www.ijemr.

net ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962

Volume-6, Issue-4, July-August 2016

International Journal of Engineering and Management Research
Page Number: 20-25

Pushover Analysis of Multi-Storey RCC Frame with and without Vertical

Irregularities
Kancharla Srimukha1, Ramesh Bantupalli2
1
M.Tech Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Gitam University, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Gitam University, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA

ABSTRACT subjected to earthquake forces in zone III. The structures are

Earthquakes are the most devastating natural
hazards in terms of life and property loss of any region.
About 60% of the land area of our country is likely to
damaging levels of seismic hazard. The response of the
structure during earthquake greatly depends on the size,
geometry and shape of the structure. The earthquake
investigators repeatedly confirm that the irregular structure
suffer more damage than the regular structure. The present
study is to evaluate the seismic performance of G+9 RCC
building frame with and without vertical irregularities
modelled and analyzed using SAP 2000 software. Comparison
of seismic response of the structure in terms of base shear
and displacement along with the location of the plastic hinges
at the performance point of all the models are considered.
Based on the above response parameters, the results and
conclusions are drawn.
Keywords---- Seismic Performance, Pushover Analysis,
Performance point, Capacity curve, plastic hinge

I. INTRODUCTION
As per the earthquake-resistant design
philosophy, the structures are designed for the forces,
which are much less than the expected design earthquake
forces. Hence, when a structure is subjected to severe
earthquake ground motion, it undergoes inelastic
deformations. Even though the structure may not collapse
but the damages can be beyond repairs, so the damage
control has become a more explicit design consideration
which can be achieved only by introducing some kind of
the non-linear analysis into the seismic design
methodology.
The pushover analysis has been developed during
the past decades and more, it has become the preferred
method of analysis for performance-based seismic design,
PBSD and for the evaluation purposes. It is the method by
which the ultimate strength and the limit state can be
effectively investigated after the yielding, which has been
researched and applied in practice for earthquake
engineering and seismic design.Non-linear static analysis
is a possible method to calculate structural response under
a strong seismic event. The analysis involves applying
horizontal loads or lateral loads, in a prescribed pattern, to
the structure incrementally, that is pushing the structure
20 Copyright 2016. Vandana Publications. All Rights Reserved.
and plotting the total applied shear force and associated
lateral displacement at each increment, until the collapse
condition. The equivalent static lateral loads approximately
represent earthquake induced forces. Pushover analysis is a
static nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the
structural loading is incrementally increased. With the
increase in the magnitude of the loading, weak links and
the failure modes in the structure are found. As the load
and displacement increases, the element (beams, columns,
etc.) begin to yield and deform in elastically. The resulting
graphic curve is an easy to visualize representation of the
capacity of the building. Using this method, structures with
predictable seismic performance can be produced. The
three basic elements of this method are
Capacity: It represents ability of the structures to resist the
seismic demand. The capacity usually refers to the strength
at the yield point of the element or structure's capacity
curve.
Demand: It representation of the earthquake ground
motion or shaking that the building is subjected to.
Performance: It is an intersection point of capacity
spectrum and demand spectrum. The performance of a
building is depended upon the performance of the
structural and the nonstructural components. After
obtaining the performance point, the performance of the
structures is checked against these performance levels.
www.ijemr.net ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962

Immediate occupancy: It is the damage state due to Model-4:Building with vertical geometric
earthquake in which limited structural damages has irregularity
occurred. There are negligible chances of life threatening Model-5:Building with combined irregularity i.e.
injury due to structural failure. stiffness, mass and vertical geometric irregularity
Life safety: It is a state in which damage to the structure 3D models are created for all the considered
due to earthquake may have occurred but in which some building structures and material properties, frame sections,
margin against either total or partial collapse remains. load cases are defined and assigned. Gravity analysis and
Injuries during the earthquake may occur, but the risk of linear static analysis is carried out as per IS 456-2000 and
life threatening injury from structural damage is very low. IS 1893-2002.For beams default hinge (PM3) is assigned
Collapse prevention: In this state the building has and for columns default hinges of axial force and bending
experienced extreme damage with large permanent drifts. moment (PM2-M3) is assigned. Hinges are assigned both
The structure may have little residual strength and stiffness for end beams and columns. Two static pushover cases are
with extensive damages occurred to nonstructural defined. Initially gravity load is applied to the structure
elements. and then lateral load along longitudinal direction is applied
to the structure and pushover analysis is carried out using
SAP2000 software.
3.1Description of the building
The data of modeled building is as follows:
Plan dimensions -20mx20m
Structure OMRF
Number of storey-G+9
Floor height - 3m
Type of building - Residential
Soil strata - Hard
Material Properties
Figure 1: Performance levels Grade of concrete - M25
Grade of steel - Fe 415
II. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY Density of concrete 25kN/m3
Density of brick 20kN/m3
The main objective of the study is to evaluate the Member Properties
performance of G+9 RCC frame structure with and Thickness of slab - 115mm
without vertical irregularities subjected to earthquake Beam size 350 mm x 500 mm
forces in zone III using pushover analysis. Different Clear cover -20mm
regular and vertical irregular structures are considered in Column size:
this study. The pushover analysis is carried out for all the Ground to 4th floor-500 mm x 600 mm
structures and they are compared. The specific objectives 5thto 9th floor - 400mm x500mm
are as given below: Clear cover 40mm
To investigate performance of multistoried frame External wall thickness - 230mm
structures with and without vertical irregularity under Internal wall thickness - 125mm
seismic loads. Load Intensities
To study and evaluate various seismic assessment Floor finish 1.0KN/m2
parameters pushover curve, performance point, Live load 2KN/m2
displacement ductility, plastic hinge formation. Seismic Zone Intensities

III. STRUCTURAL MODELLING,

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS OF
FRAMES
A RCC frame with G+9 storey of dimension
20mx 20m, has been taken for seismic analysis. Five
building models with different types of irregularities are
considered for comparison:
Model-1: Regular building.
Model-2:Building with stiffness irregularity
Model-3:Building with mass irregularity

21 Copyright 2016. Vandana Publications. All Rights Reserved.

www.ijemr.net ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962

figure (a) is the reinforcement details of the beams

Longitudinal reinforcement 6#16m &4#16mm Transverse
reinforcement =8m diameter @300mm c/c
Figure (b) is the reinforcement details of the columns from
ground to fourth floor Longitudinal reinforcement =
20#28mm
Transverse reinforcement =8mm diameter @384mm c/c
Figure (c) is the reinforcement details of the columns from
fourth floor to ninth floor Longitudinal reinforcement =
12#20mm
Transverse reinforcement =8mm diameter @320mm c/c
Fig 5: Elevation of vertical irregular building

Fig 2plan of regular building

Fig 6: Elevation of combination of irregular building

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Fig 3: Elevation of stiffness irregular building

Fig 4: Elevation of mass irregular building

22 Copyright 2016. Vandana Publications. All Rights Reserved.

www.ijemr.net ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962

Comparison of the capacity curves of all the

models with regular and vertical irregular structures for
longitudinal direction push x and lateral direction push y is
shown in the above figure7 and figure 8.

23 Copyright 2016. Vandana Publications. All Rights Reserved.

www.ijemr.net ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962

Table 1: Performance point of base force

5600
5404.41
5338.172
5400
5188.23
Base force in KN

5200 5112.134
5045.484
5000 4881.923 4893.05
4902.115 4780.009
4800
4670.673
4600
4400
4200
1 2 3 4 5

push x push y

Fig 18 Comparison of base force for all the models both

push x and push y

Table 2: Performance point of displacement:

S. MODEL DISPLACEMENT
NO IN m
Push x Push y

24 Copyright 2016. Vandana Publications. All Rights Reserved.

www.ijemr.net ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962

1 Regular Structure 0.103 0.112 [2] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 273),
NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
2 Stiffness Irregularity 0.111 0.119
buildings, Washington DC, U.S.A., October 1997.
3 Mass Irregularity 0.102 0.109 [3] Federal emergency management agency (FEMA 356),
Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
4 Vertical Geometric 0.09 0.106
rehabilitation of buildings, Washington, DC, U.S.A.,
Irregularity
November 2000.
5 Combined Irregularity 0.096 0.116 [4] IS 456:2000, Plain and Reinforced concrete Code of
practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[5] IS 1893-2002(Part-1), Criteria for Earthquake
0.15
0.112 0.119 0.109 0.106 0.116 resistant design of structures, General provisions and
displacement in m

0.103 0.111 0.102 0.09 0.096
0.1
0.05
0 [7] ATC 55, 2005 improvements nonlinear static seismic
1 2 3 4
push x push y
Fig 19 Comparison of displacement for all the models both
push x and push y
V. CONCLUSIONS
From the analysis results, it has been concluded
as follows:
The lateral load capacity is more in the structure
having mass irregularity when compared to other
models because of heavy mass is provided in
mass irregularity building along X-X and Y-Y
direction
The lateral load capacity is less in the structure
having stiffness irregularity when compared to
other models in longitudinal direction as well as
in transverse direction.
The structure having stiffness irregularity
produces more displacement than other structures
and the structure having vertical geometry
irregularity produces less displacement.
The base force acts more in longitudinal direction
than in transverse direction.
Displacement is decreased as base force
increases.
buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[6] Anil K. Chopra, Rakesh K. Goel, A model pushover
analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for
unsymmetrical-plan buildings.
analysis procedures FEMA 440, NEHRP.
5 [8] W.Huang and P.L. Gould, A case study considering a
3-D pushover analysis procedure.
[9] G.P. Cimellaro, A.M. ASCE, T. Giovine and D. Lopez-
Garcia, Bidirectional Pushover Analysis of Irregular
Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering.
[10] Govind M, Kiran K. Shetty and K. Anil Hegde,
Nonlinear Static Pushover analysis of irregular space
frame structure with and without T shaped column,
International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, vol. 3, special issue: 03, pp 663-667, May-
2014.
[11] S. C. Pednekar, H. S. Chore and S. B. Patil, Seismic
assesment using pushover analysis: an overview,
International journal of pure and applied research in
engineering and technology, vol. 3, issue 9, pp 171-180,
May 2015.
[12] A.S. Moghdam and W.K. Tso, Pushover analysis of
asymmetric and set-back multi-story buildings, 12th
World conference on earthquake engineering, 1093, pp 1-
8, 2000.
[13] Dalal Sejal P, Vasanwala S A and Desai A K,
Performance Based Seismic Design of Structure: A
review, International Journal of Civil and Structural
Engineering, vol. 1, no. 4, pp 795-803, year 2011.

REFERENCES
[1] Applied Technology Council (ATC-40), Seismic
evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Redwood
City California Safety Commission, November 1996.

25 Copyright 2016. Vandana Publications. All Rights Reserved.