Journal of Scientific Research & Reports

15(1): 1-6, 2017; Article no.JSRR.35028

ISSN: 2320-0227

Application of N2 Method for Performance

Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Framed
Asymmetric Edifices
C. N. Gagan1*, Avinash Gornale2, S. Karthik1 and B. G. Naresh Kumar2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Global Academy of Technology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Maharaja Institute of Technology, Mysore District, Karnataka, India.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Author CNG designed the study,
performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol and wrote the first draft of the manuscript.
Authors AG and SK managed the analyses of the study. Author BGNK managed the literature
searches. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/JSRR/2017/35028
Editor(s):
(1) Ify L. Nwaogazie, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.
Reviewers:
(1) Natt Makul, Phranakhon Rajabhat University, Thailand.
(2) Ahmed Abdelraheem Fraghaly, Sohag University, Egypt.
Complete Peer review History: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/20100

Received 25th June 2017

th
Accepted 10 July 2017
Original Research Article
Published 18th July 2017

ABSTRACT

As urban population is expanding constantly, the construction of edifices on the earthquake active
area is also increasing. Due to aesthetic appearance, most of the edifices in the present era are
asymmetric in nature. But when symmetric edifices are subjected to earthquake, their behaviors
are not complex as compared to asymmetric edifices. Hence, for safety purpose, there is need to
study the complex behavior of asymmetric edifices by conducting performance evaluation. In the
present study, the performance evaluation of four RC edifices is done using N2 method. An effort is
made to calculate the correction factors for displacements to account for the effect of torsion. The
displacements of asymmetric edifices of all the joints, corners and center of mass are not same.

Keywords: Performance evaluation; pushover scrutiny; N2 method; joint displacements; asymmetric

edifices; correction factors.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected];

 Gagan et al.; JSRR, 15(1): 1-6, 2017; Article no.JSRR.35028

1. INTRODUCTION behavior of the asymmetric edifices subjecting to

lateral loads and to propose the enhanced
For safety of human life and edifices, there is a displacement capacity to meet the demand
necessity to study the performance of old and criteria using N2 method. In order to determine
new edifices which are built on earthquake active the enhanced displacement capacity, correction
regions. Many of the researchers have worked in factors are proposed to account for torsional
this regard and proposed the simplified method effect.
of performance evaluation as nonlinear pushover
scrutiny [1]. In pushover scrutiny the demand 2. METHODOLOGY
spectrum obtained by earlier earthquake data,
will be in single degree of freedom[SDOF] In the present study the method used for
system and the capacity spectrum [1,2] obtained performance evaluation of edifices is N2 method
by conducting the pushover scrutiny on edifices [3]. In N2 method there are seven steps.
will be in multi degree of freedom [MDOF] In the first step the data required to perform N2
system. One of the main drawbacks of nonlinear method are collected. In the second step the
pushover scrutiny is, the demand spectra is in seismic demand in terms of acceleration-
SDOF system and the capacity spectrum is in displacement pattern is determined. In the third
MDOF system. step pushover scrutiny of MDOF system is
preformed and force displacement relationship is
In order to overcome this drawback, Peter Fajfar obtained. This MDOF system force displacement
and his team developed a new method, for relationship is converted to SDOF system
performance evaluation of the edifices which is force displacement relationship with the help of
known as N2 method [3,4]. In N2 method N transformation constant [3] and from this SDOF
stands for nonlinear and 2 stands for two system force displacement relationship
mathematical models. N2 method is an easy the capacity spectrum of SDOF system is
nonlinear method that can be used for obtained [3]. In the fourth step the displacement
performance evaluation of edifices. In this demand of SDOF system is calculated. In the
method both the capacity and the demand fifth step the target roof displacement of SDOF
spectrums will be in SDOF system. In N2 system is calculated [3]. In the sixth step
method, first we have to obtain force correction factor to account for torsional effects is
displacement relationship by conducting the calculated. In the seventh step the
pushover scrutiny of MDOF system with respect performance evaluation of edifices is done by
to the center of mass [5]. Later it will be comparing local and global demands [3].
converted to SDOF force displacement
relationship [3,4]. By using this SDOF force
displacement relationship, the capacity spectrum 3. RC EDIFICES CONSIDERED FOR
of SDOF system will be obtained. The SCRUTINY
applicability of N2 method is with respect to the
center of mass. In case of symmetric edifices the A reinforced concrete framed edifices with the
displacements of different joints, corners and at height 16 m (G+3) and with dimension of plan as
the center will be approximately same and there 5 m X 5 m located in seismic zone 4 is
will be no torsional effect. selected for analysis purpose. The grade of
concrete & steel used for construction of the
But in case of asymmetric edifices the edifice is M20 and Fe415
displacement of the different joints and corners respectively. The edifices are located on hard
will be different as compared with the soil. The edifices consist of a slab of thickness
displacement of the center of mass. Hence the 130 mm. Since the edifices are located in
behavior of asymmetric edifices is quite complex seismic zone 4 from IS 1893 (part 1):
during earthquake compared to symmetric 2002 the zone factor is 0.24, importance factor is
edifices [6,7,8]. As the displacements of all the 1 and response reduction factor is 3. For
joints and corners are different in asymmetric scrutiny purpose, we selected 4
edifices, they will undergo torsional movement edifices, whose plan of the selected edifices is as
under lateral loads. In order to account for this shown in Figs. 1 to 7. The above
torsional effect some correction factors have to specification is same for all 4 edifices. The mass
be applied to the results of pushover scrutiny in of the all the four edifices remains same
the N2 method [5,6,9,10]. In the present study, and the only change is the orientation of the
an exertion is made to analyse this complex columns.

2
 Gagan et al.; JSRR, 15(1): 1-6, 2017; Article no.JSRR.35028

Fig. 1. Floor plan of edifice 1 Fig. 4. Roof plan of edifice 2

Fig. 5. Floor and roof plan of edifice 3

Fig. 2. Roof plan of edifice 1

Fig. 3. Floor plan of edifice 2 Fig. 6. Floor Plan of edifice 4

3
 Gagan et al.; JSRR, 15(1): 1-6, 2017;; Article no.JSRR.35028
no.

pushover scrutiny of considered joints with

respect to roof displacements values of pushover
scrutiny with respect to the center of mass. If the
obtained normalized roof displacements of
response spectrum scrutiny are less than one,
then we have to take it as 1. Table 1 shows the
correction factors of four edifices.

Table 1. Correction factors of four edifices

Edifice 1 Edifice 2 Edifice 3 Edifice 4

Joint 1 1.007 1.192 1.009 1.005
Joint 2 1.257 1.192 1.173 1.005
Joint 3 1.205 1.039 1.009 1.043
Joint 4 1.187 1.039 1.173 1.043

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SSION
Fig. 7. Roof Plan of edifice 4 Figs. 8 and 9 represent the displacements of
joints 1, 2, 3 and 4 of edifice 1 along X & Y
In order to perform N2 method, two important directions after applying the correction factors
things required are demand and capacity respectively. The displacements of joints 1 and 2
spectrum. The demand spectrum is taken from are not uniform at all stories and the
IS 1893 (part 1): 2002, which will be in SDOF displacements of joints 3 and 4 are
system. The capacity spectrum is obtained from approximately
ximately uniform at all stories of edifice 1
pushover scrutiny [11,12,13].. To perform along X & Y directions. This is because; the
pushover scrutiny, the modeling of edifices is distribution of lateral strength of edifice 1 at every
done using ETABS Version 16.0.3. The pushover story is not equal.
scrutiny is done with respect to the center of
mass of edifices.

4. CORRECTION FACTORS

In order to account for the effect of torsion, the

obtained seismic demand needs to be increased.
So in order to increase the demand the obtained
results of pushover scrutiny in N2 method has to
be multiplied by some factors which are known
as correction factors. This correction factor is
calculated by using below equation.

Correction factor = Normalized displacement Fig. 8. Joint displacements of edifice 1 along

of response spectrum scrutiny/Normalized X direction
displacement of pushover scrutiny

The maximum roof displacements of various

joints and center of mass of the edifices are
obtained by conducting response spectrumspec
scrutiny with respect to the center of mass in
both X & Y directions and pushover scrutiny with
respect to the center of mass in both positive &
negative X & Y directions. Later, normalize the
roof displacements values of response spectrum
scrutiny of considered joints with respect to roof
displacements values of response spectrum
scrutiny with respect to the center of mass. Also
Fig. 9. Joint displacements of edifice 1 along
normalize the roof displacements values of Y direction

4
 Gagan et al.; JSRR, 15(1): 1-6, 2017;; Article no.JSRR.35028
no.

Figs. 10 and 11 represent the displacements of

joints 1, 2, 3 and 4 of edifice 2 along X & Y
directions after applying the correction factors
respectively. The displacements of joints 1, 2, 3
and 4 along X direction are not uniform at all
stories of edifice 2. The displacements of joints 1
and 2 & joint 3 and 4 along Y direction are
approximately uniform at all stories of edifices 2.
This is because; the distribution of lateral
strength of edifice 2 at every
ry story is not equal.

Fig. 12. Joint displacements of edifice 3 along

X direction

Fig. 10. Joint displacements of edifice 2 along

X direction

Fig. 13. Joint displacements of edifice 3 along

Y direction

Fig. 11. Joint displacements of edifice 2 along

Y direction
Figs. 12 and 13 represent the displacements of
joints 1, 2, 3 and 4 of edifice 3 along X & Y
Fig. 14. Joint displacements of edifice 4 along
directions after applying the correction factors
X direction
respectively. The displacements of joints 1 and 3
& joints 2 and 4 along X direction are uniform at
all stories of edifices 3. The displacements of
joints 1, 2, 3 and 4 along Y direction are not
uniform att all stories of edifices 3. This is
because; the distribution of lateral strength of
edifice 3 at every story is not equal.
Figs. 14 and 15 represent the displacements of
joints 1, 2, 3 and 4 of edifice 4 along X & Y
directions after applying the correction
correct factors
respectively. The displacements of joints 1 and 2
& joint 3 and 4 along X & Y directions are
approximately uniform at all stories of edifices 4.
Fig. 15. Joint displacements of edifice 4 along
This is because; the distribution of lateral
Y direction
strength of edifice 4 at every story is not equal.

5
 Gagan et al.; JSRR, 15(1): 1-6, 2017; Article no.JSRR.35028

6. CONCLUSION 5. Bhatt C, Bento R. Estimating torsional

demands in plan irregular buildings using
When edifices are subjected to lateral loads, pushover procedures coupled with linear
performance of these edifices are done based on dynamic response spectrum analysis. 6th
N2 method of performance evaluation, some of European Workshop on the seismic
the conclusions drawn are; The joint behavior of Irregular and Complex
displacements of edifices 1 and 3 along X Structures (6EWICS), Haifa, Israel; 2011.
direction are more when compared to Y direction. 6. Peter Fajfar, Damjan Marusic, Iztok Perus.
This is because the strength of edifices 1 and 3 The extension of the N2 method to
along X direction is less when compared to Y asymmetric buildings. In: Proc. of 4th
direction. The joint displacements of edifices 2 forum on Implications of recent
and 4 along Y direction are more when earthquakes on seismic risk, (Technical
compared to X direction. This is because the report TIT/EERG 02/1, p. 291-308). Tokyo
strength of edifices 2 and 4 along Y direction is Institute of Technology, Tokyo; 2005.
less when compared to X direction. In order to 7. Fajfar P, Dolsek M. Computational
account for the effect of torsion the obtained methods in earthquake engineering
seismic demand has to be increased. simplified non linear procedures. Fourth
Displacements of various joints are different International Conference of Earthquake
when comparing to the displacements at center Engineering and Seismology, Tehran,
of mass, which needs to be corrected in the Islamic Republic of Iran; 2003.
design process. 8. Joonho Lee, Jieun Kong, Jinkoo Kim.
Seismic Performance Evaluation of Tall
COMPETING INTERESTS Buildings with Axi-symmetric Plans. 15th
World Conference on Earthquake
Authors have declared that no competing Engineering (WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal;
interests exist. 2012.
9. Dini Devassy Menachery, Manjula NK.
REFERENCES Application of extended n2 method to
reinforced concrete frames with
1. Beena Kumari. Non-linear static pushover asymmetric setbacks. International Journal
analysis of real life reinforced concrete of Civil Engineering and Technology
frame with Atena 3-d program. (IJCIET). 2014;5:12.
International Journal of Engineering 10. Vijaykumar G, Sawant, Shinde DN. A
Trends and Technology (IJETT). study on simple pushover analysis of
2014;10(2). asymmetric building frames. International
2. Sharath Irappa Kammar, Tejas D. Doshi. Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Non linear static analysis of asymmetric Engineering and Technology. 2015;4(9).
building with and without shear wall. 10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0409025.
International Research Journal of 11. ATC 40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET). concrete buildings. Volume 1, California
2015;2(3). seismic safety commission, California.
3. Peter Fajfar. A nonlinear analysis method 12. FEMA 356. Pre Standard and
for performance based seismic design. Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
Earthquake Spectra. 2000;16(3):573-592. of the Buildings. Federal Emergency
4. Fajfar P. Structural analysis in earthquake Management Agency, Washington D.C.
engineering a breakthrough of simplified 13. IS 1893 (PART I). Criteria for earthquake
non-linear methods. Published by Elsevier resistant design of structures. Part 1
Science Ltd. All rights reserved 12th General provisions and buildings, fifth
European Conference on Earthquake revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Engineering, Paper Reference. 2002;843. Delhi, India; 2002.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
© 2017 Gagan et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/20100