International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

1401-1402

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF MULTI STORIED STRUCTURES USING

STATIC NON LINEAR ANALYSIS

P.Swetha1, K. Mythili2, G.Venkat Ratnam3

1 Research Scholar, Department Of Civil Engineering, Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy, Hyderabad, India
2 Associate Professor, Department Of Civil Engineering, Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy, Hyderabad, India
3 Associate Professor,Department Of Civil Engineering, Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy, Hyderabad, India

Abstract
The main objective of the research work presented in this thesis is to provide a systematic procedure to assess the behavior of a structure symmetrical and unsymmetrical
In plan during the seismic excitation using nonlinear static analysis (pushover) have been performed on the
same structure. The literature pertaining to pushover analysis is reviewed. The pushover analysis adopted
in the present study is on similar lines with the procedure presented by Ashraf Habibullah and Stephen
Pyle using ETABS V 9.7 structural analysis software. The effect of earthquake force in a idealized G+4 story
building under maximum earthquake zone, with the help of pushover analysis has been investigated and
the results were compared in terms of base shear, displacement, spectral acceleration, spectral displacement and effective damping and effective time period .to strengthen the symmetric and un symmetric RCC
framed buildings` steel braces are included by using retrofitting method.
The present structure is studied using the evaluation procedures provided in ATC-40 and FEMA-356 documents and IS 1893:2002.
From the above studies it has been observed that nonlinear pushover analysis provides a good estimate of
in elastic deformation demands and also reveals weakness that may remain hidden in an elastic analysis.

*Corresponding Author:
P.swetha,

Research Scholar, Department of CIVIL Engineering,

Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy,
Hyderabad, India
Published: october 28, 2014
Review Type: peer reviewed
Volume: I, Issue :II

Citation:P.Swetha,(2014)DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF

MULTI STORIED STRUCTURES USING STATIC NON LINEAR ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
GENERAL
Earthquakes in general occur due to intense tectonic activity of earth . In recent times there is a
marked increase in the frequency of occurrence of
earthquakes all over the world .the intensity and location of the earthquake is unpredictable even as
on date . structures designed to withstand gravity
loads alone cannot be expected to resist the damages caused due to seismic effects . structures designed for gravity loads are normally well below the
elastic limiting stage and lie within the service loads
. it is neither practical nor economically viable to design structures to remain within elastic limits during earthquakes . the design approach adopted in

the Indian code IS 1893(Part1): 2002 Criteria for

Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures is to ensure that structures possess at least a minimum
strength to withstand minor earthquakes which occur frequently , without damage ; resist moderate
earthquakes without significant structural damage
through some non-structural damage may occur ;
and aims that structures withstand major earthquakes without collapse .
India has experienced many large earthquakes in
the last two decades resulting in heavy loss of life
and property . In fact , more than 50% area in the
country is considered vulnerable to earthquake disasters .Hence there is an urgent need for seismic
evaluation and retrofitting of deficient buildings.
The retrofitting is more so desirable as most of the
majestic structures are designed to resist gravity
loads alone .
A systematic procedure is to be followed while assessing the vulnerability of existing buildings . Detailed survey of the buildings under the interest is
to be undertaken. The basic information collected
in the survey should include review of the building configuration , soil profile and the period of
construction . This is done with the help of quick
checks and evaluation statements .
44

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

However , a detailed evaluation is necessary in order to identify the deficiencies associated with the
structural components with regard to the expected
behavior of the building. The code compliance of the
building can be ascertained only when the available
member capacities are compared with the respective demands due to the earthquake .the demand
in structural members are determined for the seismic forces estimated as per IS 1893-2002 through
linear static analysis . The member capacities are
determined using the procedures prescribed in IS
456-2000 .The deficient members are identified and
the Demand to Capacity Ratio(DCR) exceeds unity
indicating the need for retrofitting in order to establish compliance with prevailing codes.
NEED FOR THE INVESTIGATION
Low to medium height reinforced concrete frame
buildings with masonry infill are common in urban India . All these buildings in general designed
to resist gravity loads and hence cant be expected
to resist the latest seismic provisions . Earthquake
causes shaking of the ground in unspecified directions . The horizontal shaking along X and Y directions remain a matter of concern . Structures designed for gravity loads , in general may not be able
to safely sustain the effects of horizontal shaking
due to earthquakes . Hence it is necessary to ensure the strength of the structure against horizontal
earthquake effects
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The primary objective of this work is to study the
seismic response of RC framed building. The effect of earthquake force on building in a symmetric
and un symmetric building under maximum earth
quake zone ,with the help of push over analysis has
been investigated.
In the present study the main objective is the
investigate the impact of steel bracings in improving
the seismic capacity of RC buildings.
The main objective of undertaking the present study
are as follows :

The study is propose to made with ETABS package

on a symmetric and non-symmetric RCC buildings
of five story height , the introduction of steel bracings may be consider as one method of retrofitting.
In the conventional retrofitting technologies adopted to strength the RCC buildings to begin with the
pushover analysis is carried out on RCC buildings
there after depending on the deficiencies, the retrofitting technologies are adopted in the present study
the capacity of the building is increased by the use
of steel braces provided to connect the columns
and beams at the beam columns junction below the
roof. a study is made to access the additional shear
capacity of the building as well as the additional
stiffness for both buildings with both symmetric
and un symmetric plans
SUMMARY
In this chapter, the importance of earthquake and
the post disaster effects of it and some light has been
thrown on the earthquake design philosophy to be
adopted in the construction and the various important seismic codes of India. The scope and objective
is also been discussed. Based on the objective of the
present study, research papers were collected and
studied thoroughly. The review of research papers
is discussed in the next chapter named as literature
review.
TERMINOLOGY
The following are the definitions which are most
commonly used in pushover analysis
Performance Point
It is the point where the capacity spectrum intersects the appropriate demand spectrum (capacity
equals demand ). To have desired performance ,
every structure has to be designed for this level of
forces

1)To analyze a RC framed building both symmetric

and un symmetric using pushover analysis procedure , with ETABS v 9.7 for ascertaining the seismic load carrying .
2)To compute the seismic response of building in
terms of base shear , spectral acceleration, spectral
displacement and roof displacements.
3)To study the effect of the steel bracings as a method of retrofitting .
4)The increasing in base shear .

Representing capacity spectrum , demand spectrum , performance point

5)The reduction in amplitude of maximum displacements.

45

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

Building Performance Levels

Building performance is a combination of the performance of both structures and non-structural
components . Different buildings performance level,
used to described the performance of building in
pushover analysis are described below
Operational Level (OL):
Building meeting this performances level are expected to sustain no permanent drift and the structure substantially retains original strengths and
stiffness .major cracking of facades, partition and
ceilings as well as structural elements are seen . All
the system important to normal operation are functional . Non-structural components are expected to
sustain negligible damage .

Building Performance Levels

Immediate Occupancy Level (IO) :

Building meeting this performances level are expected to sustain no permanent drift and the structure substantially retains original strengths and
stiffness . Minor cracking of facades , partition and
ceilings as well as structure elements are seen . Elevators can be restarted . Fire protection is operable
. Non- structural components such as equipments
and contents stays generally secure , But may not
be operative due to mechanical failure or lack of
utilities.
Life Safety Level (LS):

GENERAL

This level is indicated when some residual strength

and stiffness is left in all stories .Gravity load bearing elements function, no out-of-plane failure of
walls or tripping of parapets occurs . There may
some permanent drift , damage to partitions and
the building may be beyond economical repair .
Among the non-structural components falling hazards mitigated but many architectural , mechanical
and electrical system get damaged

The existing buildings can become seismically deficient since seismic design code requirements are
commonly upgraded and advancement in engineering knowledge . Future , Indian buildings built over
past two decades are seismically deficient because
of lack of awareness regarding seismic behavior of
structure , The widespread damage especially to
RC buildings during earthquakes exposed the construction practices being adopted around the world
, and generated a great demand for seismic evaluation and retrofitting of existing building stocks
Thus , it leads to the necessary of non-linear static
pushover analysis .

Collapse Prevention Level (CP):

Building meeting this performance level are excepted to have little residual stiffness and strength
,but load bearing columns and walls function . The
building is expected to sustain large permanent
drifts , some exit blocked , infill and un-braced
parapet failure .Extensive damage to occur to nonstructural component . At this level of performance
, the building remains near collapse state

A typical force deformation curve

The static pushover analysis is becoming a popular tool for seismic performance evaluation of existing and new structures . The expectation is that
the push over analysis will provide adequate system
and its components
The purpose of the study is to summarize the basic concepts on which the pushover analysis can be
based , assess the accuracy of the pushover predictions, identify conditions under which the pushover
will provide adequate information and perhaps more
importantly , identify causes in which the pushover
predictions will be inadequate or even misleading

46

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

PRESENT STUDY
INTRODUCTION
In the present study a rectangular building of G+4
stored symmetrical building and unsymmetrical
building with same height are considered, push
over analysis of the buildings is taken up with and
without steel bracings using the package ETABS.
Description And Plan For Symmetrical Building
In the present work, a G+4 storied reinforced concrete frame building situated in maximum earth
quack Zone V, is taken for the purpose of study. The
plan area of building is 1200x900mm with 300mm
as height of each typical story. It consists of 4 bays
in X-direction and 4 bays in Y-direction. The total
height of the building is 1500mm. The building is
considered as a Special Moment resisting frame.
The plan of building is shown in while the isometric
view of the buildings Structure with brace and without braces

UN symmetrical building plan and section in ETABS

V9.7
STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS OF THE BUILDING

storey
Slab thickness

G+4
125mm

Beam dimensions
Column dimensions
Exterior wall
Interior wall

230 mm x 450 mm
230mm x 450 mm
230 mm
150 mm

Structural dimensions of building

General Data Collection
The building is a G+4 storey building located in
zone V. Tables 5.2, Table 5.3, Table 5.4 present a
summary of the building parameters .The details of
the building are given below.
symmetrical building plan and section in ETABS V
9.7

Variable

As the structure is regular and relatively simple the

identification of the differences in results can be
known in easy and can be discuss in depth.
The Structure without braces and Structure with
braces are having same frame properties i.e., same
beam and column properties the only thing that differ is that the Structure is acquainted with braces
on the top of the slab connected to beams and columns.

Type of foundation

Description And Plan For Unsymmetrical Building

In this present work a G+4 stored rein forced concrete frame building situated in maximum earth
quake Zone V, is taken for the purpose of study .
The plan area of building is 1600x1800 mm with
300mm as height of each typical storey. It consists
of 5 bays in X-direction and 7 bays in Y-direction.
The total height of the building is 1500mm. The
building is considered as un symmetrical in plan
as a Special Moment resisting frame. The plan of
building is shown in while the isometric view of the
buildings Structure with brace and with out braces

Type of soil

Seismic zone

Type
Reference
Medium soil
IS 1893:2002
Isolated footing ---V

IS 1893:2002

Geo technical and Geo logical data

Introduction To Load Patterns
Nonlinear static analysis, or pushover analysis,
could be performed directly by a computer program
which can model nonlinear behaviour of lateral load
resisting members of a structure. However, the computational scheme and the assumptions involved in
modelling nonlinear member behaviour could be different that there may be variations in the pushover
results obtained from different software. Therefore,
the underlying principles of any software utilized for
pushover analysis should be well understood to interpret the results of pushover analysis.

47

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

Pushover Analysis Using Etabs V9.7:

The following steps are included in the pushover
analysis. Steps 1 to 4 are to create the computer
model, step 5 runs the analysis, and steps 6 to 10
review the pushover analysis results.

Frame Hinge Properties Data

Geometry of symmetric structure

Reinforcement area in the beams and columns analysed by linear response spectrum
Create the basic computer model (without the
pushover data) as shown in fig 5.6 . The graphical
interface of ETABS v9.7makes this quick and easy
task. Assigned sectional properties & applies all the
gravity loads (i.e. Dead load and Live load) on the
structure respectively.
In order to know the reinforcement area in the
Beam and Columns the Response Spectra linear
Analysis was done for the zone II with Soil Type-2
and the Building was designed as per IS 456
Define properties and acceptance criteria for the
pushover hinges. The program includes several
built-in default hinge properties that are based on
average values from ATC-40(3) for concrete members
and average values from FEMA-356(2) for concrete
members. In this analysis, M3 hinges have been defined at both the column ends and M3 hinges have
been defined at both the ends of all the beams.

Define hinges
Define the pushover load cases, Fig. 5.10, Fig. 5.11
and Fig. 5.12. In ETABS v9.7 more than one pushover load case can be run in the same analysis. Also
a pushover load case can start from the final conditions of another pushover load case that was previously run in the same analysis. Typically the first
pushover load case was used to apply gravity load
and then subsequent lateral pushover load cases
were specified to start from the final conditions of
the gravity pushover. Pushover load cases can be
force controlled, that is, pushed to a certain defined
force level, or they can be displacement controlled,
that is, pushed to a specified displacement. Typically a gravity load pushover is force controlled and lateral pushovers are displacement controlled. In this
case a Gravity load combination of 1.5DL+1.5LL has
been used. This combination has been defined as
GRAV. The lateral loads, have been applied by giving the displacement to the model to be analysed to
a case called PUSH.

Locate the pushover hinges on the model by selecting all the frame members and assigning them
one or more hinge properties and hinge locations as
shown in Fig. 5.9

48

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

Pushover curve for the symmetric structure with

steel bracings

Static load case

Run analysis windows for the practical building

Pushover curve for the symmetric structure

steel bracings

49

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

Capacity spectrum for symmetrical structure with

steel bracings
Pushover curve for the un symmetric structure
with steel bracings

Capacity spectrum for un symmetrical structure

with steel bracings
Capacity spectrum for symmetrical structure

The pushover displaced shape and sequence of

hinge information on a step-by-step basis was obtained and is shown in the Fig. 6.1 to 6.4 for the
Structure without steel bracings and in the Fig. 6.5
to 6.8 for the Structure with steel bracings. Output
for the pushover analysis can be printed in a tabular form for the entire model or for selected elements
of the model. The types of output available in this
form include joint displacements at each step of the
pushover, frame member forces at each step of the
pushover, and hinge force, displacement and state
at each step of the pushover.

Capacity spectrum for un symmetrical structure

50

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

SUMMARY
This chapter completely takes care of the case study
of a Structure under consideration and the various
building data surveys done to gather the information for modeling of the structure, after carrying
out the pushover analysis , the pushover curves
for both the buildings with and without steel bracings are obtained, based on the performance points
obtained the significant contribution by the use of
steel bracings is noted and found a great achievement to the field of retrofitting And also illustrates
the step by step procedure followed for the static
non-linear analysis.

that the number of element hinges in the life safety

Performance Level started with the formation of two
Hinges with the Displacement of 106.18 mm and remained in the life safety Performance Level for the
entire drift with 400 element hinges in it having the
Displacement and Base shear as 77.622 mm and
796.22 kN respectively.

DISCUSSION ON RESULTS
GENERAL
The structures has been modelled and the Pushover
analysis of the structures has been carried out accordingly with the ETABS v9.7
DISCUSSION ON RESULTS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR THE SYMMETRICAL STRUCTURE
WITHOUT STEEL BRACINGS AND WITH STEEL
BRACINGS
Observations under Pushover Curve
The Structures has been given in a Pushover curve
for the Structures was graphically generated for
both the symmetric and un symmetric Building i.e.
Structure without steel bracings and Structure With
steel bracings as shown in the Fig. 5.14 and Fig.
5.16 respectively, It has been observe from the Fig.
5.14 and Fig. 5.15 that the base shear was monolithically increasing with the Displacement. And for
the Drift the Maximum Base Shear was observed to
be 796.22 kN and 1560.99 kN respectively.
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 show the step by
step details for the change in base shear, and the
number of elements falling in different performance
levels like immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention as the roof Displacement changes.
It has been clearly observed from the Table 6.1 for
the symmetric Structure without steel bracings
that the hinges were in the elastic region (i.e. A to
B) up to a displacement of 19.31mm and further
increase in the displacement leads to formation of
56 hinge with this the structure enters into nonlinear stage (i.e. B to IO). The structure remains in
this Immediate Occupancy performance level till
the displacement reached 44.3 mm with the Base
shear of 642.7kN at this stage it was observed that
there were around 70 element hinges in this Performance Level and further increase in the displacement increases the number of hinge formation in
other Performance Levels. the structure enter the
performance level of Life Safety With the formation
of 10 hinges at the displacement of about 73.66 mm
and the building remained in this Life safety Performance Level for the entire Drift. It was observed

pushover table for symmetrical structure without

steel bracings
It has been clearly observed from the Table 6.2 that
the for the symmetric Structure with Steel bracings
it started with the Immediate Occupancy stage (i.e.
B to IO) with the formation of 20 element hinges
in this Performance Level.The structure remains
in this Immediate Occupancy performance level
till the displacement reached 26.377 mm with the
Base shear of 707.054 kN at this stage it was observed that there were around 280 element hinges
in this Performance Level and further increase in
the displacement makes the structure enters other
Performance Levels. the structure enter the performance level of Life Safety With the formation
of 108 hinges at the displacement of about 80.512
mm and the building remained in this Life safety
Performance Level for the entire Drift. It was observed that the number of element hinges in the life
safety Performance Level started with the formation
of 2 Hinges with the Displacement of 111.372 mm
and remained in the life safety Performance Level
for the entire drift with 40 element hinges in it having the Displacement and Base shear as 53.316 mm
and 2496.04 kN respectively.

Pushover Curve table for the symmetric structure

with steel bracings

51

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

Observations under Capacity spectrum curve

The Fig. 5.18 and Fig. 5.20 shows the capacity
spectrum curve for a drift, obtained the intersection
of pushover curve with response spectrum curve.
Firstly both these curves are converted in terms of
spectral acceleration and spectral displacement i.e.
in the ADRS format, and then they are superimposed to give the performance point of the structure.
The green colour curve seen in the Fig. 5.18 and
Fig. 5.20 is the pushover curve for the symmetric
Structure without steel bracings and the symmetric
Structure with steel bracings respectively and the
curve in yellow color is the response spectrum curve
in terms of spectral acceleration and spectral displacement.
At the performance point for the symmetric Structure without steel bracings the base shear is 796.22
KN at a displacement of 77.622 mm, we can observe
that the hinges are still in the state of Immediate
Occupancy Performance level. Hence, the structure is still safe at this performance point for design
based earthquake for the Zone V. Table 6.3 shows
the demand, capacity details in terms of single demand spectrum ADRS (variable Damping) and capacity spectrum at various steps during the pushover analysis for Drift. The effective time period at
the performance point is 0.978 sec and the effective
Damping was 0.185 which can be seen between the
steps 2nd and 3rd (refer Fig. 5.18 and Table 6.3).

Capacity Spectrum Curve table for the symmetric

Structure without steel bracings
At the performance point for the symmetric Structure with steel bracings the base shear is 1560.99
kN at a displacement of 70.237mm, which was obtained between steps 1st and 2nd (refer Table 6.4),
we can observe that the hinges are still in the state of
Immediate Occupancy Performance level. Hence,
the structure is still safe at this performance point
for design based earthquake for the Zone V. Table
6.4 shows the demand, capacity details in terms of
single demand spectrum ADRS (variable Damping)
and capacity spectrum at various steps during the
pushover analysis for Drift. The effective time period
at the performance point is 0.639 and the effective
Damping was0.077. which can be seen between the
steps 2nd and 3rd (refer Fig. 5.20 and Table 6.4).

DISCUSSION ON RESULTS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS . FOR THE UN SYMMETRIC STRUCTURE

WITHOUT STEEL BRACINGS AND THE UN SYMMETRIC STRUCTURE WITH STEEL BRACINGS
Observations under Pushover curve
The Modelled un symmetrical Structures has been
given a initial Drift . The Pushover curve for the un
symmetrical Structures was graphically generated
for both the Building i.e. un symmetrical Structure
without steel bracings and Structure With steel
bracings as shown in the Fig. 5.15 and Fig5.17
respectively. It has been observe from the Fig5.15
and Fig. 5.17 that the base shear was monolithically increasing with the Displacement. And for the
.Drift the Maximum Base Shear was observed to be
1561.499 kN and2496.045 kN respectively.
Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 show the step by step details for the change in base shear, and the number
of elements falling in different performance levels
like immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse
prevention as the roof Displacement changes.
When the un symmetrical Structure without steel
bracings was given a Drift the further Deformation
Performance of the Building was graphically represented in the Fig. 5.15. It has been clearly observed
from the Table 6.5 that from the Step 7th the building enter in the Collapse Prevention Performance
Level (i.e. from LS to CP) with the formation of 114
element hinges in it with the Base shear and Displacement as 710.770 kN and 19.50mm respectively and further increase in the Displacement at
about 44.04mm the building entered in the Residual Strength zone with the Base Shear as 1288.160
kN and there are 31 element hinges in this Residual strength zone. It has been observed that the
Base shear has increased down from 1288.16kN to
1515.75KN in the Total Failure Zone and the no of
element hinges in this zone are 13 with Displacement of about 99.34mm this was observed. The
Building was Totally Elapsed at the Displacement
of about 99.34mm so there is no need for assessing
the . Drift of the building.

52

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

tive time period at the performance point is 1.030sec

and the effective Damping was 0.201 which can be
seen between the steps 1st and 2nd (refer Fig 5.19
and Table 6.7).

Pushover curve table for un symmetrical structure

without steel bracings
When the un symmetrical Structure with steel
bracings was given a Drift the further Deformation
Performance of the Building was graphically represented in the Fig. 5.17. It has been clearly observed
from the Table 6.6 that the building enter in the
Collapse Prevention Performance Level (i.e. from LS
to CP) with the formation of 31 element hinges in it
with the Base shear and Displacement as 1288.162
kN and 44.04mm respectively and further increase
in the Displacement at about 71.77mm the building entered in the Residual Strength zone with the
Base Shear as 1542.697 kN and there are 27 element hinges in this Residual strength zone .At .the
building has entered the Total Failure Zone with
Base shear, Displacement and number of element
hinges as 16207.036kN, 99.34mm and 4 respectively. It has been observed that the Base shear has
increased from 1561.499kN to 2496.045kN .and no
of element hinges in this zone are with Displacement of about 77.919mm. The Building was Totally Elapsed at the Displacement is decreased from
77.919 to 53.316.

Capacity Spectrum Curve table for the un symmetric Structure without steel bracings.
At the performance point for the un symmetric Structure with steel bracings the base shear is 2496.045
kN at a displacement of 53.316 mm, which was obtained between steps 1st and 2nd (refer Table 6.8),
we can observe that the hinges are still in the state of
Immediate Occupancy Performance level. Hence,
the structure is still safe at this performance point
for design based earthquake for the Zone V. Table
6.8 shows the demand, capacity details in terms of
single demand spectrum ADRS (variable Damping)
and capacity spectrum at various steps during the
pushover analysis. The effective time period at the
performance point is 0.599 and the effective Damping was 0.077 which can be seen between the steps
2th and 3th (refer Fig. 5.21 Table 6.8).

Capacity Spectrum Curve table for the un symmetric Structure with steel bracings

Pushover Curve table for the un symmetrical Structure with steel bracings
Observations under Capacity spectrum curve
The Fig. 5.19 and Fig. 5.21 shows the capacity spectrum curve, obtained the intersection of pushover
curve with response spectrum curve.
At the performance point for the un symmetric
Structure without steel bracings the base shear is
1245.475 kN at a displacement of 26 mm, which
was obtained between steps 1st and 2nd (refer Table 6.7), we can observe that the hinges are still in
the state of Immediate Occupancy Performance
level. Hence, the structure is still safe at this performance point for design based earthquake for
the Zone V Table 6.7 shows the demand, capacity
details in terms of single demand spectrum ADRS
(variable Damping) and capacity spectrum at various steps during the pushover analysis. The effec-

HINGE PATTERNS FOR SYMMETRIC STRUCTURE

WITHOUT STEEL BRACINGS AND UN SYMMETRIC
STRUCTURE WITH STEEL BRACINGS
Fig. 6.1 to 6.4represent the sequence of formation
of hinges from the initial stage i.e. from the elastic
stage to the total collapse stage for the symmetric
Structure without Steel bracings and the symmetric
Structure with steel bracings respectively. These are
color coded and are represented by respective color
at different pushover steps. These hinges are essential to closely study the behavior of the structure.

53

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

hing pattern for symmetrical without steel bracings

hing pattern for symmetrical with steel bracings

hingpattern for un symmetrical with steel bracings

Performance of
zones V

different structures under the

The Capacity Spectrum Curves for The symmetric

Structure without Steel bracings under maximum
Earthquake Zones V. The performance point of the
building in terms of Base shear, Roof Displacement,
Spectral Acceleration, Spectral Displacement, effective Time Period, and Effective Damping of the
structure.
The symmetric Structure without Steel bracings
and The Structure With Steel bracings were first
analysis by the Non Linear Static analysis and were
Designed accordingly to the Indian IS 456-2000.
Pushover Analysis on these building was performed
accordingly under the different Zones. The Performance point of the Structures was tabulated in the
Table 6.9 and Table 6.10 accordingly to the change
in the Earthquake Zones
Summary
This chapter copes with the numerical study and
presentation of results of pushover analysis method
for the current buildings under study and the results are tabulated and are represented in the form
of graphs. The results were studied and based on
the study, the conclusions were drawn. The conclusions for the present study are given in the next
chapter.
CONCLUSIONS
After having perform the pushover analysis on two
different buildings with and without steel bracings
following conclusions are drawn

hing pattern for un symmetrical without steel bracings

In symmetrical building based an the performance point obtained from pushover curve (fig no
page no )and the same building with steel bracings
(fig no page no) the value of base share is found increased by % and the amplitude and displacement
found by reduced %

In un symmetrical building based on the
performance point obtained from pushover curve
(fig no page no )and the same building with steel
bracings (fig no page no) the value of base share is
54

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

found increased by % and the amplitude and displacement found by reduced %

Based on the above study it is felt that introduction of steel bracings is one proven method of structural retro fitting
SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY
In the present study, the pushover analysis has
been carried out for the G+4 storey buildings. This
study can further be extended for tall buildings.
In the present study, the conceptual design i.e.,
the sizes of beams and columns are kept common.
Work can be done to optimize the sizes of various
frame elements using pushover analysis.
Further studies can be done to compare the accuracy of non-linear pushover analysis and non-linear
time history analysis taking the displacement as a
common parameter.
Laboratory tests on the structures should be carried out to backup the numerical results so that
these results can be more informative and valuable.
More studies are required to carried out before
generalized conclusions can be drawn
A retrofitting of frames with weak storey and un
symmetrical elevations are also needed to be studied.
SUMMARY
This chapter, details the discussions drawn based
on the present work and the scope for the further
study and Investigation based on the present study
was discussed.
REFERENCES
1. A. Kadidand A. Boumrkik, (2008), Pushover
analysis of reinforced concrete frame structures, at Department of Civil Engineering, University of Banta, Algeria, Asian journal of civil
engineering (building and housing) vol. 9, No. 1
pp 75-83.
2. ASCE, (2002), Standard Methodology for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings, Standard No.
ASCE-31. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia.
3. Ashraf Habibullah and Stephen Pyle, (1998),
Practical three dimensional non-linear static
pushover analysis, Structures Magazine, winter.
4. Ashraf Habibullah S.E., (2008), Physical object
based analysis and design modelling of shear
wall systems using etabs, at Computers &
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.

5. ATC NEHRP, (1997), Commentary on the

Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, FEMA 274 Report, prepared by the
Applied Technology Council, for the Building
Seismic Safety Council, published by FEMA,
Washington, D.C.
6. ATC-40, (1996), Seismic evaluation and retrofit
of concrete buildings, Vol.1, Applied Technology Council, Redwood city, CA.
7. ATC, (2006), Next-Generation PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines: Program Plan
for New and Existing Buildings, FEMA 445,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
8. Biggs JM. Book, (1964), Introduction to structural dynamics, USA, Publisher: McGraw-Hill.
9. BjrkHauksdttir, (2007), Analysis of a reinforced concrete shear wall, M,Sc thesis.
10. Bracci J.M., Kunnath S.K. and Reinhorn A.M.,
(1997), Seismic Performance and Retrofit
Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
123, 3-10.
11. Chintanapakdee C. and Chopra A.K., (2003),
Evaluation of Modal Pushover Analysis Using
Generic Frames, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 32,417-442.
12. Chopra A.K. and Goel R.K., (1999), Capacity
Demand Diagram Methods for Estimating Seismic Deformation of Inelastic Structures: SDOF
Systems, PEER Report 1999/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University
of California, Berkeley.
13. Chung- Yue Wang and Shaing-Yung Ho, (2007),
Pushover analysis for structure containing rc
walls, at The 2nd International Conference on
Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan November, 27-29.
14. CPAMI., (2002), Code requirements for structural concrete, Taiwan: Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior, CPRMI
publisher.
15. Computers & Structures, Inc., (2002), SAP
2000 Integrated Building Analysis & Design,
User Interface Manual, .
16. Computers & Structures, Inc Website: www.csiberkeley.com
17. Edward L. Wilson, (2002), Three-dimensional
static and dynamic analysis of structures, at
Computers and Structures, Inc.1995 University
Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 USA.
18. Fajfar P. and Fischinger M., (1987), Nonlinear
Seismic Analysis of R/C Buildings: Implications
of a Case Study, European Earthquake Engineering, 31-43.
19. FEMA 273, NEHRP, (1997), Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Building, prepared for
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
20. FEMA 356, (2000), NEHPR guidelines for Pre
standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, prepared for Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington
DC.
55

International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)

21. Glkan P. and Szen M.A., (1974), Inelastic

Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures to
Earthquake Ground Motions, Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Vol.71, 601-609.
22. Helmut krawinkler and G. D. P. K Seneviratna
, (1998), Pros and conc of pushover analysis of
seismic performance evaluation, at Engineering Structures, Vol.20, Nos4-6, pp452-464.
23. ICBO Uniform Building Code, (1997), Structural Engineering Design Provisions, International
Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, 1997
Edition, Vol.2 California, U.S.A.
24. Ima M., Benjamin L., Irma J.H., and Hartanto
W., (2007), Performance of modal pushover
on a first mode dominant moment resisting
frame, Group of Structures and construction,
EACEF-128, Indonesia - September 26.
25. Iwan W.D., (1980), Estimating Inelastic Response Spectra from Elastic Spectra, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 8, 375-388.
26. IS 13935:1993, (2002-2004), Indian Standard
guidelines for repair and seismic strengthening
of buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, Edition 1.1.
27. IS 1893(Part 1):2002, (2002), Indian Standard
criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, (5th revision).
28. Kappos A.J. and Manafpour A., (2000), Seismic Design of R/C Buildings with the Aid of
Advanced Analytical Techniques, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 23, 319-332.
29. Kowalsky M.J., (1994), Displacement-Based
Design Methodology for Seismic Design Applied
to R/C Bridge Columns, Masters Thesis, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.
30. Krawinkler H. and Seneviratna G.D.P.K., (1998),
Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation, Engineering
Structures, Vol.20, 452-464.

author

P.SWETHA
Research Scholar, Department of CIVIL Engineering,
Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy,
Hyderabad, India

MRS. K. MYTHILI
Associate Professor, Department of CIVIL Engineering,
Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy,
Hyderabad, India
MR. G.VENKAT RATNAM
Associate Professor, Department of CIVIL Engineering,
Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy,
Hyderabad, India

56