induced forces. A plot of the total base shear versus

top displacement in a structure is obtained by this analysis that would indicate any

premature failure or weakness. The analysis is carried out up to failure, thus it enables

determination of collapse load and ductility capacity. On a building frame, and plastic

rotation is monitored, and lateral inelastic forces versus displacement response for

the complete structure is analytically computed. This type of analysis enables weakness

in the structure to be identified. The decision to retrofit can be taken in such studies.

The purpose of pushover analysis is to evaluate the expected performance of structural

systems by estimating the performance of a structural system by estimating its strength

and deformation demands in design earthquakes by means of static inelastic analysis,

and comparing these demands to available capacities at the performance levels of

interest.

Push over procedure is gaining popularity during the last few years as appropriate

analytical tools are now available (SAP- 2000, ETABS).

AAIT 22
Pushover analysis is of two types, (i) force controlled or (ii) displacement controlled. In

the force control, the total lateral force is applied to the structure in small increments. In

the displacement control, the displacement of the top storey of the structure is

incremented step by step, such that the required horizontal force pushes the structure

laterally. The distance through which the structure is pushed, is proportional to the

fundamental horizontal translational mode of the structure. In both types of pushover

analysis, for each increment of the load or displacement, the stiffness matrix of the e

structure may have to be changed, once the structure passes from the elastic state to the

inelastic state. The displacement controlled pushover analysis is generally preferred

over the force controlled one because the analysis could be carried out up to the desired

level of the displacement

Advantage of pushover analysis over other methods

 Reasonable estimates of inelastic deformation or damage in structures

 Elastic Analysis is not capable of providing information

 Nonlinear dynamic response history analysis is capable of providing the required

information, but may be very time-consuming

 Nonlinear static pushover analysis may provide reasonable estimates of the

location of inelastic behavior

 Does not require selection and scaling of ground motions.

The use of pushover analysis is simple and realistic. The elastic analysis does not have

the capability to compute inelastic deformations, hence it is out. Nonlinear response

history analysis (NRHA) is certainly viable, but is very time consuming. Also, it may

produce a very wide range of responses for a system subjected to a suite of appropriately

AAIT 23
scaled ground motions. Computed deformation demands can easily range by an order of

magnitude (or more) making it difficult to make engineering decisions. Hence, I left with

Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis (NSPA) as a reasonable alternative for this thesis

work.

3.2.5. Quantitative Analysis of case study buildings using pushover

analysis

Nonlinear static analysis, or pushover analysis, could be performed directly by a

computer program which can model the nonlinear behavior of lateral load resisting

members of a structure. Due to lack of design data two buildings were selected for

quantitative analysis.

The buildings designated by case study 01 (Hosanna condominium) and case study 02

(Sawo building).In this study, pushover analyses were performed using SAP2000

V14software.

Following assumptions are made while analyzing a structure in the SAP2000:

(i) The material is homogeneous, isotropic,

(ii) All columns supports are considered as fixed at the foundation ,

(iii) Tensile strength of concrete is ignored in sections subjected to bending ,

(iv) The super structure is analyzed independently from foundation and soil

medium, on the assumptions that foundations are fixed ,

(v) Pushover hinges are assigned to all the member ends. In case of Columns

PMM hinges (i.e. Axial Force and Biaxial Moment Hinge) are provided

while in case of beams M3 hinges (i.e. Bending Moment hinge) are provided

AAIT 24
 (vi) The maximum target displacement of the structure is calculated in

accordance with the guidelines given by FEMA 356.

3.2.5.1. Pushover analysis procedure

a. Collect information on the selected case study buildings.

b. Evaluate if the collected data is sufficient enough to carry out a seismic

evaluation of the buildings.

c. Create the basic computer model (without the pushover data)

d. Define properties and acceptance criteria for the pushover hinges

e. Model the buildings using SAP2000 analysis software.

f. Locate the pushover hinges on the model by selecting one or more frame

members and assigning them one or more hinge properties and hinge locations.

g. A predefined lateral load pattern which is distributed along the building height is

then applied..

h. Run the basic nonlinear static analysis

i. Display the pushover curves

j. Review the pushover displaced shape and sequence of hinge formed on a step-

by-step basis.

k. Determine steps at which performance point is located

l. At performance point review hinge state of each member

AAIT 25
 4. Analysis of selected buildings by Qualitative and Quantitative
methods
4.1.Case Study building descriptions

Table 4.1: Case study building description

Case Study Building type Building use

01 G+2 Residential
02 G+3 Mixed
03 G+2 Office
04 G+3 Commercial
05 G+0 School

4.2.Qualitative analysis of Case study buildings

All buildings are analyzed as per EMS-98 and FEMA -154 guidelines as follows:

4.2.1. Case study 01 Building

It is a two storey reinforced concrete residential building which is built in 2008 and has a

floor of 286.2m2. It is located seismic zone 4.

Figure 4:1: Front view of case study 01

AAIT 26
Table 4.2:Visual inspection chart for case study 01

No. Stories Two

Earthquake/site Screener Aklilu T
Total Floor
2011/Gofarmeda Area 286m2

Occupancy Soil Type

Assembly Gov Office A B C D E F

Commercial Historic Residential Hard Average Dense Stiff Soft Poor
Emer
Services Industrial School Rock Rock Soil soil soil soil

FALLING HAZARDS

Unreinforced Parapets Cladding other

chimneys Window glass

BASIC SCORE,MODIFIERS,AND FINAL SCORE,S

Building type C1

(MRF)

Basic score 3
Mid Rise (4 to 7 stories) 0.2
High Rise (>7 stories) 0.5
Vertical Irregularity -2
plan Irregularity -0.5
pre-code -1
Post-Bench mark 1.2
Soil type C -0.6
Soil type D -1
Soil type E -1.6

FINAL SCORE

COMMENTS
By adding the highlighted numbers, final score of 2.6 was determined. Hence a final score is
greater than cutoff score 2.0. Hence, detailed evaluation of the building is not required

AAIT 27
Figure 4:2: Case study 01 actual damage photo

Damage incurred: Diagonal cracks on the wall between axis B and C in the exterior wall

of the ground floor, which is on the longer direction. The damages are large and

extensive, but not all of them penetrate the whole wall thickness of the wall. Moderate

non-structural damage and categorized on damage grade2 as per EMS-98.

AAIT 28
Figure 4:3: Case study01 damage view photo

Damage incurred: damage of window glass on the ground floor. Slight non structural

damage categorized grade1 as per EMS-98.

AAIT 29
Figure 4:4: Case Study 01 actual damage photo

Damage incurred: removal of clear cover from floor beam and bulging of window frame.

Moderate non- structural damage categorized grade 2 as per EMS-98.

Key damage observed in case study 01

Visual inspections by damage photo indicate that the building has suffered minor

earthquake damage in the long direction of the building.

The key damage observed includes:

 Diagonal Cracks in the external and internal walls

 The fall of plaster and removal of concrete cover some beams

 Misalignment of doors and windows

 It is generally categorized as per EMS-98 from damage grade 1 to grade2

AAIT 30
 4.2.2. Case study 02 Building

Building Description

It is a three storey reinforced concrete mixed use building which is built in 2009 and has

a floor of 380m2 .This structure is occupied by the commercial units at ground story and

by residential units at the upper three stories. It is located seismic zone 4.

Figure 4:5: Case study 02 Front view

AAIT 31
 Table 4.2: Visual Inspection chart for Case study 02

No. Stories Three

Earthquake/site Screener Aklilu T
Total Floor
2011/around Bus station Area 360m2
Occupancy Soil Type

Assembly Gov Office A B C D E F

Commercial Historic Residential Hard Average Dense Stiff Soft Poor
Emer
Services Industrial School Rock Rock Soil soil soil soil

FALLING HAZARDS

Unreinforced Parapets Cladding other

chimneys

BASIC SCORE,MODIFIERS,AND FINAL SCORE,S

Building type C1

(MRF)

Basic score 3
Mid Rise (4 to 7 stories) 0.2
High Rise (>7 stories) 0.5
Vertical Irregularity -2
plan Irregularity -0.5
pre-code -1

Post-Bench mark 1.2

Soil type C -0.6

Soil type D -1

Soil type E -1.6

FINAL SCORE

COMMENTS

By adding the highlighted numbers, final score of 3.2 was determined. Hence a final score is
greater than cutoff score 2.0. Hence detailed evaluation of the building is not required

AAIT 32
 Recorded typical damage photo of Case Study 02 Mixed use building

Figure 4:6: Case study02 actual damage view photo

Damage incurred: from the ground to third floor cracks on infill wall and partial removal

of clear cover on floor beam. Slight non -structural damage categorized grade1 as per

EMS-98.

AAIT 33
Figure 4:7: Case study02 actual damage view photo

Damage incurred: from the ground to third floor slight cracks between infill wall and

reinforced concrete beam. Damage categorized grade1 as per EMS-98.

Key damage observed

Visual inspections indicate the building has suffered slight earthquake damage.

The key damage observed includes:

 Diagonal Cracks in the mortar to the block work cladding

 The removal of plaster and concrete cover on floor beam

 Minor cracks to concrete masonry block linings units

 It is generally categorized as per EMS-98 from damage grade 1

AAIT 34
 4.2.3. Case Study 03 Building:

Case study 03 building is office building which is two stories reinforced concrete frame

building. It is L-shaped in plan but has construction joint between two parts and located

in zone 4. It is the one of the building which is affected by Hosanna earthquake 2010.

Figure 4:8: Figure Front view of Case study 03 building

AAIT 35
Table 4.3: Visual inspection chart for Case study 03 building

No.
Stories Three
Earthquake/site Screener Aklilu T
2010/ Total Floor Area
Occupancy Soil Type

Assembly Gov Office A B C D E F

Commercial Historic Residential Hard Average Dense Stiff Soft Poor
Emer
Services Industrial School Rock Rock Soil soil soil soil

FALLING HAZARDS

Unreinforced Parapets Cladding other

Some
chimneys HCB
BASIC SCORE,MODIFIERS,AND FINAL SCORE,S

Building type C1

(MRF)

Basic score 3
Mid Rise (4 to 7 stories) 0.2
High Rise (>7 stories) 0.5
Vertical Irregularity -2
plan Irregularity -0.5
pre-code -1
Post-Bench mark 1.2

Soil type C -0.6

Soil type D -1
Soil type E -1.6

FINAL SCORE

COMMENTS

By adding the highlighted numbers, final score of 3.2 was determined. Hence a final
score is greater than cutoff score 2.0. Hence, detailed evaluation of the building is not
required

AAIT 36
 Recorded damage photo of Case study 03 office building

Figure 4:9 : Actual damage view photos of case study 03 building

Damage incurred: from the ground to third floor, cracking at the beam and wall interface

of infill walls. Damage categorized grade2 as per EMS-98

AAIT 37
 Figure 4:10: Actual damage view photo of case study 03 building

Damage incurred: Large cracks in partition walls. Damage categorized grade2 as per

EMS-98.

Key damage observed

Visual inspections indicate the building has suffered minor earthquake damage.

The key damage observed includes:

 Diagonal Cracks in the wall

 The fall of plaster and concrete cover on floor beam

 Minor cracks to concrete masonry block linings units

 It is generally categorized as per EMS-98 from damage grade 1 to grade 2

AAIT 38
 4.2.4. Case Study 04 Building

It is a commercial building with three story reinforced concrete frame building. It is

rectangular-shape in plan and located on zone 4. It is the one of the building

which is affected by Hosanna earthquake.

Figure 4:11: Front view of Case Study 04 Building

AAIT 39
 Aklilu
Screener T
Total Floor
2010/ Area
Occupancy Soil Type

Assembly Gov Office A B C D E F

Commercial Historic Residential Hard Average Dense Stiff Soft Poor
Emer
Services Industrial School Rock Rock Soil soil soil soil

FALLING HAZARDS

Unreinforced Parapets Cladding other

chimneys

BASIC SCORE,MODIFIERS,AND FINAL SCORE,S

Building type C1

(MRF)

Basic score 3
Mid Rise (4 to 7 stories) 0.2
High Rise (>7 stories) 0.5
Vertical Irregularity -2
plan Irregularity -0.5
pre-code -1
Post-Bench mark 1.2

Soil type C -0.6

Soil type D -1
Soil type E -1.6

FINAL SCORE

COMMENTS

By adding the highlighted numbers, final score of 3.2 was determined. Hence a final
score is greater than cutoff score 2.0. Hence ,detailed evaluation of the building is not
required

Table 4.4: Visual inspection of Case study 04 building

AAIT 40
 Recorded damage photo of Case study 04 Building

Figure 4:12: Damage photo of Case Study 04 Building

Damage incurred: from ground floor to third floor cracks on walls and junction of frame.

Damage categorized grade2 as per EMS-98.

AAIT 41
Figure 4:13 : Damage photo of Case study 04 Building

Damage incurred: from ground floor to third floor partial removal of the plastering from

walls. Damage categorized grade2 as per EMS-98.

AAIT 42
 Figure 4:14: Damage photo of Case Study 04 Building

Damage incurred: from ground floor to third floor cracks on walls and junction of frame

Damage categorized grade2 as per EMS-98.

Key damage observed

Visual inspections indicate the building has suffered minor earthquake damage.

The key damage observed includes:

 Diagonal Cracks in the mortar to the block work cladding

 the fall of plaster and concrete cover on floor beam

 Minor cracks to concrete masonry block linings units

 It is generally categorized as per EMS-98 from damage grade 2

AAIT 43
 4.2.5. Case Study 05 Building

Table 4.5 Visual inspection

The Case Study 05 School is located 9km away from Hosanna Town.

No.
Stories 0
Earthquake/site Screener Aklilu T
2010/ Total Floor Area
Occupancy Soil Type

Assembly Gov Office A B C D E F

Commercial Historic Residential Hard Average Dense Stiff Soft Poor
Emer
Services Industrial School Rock Rock Soil soil soil soil

FALLING HAZARDS

Unreinforced Parapets Cladding other

chimneys

BASIC SCORE,MODIFIERS,AND FINAL SCORE,S

Building type W1

Basic score 4.4

Mid Rise (4 to 7 stories) N/A
High Rise (>7 stories) N/A
Vertical Irregularity -2.5
plan Irregularity -0.5
pre-code 0.1

Post-Bench mark 2.4

Soil type C 0

Soil type D 0

Soil type E 0

FINAL SCORE

COMMENTS

By adding the highlighted numbers, final score of 4.4 was determined. Hence a final score is
greater than cutoff score 2.0. Hence detailed evaluation of the building is not required

AAIT 44
Figure 4:15: Damage photo of case study 05

Damage incurred partial collapse of building. Damage categorized grade3 as per EMS98

Key damage observed

Visual inspections indicate the building has suffered minor earthquake damage.

The key damage observed includes:

 Partial collapse of walls.

 It is generally categorized as per EMS-98 from damage grade 2

AAIT 45
4.3.Quantitative analysis of Case study buildings

4.3.1. Case study buildings descriptions

Due to lack of design data only case study 01 and 02 buildings analyzed by quantitative

method using SAP2000 pushover analysis.

Table 4.6: Asbuilt Design data

Description Unit/material Case Study Remark

type 01 02
Plan area m2 286 380
Height of m 2.50 2.80
the ground
floor
Remaining M 3.01 3.0
floors
Concrete C-25 C-25

Steel: Φ6, Φ8, Φ10, Φ12 Φ6, Φ8, Φ10, Φ12 S-300

Material
Quality: Steel: Φ14, Φ16, Φ20 Φ14, Φ16, Φ20 S-400

Grade Beam 500x250mm 300x250mm

Bottom bar: 3 Φ14 Bottom bar: 2Φ16
Top bar: 3Φ14 Top bar: 3Φ14
Beam Stirrup: Φ8c/c200 Stirrup: Φ6c/c150

AAIT 46
 Typical For first and second 300X250mm
floor: Sec A-A Bottom bar:2 Φ16
400X200mm Top bar: 3Φ16
Bottom bar:3 Φ14 Stirrup: Φ6c/c150
Top bar: 3Φ14
Stirrup: Φ8c/c200

Description Remark
Case Study
Beam Typical Sec B-B
400X200mm
Bottom bar:4 Φ14
Top bar: 3Φ14
Stirrup: Φ8c/c190

Column Footing Col 1 and Col2: Col 1,Col2 and C3:

200x400mm: 350x350mm:
8 Φ20 Stirrup: 8 Φ20 Stirrup:
Φ8c/c200 Φ8c/c200
Col3:
200x400mm:
Longitudinal 6 Φ20
Stirrup: Φ8c/c200
Typical Col1 and clo2 Col1, clo2 andCol3
200x400mm: 350x350mm:
Longitudinal 8 Φ20 8 Φ16 Stirrup:
Stirrup: Φ8c/c200 Φ8c/c200

Table 4.6: Continued.

AAIT 47
 Lateral Load profile [25]

F b  Ft   W i h i
Fi  n
…………………………………… Equation 4-1
W
j 1
j hj

Fb  S d T1 W ………………………………….. Equation 4-2

Where Fb=Base Shear force and W= Total weight of the structure

Table 4.7: Distribution of Base shear force for case Study 01

Floor Level Fi (KN)

Roof 39.17632
2nd floor 577.7271
1st floor 360.8994
Ground floor 63.7508

Table 4.8: Distribution of Base shear force for case Study 01

Floor Level Fi (KN)

Roof 83.77709
3nd floor 228.9734
2nd floor 170.3988
1st floor 112.8842
Ground floor 54.67593

Pushover analysis is carried out separately in the X and Y directions.

4.3.2. The target displacement δt [4]

Under the Non-linear Static Procedure, a model directly incorporating inelastic material
response is displaced to a target displacement, and resulting internal deformations and

AAIT 48
forces are determined. The mathematical model of the building is subjected to
monotonically increasing lateral forces or displacements until either a target displacement
is exceeded, or the building collapses. The target displacement is intended to represent
the maximum displacement likely to be experienced during the design earthquake.

Te 2
 t  C 0 C1 C 2 C 3 S a g …………………………………… Equation 4-3
4 2

where Te is the effective fundamental period (in seconds) of the building in the
direction under consideration, Sa is the response spectrum acceleration (in g) at the
effective fundamental period and damping ratio of the building in the direction under
consideration; and g is the gravity acceleration.

The correction factors C0, C1, C2 and C3

C0 =concerts SDOF spectral displacement to MDOF roof displacement (based on number
of stories given on ATC-40)
C1=expected maximum inelastic displacement divided by elastic displacement
C2=effects of pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness degradation and strength deterioration
(values are given on ATC-40 based on structure performance level.)
C3= increased displacement due to dynamic p-∆ effects.

Target displacement for case study 01 and case study 02

The coefficients of target displacements for Case study 01 taken as C0=1. 20, C1=1. 2,

C2=1.10, C3=1.00 and Te= 0.320 Sec. For the design level earthquake, the target
displacement computed for this structure δt =0.05m and the coefficients of target
displacements for Case study 02 taken as C0=1.30, C1=1.0, C2=1.10, C3=1.00 and Te=0. 50
Sec. For the design level earthquake, the target displacement computed for this structure
δt = 0. 10m.

AAIT 49
 5. Results and Discussions

5.1. General

This chapter presents the results of pushover analysis of case study 01 and 02 using

SAP2000 software.

5.2. Pushover Curves

Pushover Curves (Base shear versus top displacement) of case study 01 and case study

02. Pushover analysis was carried out separately in the X and Y directions. The resulting

pushover curves, in terms of Base Shear – Roof Displacement (V-Δ). The slope of the

pushover curves is gradually changed to increase the lateral displacement of the building.

This is due to the progressive formation of plastic hinges in beams and columns

throughout the structure. The pushover curves reach a maximum which corresponds to

the failure of the building. There are many plastic hinges formed with big plastic

rotations and the building can no longer sustain them.

AAIT 50
 5.2.1. Pushover Curves of Case Study 01

Pushover Curve in positive X Direction Loading:

Figure 5:1: The pushover curve positive X direction loading of case study 01

The maximum base shear (V) of the structure in positive X direction is 1850 KN and

ultimate roof displacement (Δ) of 0.059 m and linear range up to base shear at 760KN

and roof displacement (∆) of 0.015m.Building with in linear range the hinge state is

immediate occupant level which A to B.

AAIT 51
Pushover Curve in negative X Direction Loading of Case Study 01:

Figure 5.2: Pushover Curve in negative X Direction Loading of Case Study 01

The maximum base shear (V) of the structure in negative X direction is 2340 KN and

ultimate roof displacement (Δ) of 0.086 m and linear range up to base shear at 1200KN

and roof displacement (∆) of 0.017m. Building with in linear range the hinge state is

immediate occupant level which A to B.

AAIT 52
 Pushover Curve in negative Y Direction Loading:

Figure 5:3: The pushover curve for direction –Y of case study 01

The maximum base shear (V) of the structure in negative y direction is 1520 KN and roof

displacement (Δ) 0f (-1.26x10^-3 m). Building with in linear range the hinge state is

immediate occupant level which A to B.

AAIT 53
Final it is observed from the pushover curve of case study 01:

The pushover curves in y direction (longer direction) are being stiffer than the pushover

curves in X direction (shorter direction).

This is explained by the fact that in the Y direction more number of moment resisting

frames (MRF) exists than X direction. The building at y direction receives similar forces

with smaller displacement. Therefore the structure in Y direction has more stiffness as

compared to X direction which is more flexible.

Hence, the results of SAP 2000 output matches with actual damage occurred, most

nonstructural damage like diagonal cracks in walls, damage of the window is occurring

on shorter direction (lesser number of moment resisting frame exists).

AAIT 54
 5.2.2. Pushover Curve (Base shear versus top displacement) of case

study 02

Pushover Curve in positive X Direction Loading:

Figure 5:4: The pushover curve) for positive X direction of case study 02

AAIT 55
The maximum base shear (V) of the structure in positive X direction is 2450 KN and

ultimate roof displacement (Δ) of 0.051 m and linear range up to base shear at 1820KN

and roof displacement (∆) of 0.012m. Building with in linear range the hinge state is

immediate occupant level which A to B.

Pushover curve in positive y Direction Loading of case study 02:

Figure 5:5: The pushover curve) for positive y direction of case study 02

The maximum base shear (V) of the structure in positive y direction is 30000 KN and

ultimate roof displacement (Δ) of 0.047 m and linear range up to base shear at 15000KN

and roof displacement (∆) of 0.012m. Building with in linear range the hinge state is

immediate occupant level which A to B.

AAIT 56
Finally, it is observed from the pushover curve in case study 02, the pushover curve y

direction is being stiffer than the pushover curve in x direction. This is explained by the

fact that in the y direction has more number of MRF than X direction.

The building in the Y direction receives larger forces with smaller displacement.

SAP2000 result confirms, actual damage occurred which is mostly shorter direction.

5.3. Performance Point and Hinge State

5.3.1. Performance Point and Hinge State of Case Study 01

The performance point is the point where the capacity curve crosses the demand curve

according to [4]. Based on this performance point location the damage intensity will be

calculated. If this point located in the immediate occupancy the damage intensity is light.

If this point lies in the life safety the damage intensity is moderate. Similarly, if

performance point lies in collapse prevention then damage intensity is severe. The next

figures show the performance point for all pushover curves. With red color is the elastic

spectrum of EC8 and a series of reduced responses to ADRS format. The green curve

represents the spectrum resistance of the equivalent SDOF system as shown by the

resistance curve. With the orange line defined as the locus of points as defined by [4].

AAIT 57
Performance point in Positive X direction loading:

The performance point of case study 01 building occurred at Step 3 of the analysis.

Figure 5:6: Capacity Spectrum, demand Spectrum and parameter of ATC-40

method for positive X direction of case study 01

The curve shows spectral displacement and spectral acceleration. The performance point

for a given set of values is defined by the intersection of the capacity curve (green) and

the single demand spectrum curve (yellow).

AAIT 58
From Figure 4:5, Observed Capacity spectrum and a demand spectrum curve intersection

point of case study 01 in X direction.

- Performance point of this structure is occurring at base shear force (V) of 1672.429KN

and roof displacement of 0.045m.

Figure 5:7: Presents the overall yielding pattern of the structure at the Performance

point of case study 01 at positive X direction Loading

AAIT 59
Table 5.1: Plastic hinge Pattern for pushover analysis at different damage level of

case study 01in positive x direction loading:

The sequence of plastic hinge formation and state of hinge at various levels of building

performance can be obtained from SAP2000 output. This gives the information about the

weakest member and so the one which is to be strengthened in case of a building need to

be retrofitted.

Base

Shear A to B to IO to LS to CP to C to Beyond

Step Displa(m) force(KN) B IO LS CP C D D to E E

1 0.0085 -673.574 139 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0.0168 -1121.043 178 30 2 1

3 0.043 -1619.712 141 46 8 12 6 24

From the table 5.1: can be concluded that most elements have entered in the plastic zone

(blue color). Six elements of the building are in the Collapse prevention (CP-C) limit

state and 24 elements of building are in collapse limit state (C to D). This means that the

building of almost thirty elements requires Strengthening. This also confirms less number

of moment resisting frames for X direction loading.

AAIT 60
Performance point Due to Positive Y direction loading of case study 01

This analysis was completed in 34 steps and performance point was set Steps 22 of the

analysis. The performance point Sd is equal to 0.076 m.

Figure 5:8: Capacity Spectrum, demand Spectrum and parameter of ATC-40

method for +y direction of case study 01

From 4:7 Observed Capacity spectrum and demand spectrum curve intersection point of

case study 01in Y direction.

Performance point for this structure is occurred at base shear force of 951.604KN and

roof displacement 7.47x10^-5 m.

AAIT 61
Figure 5:9: presents the overall yielding pattern of the structure at the Performance

point of Case study 01 y direction Loading

Table 5.2: Elements States at Performance Step and other Steps of case study 01 Y

direction loading:

AAIT 62
 Base

Shear IO to LS to CP to C to D to Beyond

Step Displa(m) force(KN) A to B B to IO LS CP C D E E

21 0.05 1954.13 200 9 2

22 0.103 2247.394 155 29 32 4 2 4

From the above can be concluded that most elements have entered in the plastic zone

(blue color). Two elements of the building are in the Collapse prevention (CP-C) limit

state and 4 elements of building are in collapse limit state (C to D). This means that the

building of almost six elements requires Strengthening. This means that the building

almost safe.

In addition to pushover capacity curve, capacity-demand curve confirms weaker elements

exists in x direction loading.

AAIT 63
 5.3.2. Performance Point and Hinge State of Case Study 02

Performance point Due to Positive X direction loading of case study 02

The performance point of case study 02 building occurred at Step 3 of the analysis.

Figure 5:10: Capacity Spectrum, demand Spectrum and parameter of ATC-40

method for positive X direction of case study 02:

From figure 5.10: Observed Capacity spectrum and demand spectrum curve intersection

point of case study 02 in X direction.

- Performance point for this structure is occurred at base shear force of

1837.396KN and roof displacement 0.01 m.

AAIT 64
Figure 5:11: presents the overall yielding pattern of the structure at the

Performance point of case study 02 X direction Loading.

Table 5.3: Computed limit states for the case 02 studied building in +X direction case

study 02.

Base
Shear B to IO to LS to CP to C to D to Beyond
Step Displa(m) force(KN) A to B IO LS CP C D E E
1 0.0056 -1172.002 210.5 1
2 0.0082 -1645.848 201.5 9.5
3 0.0117 -1951.269 192 18.5
4 0.016 -2144.685 182.5 27 3
5 0.0262 -2354.102 171 25.5 14.5
6 0.0378 -2449.407 166 15 30
7 0.0499 -2513.364 165 7.5 30 14

From the above can be concluded that most elements have entered in the plastic zone

(blue color). All elements are within the immediate occupant level.

AAIT 65
Performance point Due to Positive y direction loading of case study 02

The performance point of case study 01 building occurred at Step 3 of the analysis.

Figure 5:12: Capacity Spectrum, demand Spectrum and parameter of ATC-40

method for +y direction case study 02

AAIT 66
 Figure 5:13: presents the overall yield pattern of the structure at the Performance

point case study 02

Table 5.4: Elements State at performance point of case study 02

Base
Shear B to IO to LS to CP to C to D to Beyond
Step Displa(m) force(KN) A to B IO LS CP C D E E
1 -0.0307 -8067.663 210.5 1
-
2 -0.0131 14799.745 199 12
-
3 -0.0496 29750.064 177.5 29 5 1

From the above can be concluded that most elements have entered in the plastic zone

(blue color). Only one element is within LS to CP limit state.

AAIT 67
 6. Conclusions

6.1. CONCLUSIONS

Seismic evaluation of five buildings constructed in Hossana town was conducted by

using both qualitative and quantitative method. The qualitative and quantitative is based

on the FEMA and EMS while the quantitative method is nonlinear static (pushover)

analysis performed using SAP2000 software as per ATC 40 life performance criteria.

The main conclusions drawn from the study can be summarized as:

 Case study 02 building has suffered only minor non structural damage from the

actual earthquake .Both qualitative and quantitative analysis results also confirm

with observation.

 Case study 01 building has relatively more damages than case study 02. The

damages were mainly on the infill walls located in the longer direction. This

observation was also confirmed the quantitative analysis with formation of more

number of plastic hinges in the frames of the longer direction.

 The pushover analysis indicates the case study 01 should not satisfy life safety

level. It can be concluded that the building may not withstand further earthquake

and hence need strengthening of vulnerable members.

AAIT 68
6.2.RECOMMENDATIONS

 It is recommended that the Ethiopian building code standards include provisions

for seismic evaluation guidelines.

 Finally the author suggests that such a study shall further be conducted on a large

number of buildings located in Hosanna town and other towns, in order to get a

detailed and realistic existing state of the buildings.

AAIT 69
References

1. A. Shuraim, A. Charif. Performance of pushover procedure in evaluating the

seismic adequacy of reinforced concrete frames. King Saud University

ashuraim@gmail.com. (2007)

2. Whittaker A,Constantnou M, Tsopelas P. Displacement estimates for performance-

based seismic design. J Structure Div, ASCE; 124 (8):905–912, (2007)

3. SAP2000 “Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis

and Design of Structures”, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2001. (6

perform) FEMA273 “Federal Emergency Management Agency”, recommended

Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures

4. ATC 40 “Applied Technology Council, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of

Concrete Buildings”, Volume 1 Report, Redwood City, California, 1996.

5. FEMA 356 “Federal Emergency Management Agency”, Pre standard and

commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.

6. (2000).CSI “Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000, ETABS and SAFE –

Computers and Structures, Inc”, Berkeley, California, USA, October 2005.

7. Vision 2000 committee “performance based seismic engineering of buildings”,

structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), California

8. Saiidi M.and Sözen M.A., 1981, Simple Nonlinear Seismic Response of R/C

Structures, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, 937-952.

AAIT 70
 9. Albanesi, T., Nuti, C and Vanzi, I. (2002), "State of the Art Review for the

Nonlinear Static Methods", Proceedings of 12th European Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, London, Paper No.602, pp. 1-10

10. EL-Esnawy, N.A. (2004), "Evaluation of Inelastic Deformation Spectra for

Performance-Based Seismic Design", Proceedings of Third Egyptian

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 122-136.

11. Fajfar, P. (2000), "A Nonlinear Analysis Method For Performance Based

Seismic Design", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 16,

No. 3, pp. 573-592

12. Fajfar, P. and Fischinger, M. (1988), “N2-A Method for Nonlinear Seismic

Analysis of Regular Structures,” Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 5, pp. 111-116.

13. Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. (1998), "Pros and Cons of a

Pushover Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation", Journal of

Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4-6, pp. 452-464.

14. Mwafy, A.A. (2001), "Seismic Performance of Code-Designed RC Buildings",

Ph.D.Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial

College, London.

15. . Rodrigeuz, M.E., Restrepo, J.I., Carr, A.J. (2002), "Earthquake-Induced Floor

Horizontal Accelerations in Buildings", Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 693-718.

AAIT 71
 16. Sasaki, K.K., Freeman, S.A. and Paret, T.F. (1998), “Multimode Pushover

Procedure (MMP) — A Method to Identify the Effects of Higher Modes in a

Pushover Analysis,” Proceedings of 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Seattle, Washington,

Paper No. , pp. 1-6.

17. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A. (2002), "Incremental Dynamic Analysis",

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 491-514

18. Durgesh C Rai (2011),” Review of documents on Seismic Evaluation of Existing

Buildings”, IITK, GSDMA-EQ03-V1.0, PP1-10

19. G. GRUNTHAL (1998),”European, Macro seismic Scale 1998”, Luxembourg

1998, PP16

20. Kadid.A and Boumrkik .A,” Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete framed

structures “, Asian journal of Civil engineering (building and housing)

Vol.9,no.1,2008

21. FEMA(1998),”FEMA 310-Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings-A

prestandard’, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC,USA

22. Sermi Oguz. A thesis on “EVALUATION OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

PROCEDURES FOR FRAME STRUCTURES‖, April, 2005. Middle East

Technical University

AAIT 72
 23. X.-K. Zou, C.-M. Chan. Optimal seismic performance-based design of reinforced

concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover analysis. Department of Civil

Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon,

Hong Kong, China. Available online 10 May 2005.

24. FEMA 154 “Federal Emergency Management Agency”, Rapid Visual Screening

of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, march 2002

25. Ethiopian Building Code Standard: EBCS-8 Design of Structures for Earthquake

Resistance. (1995) Ministry of Works and urban Development, Addis Ababa.

AAIT 73
APPENDIX A-Case Study Structural Drawings

Case Study 01

AAIT 74
AAIT 75
AAIT 76
AAIT 77
Appendix B –Hinge state of Case Study Buildings
Case Study 01

X direction loading

Hinge state at X direction loading on Axis 4

AAIT 78
Case Study 01 Y-Direction Loading

AAIT 79
SAP 2000 Hinge state of case study 02

AAIT 80
 Appendix C- PUSHOVER ANALYSIS STEPS

Step-1 Linear Analysis & Unlock the Model

 Design the building as per linear analysis using expected strength and modified

partial safety factors..

 After completing the model of the building Unlock the model as shown in Figure

Figure B.1 Unlock the model form

Step-2 Define Load Case of Gravity Loads

 Go to Define > Load Case> Add New Load
Case consisting of Gravity loads (i.e. dead load
and % of live load)).

AAIT 81
Step-3 Assignment of Hinges to Frame Elements

 Select all the beams in the model. Go to Assign > Frame > Hinges

 The hinges should be assigned at both the ends which means at the relative

distance of 0 and 1..

 In similar manner assign hinges to all columns by repeating steps as previously

Carried out for beams the only difference is that column should be assigned P-

M2-M3 hinges instead of M3 hinges

 The SAP 2000 non-linear pre-defined non-linear hinge properties

corresponding to Caltrans hinge model and FEMA 356 hinge model

Step-4 Define PUSHOVER load Case

 Go to Define > Load Case> Add New Load Case >PUSH consisting of load in

proportion to the fundamental mode. This load case is deformation controlled

load.

 Select Load Case Type> Static, Analysis Type> Nonlinear and Geometric Non-

linearity Parameters as P-Delta.

 This load case should be started from a previous load case Gravity since gravity

load will always be acting on the structure.

 Load Application should be Displacement control with Monitored Displacement.

Generally, the monitored displacement is kept equal to 2% of the height of the

building..

AAIT 82
Step-5 RUN Analysis

 While running the analysis it is important to Run the Modal and Gravity analysis

with pushover load case since Pushover load case takes stiffness from gravity load

case and mode shape from Modal load case

 The pushover analysis is a non-linear static analysis so depending upon system

configuration it takes time to complete the analysis

Step-6 Graphically Review the Pushover Analysis Results

 To see the pushover curve Go to > Display > Show Static Pushover Curve, the

display static pushover curve

 The Static Pushover Curve Go to > File > Display Tables it will show the results

of Pushover analysis in Tabular Form.

AAIT 83