Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MANIPAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Deepak S Bashetty
Reg.No:060918003
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.
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
Occupancy Safety
7
Performance based design
Building Damage States
Force
parameter
Displacement
parameter
Immediate Life Collapse
occupancy safety prevention
Performance Levels
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.
14
Methods of analysis
15
Methods of analysis
Generally for analyzing the structure the following analysis
methods are used depending upon the requirements.
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.
• This iterative analysis and design process continues until the design
satisfies a pre-established performance criteria.
VB
VB Δroof
20
Why Push-Over Analysis?
• Static Nonlinear Analysis technique, also known as sequential yield
analysis, or simply "push-over" analysis.
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.
Design Structure
Analyze
25
Performance Analysis
Create Model as Designed Define Non linear Time
History Case
Analyze Analyze
Check No
No Results
Member Forces ≤ Design Force
YES
YES
27
Modeling of Beams and Columns
• 3D Frame Elements
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.
lcolumn
Dcolumn
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
• 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
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
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.
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 %
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.
42
Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level
45
Conclusions
• Base shear from time history analysis are 23% and 32%
higher than pushover analysis at DBE and MCE levels.
46
Conclusions
• No significant difference of plastic hinge pattern at
DBE and MCE levels from both analyses
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
50
• Analysis results shows that, hinges will be formed earlier
in frames of structures without strut action than frames of
structures with strut action
51
CONCLUSIONS
From the pushover and time-history analyses of 2D RC frames with
infill, the following conclusions are drawn:
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
M = k1k3 f ck bkd ( d − k 2 kd )
εc
φ=
kd
k1 η - η2/3 1 - η/3
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
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
25000000
0.0005 8283594.419 4.05201E-06
20000000
0.001 15378489.83 7.84424E-06
M
15000000
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
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