See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265799089

Pushover Analysis of Existing Reinforced

Concrete Framed Structures
ARTICLE FEBRUARY 2012

CITATIONS

READS

74

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
D. L. Venkatesh Babu
JSS Academy of Technical Education,Bangal
14 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: D. L. Venkatesh Babu

Retrieved on: 19 February 2016

European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.71 No.2 (2012), pp. 195-202
EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012
http://www.europeanjournalofscientificresearch.com

Pushover Analysis of Existing Reinforced Concrete

Framed Structures
A. Vijayakumar
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Jansons Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
E-mail: [email protected]
D. L. Venkatesh Babu
Principal, United Institute of Technology
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
Abstract
The existing building can become seismically deficient since seismic code
requirements are constantly upgraded and advancement in engineering knowledge. Further
Indian buildings built over past two decades are seismically deficient because of lack of
awareness regarding seismic behavior of structures. This paper aims to evaluate the zone
III selected existing reinforced concrete building to conduct the non-linear static analysis
(Pushover Analysis). The pushover analysis shows the pushover curves, capacity spectrum,
plastic hinges and performance level of the existing building. The non-linear static analysis
gives better understanding and more accurate seismic performance of buildings as
progression of damage or failure can be traced.
Keywords: Existing Reinforced Concrete building, Seismic zone, Pushover Analysis,
capacity spectrum.

1. Introduction
Most of the existing buildings are in seismically active zones and are designed for gravity loads only.
A large number of existing buildings in zone-III is need seismic evaluation due to various reasons such
as, noncompliance with the codal requirements, updating of codes, design practice and change the use
of the building. However, the existing structure in the earthquake region Zone III has to be provided by
some rehabilitation to sustain the expected performance level. Before rehabilitation work, it is
necessary to understand the capacity of the existing building to check if it meets the intended
performance level.
The analytical techniques proposed in [1, 2] simplified Nonlinear analysis procedure (pushover
analysis) to determine the displacements demand imposed on the building expected to yield. The
Nonlinear static procedure in these documents is based on the capacity spectrum method, and assumes
that the lateral force distribution for the pushover analysis and the conversion of the results of the
capacity diagram is based only on the fundamental vibration mode of the elastic structure. This paper
[3] described SAP2000 is used in performing a pushover analysis of a simple three dimensional
building. SAP2000 is a state-of-the-art, general purpose, and three dimensional structural analysis
programs. SAP2000 has static pushover analysis capabilities which are fully integrated into the

Pushover Analysis of Existing Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures

196

program; allow quick and easy implementation of the pushover procedures for both two and three
dimensional buildings. It [4, 6, 7] presented a comparative study for storey level vs. Lateral load,
storey shear, and storey moment for five storey buildings located at various zones. The result showed
various types of plastic hinges separately in all beams, columns and tabulated along with the graph. It
can be concluded that the square shape of column cross section improves the behavior of a structure
especially under earthquake forces. This paper pointed out the [8, 9] effect of plastic hinges in
Nonlinear analysis and inelastic time history analysis of different storey of concrete buildings. The
results are shown in terms of base shear capacity, displacement capacity and formation of hinges. This
paper described [10, 11, 12] with different amount of masonry infill walls are considered to investigate
the effect of infill walls on the earthquake response of these types of structures. Pushover curves are
obtained for the structures using nonlinear analysis for SAP 2000 and ETABS. From the pushover
curves, storey displacement, relative storey displacement, maximum plastic rotations is determined.
The building was assumed to be placed [13, 15] in various zones of India. Response spectrum analyses
are carried out for all seismic zones in India considering with and without infill stiffness. Pushover
analysis is carried out to produce a pushover curve consists of capacity spectrum, demand spectrum
and performance point. Pushover analysis shows that performance load of the building components and
also the maximum base shear carrying capacity of the structures for various zones. Response spectrum
analysis shows that the failure is more in zone IV and V and the structure must be retrofitted.

2. Research Significance
The present study is to evaluate the behavior of G+2 reinforced concrete bare frame subjected to
earthquake forces in zone III. The reinforced concrete structures are analyzed by nonlinear static
analysis (Pushover Analysis) using SAP2000 software. It shows the performance levels, behavior of
the components and failure mechanism in a building. It also shows the types of hinge formation. The
strength and capacity of the weakest components are then increased by retrofitting techniques.

3. Rapid Visual Screening, Date Collection and Preliminary Evaluation

The Rapid visual screening involves a quick assessment of a building based on visual inspection alone.
It is kind of statistical guideline to the inspectors to identify and inventory the vulnerable buildings.
In order to facilitate seismic evaluation, it is necessary to collect relevant date of a building as
much as possible through drawings, enquiry, design calculation, soil report, inspection report reports of
previous investigation, previous repair work, any complaints by the occupants etc. A site visit is
essential for data collection.
The purpose of preliminary evaluation is to identify the areas of seismic deficiencies in an
engineered building before a detailed evolution is undertaken. It checks the code compliance for
seismic design and detailing.
Table 1and 2 shows the building survey data sheet of an existing building and the parameters
required for seismic analysis.
Table 1:
S.No

Building survey data sheet: General Data

Description
Address of the Building

Name of the building

Plot Number

Locality / Township

District

state
Name and type of owner / tenant

Information
Building Description
Hostel
Zone-III
Coimbatore
Tamilnadu
Private

Notes

197

A. Vijayakumar and D. L. Venkatesh babu

Table 1:

Building survey data sheet: General Data - continued

Coimbatore Consultants
Architects & Engineers

Name of builder

4
5
6

Name of architect
Name of engineer
Use of building
Hostel
Year of construction and subsequent
2000
remodeling, if any
Plan size (approximate)
24.384 m X 16.855m
Building height
8.778
Number of storeys above ground level
2 (Each floor 2.926m)
Number of basements below ground level
0
Type of structure

Load bearing wall

RC frame
RC frame

RC frame and shear wall

Steel frame
Open ground storey
No
Roof top water tank, heavy machinery or
Yes
any other type of large mass
Architectural features
-Expansion / Separation joints
No
Photograph / sketch
Attached with sheet
Survey
Visited building site
Yes
Structural drawing available
Yes
Architectural drawing available
Yes
Geotechnical report available
No
Construction specifications available
Yes
Designer contacted
Yes
Exposure condition
Environment
Hot / Wet
Deterioration noticed
No
Geotechnical and geological data
Type of soil
Hard rock
Type of foundation
Isolated footing
Seismic zone
III
IS 1893;2002,Figure
History of past earthquakes
1990 Feb08, Magni-6
Variables for analysis
Dead loads (unit weights)

Masonry

Concrete
20 kN/m3
IS 875;1987 (part I)

Steel
25kN/ m3

Other materials
Imposed (live) loads

Floor loads
2 kN/m3
IS 875;1987 (part II)
1.5 kN/m3

Roof loads
Wind loads
Not consider
IS 875;1987 (part III)
Snow loads
Not consider
IS 875;1987 (part IV)
Safe bearing capacity
Not available
Importance factor, I
1.5
IS 1893;2002, Table No 6
Seismic zone factor, Z
0.16
IS 1893;2002, Table No 2
Response reduction factor , R (ordinary
3
IS 1893;2002, Table No 7
moment resisting frame)
0.75
Ta= 0.075h and Ta= 0.009h/d without and with infill
Fundamental natural period, T
stiffness

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
2
3
4

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Pushover Analysis of Existing Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures

Table 2:
S.No

3
4
5
6

198

Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)

Description
Type of building

Regular frames

Regular frames with shear wall

Irregular frames

Irregular frames with shear wall

Open ground storey

Horizontal floor system

Beams and slabs

Waffle slab

Ribbed floor

Flat slab with drops

Flat plate without drops

System of interconnection foundations

Plinth beams

Tie beams
Grades of concrete/steel used in different parts of
building
Method of analysis
Computer software used

Information

Notes

Regular frames

Beams and Slabs

No interconnection
M15, Fe415
---

The structures are designed according to the Indian code IS456-1978 and analyzed as per
previous seismic code IS-1893-1984. Table 3 shows the beams and columns dimensions.
Table 3:

Beam dimensions
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Beam and Column Notations

B1
B1a
B2
B2a
B3
B4
C1
C2

Size (M)
0.273X0.412
0.273x0.312
0.280x0.60
0.280x0.701
0.280x0.60
0.23x0.114
0.40X0.228
0.490x0.228

Nos
16
1
10
1
6
15
12
20

The required material properties like weight density, modulus of elasticity, grade of concrete
and grade of steel used are acceptance default values. Beam and column members have been defined as
frame elements with the appropriate dimensions and reinforcements. Slabs are defined as an area
element having the properties of shell elements with required thickness. Slabs have been modeled as
rigid diaphragms. Soil structure interaction has not been considered and columns have been restrained
in all six degrees of freedom at the base. The 3D modeling of the bare frame is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Building Frame

199

A. Vijayakumar and D. L. Venkatesh babu

After modeled the structural components the following load cases are assigned. Gravity loads
on the structure include the self weight of beams, columns, slabs, walls and other permanent members.
The self weight of beams, columns (Frame members), slabs (Area section) and brick wall (Diagonal
strut) are automatically considered by the program itself. The live load has been assigned as uniform
area loads on the slab elements as per IS 1893 (part-1) 2002. The live load is considered for seismic
weight calculation as per table 8, IS 1893 (Part-1) 2002 [19]. In this case 25% of the imposed load
has been considered as seismic weight.

4. Pushover Methodology
Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the lateral force is
incrementally increased, maintaining the predefined distribution pattern along the height of the
building. With the increase in the magnitude of the loads, weak links and failure modes of the building
are found. Pushover analysis can determine the behavior of a building, including the ultimate load and
the maximum inelastic deflection. Local Nonlinear effects are modeled and the structure is pushed until
a collapse mechanism gets developed. At each step, the base shear and the roof displacement can be
plotted to generate the pushover curve. It gives an idea of the maximum base shear that the structure
was capable of resisting at the time of the earthquake. For regular buildings, it can also give a rough
idea about the global stiffness of the building.
4.1. Nonlinear Plastic Hinges Properties
The building has to be modeled to carry out nonlinear static pushover analysis. This requires the
development of the force - deformation curve for the critical sections of beams, columns and brick
masonry by using the guidelines [5] as mentioned above. The force deformation curves in flexure were
obtained from the reinforcement details and were assigned for all the beams and columns. The
Nonlinear properties of beams and columns have been evaluated using the section designer and have
been assigned to the computer model in SAP2000. The flexural default hinges (M3) and shear hinges
(V2) were assigned to the beams at two ends. The interacting (P-M2-M3) frame hinges type a coupled
hinge property was also assigned for all the columns at upper and lower ends. The axial hinges (P)
were assigned to the brick masonry strut element.

5. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis

The material model used in the static Nonlinear pushover analysis is based on the procedures proposed
by the [1, 2] documents, defining force deformation criteria for the hinges used in the pushover
analysis. Figure 2 describes the typical force-deformation relation proposed by those documents.
Five points labeled A, B, C, D and E are used to define the force deflection behavior of the
hinge and these points labeled A to B Elastic state, B to IO- below immediate occupancy, IO to LS
between immediate occupancy and life safety, LS to CP- between life safety to collapse prevention, CP
to C between collapse prevention and ultimate capacity, C to D- between C and residual strength, D
to E- between D and collapse >E collapse.
Figure 2: Force-Deformation for Pushover Analysis

Pushover Analysis of Existing Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures

200

In this study, the seismic response of bare frame is evaluated using the design level earthquakes
of zone III as specified in the Indian Code. The building is assumed to be located on medium soil site.
The pushover hinges are assigned for beams and columns and the lateral forces are applied at each
floor level at the design center of mass. Pushover analysis should be performed separately for the two
orthogonal directions in order to study the performance of the buildings in both directions. There are
therefore three pushover cases for the evaluation of buildings. Gravity push, which is used to apply
gravity load, (D.L.+0.25LL), Push 1- is the lateral push in X direction, starting at the end of gravity
push, Push2- is the lateral push in Y direction starting at the end of gravity push.

6. Result and Discussion

6.1. General
A Three storied hostel reinforced concrete bare frame was taken for the investigation. The frame was
subjected to design earthquake forces as specified in the IS code for zone III along X and Y directions.
The responses of the frames are discussed in the below.
6.2. Pushover Curve
Bare frame pushover curves for the building in X and Y directions as shown in Figure 3. These curves
depict the global behavior of the frame in terms of its stiffness and ductility. For bare frame average
base shear from pushover analysis is 1024.721 KN and average displacement of 0.171m in X direction,
and average base shear from pushover analysis is 2483.06 KN and average displacement of 0.0234m in
Y direction. The stiffness and ductility of the frames are more in Y direction as compared to Xdirection.
Figure 3: Bare Frame pushover Curve in X and Y direction
1200

800

Base Shear in KN

Base Shear in KN

1000

600

400

200

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

Displacement in m

0.20

3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Displacement in m

6.3. Capacity Spectrum

Capacity spectrum is the capacity curve transformed from base shear Vs roof displacement coordinates into spectral acceleration Vs spectral displacement (Sa Vs Sd) co-ordinates. The performance
point is obtained by superimposing demand spectrum on capacity curve transformed into spectral
coordinates. To have desired performance, every structure has to be designed for the spectral
acceleration corresponding to the performance point. The performance point is obtained at a base shear
level of 987.274KN and displacement of 0.015m in the X direction. In this performance point the large
hinges are immediate occupancy level. The performance point is obtained at a base shear level of

201

A. Vijayakumar and D. L. Venkatesh babu

1331.687KN and displacement of 0.0044m in the Y- direction. In this performance point the large
hinges are collapsing prevention level.
6.4. Plastic Hinges
In X direction plastic hinges formation of the building mechanisms have been obtained at different
displacements levels. Plastic hinge formations starts with beam ends and later proceeds to base
columns of lower stories, then propagates to upper stories and continue with the yielding of interior
intermediate beams. But since yielding occurs at designing events B (yielding), IO (Immediate
occupancy), LS (Life safety) and last hinge CP (collapse prevention) respectively, the amount of
damage in this direction will be limited. The first hinge formation of base shear and displacements are
659.038KN and 0.0073m.
In Y direction Plastic hinge formation starts with beam ends and base columns of lower stories,
then propagates to upper stories and continues with yielding of interior intermediate beams. But since
yielding occurs in the order B (yielding), IO (Immediate occupancy) is minimized, LS (Life safety) and
CP (collapse prevention). The CP is higher as compared to X direction and three hinges of beams have
reached C (Ultimate moment) respectively, the amount of damage is larger as compared to X direction.
The first hinge formation of base shear and displacements are 598.366KN and 0.0016m.

7. Conclusion
The pushover analysis is a simple way to explore the nonlinear behavior of the buildings. The results
obtained in terms of pushover demand, capacity spectrum and plastic hinges gave an insight into the
real behavior of structures. The existing building in a seismic zone III is designed and constructed
using IS-456-1978 and analyzed as per previous seismic code IS-1893-1984 is found inadequate for
revised code IS-1893-2000 provisions. Most of the hinges have developed in the beams in the form of
Immediate occupancy, Life safety, Collapse prevention and few in the columns. The column hinges
have limited the damage. Some of the beams have reached an ultimate moment in Y direction, hence it
cannot be accepted. Therefore beams must be strengthened and improved by the performance of the
structures.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[5]
[6]

ATC 40, (1996), Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings Applied Technology
Council.
FEMA, (1997), NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273,
NEHRP Commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA
274, Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington. D.C.
Ashraf Habibullah, S.E., and Stephen S.E. (1998), Practical three dimensional nonlinear static
pushover analyses, Published in structure magazine winter.
Charkha, S.D. (2008), Comparative study of static and dynamic analysis of five storey
building situated in zone II, International conference on innovations in building materials,
Structural designs and construction practices, Bannari Amman Institute of Technology,
Coimbatore, pp. 252.
FEMA 356, (2000), Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings,
American society of civil engineers, Reston VA.
Jaswant, N., Arlekar, and Sudhir Jain, K., Murty C.V.R. (1997), Seismic Response of RC
Frame Buildings with Soft First Storeys, Proceeding of the CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference
on National Hazards in Urban Habtat, New Delhi.

Pushover Analysis of Existing Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]

202

Shah. B.A., and Patel, P.V. (2003), Seismic evaluation of RCC framed structures using static
pushover analysis, International conference on recent trends in concrete technology and
structures, Kumaraguru College of technology, Coimbatore, pp. 658-665.
Kadid, A., and Boumrkik, A. (2008), Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame
structures, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (building and housing), 9, pp.75-83.
Mehmet Inel, and Hayri Baytan Ozmen. (2006), Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear
analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, Engineering structures, 28, pp. 1494-1502.
Kasim Armagan Korkmaz, Fvat Demir, and Mustafa sivri. (2007), Earthquake assessment of
R/C structures with masonry infill walls, International Journal of Science and Technology,
2(2), pp. 155-164.
Khaja Aboul Sattar, Dyamuanal, S.S., and Sathish, A. Annigeri. (2006), Seismic evaluation of
asymmetric multistory buildings by pushover analysis, 13th symposium on earthquake
engineering IITR, pp. 715-726.
Konuralp Girgin, and Kutlu Darlinmaz. Seismic response of infilled framed buildings using
pushover analysis, The bulletin of the Istanbul Technical University, 54(5).
Ramkumar, P., and Baskar, K. (2008), Structural evaluation of RC framed building under
various seismic zones, National conference on failure studies and remedial measures to
concrete structures, K.S.R. College of Engineering, Tiruchengode, pp. 124-135.
A. Mehar Prasad. (2008), Structural Analysis for Seismic Retrofit, Handbook on Seismic
Retrofit of buildings, IITM, pp. 8.1-8.27.
Santoshkumar, Dyamuanal, S.S, and Sathish, A., Annigeri. (2006), Performance based
Evaluation of symmetric multistoried buildings, 13th symposium on earthquake engineering
IITR, pp. 704-714.
IS: 456, (2000), Plain and Reinforced Concrete- code of Practice, Bureau of Indian standards,
Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafer Marg, New delhi 110002, India.
IS: 875, (1987), Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for building and
structures-Part 2, Imposed loads Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS: 1893 (Part I), (2002), Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures (Fifth Revision)
Indian Standards, New Delhi.