Accepted Manuscript

Title: An Analytical Study on Performance of a Diagrid

Structure Using Nonlinear static Pushover Analysis

Author: Kiran Kamath H Sachin Jose Camilo Karl Barbosa

Noronha

PII: S2213-0209(16)30018-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.pisc.2016.04.004
Reference: PISC 166

To appear in:

Received date: 18-2-2016

Accepted date: 7-4-2016

Please cite this article as: Kamath, K., Sachin, H., Noronha, J.C.K.B.,An Analytical
Study on Performance of a Diagrid Structure Using Nonlinear static Pushover Analysis,
Perspectives in Science (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2016.04.004

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 An Analytical Study on Performance of a Diagrid Structure Using Nonlinear static
Pushover Analysis
1,a
Kiran Kamath, 2,aSachin H, 3,aJose Camilo Karl Barbosa Noronha
1
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, E-mail address: kiran.kamath@manipal.edu
2
Post graduate student, Civil Engineering Department, E-mail address: sachin43.h@gmail.com

t
3

ip
Post graduate student, Civil Engineering Department, E-mail address: karl.nor14@gmail.com
a
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal, Karnataka, India, 576104.

cr
Abstract: In this study, an attempt has been made to study the performance characteristics of

us
diagrid structures using nonlinear static pushover analysis. The models studied are circular in
plan with aspect ratio H/B, (where H is total height and B is the base width of structure) varying

an
from 2.67 to 4.26. The three different angles of external brace considered are 59°, 71° and 78°
[1]. The width of the base is kept constant at 12m and height of the structure is varied
accordingly. The nonlinear behavior of the elements is modelled using plastic hinges based on
M
moment- curvature relationship as described in FEMA 356 [2] guidelines. Seismic response of
structure in terms of base shear and roof displacement corresponding to performance point were
d

evaluated using nonlinear static analysis and the results are compared. For 71° brace angle model
base shear at performance shows an increase in all the aspect ratio considered in the study. The
te

performance of the structure is influenced by brace angle and aspect ratio.

p

Keywords: Diagrid Structure, Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis, Aspect Ratio.

ce

1. Introduction
A diagrid structure is a form of a space truss which is effective in reducing shear deformation, as
Ac

they carry the lateral load by an axial action of diagonal members. The use of braces in the
perimeter of structure results in structurally efficient behavior, attracting interest from structural
designers of tall buildings. The bracing angle is important in resisting lateral as well as gravity
load. This type of structural form results in significant reduction in the amount of structural steel
as studied by Kamath and Ahmed [3].
1.1 Pushover analysis
In pushover analysis, the structure is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral loads till the
target displacement is reached. Pushover analysis is conducted using the displacement controlled

Page 1 of 6
method. In displacement control method, the displacement of the top storey of the structure is
incremented step by step, such that required horizontal forces pushes the structure laterally. Base
shear vs. roof displacement curves is obtained from pushover analysis. These curves are called
pushover or capacity curves. The intersection of these curves with the seismic demand curves
gives the performance point. Krawinkler and Seneviratna [4] studied that the nonlinear behaviors

t
ip
such as yielding and failure mechanism are obtained using nonlinear static pushover analysis.

cr
2. Description of structural model
The model considered in the present study is circular in the plan as studies conducted by Kamath

us
and Ahmed [3]. The typical plan, elevation and 3-D model of the diagrid structural model are as
shown in Fig. 1. The model has a diameter of 12m and each of storey height 3.2m. All the

an
structural models are assumed to be hinged at the base. The members are designed according to
IS 800:2007 [5]. For beams, ISLB 200 sections are used. Columns are of ISWB 450 sections. For
braces, steel tube section of outer diameter 150mm and 10mm thickness is used. Steel of grade
M
Fe250 is used for all sections. The concrete slab of 150mm thick is considered in the present
study. A rigid diaphragm is assigned to each floor. The unit weight of concrete and steel are
d

adopted as 25kN/m3 and 78.5kN/m3 respectively. The building is steel moment resisting frame
and periphery brace members are considered to be pin jointed. The structure is situated in
te

seismic zone III founded on a medium soil in accordance with IS 1893:2002 (Part I) [6].
p
ce

2.1 Loadings considered for models

Live load on the floor is taken as 3.75kN/m2 and on the roof is 2.5kN/m2. The total seismic
Ac

weight is calculated as mentioned in IS 1893:2002 (Part I) [6] to obtain base shear. The
calculated base shear is distributed uniformly along the height and is used as the lateral load in
pushover analysis.

3. Modelling details
ETABS has been used for modelling and analysis. A basic computer model is created and user
defined plastic hinges are incorporated. For user defined hinges moment-curvature data was
generated for beams and columns using following equations.
My  Zefy (1)

Page 2 of 6
Mp  Zpfy (2)

Mp = 1.18 Zpfy (1- (3)

Фp = Mp/EI (4)
Where My is the yield moment and Mp is the plastic moment for beams and can be obtained by

t
Eqs. (1) and (2) respectively. Zp is the plastic section modulus and Ze is the elastic section

ip
modulus. Eq. (3) gives the plastic moment for the column with varying axial load P and load at
yield Py as per FEMA 356 [2]. Фp is the curvature corresponding to plastic moment Mp and is

cr
obtained by Eq. (4).

us
4. Results and discussions
The results obtained from the analysis are compared and discussed as follows. Fig. 2 shows

an
pushover curves for 59° brace angle model with aspect ratio varying from 2.67 to 4.26. It can be
observed from these pushover curves that the lateral stiffness of the structure reduces with an
M
increase in aspect ratio. It can also be observed that the variation of base shear with roof
displacement is linear in the initial steps and thereafter it shows a non-linear relation due to the
yielding of members. Fig. 3 shows the performance points obtained by the intersection of
d

capacity spectrum and demand spectrum for 59° brace angle model for varying aspect ratio.
te

Fig. 4 shows base shear variation at performance point with different brace angles for varying
aspect ratios. For 71° brace angle model, the base shear at performance is maximum for all the
p

aspect ratios considered in this study. The reason for such behavior of 71° brace angle models
ce

might be due to the better contribution of 71° braces in resisting lateral loads in comparison
with 59° and 78° braces. The study of the formation of hinges also shows that less number of
Ac

hinges are formed at performance points for 71° brace angle models in comparison with 59° and
78° brace angle models at all the aspect ratios considered in this study. From Fig. 4 it can also be
observed that for 78° brace angle model there is a decrease in base shear at performance as
aspect ratio increases while 59° and 78° brace angle models do not follow this trend.

Fig. 5 shows the variation of roof displacement at performance with aspect ratio for three
different brace angles. It can be observed from Fig. 4 that for all the structural models considered
in the study, roof displacement at performance point decrease with a decrease in aspect ratio. At
an aspect ratio of 2.67 roof displacement at the performance is lesser for 59° brace angle model

Page 3 of 6
and is higher at aspect ratio 4.26 in comparison with roof displacements at performance of 71°
and 78° brace angle model. The probable reason for such behavior might be due to the high
stiffness offered by 59° brace for the aspect ratio of 2.67 structural model and reduction of
stiffness of the structural model at a higher aspect ratio of 4.26. However as shown in Fig.4 at an
aspect ratio of 4.26, 71° brace angle structure models show a better reduction in roof

t
ip
displacement.

cr
5. Conclusions
The following are the observations drawn from the present analysis.

us
1) For all the brace angles considered 59° brace angle structures have lower base shear at
performance for all the aspect ratios considered in the present study.
2) The models with 71° brace angle has higher base shear at performance compared to any

an
other brace angles considered in the study.
3) The performance of the structure is influenced by brace angle and aspect ratio.
M
6. References
1. Kim, J., Jun, Y. and Lee, Y. (2010), “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Diagrid System
d

Buildings”. 2nd Specialty Conference on Disaster Mitigation.

te

2. FEMA 356 (2000), “Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
p

3. Kamath, K. and Ahmed, N. (2015), “Effect of Aspect Ratio on Performance of Diagrid

ce

Structure Circular in Plan”, International Conference on Earth Sciences and Engineering.

4. Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G. (1998), “Pros and cons of a push-over analysis of

Ac

seismic performance evaluation”, Engineering Structures, 20(4-6), pp. 452–464.

5. IS: 800 (2007), “General construction in steel-code of practice”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.

6. IS: 1893 –Part I (2002), “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structure”, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.

Page 4 of 6
 t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 1. (i) Plan of diagrid model, (ii) Elevation of diagrid model, (iii) 3- Dimensional model.

an
M
d
p te

Fig. 2. Pushover curve for 59° brace angle Fig. 3. Capacity spectrum vs. Demand
ce

diagrid structural model of different aspect spectrum for 59° brace angle diagrid
ratios structural model of different aspect ratios
Ac

Page 5 of 6
Fig. 4. Variation of base shear at Fig. 5. Variation of roof displacement
performance with brace angles for four at performance with brace angles for
aspect ratios four aspect ratios

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Page 6 of 6