PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC

ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MANIPAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Deepak S Bashetty
Reg.No:060918003

Under the Guidance of

  
 Mr.S.VEERAMANI                                       Dr.KRISHNAMOORTHY
Chief Engineering Manager (Civil) Professor,
Engineering Design Research Centre Department of Civil Engineering
(Building & Factories Sector) Manipal Institute of Technology,
ECC Division L&T, Chennai – 600089 Manipal –576 104
External Guide Internal Guide
1
 Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods of analysis
3. Modeling Approach
4. Details of Analysis
5. Result and Discussion
6. Conclusion
7. References

2
Introduction

3
 Performance-based Design
 The basic concept of performance based seismic
design is to provide engineers with the capability to
design buildings that have a predictable and reliable
performance in earthquakes.

 Thus the Performance-based seismic design is a

process that permits design of new buildings or
upgrade of existing buildings with a realistic
understanding of the risk of life, occupancy and
economic loss that may occur as a result of future
earthquakes.
4
Performance-based design begins with the selection
of design criteria stated in the form of one or more
performance objectives. Each performance objective
is a statement of the acceptable risk of incurring
specific levels of damage, and the consequential
losses that occur as a result of this damage, at a
specified level of seismic hazard.

5
 Performance Objectives
 Fully Operational,
 Operational
 Immediate-occupancy,
 life-safety and
 collapse-prevention

6
 Selecting Performance Present
Generation
Joe’s Joe’s
Beer! Beer! Beer!
Food! Food! Food!

Collapse

Operational Immediate Life Prevention

Occupancy Safety

Operational – negligible impact on building

Immediate Occupancy – building is safe to occupy but
possibly not useful until cleanup and repair has occurred
Life Safe – building is safe during event but possibly not
afterward
Collapse Prevention – building is on verge of
collapse, probable total loss

7
 Performance based design
Building Damage States
Force
parameter

Displacement
parameter
Immediate Life Collapse
occupancy safety prevention
Performance Levels

Demand for specific hazard level

8
A simple flow chart explaining the
“Performance based design”

9
Determination of Performance
Point

10
Generally, a team of decision makers, including the
building owner, design professionals, and
building officials, will participate in the selection
of performance objectives for a building.

Once the performance objectives are set, a series

of simulations (analyses of building response to
loading) are performed to estimate the probable
performance of the building under various
design scenario events.

If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the

performance objectives, the design is complete
otherwise it has to be redesigned. 11
 Advantages of Performance
Based Seismic Design
Systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building

Design individual buildings with a higher level of confidence

Design individual buildings to achieve higher performance and lower potential

losses.

Design individual buildings that fall outside of code-prescribed limits with

regard to configuration, materials, and systems to meet the performance
intended by present building codes

Assess the potential seismic performance of existing structures and estimate

potential losses in the event of a seismic event.

Performance-based seismic design offers society the potential to be both more

efficient and effective in the investment of financial resources to avoid future
earthquake losses
12
 Differences between traditional approach
and performance based approach
1) Conventional limit-states design is typically a two-level design
approach having concern for the service operational and
ultimate-strength limit states for a building, performance-
based design can be viewed as a multi-level design approach
that additionally has explicit concern for the performance of a
building at intermediate limit states related to such issues as
occupancy and life-safety standards.

2) The performance based analysis is based on quantifying

the deformation of the members and the building as a whole,
under the lateral forces of an earthquake of a certain level of
seismic hazard. Traditional Approach-Force based Design
has no measure of the deformation capability of members or
of building.
13
3) The deformation or strains are better quantities to assess
damage than stress or forces. Since the deformation are
expected to go beyond the elastic values.

4) The performance based analysis gives the analyst more

choice of ‘performance’ of the building as compared to the
limit states of collapse and serviceability in a design based
on limit state method.

5)Traditional based design uses Elastic behavior where as

Performance based design uses inelastic behavior

14
Methods of analysis

15
 Methods of analysis
Generally for analyzing the structure the following analysis
methods are used depending upon the requirements.

1) Linear static procedure

2) Linear dynamic procedure
3) Nonlinear static procedure
1. Pushover analysis
2. Capacity spectrum method
4) Nonlinear dynamic procedure
1. Time history Analysis

Push-over and Time History analyses tools to perform non-linear

analysis are considered.
16
 pushover analysis is the one which is suitable for the
performance based seismic design, because elastic
analyses are insufficient, therefore they cannot realistically
predict the force and deformation distributions after the
initiation of damage in the building.

 Inelastic analytical procedures become necessary to

identify the modes of failure and the potential for
progressive collapse.

 Inelastic time-history analysis are most realistic analytical

approach for evaluating the performance of a building.
However, the inelastic time-history analysis is usually too
complex and time- consuming in the design of most
buildings.

17
 What is Push-Over Analysis?
• Push-over analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the
building is subjected to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., parabolic,
inverted triangular or uniform).
• Building is pushed in one horizontal direction. The intensity of the lateral
load is slowly increased and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic
hinge formations, and failure of various structural components is recorded.

• Proportion of applied force on each floor is constant , only its magnitude

is increased gradually (i.e., Load pattern may be 1st mode shape,
parabolic, uniform, inverted triangular etc.).

• Material nonlinearity is modeled by inserting plastic hinge at potential

location.
18
 Continued…
• 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 criteria for push-over analysis is generally established

as the desired state of the building given a roof-top or spectral
displacement amplitude.

• Push over analysis requires a large number of assumptions and

member response curves are to be provided to the program before it
can analyze. 19
 Continued…
Δroof

VB

VB Δroof

20
 Why Push-Over Analysis?
• Static Nonlinear Analysis technique, also known as sequential yield
analysis, or simply "push-over" analysis.

• To get the performance level of structure in case of seismic load.

• Elastic analysis cannot predict failure mechanism and account for

redistribution of forces during progressive yielding.

• The use of inelastic procedure for design and evolution is an attempt to

help engineer better understand how structures will behave when
subjected to major EQ, where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of
the structure will be exceeded.
21
 What is Time History Analysis?

• Time History analysis is a step by step analysis of the

dynamical response of a structure to a specified loading
that may vary with time.

• The performance analysis may be

– Linear
– Non-linear

22
Why Linear Time History Analysis?
• To get the variation of forces at each time step and to get the maximum
response under the the particular time history.

• To verify the design of structure. If forces in the member are within the
design forces, then no need to do Non- Linear time history analysis.

• If the forces are exceeding the design forces, then Non-Linear time
history analysis is required to understand the performance of structure.

23
 Why Non-Linear Time History
Analysis?
• Elastic analysis cannot predict failure mechanism and account
for redistribution of forces during progressive yielding.

• Certain part may yield when subject to major earthquake.

• To get the performance level of structure in case of seismic

load.
• The use of inelastic procedure for design and evolution is an
attempt to help engineer to better understand how the
structures will behave when subjected to major EQ.
24
Pushover Analysis Procedure
Create 2D/3D Model Gravity Pushover
(Force controlled)
Lateral Pushover
(Displacement controlled)
Assign end offsets
Define Load case
(Lateral Load at centre of mass)

Design Structure
Analyze

Assign Hinge properties

Beams – M3, V2 Run analysis, Run Now
Columns –PMM, V2

Establish Performance point

Define Static Pushover Base shear Vs Roof Displacement
Cases Sequential Hinge Formation

25
 Performance Analysis
Create Model as Designed Define Non linear Time
History Case

Define Time History Function Assign Plastic Hinges

(Material Nonlinearity)

Define Linear Time History cases Define Geometric Nonlinearity

Analyze Analyze

Check No
No Results
Member Forces ≤ Design Force
YES
YES

Check the performance of the

 Material nonlinearity is modeled by inserting structure and if required, redesign
plastic hinge at potential location. 26
Modeling

27
 Modeling of Beams and Columns

• 3D Frame Elements

• Cross Sectional dimensions, reinforcement details, material

type

• Effective moment of inertia (As per ATC 40)

Beams
Rectangular 0.5 Ig

T-Beam 0.7 Ig

L-Beam 0.6 Ig

Columns 0.7 Ig
28
 Modeling approach
• Beam & column elements - nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity -
defining plastic hinges at both ends of the beams and columns.

Location of hinges in beams and columns:

L = Critical distance from critical section of
plastic hinge to point of contra flexure
fye = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
dbl= diameter of transverse reinforcement Lp = 0.5H
lbeam
Dbeam

lcolumn

Dcolumn

Moment and shear hinge

Axial-moment and shear hinge
29
 Modelling Approach
• Plastic hinge is defined in terms of Force-deformation
behaviour of the member.
• Values are depend on type of element, material properties,
longitudinal and transverse steel content - axial load level on
the element.
• For beam, flexural hinge is assigned
• For Column, axial and flexural hinges
are assigned
• A-unloaded condition, B-effective
yield, C-ultimate strength, D- residual Force-deformation Relationship
strength and E-maximum deformation of a Typical Plastic Hinge

30
EXAMPLE-1

31
 Description of Structure
Building Type
RC frame without brick infill
Concrete compressive
strength – 25 MPa
Yield Strength of – 415 MPa
reinforcement
Number of stories Ground + 5 Storey

Plan dimensions 16 m × 12 m

Building height 24.775 m above plinth level

Type of footing Raft footing (fixed)

•Seismic performance - inter-storey drift ratio, ductility, maximum base

shear, roof displacement and plastic hinge formation.
32
The beam in all storey levels is of size 300mm x 600mm with tension and
compression reinforcements of 3885mm2 and 2412mm2 respectively. The column
dimensions and area of longitudinal reinforcement (Acol) details are presented in
Table
Column Dimensions and Area of Longitudinal Reinforcement

Column Cross Acol

Label Section (mm2)
mm x mm
1&9 300 x 500 5892
2 & 10 300 x 500 4020
3 & 11 300 x 400 3216
4 & 12 300 x 300 3080
21& 23 300 x 300 1232
24& 26 300 x 300 905
27& 29 300 x 300 905
5 650 x 650 14784
6 600 x 600 12744
7 550 x 550 10620
8 500 x 500 7856
22 450 x 450 6372
25 300 x 300 4928
28 300 x 300 804
Acol = Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column
33
 Details of Analysis
• Pushover Analysis
 Gravity analysis is an Force controlled.
 Pushover analysis is a Displacement controlled.
 Behaviour of structure characterized by capacity curve
(base shear force Vs. roof displacement)

• Time-History Analysis
 Step by step analysis of the dynamical response of structure
to a time varying load.
 7 sets of strong ground motion in the magnitude range of
6.5-7.5 were selected.
 The peak displacement from NTH is not correspond to
ultimate displacement from pushover analysis.
 To facilitate comparison the ground motion records scaled
according to
peak roof displacement =target displacement
34
 Input Ground Motions

EQ Year Earthquake Recording Magnit PGA EQ. Scale Factor

Station ude in g DBE MCE
No.

1 1979 El Centro Array #7 7.0 0.338 0.45 0.785

2 1999 Duzce Turkey 7.1 0.348 0.8 1.15
3 1971 San Fernando Old Ridge 6.5 0.268 1.7 1.9
4 1995 Kobe KJM 6.9 0.343 0.35 0.5
5 1976 Friuli Tolmezzo 6.5 0.315 0.95 1.2
6 1994 Northridge Arleta 6.7 0.344 0.6 1.0
7 1989 Loma Prieta Gilroy #2 7.1 0.322 0.35 0.515

35
Base shear
• Maximum base shear -
571kN - 10% of seismic
weight - displacement
corresponding to base
shear - 1.02m.
• Displacement ductility -
2.32.
• Base shear values - DBE
& MCE levels from
Pushover analysis - 116
kN & 171kN
• From NTH - 151kN &
51kN.
• Results from NTH are
23% & 32% higher than
pushover analysis.
36
 Target Displacement
• Represent the maximum displacement likely to be experienced
during the design earthquake
• Performance levels are calculated based on equation from
FEMA 356.
2
T
δ t = C 0 C1 C 2 C 3S a e 2 g
4π
C0 = Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF
system to the roof displacement of building MDOF system
C1 = Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to
displacements calculated for linear elastic response
C2 = Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape,
stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement
response
C3 = Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic
P- ∆ effects
Te = Effective fundamental period of building, sec
Sa = Response Spectrum Acceleration at effective fundamental period and
damping ratio of building 37
 Performance Point

• Intersection of capacity & demand spectrum.

• Performance assessed for two levels of performance - Life
Safety (LS) under Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) & Collapse
Prevention (CP) under Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE).
• Base shear, roof displacement, spectral acceleration, spectral
displacement, effective time period and effective damping -
performance point - shown.
• Displacement @ performance point in DBE level - 123mm
greater than target displacement 119mm.
• Displacement @performance point in MCE level - 171mm
lesser than target displacement 177mm.

38
 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum

DBE Level
Demand Spectrum

Capacity Spectrum

MCE Level

39
 Interstorey Drift
• Important indicator of building performance.
Re lativedHorizontal
Displacementofadjacentfloors
Interstoreydrift =
StoreyHeight

• 3rd storey level- the largest interstorey drift values -0.58% and 0.85% at
both DBE and MCE levels.

• Interstorey drift ratio - increased with increase in storey level up to first 4

stories - thereafter - reverse trend at both levels of earthquake.

• DBE level - pushover analysis over-estimated - interstorey drift ratio -

lower storey levels - underestimated - upper storey levels.

• MCE level -pushover analysis -over-estimated - interstorey drift ratio - all

storey levels.

40
 7 7

6 6

5 NT H-DBE
5

Storey Level
Storey Level

4 DBE 4 NSP-MCE

3 MCE 3
NSP-DBE
2 2

1 1 NT H-MCE

0 0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Inte rsotre y dri ft in %
Interstorey drift in %

(b) Comparison between Pushover &

(a) Results from Pushover Analysis at DBE & Time-history Results at DBE & MCE Levels
MCE Levels
Figure 8.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios
7 7
Elcentro
Elcent ro
6 6
Duzce
Duzce

Storey Level
5 5 San Fernando
Storey Level

San Fernando
4 4 Friuli,Italy
Friuli,It aly
Kobe
3 3
Kobe
Northridge
2 2
Nort hridge LomaPrieta
1 LomaPriet a 1 Average

0 Average 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Interstorey Drift Ratio in % Interstorey Drift Ratio in %

(a) Results from Time-history Analysis at DBE (b) Results from Time-history Analysis at MCE
Level Level 41
Figure 8.6 Interstorey Drift Ratios from Time – history Analysis
 Plastic Hinge Pattern
• Pushover analysis
• Outer columns at all storey level yielded first
• Beams showing hinges in yielding stage at one end only in
the DBE level
• Beams in the MCE Level at all the storey levels except
topmost showing hinges in yielding stage.

• Time History Analysis

• More number of hinges at yielding in beam ends model
compared to pushover analysis at both DBE and MCE
levels.
• At MCE level middle columns in upper stories also yielded;
but in the pushover analysis not showing hinges in any
column.

42
Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level

(a) Pushover Analysis 43Analysis

(b) Time History
Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level

(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time History 44

Analysis
 Plastic Hinge Pattern
• Pushover analysis
 At final step (frame roof pushed up to
4% of height of frame) - hinge
formation started with yielding in outer
columns at all stories

 and yielding of few beam ends in

upper stories.

 Middle columns in the upper stories

start yielding with simultaneous
yielding of base columns.

 Beams experienced less number of

hinges than columns but shows
significant damage or failure stage.

45
 Conclusions
• Base shear from time history analysis are 23% and 32%
higher than pushover analysis at DBE and MCE levels.

• Roof displacement at DBE and MCE levels indicates that

frame satisfies the requirement for Life Safety performance
at DBE level and not satisfies the requirement for Collapse
Prevention performance at MCE level.

• From analyses the middle storey experience the maximum

interstorey drift ratio at both levels.

• Pushover analysis over estimate the interstorey drift ratio

compared with time history analysis

46
 Conclusions
• No significant difference of plastic hinge pattern at
DBE and MCE levels from both analyses

• Time-history analysis shows more number of beam

hinges at both levels.

• From time history analysis at MCE level, middle

column shows yielding but not in pushover
analysis.

• The behaviour of frame designed for gravity load

shows column side sway mechanism.
47
EXAMPLE-2

48
 Description of Structure
A regular four storeyed (G+3), five storeyed (G+4), six storeyed
(G+5) and a seven storeyed (G+6) building were considered in the
present study. All the buildings are rectangular in plan with same
plan dimensions and storey height. The plan view and sectional
elevation of a G+3 building is shown in Figure.

49
 Results
Figure: Comparison of Variation of
Fundamental Time Period using Time History
Analysis

Figure :Comparison of Variation of

Roof Displacement using Time History Analysis

50
• Analysis results shows that, hinges will be formed earlier
in frames of structures without strut action than frames of
structures with strut action

• It is observed that, in all the cases, the fundamental time

period of the structure with strut action is considerably
less than the structures without strut action.

• Figure, compares the roof displacement of G+3, G+4,

G+5 and G+6 frames with and without strut action.

• The graph shows that roof displacement get

considerably (50%) reduced with strut action.

51
 CONCLUSIONS
From the pushover and time-history analyses of 2D RC frames with
infill, the following conclusions are drawn:

• It is found that the fundamental time period of the structure get

considerably reduced due to strut action. This will alter the response
of the structure to lateral loads.

• In addition strut action will considerably reduce the roof

displacement. This will increase the safety level of the structure.

• Hence it is recommended to model infill stiffness using equivalent

diagonal struts for any lateral load analysis.

52
 References
1. Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee, Alireza Y. Motlagh and
Andrew Scanlon (2001), “ComparativeEvaluation of Seismic
Assessment Methodologies Applied to a 32-Story Reinforced
Concrete Office Building”, Journal of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3 ,No.1, 31-44.
2. Andreas J. Kappos, Alireza Manafpour (2001), “Seismic
design of R/C buildings with the aid of advanced analytical
techniques”, Engineering Structures, 23, 319–332
3. Chung C. Fu and Hamed AlAyed, “Seismic Analysis of
Bridges Using Displacement-BasedApproach”, 1-20.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
(FEMA 356), Washington D.C. November 2000.

53
 Contd…
5. IS 456-2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - code
of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards.
6. IS 1893 (Part 1) – 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.
7. Mehmet Inel, Hayri Baytan Ozmen, (2006) “Effects of plastic hinge
properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings”,
Engineering Structures, 28, 1494–1502.
8. SAP2000. Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and
design of structures. Ver.10.0. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers
and Structures, Inc.
9. Sashi K. Kunnath and Erol Kalkan (2004), “Evaluation of Seismic
Deformation Demands using Nonlinear Procedures in Multistory
Steel and Concrete Moment Frames”, ISET Journal of
Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 445, Vol. 41, No. 1, March
2004, pp. 159-181
10. ATC 40 (1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings”, Applied Technology Council, USA, Vol.1.
54
55
 Moment curvature
relationship for singly
reinforced sections

56
Finding Mcr & Φcr Values

f cr I
M cr=
y

f cr = 0.7 f ck

2
 D
I = bD +bD yt −  + mAst ( d − yt )
3 2

 2

D = yt + yb

f cr
φcr =
E c yb
57
 Finding M-Φ values

• Assume ec
• Find k1& k2 for corresponding ec
• Assume initially a value for kd , now

ε s=εc
( d −kd )
kd

f s =εs E s

k1k 3 f ck bkd = Ast f s

• Compare the assumed kd & the calculated kd. If

matching take that value , otherwise try with
58new kd.
 Finding M-Φ values (cont…)

M = k1k3 f ck bkd ( d − k 2 kd )

εc
φ=
kd

εc < εo < εu εo < εc < εu

η ε c /ε o ε o /ε c

k1 η - η2/3 1 - η/3

k2 (1/3 −η/12)/(1−η/3) (6−4η + η2)/(12 − 4 η)

59
 Stress block

fc
k2kd
C=C3fckbkdC1
kd

T
0.002 0.0035

60
 Stress block parameters

  ε c   ε c 2 
f c= 0.446 f ck 2  −   0 < ε c ≤ 0.002
  0.002   0.002  

  εc  
2

f c= 0.446 f ck 1 − 0.25 − 1   0.002 < ε c ≤ 0.0035

  0.002  

61
Section considered for calculating M-
Φ relationship
Assumed 25 mm clear cover

All dimensions in mm
62
 M-Φ values for the section considered

εc M Φ
M-Phi

start 0 0
35000000

cracked 8033504.196 9.74069E-07 30000000

25000000
0.0005 8283594.419 4.05201E-06
20000000
0.001 15378489.83 7.84424E-06

M
15000000

0.0015 21200915.35 1.13588E-05 10000000

5000000
0.002 25649262.16 1.45742E-05
0
0.0025 27587840.7 1.85134E-05 0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003
Phi

0.003 28996952.56 2.22161E-05

0.0035 29959200.87 2.59188E-05 M in Nmm & Φ in rad/mm

63
Comparison of M-Φ values for different pt
values.
0.25% 0.50%
M-Phi 0.75% 0.96%
35000000

30000000

25000000

20000000
M

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
0 5E-06 0.00001 1.5E-05 0.00002 2.5E-05 0.00003 3.5E-05 0.00004 4.5E-05
Phi

M in Nmm & Φ in rad/mm

64