Conclusion

Seismic Evaluation of R.C Buildings using non-linear approach was undoubtedly feasible as it
exposes design weaknesses that may remain hidden in an elastic approach. Such
weaknesses involve excessive deformation demands, strength irregularities, and overloads
on potentially brittle points, such as columns and connections (Krawinkler et al, 1998). It
was decided to use ANSYS as the FE modeling package. As capacity curve is the output of
Pushover analysis, Load Deformation Plot (capacity curve plot) can be obtained from ANSYS
non-linear static analysis. Seismic Evaluation of pre-existing R.C buildings is carried out.
Firstly, analysis was done on symmetrical building for procedure development as given in
ATC 40 guidelines. Then, analysis is done on the asymmetrical building (L-shape). In first
case, evaluation is carried out on the building designed non-seismically and its results
(outcomes) have been compared with the analysis of seismically designed building (as per IS
1893:2002). And the affected members have been recommended for strengthening.

The static pushover analysis can also be divided into two methods. One is based on the first-mode
pushover analysis [ATC-40, 1996; FEMA 1997]. The other is based on the modal pushover analysis
(MPA) where higher mode effects are taken into

pushover analysis was performed to verify code's underlying intent of Life Safety performance under
design earthquake

Conclusion

It is concluded that the existing building frame used for pushover analysis is seismically safe, because
of the performance point base shear is greater than design base shear.

Since the demand curve intersects the capacity curve near the elastic range, the structure has a good
resistance and high safety against collapse.

The behaviour of properly detailed reinforced concrete frame building is adequate as indicated by
the intersection of the demand and capacity curves.

This particular existing educational building was designed as per IS 456:2000 and detailed as per IS
13920:1993, for adequate main and shear reinforcements, corresponding to the ultimate moment
capacity level.When there is no prior failure in shear, flexural plastic hinges will be developed along
with the predicted values of ultimate moment capacity. Therefore, it is obvious for a code designed
building to fail in flexure and not in shear and there is no need of shear hinge modelling.

The static pushover analysis is mainly based on the assumption that the response of the structure is
regulated by the first mode of vibration and mode shape, or by the first few modes of vibration, and
that this shape remains constant throughout the elastic and inelastic response of the structure
[1],[9],[10]. This provides the basis for transforming a dynamic problem into a static problem.
The analysis accounts for material inelasticity, geometrical nonlinearity and the redistribution of
internal forces?

Global Responses---- ductility demand

Local responses--- inter storey drift

Effects- soil structure interection, beam column joint, P delta effect

Process
1. Use static elasitic analysis to find D/C ratio and then go
inelastic analysis Non-Linear Static Analysis Before doing nonlinear analysis,
linear static analysis of structure was performed and it was observed that many columns had
demand capacity ratio (DCR) > 1 but less than 2. This required further non linear static
analysis. The pushover static analysis based on performance-based seismic design was
adopted and hinge properties according to ATC-40 and ASCE 41-06 criteria were evaluated
and manually assigned to beams, columns, and struts in the 3-D model.

Plastic hinges
Beam and column elements are modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity by
defining plastic hinges at both ends of the beams and columns.

User defined hinge

Plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing are effective parameders in UDH. These
parameters have no influence on base shear capacity but effect on displacement capacity. So default
hinge could me misused as unreasonable displacement capactiy

Default hinge
Care should be done in using default hinge
 1. hinge properties according to ATC-40 and ASCE 41-06 criteria were evaluated and manually
assigned to beams, columns, and struts in the 3-D model.

hinge properties for struts were computed using lower bound unreinforced masonry properties
given in table 7-1 (ASCE/SEI 41-06). For evaluation of plastic hinges for beams and columns, values
given in table 6-7 and table 6-8 (Supplement 1 for ASCE/SEI 41-06) were respectively used.