Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS
CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE ii
TRAINING CERTIFICATE iii
UNDERTAKING iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
ABSTRACT vi
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xiii
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 Need for Performance Based Analysis 2
1.3 Objectives of the Present Study 2
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS 3
2.LITRATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Basic Concept 5
2.3 Literature Review 5
2
3.3 Seismic Hazard Levels 14
3.3.1 Deterministic Method 14
3.3.2 Describing the Earthquake Level is Probabilistic
Method 14
3.4 Performance Objectives 15
3.5 Calculation of Target Displacement 16
4.MODELLING OF STRUCTURE
4.1 General 20
4.2 Modelling of members 20
4.2.1 Modelling of Slabs 20
4.2.2 Modelling of Beams and Columns 21
4.2.3 Modelling of Infill Walls 21
4.2.4 Modelling of Shear Wall 23
4.2.5 Modelling of Appendages 23
4.2.5.1 Staircases 23
4.2.5.2 Water Tank 24
4.2.5.3 Cantilever Slabs 24
4.2.6 Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation 24
4.2.7 End offsets and rigid zone factors 24
4.3 Modelling of Material Properties 27
4.3.1 Concrete Properties 27
4.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Properties 27
4.3.3 Material Damping 27
4.3.4 Modal Damping 27
4.3.5 Viscous Proportional Damping 27
4.4 Determination of Centre of Rigidity and Centre of Mass 28
4.4.1 Determination of Centre of Rigidity 28
4.4.2 Determination of Centre of Mass 31
4.4.3 Static Eccentricity 32
4.4.4 Design Eccentricity 32
4.5 Modelling Non-Linear Properties and its Calculation 32
4.5.1 Material Nonlinearity 33
4.5.2 Geometric Nonlinearity 34
4.5.2.1 P-Delta 34
4.5.2.2 Large Displacement 34
Development of moment curvature
4.6
relationship for beam 34
5.PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction 44
3
5.2 Methods of Pushover Analysis 44
5.3 Pushover Analysis and Pushover Curve 45
5.4 Pushover Analysis by SAP 2000 Package 46
5.5 Methodology of Pushover Analysis 48
5.6 Results from Pushover Analysis 44
5.6.1 Performance point 49
5.6.2 Displacement Ductility 50
5.6.3 Interstorey Drift & Plastic Hinge Formation 51
7. LOAD CALCULATION
7.1 Model of 6-Storey Frame 58
7.2 Building Description 58
7.3 Geometric properties of members 59
7.4 Analysis and Design of 6-storey building 59
7.5 Preliminary data for 6-storey RC frame building 60
7.5.1 Loading data for 6-storey RC frame building 60
7.5.2 Analysis of 6-storey RC frame 61
7.5.2.1 Load Calculation at roof level 61
7.5.2.2 Load Calculation at fifth floor level 62
7.5.2.3 Load Calculation at Plinth level 64
7.6 Earth quake load analysis 64
7.7 Seismic Load Distribution 66
7.7.1. Determination of design lateral loads at each floor as
per IS 1893(part1):2002 67
7.8 Load Combinations 67
7.9 Design of 3-Storey RC Building 68
7.9.1 Design of a flexure member 68
7.9.2 Design of exterior column 71
7.9.3 Design of Interior column 72
4
7.10 Calculation of Proportional Damping 73
8.EXAMPLES
Performance Based Analysis of 2D RC Frame without Infill
8.1
Action 76
8.1.1 Description of Structure 77
8.1.2 Results and Discussion 77
8.1.2.1 Base Shear 78
8.1.2.2 Performance Point 79
8.1.2.3 Interstorey Drift 80
8.1.2.4 Plastic Hinge Pattern 82
Pushover and Time-history Analyses of 2D RC Frame with
8.2
Infill Action 84
8.2.1 Effect of Infill Action 84
8.2.2 Detail of Frame Structure 84
8.2.3 Modelling Aspects 86
8.2.4 Analysis 90
8.2.4.1 Pushover Analysis 90
8.2.4.2 Time History Analysis 91
8.2.5 Results and Discussion 92
9.CONLCUSIONS
9.1 General 94
9.2 Conclusion from Example-1 94
9.3 Conclusion from Example-2 95
9.4 Scope for Further Work 95
REFERENCES 97
ABOUT ORGANISATION Annexure-1
5
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table Title
No.
3.1 Building Performance levels (FEMA356) 9
3.2 Earthquake Levels (FEMA 356) 11
3.3 Selection of Performance Objectives 12
3.4 Values for Modification Factor C0 13
3.5 Values for Effective Mass Factor Cm 14
3.6 Values of Modification Factor C2 14
4.1 Effective Second Moment of Area for Beams and Columns 16
4.2 Type of Fixity and Location for Column Bases 21
4.3 Cross-sectional, Material and Reinforcement details 36
4.4 Equation for , k1 and k2 39
4.5 Calculation of Values , k1 and k2 39
7 Load TABLES
8.1 Column Dimensions and Area of Longitudinal Reinforcement 57
8.2 Input Earthquake Ground Motions 58
8.3 Dimensions of beams and columns 65
8.4 Column and Beam Reinforcement Details (mm2) 65
8.5 Calculation of Plastic Hinge Length and its Location 67
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Title Page No
No
3.1 Performance-based Analysis Procedure 5
3.2 Performance Levels 10
4.1 A Typical Panel of an Infill Frame 19
4.2 Shear Wall Model using Area Elements 20
4.3 Typical Beam Column Joint without Offset and its Deflected
22
Profile
4.4 Typical Beam Column Joint with Offset and its Deflected Profile 22
4.5 Rigid Zone Factor Calculation 23
4.6 3D Model of the Structure 27
4.7 3D Model with bottom of First Storey Column Fixed 27
4.8 Calculation of (z)x 27
4.9 Calculation of (z)y 28
4.10 Calculation of (z)z 28
4.11 Flow Chart for Calculating Moment Curvature Relationship for a
33
Strain Value in the Extreme Compression Fibre
4.12 Actual Moment Curvature Relationship 34
4.13 Idealised Moment Curvature Relationship 35
4.14 Cross-Section Considered for Generating M- Curve 36
4.15 Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete 37
4.16 Stress block for Concrete Section 38
4.17 Calculation of Moment 40
4.18 Calculation of curvature 41
4.19 Moment Curvature Relationship generated for the Sample Section 41
5.1 Static Approximation in the Pushover Analysis 43
5.2 Base Shear Vs. Roof Displacement 45
5.3 Determination of Performance Point 45
6.1 Steps involved in Nonlinear Time-History Analysis 52
6.2 Typical Acceleration Time-History Record 53
7.1 LOAD
8.1 6-Storey Frame with Dimensions 56
8.2 Pushover Curve of 6 Storey Frame 59
8.3 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Design Basis Earthquake 60
8.4 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Maximum Considered
60
Earthquake
8.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios 61
8.6 Interstorey Drift Ratios from Time – history Analysis 61
8.7 Plastic Hinge Pattern at DBE Level 63
8.8 Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level 63
8.9 Plastic Hinge Pattern at Last Step from Pushover Analysis 64
8.10 Typical Floor Plan and Sectional Elevation of the Building 66
8.11 G+3 Storey 2D Frame Modelling for Pushover Analysis 69
8.12 SAP Model of Frame (G+3 stories) with Infill Used for 69
7
Time History Analysis
Figure
Title Page No
No
8.13 2D Model showing Typical Hinge Formation in Infill of a G+3
70
Storey Frame, using Pushover Analysis.
8.14 2D Model showing Typical Hinge Formation in Infill of a G+3
71
Storey Frame using Time History Analysis
8.15 Comparison of Variation of Fundamental Time Period using Time
72
History Analysis.
8.16 Comparison of Variation of Roof Displacement using
72
Time History Analysis.
8
LIST OF SYMBOLS
9
h’ Height of infill panel in m
hi Height of floor i measured from base in m
I Moment of inertia of the cross section in mm4
Ie Effective second moment of area in mm4
Ig Gross moment of area in mm4
k Neutral axis depth factor
k Constant = 550 as per IS 1905
kd Assumed neutral axis depth in mm
kd’ Final neutral axis depth in mm
Ke Effective lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction under
consideration
Ki Initial lateral stiffness in kN/m of the building in the direction under
consideration
l Length of beam (along center line) in m
L Full length in m
L’ Length of infill panel in m
lb Length of the beam
Lb Distance of plastic hinge in beam measured from the centerline of column in
mm
lc Length of the column.
Lc Distance of plastic hinge in column measured from the centerline of beam in
mm
Lf Flexible length in m
Lp Plastic hinge length in m
M Moment in kNm
m Modular ratio between steel and concrete.
MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake
N Mean return period in years
N Number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the
masses are loads
p Probability of exceedance of a certain earthquake level in a specified period
Pi Axial force in the column in ith storey in kN
Qi Design lateral force at floor i in kN
R Ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength
R Strength of infill wall corresponding to any strain level
r Rigid zone factor in m
Rc Strength corresponding to corner crushing failure
Rs Strength corresponding to shear cracking failure
Ru Ultimate strength of infill which is the lower value of Rc and Rs
Sa Spectral Acceleration in m2/sec
t Period in years
Te Effective fundamental time period of the building in the directions under
consideration in sec
Ti Elastic fundamental time period of structure in the direction under
consideration in sec
Ts Characteristic period of the response spectrum in sec
10
VB Design seismic base shear in kN
Vy Yield strength in kN
W Effective seismic weight in kN
w Width of equivalent strut
Wi Seismic weight of floor i in kN
x Distance from the free end of the beam in m
xi Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the X direction
from the reference point in m
yi Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the Y direction
from the reference point in m
Z Zone factor
α Ratio of post-yield stiffness to effective elastic stiffness
δ Relative horizontal displacement of two adjacent floors in m
Δm Maximum displacement in m
δt Target displacement in m
Δy Yield deformation in m
μ Displacement ductility demand
Deflection at the free end in m
Curvature of beam section in rad/mm
h Diameter of the stirrup in mm
Mass coefficient
Stiffness coefficient
0 Strain corresponding to peak stress
c Strain in the extreme compression fibre in concrete
s Strain at each level of reinforcement
u Ultimate strain
xial strain in the strut
Diameter of pile
Ratio between strains
11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
12
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
While 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. With the emergence
of the performance-based approach to design, there is a need to develop corresponding
analysis tools.
There is a hierarchy of structural analysis appropriate for performance based
analysis of structures. Each higher level procedure provides a more accurate method of
the actual performance of a building subjected to earthquake loads, but requires greater
effort in terms of data preparation, time and computational efforts.
1. The Linear Static Procedure is suitable only for regular buildings which
respond primarily within the elastic range.
2. The Linear Dynamic Procedure is able to model irregular buildings but is also
suitable for buildings which respond primarily within the elastic range.
3. The Non-linear Static Procedure can evaluate buildings loaded beyond the
elastic range but is unable to fully capture the dynamics of response,
especially higher mode effects.
4. The Non-linear Dynamic Procedure is the most complete form of analysis,
modeling both dynamic effects and inelastic response. However it is sensitive
to modeling and ground motion assumptions.
This report explains the performance based evaluation of reinforced concrete
frames by two advanced analysis techniques, Non-linear Static Procedure and Non-linear
Dynamic Procedure. Pushover analysis is a simplified, static, nonlinear procedure in
which a predefined pattern of earthquake loads is applied incrementally to frameworks
until a collapse mechanism is reached. Nonlinear dynamic procedure is the time-history
method of analysis through which both inelastic behaviour and earthquake induced
13
actions changing with time can be accounted. It is a step by step analysis of the
dynamical response of a structure to a specified loading that may vary with time.
14
In first chapter, a general introduction to the necessity to seismic performance evaluation
of buildings and the importance of Performance based seismic analysis and design
philosophy is described. The objectives and the scope of the thesis are highlighted. In the
second chapter, a brief review of literature on performance based seismic analysis, design
procedures, different force, displacement based pushover analysis and Time History
analysis procedures are presented. In the third chapter, different types of Performance
Levels and Ranges, Seismic Hazard Levels, Performance Objectives and Calculation of
Target Displacement is described. In the fourth chapter, using software packages such as
SAP-2000 modelling of structural members, material properties and geometric properties
are obtained. And in this chapter moment curvature relationship for beam is developed. In
the fifth chapter, Analysis procedures and detailed description about carrying pushover
analysis using software packages such as SAP-2000 is presented for RC buildings. In the
sixth chapter, Analysis types and procedures have detailed description about carrying
Time History analysis using software packages such as SAP-2000 is presented for RC
buildings. In seventh chapter, consists of loading pattern, seismic load calculations and
load combinations of the model generation of the 6-storey RC frame and 3-storey RC
frame. In the eighth chapter, Pushover and Time History Analysis for 6-storey RC
building without Infill action and 3-storey RC building with Infill action is carried out
using SAP-2000 software. Results are compared and discussions of the 6-storey RC
building are presented, and a discussion of the 3-storey RC building has been done. In the
ninth chapter, summary and conclusions of the work carried out in this thesis and the
scope for further studies has been explained.
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This literature review and introduction will focus on recent contributions related to
seismic evaluation and past efforts most closely related to the needs of the present work.
The goal of seismic evaluation of building is to determine how buildings will response to
a design of earthquake described by the recommended spectra. In other words, the goal is
to find the weak links and to identify, how their behavior will affect the response of the
structural system. The location and behavior of a weak link in a load path of lateral force
existing system must be evaluated. The weak links may function as a base isolator that
Will limit the structural response of lateral force resisting system (NEHRP, Washington,
D.C 1992).
The capacity spectrum method, which is non-linear static procedure, provides a
graphical representation of the global force displacement capacity curve of the structure
and compares it to the response spectra representation of the earthquakes demands.
16
modes of failure and the potential for progressive collapse. The need to perform some
form of inelastic analysis is already incorporated in many building codes.
Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee and Et al[01] (2001) had presented an analytical
study of seismic damage evaluation of a tall reinforced concrete building and the
characteristics of the plastic hinge formation patterns obtained by using computer
programs for dynamic analysis. Damage indices obtained by computer programs are
interpreted and their implications compared with those of drift ratios. The results of
collapse mechanism approach are compared with that of static push-over analysis. It is
concluded that drift limits in codes do not necessarily predict the degree of damage that
this type of construction can sustain in sever earthquakes.
Asokan. A and Amlan K. Sengupta [03] (2007) had presented an study on seismic
analysis of a framed building with masonry infill walls, it is necessary to model the effect
of the walls on the lateral stiffness, strength and ductility of the building. The equivalent
strut method is a convenient for modelling the walls. Out of the two approaches of
equivalent strut method, the one based on elastic analysis is suitable for linear methods of
seismic analysis, such as equivalent static and response spectrum methods. The approach
17
based on ultimate load is suitable for nonlinear methods of seismic analysis, such as
pushover analysis. The present study proposes a nonlinear axial load versus deformation
behaviour for the equivalent strut to be used in conjunction with a pushover analysis.
Zou and Chan [25] (2005) had presented an effective computer-based technique that
incorporates pushover analysis together with numerical optimization procedures to
automate the pushover drift performance design of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings.
Steel reinforcement, as compared with concrete materials, appears to be the more cost-
effective material that can be effectively used to control drift beyond the occurrence of
first yielding and to provide the required ductility of RC building frameworks
The FEMA-273[10] document provides technically sound and acceptable guidelines for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. The Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings are intended to serve as a ready tool for design professionals, a reference
document for building regulatory officials, and a foundation for the future development
and implementation of building code provisions and standards. This document provides
different Seismic performance levels of buildings for structural and Non-structural
components in detail. It also gives different analysis procedures used for Seismic
rehabilitation of buildings.
The FEMA-349[11] Action Plan presents a rational and cost effective approach by which
building stakeholders: owners, financial institutions, engineers, architects, contractors,
researchers, the public and governing agencies, will be able to move to a performance
18
based design and evaluation system. The Plan recognizes that there is a strong demand
from stakeholder groups for more reliable, quantifiable and practical means to control
building damage. It also recognizes that there is not a focused understanding among these
groups as to how these goals can be obtained. This Plan describes how performance
based seismic design guidelines can be developed and used to achieve these goals. It
engages each of the groups in the development of these guidelines, by which future
building design will become more efficient and reliable.
19
components. The methodology used here is performance based: the evaluation and
retrofit design criteria are expressed as performance objectives, which defines desired
levels of seismic performance when the building is subjected to specified levels of
seismic ground motion. Acceptable performance is measured by the level of structural
and/or non-structural damage expected from the earthquake shaking. Damage is
expressed in terms of post yield, inelastic deformation limits for various structural
components and elements found in concrete buildings. The analytical procedure
incorporated in the methodology accounts for post elastic deformations of the structure
by using simplified nonlinear static analysis methods.
In this thesis, Pushover and Time History analyses of two different RC buildings are
carried out using software packages. Pushover and Time History analyses of 6-storey RC
building are carried out using SAP-2000 software. Pushover and Time History analyses
methodology given in ATC-40 document was incorporated in SAP-2000 software
package and the same is used for seismic performance of a 3-storey RC building has been
carried out.
20
CHAPTER-3
METHODOLOGY OF PERFORMANCE-BASED ANALYSIS
3.1 GENERAL
Performance-based seismic analysis requires that the engineer should complete
the tasks indicated in the flowchart shown in Figure 3.1.
21
3.2 PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND RANGES
The desired condition of the structure after a range of ground shakings, or
building performance level, is decided by structural engineer. The building performance
level is a function of the post event conditions of the structural and non-structural
components of the structure. The performance levels as per FEMA 356 are as follows:
a) Immediate Occupancy
b) Life Safety
c) Collapse Prevention
22
equipment and contents; or to preserve important historic features when the cost
of design for Immediate Occupancy is excessive.
Acceptance criteria for this range may be obtained by interpolating between the
values provided for the Immediate Occupancy (S-1) and Life Safety (S-3) levels.
23
3.2.5 Collapse Prevention Performance Level (S-5)
Structural Performance Level S-5, Collapse Prevention, means the building is on
the verge of experiencing partial or total collapse.
Substantial damage to the structure has occurred, potentially including significant
degradation in the stiffness and strength of the lateral-force-resisting system, large
permanent lateral deformation of the structure, and to a more limited extent
degradation in vertical-load-carrying capacity. However, all significant
components of the gravity load-resisting system must continue to carry their
gravity load demands.
In the primary concrete frames, there will be extensive cracking and formation of
hinges in the ductile elements.
There will be about 4% inelastic drift, transient or permanent.
There will be extensive cracking and crushing in the brick infill walls. Walls may
dislodge due to out-of-plane bending.
There will be 0.6% inelastic drift, transient or permanent. Significant risk of
injury due to falling hazards from structural debris may exist.
The structure may not be technically practical to repair and is not safe for
reoccupancy, as aftershock activity could induce collapse.
The performance levels for the non-structural components are Operational (N-A),
Immediate Occupancy (N-B), Life Safety (N-C) and Hazards Reduced (N-D). When the
performance of the nonstructural components is neglected while addressing the design of
the building structure, the non-structural performance level is referred to as Not
24
Considered (N-E). The notations of the nonstructural performance levels are alphabetic
with a prefix N.
As mentioned before, that a building level is a combination of the structural
performance levels and the nonstructural performance levels. The various combinations
are expressed in the form of the matrix given below. The notations of the building
performance levels are numeric-alphabetic, where the number corresponds to the
structural performance level and the alphabet corresponds to non-structural performance
level.
Table 3.1 Building Performance levels (FEMA356)
Nonstructural S–1 SP – 2 SP – 3 SP – 4 SP – 5 SP – 6
Performance Immediate Damage Life Limited Collapse Not Considered
Levels Occupancy Control Safety Safety Prevention
N –A 1 –A 2–A NR NR NR NR
Operational Operational
N–B 1–B 2–B 3–B NR NR NR
Immediate Immediate
Occupancy Occupancy
N–C 1–C 2–C 3–C 4–C 5–C 6–C
Life Safety Life
Safety
N–D NR 2–D 3–D 4–D 5–D 6–D
Hazards
Reduced
N–E NR NR 3–E 4–E 5–E No rehabilitation
Not Collapse
Considered Prevention
(NR-Not Recommended)
It can be observed from the above table that for the three building performance
levels of Operational (1-A), Immediate Occupancy (1-B) and Life Safety (3-C), due
regard has to be given to both structural and nonstructural performance levels. For the
building performance level of Collapse prevention, the performance of the nonstructural
25
component can be neglected. A more common way of representing standard structural
performance levels is shown in Figure 3.2.
26
An earthquake level is associated with a probability of occurrence. Assuming a
nominal probability distribution of the earthquake levels at a site, the probability of
exceedance (p) of a certain earthquake level in a specified period (t in years) is related to
the mean return period (N, in years) by the following equation
t
N -------- (3.1)
ln(1 p)
27
multiple level performance objectives. A basic safety objective (BSO) satisfies the dual
requirement of Life Safety under DBE and Collapse Prevention under MCE
(combinations k+p in below table.3.1.1). The aim of BSO is to have a low risk of life
threatening injury during a moderate earthquake (as defined by DBE) and to check the
collapse of the vertical load resisting system during a severe earthquake (as defined by
MCE)
in a period
Serviceability 50% in 50
a b c d
earthquake – 1 years
Serviceability 20% in 50
e f g h
earthquake – 2 years
Design basis 10% in 50
i j k l
earthquake (DBE) years
Maximum considered 2% in 50
earthquake – 2 years m n 0 p
(MCE)
The target displacement i.e. the maximum displacement the structure is expected
to undergo during a design event is now calculated. The target displacement is calculated
as per the following equation of FEMA 356.
2
T
t C 0 C1 C 2 C 3 S a e 2 g ----- (3.2)
4
28
C0 is Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF
system to the roof displacement of the building MDOF system. The values of C 0 are
tabulated in FEMA 356 and are included in Table 3.4.
Te is the effective fundamental time period of the building in the directions under
consideration and is defined as per the following equation,
Ki
Te Ti ----- (3.5)
Ke
29
is ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength and is obtained from
equation,
R = Sa/(Vy/W) .Cm ----- (3.6)
Vy is yield strength calculated using results of the NSP for the idealized nonlinear
force displacement curve developed for the building. W is the effective seismic weight
and Cm is the effective mass factor from Table 3.5. Alternatively, C m is taken as the
effective model mass calculated for the fundamental mode using an Eigen value analysis
shall be permitted.
Collapse
1.5 1.0 1.2 1.0
Prevention
30
1. Structures in which more than 30% of the story shear at any level is resisted by any combination of the
following components, elements, or frames: ordinary moment-resisting frames, concentrically-braced
frames, frames with partially-restrained connections, tension-only braces, unreinforced masonry walls,
shear-critical, piers, and spandrels of reinforced concrete or masonry.
2. All frames not assigned to Framing Type 1.
3. Linear interpolation shall be used for intermediate values of T.
4.1 GENERAL
For any detailed structural analysis, development of computational model is a
must. Modelling of a structure means modelling of all its members and its material
property. The members are connected so that it will represent the actual load flow path.
The model should accurately represent mass distribution, strength, stiffness and
deformability. The different types of computational models are three dimensional model,
two dimensional model, lumped ass model and soil structure interaction model. This
chapter gives an overall idea about the three dimensional computational modelling
31
aspects of reinforced concrete structures, which is used for both linear and non-linear
analysis.
But in the case of slabs with large aspect ratio, especially in the case of flat slabs,
the in-plane bending of slabs under lateral loads will be too high to be neglected. The in-
plane bending of slabs generate chord forces. The chord forces should be calculated by
dividing the slab into finite elements. The size of each element will depend on the stress
gradient generated in slab under lateral loading.
32
used. These factors are important since moment distribution to the members
meeting at a joint will depend on the relative stiffness of the members.
Table 4.1 Effective Second Moment of Area for Beams and Columns
Frame Element Cross-sectional shape Ieff
Rectangular 0.5Ig
Beams T-Beam 0.7Ig
L-Beam 0.6Ig
Columns 0.7Ig
Strut is a compression member similar to frame element. It will carry only axial
compressive forces. Hence both the ends of the strut are assigned pin connection or it can
be modeled as truss member.
33
Figure 4.1 A Typical Panel of an Infilled Frame
Here
l’ = length of infill panel
h’ = height of infill panel
l = length of beam (along center line)
h = length of column (along center line)
d = diagonal length of the panel (center line)
The properties of infill that should be assigned to equivalent strut while modelling
it for linear analysis are modulus of elasticity (equation 4.1), cross-sectional dimension of
the equivalent strut and the diagonal length of infill panel.
E m kf m' (4.1)
Here
Em = modulus of elasticity of infill material
f’m = compressive strength of infill
k = 550 (IS: 1905)
34
In the case of non-linear analysis, deformations are expected to go beyond the
elastic range. Hence it is necessary to model the non-linear load versus deformation
behaviour of infill also. Since struts are modeled to carry only axial compressive forces,
the axial force versus deformation behaviour of infill has to be modeled. Calculation of
cross-sectional dimension, non-linear modelling and a comparative study of few 2D
frames with and without infill modelling are explained in detail in section 4.7 of this
chapter.
35
significant. In such cases, staircases can be modeled using inclined truss member or
inclined beam member.
36
joints. The offset values are selected such that one member will flush with the face of the
other member. Figure 4.3 shows a typical beam column joint before giving offset and
corresponding deflected profile. Figure 4.4 shows the joint with offsets and the
corresponding deflected profile.
Figure 4.3 Typical Beam Column Joint without Offset and its Deflected Profile
Figure 4.4 Typical Beam Column Joint with Offset and its Deflected Profile
The junction of beam is modeled using rigid zone factor. Rigid zone factor is
defined as the fraction of offset which should be considered as rigid for bending and
shear deformation. Three types of zones are defined.
37
Partially rigid zone with a rigid zone factor varying from 0 to 1.
Conventionally a rigid zone factor of 0.5 is assumed which will make the initial
half length of offset rigid. The mathematical significance of rigid zone factor is explained
using equation 4.2 and Figure 4.5.
L = full length
Lf = L – ra = flexible length
a = end offset
r = rigid zone factor (r can be any value from 0 to 1)
P = loading on the beam.
x = distance from the free end of the beam.
= deflection at the free end
Lf L L L
Px 2 Px 2 f
P P
dx dx dx dx (4.2)
0
EI Lf
EI 0
GA v Lf
GA v
E = Young’s modulus
of elasticity
I = Moment of inertia of the cross section
G = Shear modulus
Av= Shear area
Since the initial length “ra” is rigid 2 nd and 4th terms of the above equation
becomes zero.
38
4.3 MODELLING OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Material properties of members are required to model the stiffness, as well as the
strength of the members. The Young’s modulus of elasticity (Ec) of concrete is calculated
using equation 4.3 as given in IS: 456-2000.
E c 5000 f ck
(4.3)
Here, fck =Characteristic compressive strength of concrete cube in MPa.
39
Additional damping may be specified in each analysis case.
The co-ordinates of center of rigidity are calculated using equation 4.4 and
equation 4.5 as follows.
z y
CR x
z z (4.4)
z x
CR y
(4.5) z z
40
Rotation about Z due to unit load along X, (z) x =2.24 × 10-6 radian
Rotation about Z due to unit load along Y, (z) y = 2.3 ×10-6 radian
Rotation about Z due to unit moment about Z, (z) z = 7.37×10-7 radian
z y
CR x = 2.3 × 10-6/7.37×10-7 = 3.12m
z z
z x
CR y
z z = 2.24 × 10-6/7.37×10-7 = 3.04m
(z)x, (z)y and (z)z are shown as R3 in Figures 4.8b, 4.9b and 4.10b respectively.
Figure 4.6 3D Model of the Structure Figure 3.7 3D Model with bottom of First
Storey Column Fixed
41
a) Roof Slab showing Unit Load applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis
in X direction at the Test Point
a) Roof Slab showing Unit Load applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis
in Y direction at the Test Point
Figure 4.9 Calculation of ( z)
y
42
a) Roof Slab showing Unit Moment applied b) Resultant Rotation about Z axis
about Z axis at the Test Point
Figure 4.10 Calculation of ( z) z
CM x
P x
i i
P i
(4.6)
CM y
P y
i i
P i
(4.7)
Here
Pi = Axial force in the column in ith storey
xi = Distance of column under consideration in the i th storey along the X
direction from the reference point
yi = Distance of column under consideration in the ith storey along the Y
direction from the reference point
43
4.57 Static Eccentricity
Static eccentricity is the distance between center of rigidity and center of mass.
The static eccentricity along X direction (e six) is calculated using equation 4.8. Similarly
the static eccentricity along Y direction (esiy) is calculated using equation 4.9.
e six CM x CR x (4.8)
e siy CM x CR x (4.9)
The value which will give more severe effect in the shear of frame is used for analysis.
In equi-static method of lateral load analysis the vertical base shear distribution
are applied at design eccentricity from the center of rigidity. This point is defined as
shifted center of mass.
44
When a material is strained beyond its proportional limit, the linear stress-strain
relationship is no longer valid. In order to assign the material non-linearity to the
structure, plastic hinges are modelled at locations where bending moment are expected to
be maximum. Plastic hinges can be provided at any number of locations along the clear
length of any frame element. Each hinge represents concentrated post yield behaviour.
Hinges only affect the behavior of the structure in non-linear static (Pushover) and
nonlinear direct-integration time-history analysis. The different types of hinge properties
are
Default Hinge Property calculated by the software based on the section defined
and default stress strain.
User Defined Hinge Property
Default hinge properties can not be modified, since it is section dependent. The
default properties can not be fully defined by the program until the section to which they
are applied has been identified. Thus, to see the effect of the default properties, the
default property should be assigned to a frame element, and then the resulting generated
hinge property can be viewed. The built-in default hinge properties for concrete members
are generally based on Tables 9.6, 9.7 and 9.12 of ATC-40. Calculation of user defined
hinge properties are explained in section 4.7 of this chapter.
The hinges in the frame members form near the joints and not exactly at joint. It is
assumed that these plastic hinges in the members from at a distance equal to half the
average plastic hinge length, Lp, from the face of the member to which it frames into. The
plastic hinge length is calculated using Baker’s formula (equation 4.12)
L p 0.5H
(4.12)
Here
H = depth of beam or column cross-section
45
4.52 Geometric Nonlinearity
The geometric nonlinearities are P-Delta effect and are displacement/rotation
effects. Strains within the elements are assumed to be small. Geometric nonlinearity can
be considered on a step-by-step basis in nonlinear static and direct-integration time
history analysis, and incorporated in the stiffness matrix for linear analysis.
4.52.1 P-Delta
The equilibrium equations take into partial account the deformed configuration of
the structure. The tensile force stiffens the structure and the compressive force
destabilizes the structure. But this analysis requires a moderate amount of iteration.
46
Define material
Assume neutral
axis depth, kd
Calculate Moment
Calculate curvature
Figure 4.11 Flow Chart for Calculating Moment Curvature Relationship for a
Strain Value in the Extreme Compression Fibre
Similarly moment and curvature values are calculated for different strain values
up to ultimate strain for the same section. A typical moment curvature relation ship
developed is shown in Figure 4.12. Here kd is the assumed neutral axis depth for the trial
and error procedure and kd’ is the final neutral axis depth as obtained by equating total
tensile and total compressive forces at the section for that particular strain at the extreme
compression fiber in concrete.
47
Figure 4.12 Actual Moment Curvature Relationship
But for computational stability two more points has to be defined. Also the
cracking stage will not be plotted in idealised conditions. In actual practice we have to
convert the curve in Figure 4.12 into an idealised shape as shown in Figure 4.13.
48
Figure 4.13 Idealised Moment Curvature Relationship
Idealised moment curvature curve for a typical section should have the following
well defined points.
Point A corresponds to unloaded stage.
Point B corresponds to nominal yield strength and yield rotation y.
Point C corresponds to ultimate strength and ultimate rotation u, following
which failure takes place.
Point D corresponds to residual strength beyond point C. Conventionally a value
of 20% of the yield strength is assumed.
Point E corresponds to the maximum deformation capacity with the residual
strength. Conventionally a high value of deformation capacity is assumed.
49
Figure 4.14 Cross-Section Considered for Generating M-Curve
Here
b = width of the beam
D = depth of the beam
h = diameter of the stirrup
= diameter of the main reinforcement considered
Es = modulus of elasticity of the steel reinforcement
Ec = modulus of elasticity of the concrete.
m = modular ratio between steel and concrete.
Figure 4.15 shows the stress strain diagram for concrete, which is used to generate
moment curvature relationship. It has an ascending and a descending part. The ascending
50
part is represented by equation 4.13. The descending part is represented by equation 4.14.
The corresponding stress block is shown in Figure 4.16.
c c 2
f c 0.446f ck 2 0 c 0.002 (4.13)
0.002 0.002
c
2
The strain at each level of reinforcement can be calculated assuming linear strain
variation along the depth as shown in equation 4.15 and the corresponding stress in the
steel is calculated using equation 4.16.
s c
kd d'
(4.15)
kd
fs s Es
(4.16)
Here
51
s = strain in reinforcement at a depth d’ from the extreme compressive fibre
in concrete which is equal to the strain in the surrounding concrete
layer.
Table 4.4 explains how to calculate , k1 and k2 for different ranges of c, whereas
Table 4.5 shows the values of , k1 and k2 calculated based on the above equation for a
strain value of 0.0005 in the extreme compression fiber in concrete.
52
Here
0 = strain corresponding to peak stress
u = ultimate strain
c k1 k2 K3
0.0005 0.25 0.229 0.3409 0.446
The neutral axis depth that is used for next trial, kd = (300+8.52)/2 =154.26 mm
Repeat the procedure till the input kd exactly matches with the kd calculated.
Here for input kd = 214.69 mm, the calculated kd also gave the same value. The
calculation procedure is graphically shown in Figure 4.17.
53
Figure 4.17 Calculation of Moment
M = 106kNm
Calculation of curvature for a strain value of 0.0005 in the extreme compression
fiber of concrete is explained below using Figure 4.18 and equation 4.19.
54
Figure 4.18 Calculation of Curvature
c
(4.19)
kd
= 0.0005/213.25 = 0.0000023446 rad/m
Similarly moment and curvature are determined for strain values 0.001, 0.0015,
0.002, 0.0025, 0.003 and 0.0035. The values obtained are plotted in the graph as shown in
Figure 4.19. The moment curvature relation generated for a particular section will depend
on the stress strain curves used. The values are validated with the in-house software
developed by IIT-Madras.
Figure 4.19 Moment Curvature Relationship Generated for the Sample Section
55
CHAPTER 5
5.1. INTRODUCTION
There are different methods followed for pushover analysis. Basically it has been
classified into two ways are.
i) Force Control
In force control, the structure is subjected to lateral forces and the displacements are
calculated. There are so many ways of applying force on the structure. It was broadly
classified in to two types. They are a) Fixed Load Distribution and b) Variable Load
Distribution. In the Fixed load distribution, the load distribution is determined prior and
remains unchanged during the pushover. Some of the fixed distributions used are as
follows.
56
Lateral force distribution based on a linear elastic dynamic analysis or response
spectrum analysis of the building.
In the Variable load distribution, the distribution is determined with the changes in
inertial forces with the level of inelastic deformation, some researchers have proposed
adaptive load patterns to be used in the pushover. The load distribution changes as the
building is deformed to larger and larger displacements. The following are some of the
variable load distributions.
A distribution proportional to the product of the mass vector and the fundamental mode
shape is used initially until first yielding takes place. Then, for each load increment
beyond yielding, the forces are adjusted to be consistent with the deflected shape in the
inelastic state. The load distribution is based on the product of the current floor
displacements and masses.
A distribution based on mode shapes derived from secant stiffness at each load step
These adaptive load distributions require more computational effort. However, their
superiority over the simpler fixed load distributions has not been established.
In displacement control, the structure is subjected to a displacement profile and the lateral
forces are calculated. In the displacement control, the user must specify the target
maximum deformation profile of the structure. This profile is internally divided by the
number of steps specified by the user, and then incrementally applied to the structure.
After assigning all properties of the model, the force controlled pushover analysis of
the building model is carried out. The models are pushed in monotonic increasing order
in a particular direction till the collapse of the structure. For this purpose, value of
maximum displacement (4% of height of building) at roof level and number of steps in
which this displacement must be applied, are defined. The global response of structure at
each displacement level is obtained in terms of the base shear, which is presented by
pushover curve. Pushover curve is a base shear force versus roof displacement curve,
57
which tells about the shear force developed at the base of the structure at any push level.
The peak of this curve represents the maximum base shear, i.e. maximum load carrying
capacity of the structure; the initial stiffness of the structure is obtained from the tangent
at pushover curve at the load level of 10% that of the ultimate load and the maximum
roof displacement of structures is taken that deflection beyond which collapse of structure
takes place.
Nonlinear static pushover analysis capabilities are provided in the nonlinear version
of SAP2000 only. The nonlinear behavior occurs in discrete user-defined hinges.
Currently, hinges can be introduced into frame objects only and assigned at any location
along the frame object. Uncoupled moment, torsion, axial force and shear hinges are
available. There is also a coupled P-M2-M3 hinge that yields based on the interaction of
axial force and bending moments at the hinge location. More than one type of hinge can
exist at the same location; for example, both an M3 (moment) and a V2 (shear) hinge
may be assigned to the same end of a frame object. A pushover analysis can consist of
more than one pushover load case. Each pushover load case can have a different
distribution of load on the structure. For example, a typical pushover analysis might
consist of three pushover load cases. The first would apply gravity load to the structure,
the second would apply one distribution of lateral load over the height of the structure,
and the third would apply another distribution of lateral load over the height of the
structure. There are four different methods of describing the distribution of load on the
structure for a pushover load case:
1. A uniform acceleration can be automatically applied. In this case, the lateral force
automatically applied at each node is proportional to the mass tributary to that
node.
2. A lateral force that is proportional to the product of a specified mode shape times
its circular frequency squared (2) times the mass tributary to a node can be
automatically applied at each node. The user may specify the mode shape to be
used in that instance.
58
4. Any of the methods described in 1, 2 and 3 can be combined.
Several types of output can be obtained from the nonlinear static pushover analysis:
2. Base shear versus displacement at a specified control joint can be plotted in the
ADRS format where the vertical axis is spectral acceleration and the horizontal
axis is spectral displacement. The demand spectra can be superimposed on that
plot.
3. The sequence of hinge formation and the color-coded state of each hinge can be
viewed graphically, on a step-by-step basis, for each step of the pushover.
4. The member forces can be viewed graphically, on a step-by-step basis, for each
step of the analysis.
5. Tabulated values of base shear versus displacement at each point along the
pushover curve, along with tabulations of the number of hinges beyond certain
control points on their hinge property force-displacement curve can be viewed on
the screen, printed, or saved to a file.
6. Tabulated values of the capacity spectrum (ADRS capacity and demand curves),
the effective period and the effective damping can be viewed on the screen,
printed, or saved to a file.
1. Create a model.
2. Define arbitrary static load patterns, if needed, for use in the pushover analysis.
Note that the program also has built-in capability to define the distribution of
lateral load over the height of the structure based on both uniform acceleration
and mode shapes.
59
6. Run the pushover analysis by selecting a static nonlinear analysis case on the Set
Analysis Cases to Run . The analysis case will be available only if there is at least
one frame object with a hinge property assigned to it, and there is at least one
pushover load case defined. If frame objects are specified to be designed by the
program, this design automatically will be performed before the pushover analysis
routine begins.
60
structure and the locations with inelastic deformation. The primary benefit of pushover
analysis is to obtain a measure of over strength and to obtain a sense of the general
capacity of the structure to sustain inelastic deformation.
The loads acting on the structure are contributed from slabs, beams, columns,
walls, ceilings and finishes. They are calculated by conventional methods according to IS
456 – 2000 and are applied as gravity loads along with live loads as per IS 875 (Part II) in
the structural model. The lateral loads and their vertical distribution on each floor level
are determined as per IS 1893 – 2002 and calculated from equation 4.1. These loads are
then applied in “PUSH - Analysis case” during the analysis.
2
Wi h i
Qi VB n
------- (5.1)
Wjhj
j1
2
The sections of beams and columns are then designed for the moments and axial
forces obtained from the analysis using IS 456–2000 for the load combination
1.5(DL+LL).
61
soil conditions and required building performance level. The intersection of demand and
capacity spectrum at 5% damping gives the performance point of the structure analyzed.
This is illustrated in Figure 5.3. At the performance point, the resulting responses of the
building should then be checked using certain acceptability criteria. The performance
point thus obtained from pushover analysis is then compared with the target displacement
calculated using Equation 2.2 (FEMA 356).
62
5.62 Displacement Ductility
Ductility may be broadly defined as the ability of a structure or member to
undergo inelastic deformations beyond the initial yield deformation with no decrease in
the load resistance. The displacement ductility demand (μ) for a given earthquake load is
obtained from the pushover curve and is calculated by the following equation,
m
------- (5.2)
y
Interstorey Drift = = -------
h
(5.3)
The sequence of plastic hinge formation and state of hinge at various levels of
building performance can be obtained from SAP output. This gives the information about
the weakest member and so the one which is to be strengthened in case of a building need
to be retrofitted. Accordingly the detailing of the member can be done in order to achieve
the desired pattern of failure of members in case of severe earthquakes. It is concluded
that pushover analysis is a successful method in determination of the sequence of
yielding of the components of a building, possible mode of failure, and final state of the
building after a predetermined level of lateral load is sustained by the structure.
63
CHAPTER 6
TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
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. A time history function may be a
list of time and function values or just a list of function values that are assumed to occur
at equally spaced intervals. The function values in a time history function may be
normalized ground acceleration values or they may be multipliers for specified (force or
displacement) load cases.
The Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP) is for seismic analysis of the building, the
design seismic forces, and the distribution over the height of the building, and the
corresponding internal forces and system displacements shall be determined using a
linearly elastic, dynamic analysis in compliance with the requirements of this section.
Buildings shall be modeled with linearly elastic stiffness and equivalent viscous damping
values consistent with components responding at or near yield level.
The LDP includes two analysis methods, namely, the Response Spectrum Method
and the Time History Method. The Response Spectrum Method uses peak modal
responses calculated from dynamic analysis of a mathematical model. Only those modes
contributing significantly to the response need to be considered. Modal responses are
combined using rational methods to estimate total building response quantities. The
Time- History Method (also termed Response-History Analysis) involves a time-step-by-
time-step evaluation of building response, using discretized recorded or synthetic
64
earthquake records as base motion input. Pairs of ground motion records for simultaneous
analysis along each horizontal axis of the building should be consistent. Consistent pairs
are the orthogonal motions expected at a given site based on the same earthquake.
65
Figure 6.1 Steps involved in Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
66
simulated time history data sets having equivalent duration and spectral content shall be
used to make up the total number required. For each data set, the square root of the sum
of the squares (SRSS) of the 5%-damped site-specific spectrum of the scaled horizontal
components shall be constructed. The data sets shall be scaled such that the average value
of the SRSS spectra does not fall below 1.4 times the 5% damped spectrum for the design
earthquake for periods between 0.2T seconds and 1.5T seconds (where T is the
fundamental period of the building).
Where three time history data sets are used in the analysis of a structure, the
maximum value of each response parameter (e.g., force in a member, displacement at a
specific level) shall be used to determine design acceptability. Where seven or more time
history data sets are employed, the average value of each response parameter shall be
permitted to determine design acceptability.
67
6.4 Comparison between Pushover Analysis and Time-History Analysis
Nonlinear static procedures are generally not effective in predicting inter-story
drift demands compared to nonlinear dynamic procedures. Drifts are generally
under-estimated at upper levels and sometimes over-estimated at lower levels.
Nonlinear static methods will not capture yielding of columns at the upper levels.
This inability can be a significant source of concern in identifying local upper
story mechanisms.
The static pushover analysis for irregular structures can not be accurate for higher
modes. But Time history analysis incorporates the higher mode effects also.
The computational time required to perform a pushover analysis is comparatively
much lesser than that required to run a full nonlinear dynamic analysis. This
makes the pushover analysis much more applicable in a design office.
When performing a dynamic analysis, it is best to use a series of earthquakes
which also increases the computational time. The pushover analysis naturally
accounts for all earthquakes with the same probability of exceedance by
predicting the maximum displacement that can be expected in the form of the
target displacement. Now, computational time has been further reduced, since
only one analysis must be run for each exceedance probability that the designer is
interested in, strengthening the idea that the pushover analysis is much more
practical in a design office.
The pushover analysis allows the designer to determine the building’s
performance under a range of ground shakings while the current code design just
determines that the building won’t fall down or threaten life under the worst
possible shaking. This allows owners to choose in advance what the condition of
their building will be after a given event which in turn limits their costs in
purchasing earthquake insurance. Also, by knowing the resulting condition of the
building after any ground motion, including small ground motions which may be
just large enough to cause some non–structural damage, the designers can modify
their design to protect expensive architectural fixtures or to limit the
inconvenience that can be caused to building occupants when mechanical or
68
plumbing components are damaged. This increases the overall effectiveness of the
structure furthering its applicability in a design office.
The pushover model directly incorporates the actual material nonlinearities of
each member, and the structure is monotonically forced into the inelastic response
range, the designer is able to get detailed member information at displacements up
to and including the maximum displacement. From this information, sections of
members which will be most damaged by the ground shaking can be located and
these sections can be redesigned to develop the strength or ductility that will be
required of them. In comparison, when designing by an appropriate code, the
maximum loads are applied directly to the structure and only the maximum
response is determined. The relation at specific loading values before the
maximum is lost and the interrelation among contributing elements is not
available. So, the designer has no idea of what the effect of increasing the strength
or ductility at one section will have upon the other. This requires that both
sections obtain their maximum strength or ductility, while the pushover analysis
allows the designer to modify one section which in turn could have a beneficial
result on the other section lowering the maximum response it would have to
endure. So, the pushover analysis increases the effectiveness and efficiency of the
design.
69
CHAPTER 7
LOAD CALCULATIONS
Modeling of frame structure consists of several steps. In first step, geometry of all
members of the structure is modeled. Then, materials and its properties such as
compressive strength, Poisson’s ratio and shear strength of materials are defined. Frame
sections such as Beams and columns and its dimensions are defined. In next step, applied
loads and load combinations for the whole structure is defined. Flexural hinge properties
are defined: in terms of moment rotation and axial force moment interaction relations for
columns, and moment rotation relations for beams. Shear hinge property of beams and
columns are defined in terms of shear force-shear deformation relation. The potential
location of hinges in the member needs to be specified; it depends on hinge length. And
finally, the whole model is analyzed for various load conditions to determine the global
response of the structure.
6m
6m
8m 8m
Fig. 7.1Typical Plan of the 6-storey RC building
The building selected to carry out seismic analysis, is an Office building located in
seismic zone V. The 6-storey RC building designed only for Gravity load as per IS
456:2000 and SP 16:1980. The floor plan and elevation of a typical building is as shown
in figs. 7.1 and 7.2 respectively. The plan is regular in nature in the sense that it has all
70
beams and column equally placed in both X and Y directions. Thus, entire building space
frame is similar. The frame shown in Figure 7.2 is considered for Pushover and Time
History analyses and is carried out using SAP-2000 software package.
71
the IS 456:2000 and SP 16:1980. The structural element of the building i.e. beams and
columns are designed by taking the maximum values of shear and moment. After
designing the building, the designed elements are incorporated in the model. Then the
pushover and Time History analyses were done.
2. Zone -V
10. Lateral load calculation - Static method (IS 1893 (Part1):2002) and ATC-40
72
Weight of slab = 25*D kN/m2 (where D is total depth of slab)
On roof = 3 kN/m2
On floor = 5 kN/m2
ZI S a
Ah
2R g
Where,
73
Weight of slab = 25D = 25 × 0.20 = 5 kN/m2
Point load due to self weight of beam on end and central columns = 3.0x3.0=9kN
Point load due to parapet wall on end column = (1.6x3.0) + (1.6x3.0) =9.66kN
74
Weight of slab = 25D = 25 × 0.20 = 5 kN/m2
Point load due to self weight of beam on end and central columns =
3.0x3.0x2.0=18.0kN
Point load due to parapet wall on end column = (15.64x3.0) x2.0 =93.84kN
75
Point load on end columns = ((0.5x3x3x5) x2) x2 = 90kN
Point load due to self weight of beam on end and central columns = (4.5x3.0)
x2.0=27.0kN
Point load due to parapet wall on end column = (19.205x3.0) x2.0 =115.23kN
76
2 Fifth floor Level
Beam-X 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x8.0 2 25 48.00
Beam-Y 0.30x(0.6-0.2)x(6/2) 6 25 54.00
Column 0.30x0.30x4.0 3 25 27.00
Slab 3.0x8.0x0.2 4 25 480.0
Floor finish 6x16x1 1 25 96.00
Total 705
77
5/2))
Column 0.60x0.60x((4/2)+(4.77 1 25 39.86
5/2))
Column 0.55x0.55x((4/2)+(4.77 1 25 33.18
5/2))
Slab 3.0x8.0x0.2 4 25 480
Floor finish 6x16x1 1 25 96
Total 810.28
7 Plinth Level
Beam-X 0.30x0.6x8.0 2 25 72.00
Beam-Y 0.30x0.6x(6/2) 6 25 81.00
Column 0.30x0.50x((4.775/2)+2 2 25 36.66
.5))
Column 0.60x0.60x4.8875 1 25 43.99
Column 0.65x0.65x4.8875 1 25 51.62
Total 285.27
4571.245
Determination of Total Base Shear - Live Load
Imposed
Imposed
Sl. Dimension in Imposed load as per
Object Weight
No Cubic Meter load IS-1893
kN (W)
kN/m3
8 LIVE LOAD
Roof Level 6x16 3 3x25%=0.75 6x16x0.75=72
Fifth Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240
Fourth Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240
Third Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240
Second Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240
First Floor Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240
Plinth Level 6x16 5 5x50%=2.50 6x16x2.5=240
1272.00
Concentrated mass
78
Pushover analysis requires the seismic load distribution with which the structure will be
displaced incrementally. Most of the studies focus on the choice of a proper load shape
because of its influence on the structural response. It has not been recognized that which
pattern is most reasonable. In this study, three different lateral load patterns as per IS
1893(part 1):2002 and ATC-40 have been applied to the 3-storey RC building.
W
2
h
Q V
i B n
i i
Parabolic lateral load pattern
W h j 1
j
2
j
The analysis has been carried out for dead load (DL), Live Load or Super imposed load
(IL), and Earth Quake load (EL) in SAP 2000 software package. The combination of the
79
above cases has been made according to clause 6.3 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 as given
below,
For designing the beams two types of beams are considered. One type of beams is
designed for roof level beams and the other for 1st and 2nd story levels. It is difficult to
design each and every beam separately by considering their respective maximum
moment; only two types of beams are considered. The maximum moment of these two
types of beams at their respective storey levels are taken from SAP 2000 analysis results.
Grade of concrete = M 25
80
Assuming Main bar of 25mm diameter, stirrup of 8mm diameter and with clear
cover of 30mm,
Next higher value of d//d = 0.1 will be used for referring to tables.
Pt = 2.226%, Pc = 1.09%,
Pt = 100 Ast/b d
Check
81
d’/d = 54/546 = 0.09~0.1,
Pc= 100 Asc/b d = (100 x 2412) / (300 x 546) =1.472% > Pc* OK
Assuming Main bar of 25mm diameter, stirrup of 8mm diameter and with clear
cover of 30mm,
82
d’/d = 50/600 = 0.08~0.1,
Next higher value of d//d = 0.1 will be used for referring to tables.
Pt = 1.49%, Pc = 0.309%,
Pt = 100 Ast/b d
Check
Pc= 100 Asc/b d = (100 x 942) / (300 x 548) = 0.573% > Pc* OK
83
7.9.2 Design of exterior column
Grade of concrete = M 25
Therefore ok.
Maximum Axial load from SAP 2000 analysis result =841.93 kN.
84
Maximum moment from SAP 2000 analysis result = 72.39 kN.m
d/ = 40+12.5 = 52.5mm
From chart 454, SP 16:1980, for d//d = 0.15 and fy = 415 N/mm2
[M]ϋ+[C]ύ+[K]u=[M]ϋg
Where
ϋg = Ground displacement
85
The viscous damping matrix is calculated in the program using one of the following
options:
c) Rayleigh damping
C M k K t
Where the coefficients a M and a K are calculated depending on the type of damping
Matrix selected:
M 2 i i
k 0
Where ξi and ωi are the critical damping ratio for the circular frequency of mode “i”.
b) Stiffness proportional damping:
M 0
2 i
k
i 86
(C) Rayleigh damping:
2 2
2 2
i i j j j i
M 2 2
j i
2 2
k
j j i i
2 2
i j
When the damping ratio is the same in both modes considered (ξi = ξ j = ξ) the
expressions simplify to
2
i j
i
M 2 2
j i
2
k
i j
= Equal to structural damping ratio.
,i j = First and Second frequencies of structure respectively in rad/sec
The circular frequency corresponding to the first mode of vibration is used for the
mass and stiffness proportional damping, while the circular frequencies corresponding to
the first and second modes are used for the Rayleigh damping type. Under these
conditions, mass proportional damping will yield a smaller damping ratio for the higher
modes, while stiffness proportional and Rayleigh damping will yield a higher critical
damping ratio for the higher modes.
87
Time Period T1 = 1.26624
ω1 = (2 x π) / T1 = 4.958939
ω2 = (2 x π) / T2 = 13.15404
2
β = 0.005521
2 2
j i
ω1 = (2 x π) / T1 = 6.307944
ω2 = (2 x π) / T2 = 16.5997
2
β = 0.004365
2 2
j i
88
CHAPTER 8
EXAMPLES/CASE STUDY
89
Acol = Area of longitudinal reinforcement in column
8.1.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Two types of nonlinear analyses were carried out to evaluate the seismic
performance of frame namely, pushover and time–history analyses. The pushover
analysis consists of the application of gravity loads and a
representative lateral load pattern. The frame was subjected to gravity
loads and simultaneous lateral loading. Gravity loads were in place
during lateral loading. Lateral forces calculated according to IS 1893 –
2002 were applied monotonically in a step-by-step nonlinear static
analysis. P-Delta effect was not taken into consideration. In pushover
analysis, the behavior of the structure is characterized by a capacity
curve that represents the relationship between the base shear force
and the displacement of the roof. This is a very convenient
representation in practice, and can be visualized easily by the
engineer.
90
EQ Recording in g DBE MCE
No. Station
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 Old Ridge 6.5 0.268 1.7 1.9
Fernando Route
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
91
Figure 8.2 Pushover Curve of 6 Storey Frame
8.1.2.2 PERFORMANCE POINT
The performance point of frame is obtained from the intersection of capacity and
demand spectra from SAP analysis. The performance is assessed for two levels of
performance objectives, Life Safety (LS) under design basis earthquake (DBE) and
Collapse Prevention (CP) under maximum considered earthquake (MCE). The capacity
vs. demand spectrum for the frame under DBE and MCE is shown in Figures 8.3 and 8.4
respectively. The base shear, roof displacement, spectral acceleration, spectral
displacement, effective time period and effective damping corresponding to the
performance point is shown in same figures. The displacement at performance point at
DBE level is 0.123m (Figure 8.3) and it is greater than target displacement given by
FEMA 356 for life safety which is 0.119m. The displacement at performance point at
MCE level is 0.171m (Figure 8.4) and is lesser than corresponding target displacement as
per FEMA 356 which is 0.177m.
92
Figure 8.3 Demand Vs Capacity Spectrum for Design Basis Earthquake
93
The interstorey drift has long been recognized as an important indicator of
building performance. Interstorey drift is defined as the ratio of relative horizontal
displacement of two adjacent floors and corresponding storey height. Interstorey drift
ratio from pushover analysis at DBE and MCE levels is presented in Figure 8.5(a). It is
observed that 3rd storey level experienced the largest interstorey drift values of 0.58% and
0.85% at both DBE and MCE levels. It is seen that the interstorey drift ratio increased
with increase in storey level up to first 4 stories and thereafter showed a reverse trend at
both levels of earthquake.
(a) Results from Pushover Analysis (b) Comparison between Pushover &
at DBE & MCE Levels Time-history
Figure 8.5 Interstorey Drift Ratios Results at DBE & MCE Levels
The interstorey drift ratio from pushover analysis is compared with that of time-
history analysis as shown in Figure 8.5(b). At DBE level, pushover analysis over-estimated
the interstorey drift ratio at lower storey levels and underestimates the same at upper storey
94
levels. At MCE level, pushover analysis over-estimated the interstorey drift ratio at almost
all storey levels.
The interstorey drift ratios from time-history analyses for the seven earthquake
ground motions at DBE and MCE levels are shown in Figures 8.6(a) and 8.6(b)
respectively. The average interstorey drift ratio is also shown in same figures which were
compared with the interstorey drift ratio from pushover analysis.
95
(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time – history Analysis
96
(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Time - history Analysis
Figure 8.8 Plastic Hinge Pattern at MCE Level
Figure 8.9 Plastic Hinge Pattern at Last Step from Pushover Analysis
8.2 PUSHOVER AND TIMEHISTORY ANALYSIS OF 2D RC FRAME WITH
INFILL ACTION
8.2.1 EFFECT OF INFILL ACTION
In the conventional seismic analysis of framed structures, stiffness contribution
due to infill walls is not considered. The presence of infill increases the demand and
capacity of the structure. Even though we are considering the increase in demand due to
infill, we are neglecting the increase in capacity due to infill. Thus we are under
estimating the actual lateral strength of the structural system. Hence modeling of infill
wall is necessary. The present example studies the behaviour of 2D frames with and
without infill action under lateral loads using pushover and time history analysis.
97
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 8.10. The X and Y direction
were selected along the width and length of the building respectively. A raft foundation
was considered.
To study the difference in behaviour of structures with and without infill action, a
single bay 2D frame (frame 2-2) is selected from all the buildings described above. To get
the worst effect in analysis, seismic zone V and an importance factor of 1.5 is considered.
All the frames considered are ordinary moment resisting frames only.
The dimensions and other details of beams and columns are shown in Table 8.3.
For all the frames considered in this study, only the reinforcement details vary, while the
other dimensions remain the same.
Table 8.3 Dimensions of beams and columns
b Dc or Db fck fy
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Beam 250 400 25 415
Column 250 400 25 415
Here
b = width of beam or column (cross-sectional dimension)
Db = depth of beam (cross-sectional dimension)
Dc = depth of column (cross-sectional dimension)
fck = characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete
fy = yield strength of reinforcement.
98
G + 4 Storey Frame G + 3 Storey Frame
Ast Beam Ast Beam
Asc Asc
Storey End End
Column Column
(Top) End(bottom) (Top) End(bottom)
4th 1885 927 116.7
3rd 1206 1608 927 116.7
1704 876
2nd 1885 1256 1704 876
1st 2513 2513
G 3927 2513
Figure 8.10 Typical Floor Plan and Sectional Elevation of the Building
8.2.3 MODELLING ASPECTS
The beams and columns are modeled as frame elements and the infill wall is
modeled as equivalent strut by truss elements. Since the deformation is expected to go
beyond the elastic range in a pushover analysis, it is necessary to model the nonlinear
properties also. The following are the non-linear properties assigned for different
elements.
1) Flexural hinge for beams
2) Flexural-axial interaction hinge for columns.
3) Axial hinge for equivalent diagonal struts
The length of plastic hinge was calculated using the following equation.
l p 0.5H
(8.1)
99
lp = length of plastic hinge.
H= depth of beam or column (cross-sectional dimension)
For beams flexural hinge is assigned at both ends. The distance of plastic hinge was
calculated based on the following equation.
L b 0.5 l p D c (8.2)
For columns flexural-axial interaction hinge is assigned at both ends. The distance was
calculated based on the following equation.
L c 0.5 l p D b
(8.3)
Lc = distance of plastic hinge in column measured from the centerline of beam.
Calculation of plastic hinge length and its location is shown in Table 8.5.
Axial hinges are assigned at the center of the strut. For the case of pushover
analysis, infill panel is modeled as single diagonal strut connected between two
100
compressive diagonal corners. The diagonal strut is assumed to be connected to the frame
through pin connections at both ends. The modeling of infill panel as single diagonal strut
is based on the assumption that the masonry is weak in tension and the bond strength at
the panel-frame interface is very low. Axial hinges were assigned at the center of each
strut. In the case of time history analysis, equivalent struts are modeled along both
diagonal directions, since the structure is subjected to lateral deformations in both
directions. Here also axial hinges were assigned at the center of strut in each direction.
For the axial hinge, a non-linear variation of load versus deformation relation
proposed by Asokan A. is used. He assumed a parabolic variation of load versus
deformation from a strain value of 0 to 0.0026. From the strain value of 0.0026 to a strain
value of 0.004, the load is assumed to be constant for different deformation levels.
R
2
2
For 0 ≤ ≤ 0, R 0 (8.4)
u
0
R
For 0 ≤ ≤ u, R 1 (8.5)
u
101
Figure 8.11 shows a 2D frame with G+3 stories, modeled in SAP for pushover
analysis. Figure 8.11a shows the model of the frame without strut. Figure 6.11c shows the
releases assigned to the structure, whereas Figure 8.11b shows the hinges assigned to the
frame and strut. Similarly Figure 8.12 shows the G+3, 2D frame modeled in SAP for
time-history analysis.
102
Figure 8.12 SAP Model of Frame (G+3 stories) With Infill Used for Time
History Analysis
8.2.4 ANALYSIS
8.2.4.1 Pushover Analysis
To study the sequence of hinge formation in structures with and without infill
action, pushover analysis is carried for a G+3 structure with and without equivalent
diagonal strut. Here loading is static and applied in one direction. So struts are modeled
in one direction only. Figure 8.11 shows the 2D model of the G+3 frame developed in
SAP with and without strut action. Figure 8.13 shows a typical frame with axial hinge
developed in its infill as obtained from pushover analysis. The analysis is repeated for
G+4, G+5, G+6 and G+7,2D frames.
103
record of 0.344g PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) was selected from ATC40 for analysis.
Here loading is dynamic and the frame moves laterally in both directions. Hence struts
are required in both directions. Figure 8.14 shows a typical frame with axial hinge
developed in its infill as obtained from time-history analysis.
104
Figure 8.15 Comparison of Variation of Fundamental Time Period using Time
History Analysis
105
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSIONS
9.1 GENERAL
Nonlinear static pushover and time-history analyses were carried out to evaluate
seismic performance and effect of infill of 2D RC frames. Beam and column elements
were modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity by defining plastic
hinges at both ends of the beams and columns. The frames were modeled with default
hinge properties. The moment curvature relationship developed for beams can be used for
determining user-defined hinge properties in modeling the nonlinear behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams.
1. The time-history analysis gave 23% and 32% higher values of base shear at
DBE and MCE levels than pushover analysis.
2. The roof displacement of frame at DBE and MCE levels indicates that the frame
satisfies the requirement for Life Safety performance at DBE level whereas it
does not satisfy the requirement for Collapse Prevention performance at MCE
level. The satisfactory performance at DBE level may be attributed to the
default hinge properties assigned to structural members; an observation
consistent with that noticed by others.
3. From pushover and time-history analyses, it is seen that 3 rd storey experienced
the maximum interstorey drift ratio at both DBE and MCE levels. At MCE
level, pushover analysis over-estimated the interstorey drift when compared to
time-history analysis.
106
4. There is no significant difference in the plastic hinge pattern for the frame at
DBE and MCE levels from both the analyses; but time-history analysis gave
more number of beam hinges than pushover analysis.
5. The last step of pushover analysis of frame shows beam failure mechanism with
only yielding of columns.
107
REFERENCES
1. Ali M. Memari, Shahriar Rafiee, Alireza Y. Motlagh and Andrew Scanlon (2001),
“Comparative Evaluation 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.
7. Das D. and Murty C.R. (2004), “Brick Masonry Infills in Seismic Design of R.C.
Frame Buildings”, Indian Concrete Journal, Vol.78, No.8, pp. 31-38.
10. FEMA 273 (1997), “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings”, Applied Technology Council, USA.
108
11. FEMA 349(2000), FEMA/EERI, Action Plan for Performance -Based Seismic
Design, Washington DC.
12. FEMA-356 (2000), “Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
14. Hasan R., Xu L. and Grierson D.E.(2002), “Push-over Analysis for Performance-
Based Seismic Design”, Computers and Structures, Vol.80, pp.2483-2493
15. IS 456-2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice,
Bureau of Indian Standards.
16. IS 1893 (Part 1) – 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design
of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.
17. IS: 875(Part 2) – 1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than earthquake)
for Buildings and Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards.
18. Kunnath S.K and Kalkan E(2004), “Evaluation of Seismic Deformation Demands
using Nonlinear Procedures in Multistorey Steel and Concrete Moment Frames”,
ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No 445, Vol 41, No1, pp159-181.
20. Mehmet Inel and Hayri Baytan Ozmen (2006), “Effects of Plastic Hinge
Properties in Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 28, pp.1494-1502.
21. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande (2006), “Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures”, Prentice Hall of India Pt. Ltd.
22. Park R. and Paulay T. (1975), “Reinforced Concrete Structures”, John Wiley
Publishers.
109
23. Paulay T. and Priestley M.J.N (1991), “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
and Masonry Buildings”, A Wiley Interscience Publication.
24. Sadjadi R., Kianoush M.R. and Talebi S. (2007), “Seismic Performance of
Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 9,
pp.2365-2380.
110
ANNEXURE 1
COMPANY PROFILE
About L&T:
Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) ranked 54 among global contractors and 62
among international contractors as per the survey conducted by ENR (August 2006).
ECC – the Engineering Construction & Contracts Division is India’s largest construction
organization. Many of the country’s prized landmarks – its exquisite buildings, tallest
structures, largest industrial projects, longest flyovers, highest viaducts, longest pipelines
and several benchmark projects – have been built by ECC. ECC’s leading-edge
capabilities cover every discipline of construction: civil, mechanical, electrical and
instrumentation.
Turnkey Capabilities:
Service Spectrum:
111
History:
Larsen & Toubro Limited is the biggest legacy of two Danish Engineers, who
built a world-class organization that is professionally managed and a leader in India's
engineering and construction industry. It was the business of cement that brought the
young Mr. Henning Holck-Larsen and Mr. S.K. Toubro into India. They arrived on Indian
shores as representatives of the Danish engineering firm F L Smidth & Co in connection
with the merger of cement companies that later grouped into the Associated Cement
Companies. Together, Mr. Holck-Larsen and Mr. Toubro founded the partnership firm of
L&T in 1938, which was converted into a limited company on February 7, 1946. Today,
this has metamorphosed into one of India's biggest success stories. The company has
grown from humble origins to a large conglomerate spanning engineering and
construction. ECC was conceived as Engineering Construction Corporation Limited in
April 1944 and was incorporated as wholly owned subsidiary of Larsen & Toubro
Limited. L&T's founders Mr. Holck - Larsen and Mr. Toubro laid the foundation for
ECC. It has today emerged as India's leading construction organization.
LTCRTC laboratory has acquired NABL (National accreditation board for testing
and calibration laboratories) certification for mechanical and chemical testing of
construction materials. About 112 tests were approved under this accreditation. It is the
112
first major testing centre got accredited by NABL for testing on wide varieties of
construction materials by a construction company in India.
This center also undertakes research and development works in the areas of
concrete technology, Geotechnical engineering and pavement and runway engineering.
The solutions developed at laboratory scale have been transformed and implemented at
site. Many of the technical papers from this center have won the best technical paper
award for innovative solution applicable to the construction industry.
HR in ECC Division:
ECC recognizes that people are the real source of competitive advantage. It is
through people that ECC delivers total customer satisfaction. These values are reflected
in our Human Resources practices which have earned national recognition several times.
HR Policy:
113
The basic principles of ECC's Human Resources policies include
Identify training needs within the Organisation and design and implement those
need based training programmes resulting in continuous up gradation of
knowledge, skills and attitudes of the employees
114
Engineering Design and Research Centre (EDRC):
EDRC offers designs for certain specialized and complicated structures like high-
rise buildings, long-span bridges, large storage silos, prill towers, RCC pylons, system
housing, tall chimneys, natural and induced draft cooling towers, erection schemes for
heavy lifts and all types of geo-technical engineering solutions.
EDRC’s pioneering work includes large-span pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete structures,
high rise structures; natural and induced draft cooling towers, effluent and water
treatment plants, public buildings and system housing including IT parks, hotels,
hospitals, stadiums, airports. EDRC is ISO 9001:2000 certified for all its operations by
Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance (LRQA).
The Buildings & Factories group of EDRC handles all the projects that are
functionally under the classification of buildings and industrial structures. The group
comprises of six main divisions (including architecture and services like geo-technical,
115
electrical, public health and environmental engineering, fire protection, IT, quantity
survey, etc.), which have expertise ranging from handling long span pre-cast pre-stressed
structures to large span steel structures with patented connection details. The group also
develops schemes for tall buildings and structures.
Training:
ECC's Human Resources Department believes that Quality is the hallmark of any
successful venture. Quality Training and Development of Human Resources is
realized through: Identifying training needs within the Organization and designing and
implementing those need based training programmes to bring about continuous up
gradation of knowledge, skills and employee attitudes. The following brief
highlights ECC's training methodology for the comprehensive development of its 7000-
odd employees
Training Plan:
Companies succeed in today's free market economy, only because their employees
perform to their fullest potential. Alive to this home truth, ECC draws up an annual
training calendar, highlighting the training activities for the year. Inputs to formulate this
training plan are taken from the performance review form, by interacting with ECC's
Regional Offices and the higher echelons of the management on the present and future
requirements of the construction industry. It also includes detailed discussions with the
faculty. ECC's training plan includes civil, mechanical, electrical, finance related and
behavioural programmes, covering a wide cross-section of employees, as follows:
116
For middle management, there is an exclusive nine-day programme, designed in
collaboration with Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad.
Sustained effort in training has led to creation of highly skilled and motivated
employees ready to take on higher roles and responsibilities in the company.
Line executives and managers involve themselves as faculty for most of the In-
house programme. 90% of in-house programme are conducted by them.
As line mangers have better understanding of the nature of business and the
unique problem associates with the company/industry, they are able to design and deliver
effective training sessions keeping the company's and participant's need in mind. It
has been experienced that the concept of "Learning Organisation" is getting effectively
rooted in ECC through the above process
Employees increasingly feel, "Let me learn at my own choice of time, topic and
pace!”To make this happen, ECC promoted the concept of self-learning. Training Desks
(Multi-media computers) are available in the Head Office, Regional Offices and factories
of ECC. Various CD ROMs and CBTs of varied operational, behavioral, finance, quality
related topics are made available to enable the employees learn at their own pace.
ECC strongly believes that to be in business, up gradation of employees' knowledge and
skills are essential. Hence investment in Human Resources is one of the top priorities of
the Management.
117
118