ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a matter of profound privilege and pleasure to

extend our sense of respect and deepest gratitude to
our project guide –Professor Hitesh Sharma-,
Department of Civil Engineering under whose precise
guidance and gracious encouragement we had the
privilege to work.
We avail this opportunity to thank respected Dr. S.K.
Jaiswal, Head of the Department of Civil Engineering
for facilitating such a pleasant environment in the
department and for providing everlasting
encouragement and support throughout.
We acknowledge with the deep sense of responsibility
and gratitude the help rendered by respected Dr. M.K.
Gupta, Principal, Bhilai Institute of Technology, Durg
for infusing endless enthusiasm & instilling a spirit of
dynamism.
We would also like to thank many people in our
college, faculty members of our department, and the
supporting staff for always being helpful over the
years. Finally, we would like to express our deepest
gratitude to our parents and the management of Bhilai
Institute of Technology, Durg.
ABSTRACT The promise of performance-based seismic engineering (PBSE) is to produce structures with
predictable seismic performance. Each building designed by this process is virtually unique. Therefore,
up to now, PBSE has not been an economically feasible alternative to conventional prescriptive code
design practices. The poor performance and high level of structural damage in building structures during
the frequent earthquakes increased the need to determine and evaluate the damages in the building
type of structures, so much more than ever before. In order to prevent such collapse mechanisms in the
building structures, the nonlinear analysis must be determined accurately. To evaluate the performance
of framed buildings under future expected earthquakes, a nonlinear static pushover analysis has been
conducted. The load-deformation curve is obtained from SAP2000. Firstly, a multi-storeyed building
(G+6) is analysed. The calculation of design seismic force by static analysis method has been carried out
and lateral load distribution with height is shown. The same building is then modelled in the SAP
platform to carry out pushover analysis. These designs and calculations using SAP2000 will help in
decreasing the chance of structural damages in Residential Buildings due to Earth Quake. 1. Introduction
1.1 What is Pushover Analysis? It is a non-linear analysis to assess the structural capacity under static
horizontal loads growing until the collapse of the structure. The results of the pushover analyses are
some capacity curves identified by the variation of the base shear in the function of the displacement of
a control point on the structure. It is also called static nonlinear analysis, because it is a method in
which, the action is static, but the structure behaviour is nonlinear. 1.2 Necessity of Pushover
AnalysisThe existing building can become seismically deficient since seismic design code requirements
are constantly upgraded and advanced in engineering knowledge. Further, Indian buildings built over
the past two decades are seismically deficient because of a lack of awareness regarding the seismic
behaviour of structures. The widespread damage especially to RC buildings during earthquakes exposed
the construction practices being adopted around the world, and generated a great demand for seismic
evaluation and retrofitting of existing building stocks. In the following section, studies on the nonlinear
static pushover method will be presented. In addition, recent studies on multi-storeyed buildings will be
summarized. Most of the simplified nonlinear analysis procedures utilized for seismic performance
evaluation make use of pushover analysis and/or equivalent SDOF representation of the actual
structure. However, pushover analysis involves certain approximations that the reliability and the
accuracy of the procedure should be identified. 1.3 Advantages of Pushover Analysis in a ProjectThe
pushover is expected to provide information on many response characteristics that cannot be obtained
from a linear elastic static or dynamic analysis. The following are examples of such response
characteristics: ● Force demands on potentially brittle elements such as axial force demands on brace
connections, moment demand on beam-to-column connections, etc. ● The consequence of strength
deterioration of individual elements on the behaviour of the structural system. ● Identification of critical
regions in which the deformation demands are expected to be high and that have to become the focus
of thorough detailing. ● Identification of strength discontinuities in plan or elevation that will lead to
change in dynamic characteristics in the inelastic building. ● Estimate of global drift, which may be used
to access the potential for pounding. ● Verification and completeness and adequacy of load path,
considering all elements of the structural system, all connections, stiff non-structural elements of
significant strength, and the foundation system. Clearly, these benefits come at a cost of additional
analysis effort, associated with incorporating all important elements. The pushover analysis is most
useful for the evaluation of performance levels that are associated with large inelastic deformation (eg.
collapse prevention level). 1.4 What is SAP2000? SAP2000 is a well-known and widely accepted, general-
purpose, three-dimensional structural analysis program. The pushover analysis module has been
 installed into the SAP2000. In the procedure of the pushover analysis, the assignment of the values of
plastic hinge properties (PHP) strongly affects the prediction of the capacity curve of the RC structure.
The SAP2000 program includes several built-in default hinge properties that are based on average values
from ATC40 for concrete members. 1.5 Pushover Analysis vs Conventional Seismic Analysis SIMILARITIES
- In both, conventional Seismic analysis (SA) and Pushover analysis (PA), we apply lateral load on the
structure based on a predefined vertical distribution pattern. In Seismic Analysis, the distribution pattern
is parabolic. However, in Pushover Analysis, the distribution pattern is proportional to the height raised
to the power of ‘k’ (where k can be ‘0’ (uniform), ‘1’ (linear), ‘2’ (parabolic), or anywhere between 1 and
2). - In both SA and PA, the maximum lateral load that can be taken by the structure depends upon the
fundamental time period of the structure. DIFFERENCES - The most significant difference between the
two methods is that Seismic Analysis is based on an elastic model while Pushover Analysis uses a non-
linear model. - During conventional Seismic analysis, the structure is analyzed and designed based on
elastic forces such as moment, shear and axial forces, however, during Pushover analysis, the result
generated is the Base shear vs Rooftop displacement. - Conventional Seismic Analysis results are mostly
used for the design of the structure, thus the loads available in the load combinations are factors,
however, Pushover Analysis simulates the behaviour of the structure under actual loads, therefore, the
loads applied are not factored.

1) What is earthquake?
The term earthquake can be used to describe any kind of seismic
event which may be either natural or initiated by humans, which
generates seismic waves. Earthquakes are caused commonly by
rupture of geological faults; but they can also be triggered by
other events like volcanic activity, mine blasts, landslides and
nuclear tests.
An abrupt release of energy in the Earth's crust which creates
seismic waves results in what is called an earthquake, which is
also known as a tremor, a quake or a temblor. The frequency,
type and magnitude of earthquakes experienced over a period of
time defines the seismicity (seismic activity) of that area.
 The observations from a seismometer are used to measure
earthquake. Earthquakes greater than approximately 5 are
mostly reported on the scale of moment magnitude. Those
smaller than magnitude 5, which are more in number, as
reported by the national seismological observatories are mostly
measured on the local magnitude scale, which is also known as
the Richter scale.
There are many buildings that have primary structural system,
which do not meet the current seismic requirements and suffer
extensive damage during the earthquake. According to Seismic
Zoning Map of IS-1893-2002, which says the region is least
probable for earthquakes.

At present the methods for seismic evaluation of seismically

deficient or earthquake damaged structures are not yet fully
developed. Most of the structures in India are low rise structures
(upto four storeys).
A close look at response spectrum from IS 1893 will indicate that
short period structures (structures with less height) are subjected
to large amount of earthquake force. Inspite of this fact most of
the design engineers ignore severity of the problem subjecting
the occupants to a higher level of risk during earthquakes.
 The buildings which do not fulfil the requirements of seismic
design, may suffer extensive damage or collapse if shaken by a
severe ground motion. The seismic evaluation reflects the seismic
capacity of earthquake vulnerable buildings for the future use.
According to the Seismic Zoning Map of IS: 1893-2002, India is
divided into four zones on the basis of seismic activities. They are
Zone II, Zone III, Zone IV and Zone V.
The methodologies available so far for the evaluation of existing
buildings can be divided into two categories-
(i) Qualitative method
(ii) Analytical method.

2) SCENARIO OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING IN INDIA

Occurrence of few damaging earthquakes during the last decade has
pointed to our shortcoming in risk reduction programmes. A meaningful
programme must incorporate appropriate building codes and also create
public awareness. Several initiatives are now being taken at research and
management levels.
An update of these initiatives and steps to strengthen disaster mitigation
programmes are discussed in this project. Earthquakes in different parts
of the world demonstrated the disastrous consequences and
vulnerability of inadequate structures. Many reinforced concrete (RC)
framed structures located in zones of high seismicity in India are
constructed without considering the seismic codal provisions.
The vulnerability of inadequately designed structures represents seismic
risk to occupants. IS-1893 was initially published in 1962 as
‘Recommendations for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure’ and
then revised in 1966.
As a result of additional seismic data collected in India and further
knowledge and experience gained the standard was revised in 1970,
1975 and then in 1984.
After bhuj earthquake it was again revised because of extensive loss of
life and property and was published in 2002.
3) NEED OF THE PROJECT
Building designed with older codes are vulnerable to earthquake, it
results in extensive loss of life and property. It is essential to study the
vulnerability of the structures against seismic activity. Most of the
buildings in the city are designed based on the older design codes and
hence occupants of those buildings are at risk in the event of moderate
to strong shaking of earth.
Assessment of performance of the building during earthquakes will
considerably help in mitigating the disaster in a well organized manner.
It will also help in devising a strategy for strengthening the building to
meet design requirements as per the revised codes.
One of the objective of the project is to create awareness among the
design engineers about recent advancements in earthquake engineering.
5) Purpose of Push-over Analysis
The purpose of pushover analysis is to evaluate the expected
performance of structural systems by estimating its strength and
deformation demands in design earthquakes by means of static inelastic
analysis, and comparing these demands to available capacities at the
performance levels of interest. The evaluation is based on an assessment
of important performance parameters, including global drift, inter-story
drift, inelastic element deformations (either absolute or normalized with
respect to a yield value), deformations between elements, and element
connection forces (for elements and connections that cannot sustain
inelastic deformations), The inelastic static pushover analysis can be
viewed as a method for predicting seismic force and deformation
demands, which accounts in an approximate manner for the
redistribution of internal forces that no longer can be resisted within the
elastic range of structural behavior. The pushover is expected to provide
information on many response characteristics that cannot be obtained
from an elastic static or dynamic analysis. The most relevant element is
that the analytical model incorporates all elements, whether structural
or non structural, that contribute significantly to the lateral load
distribution. Load transfer through across the connections through the
ductile elements can be checked with realistic forces; the effects of stiff
partial-height infill walls on shear forces in columns can be evaluated;
and the maximum overturning moment in walls, which is often limited
by the uplift capacity of foundation elements can be estimated. These
benefits come at the cost of the additional analysis effort, associated
with incorporating all important elements, modeling their inelastic load-
deformation characteristics, and executing incremental inelastic analysis,
preferably with three dimensional analytical models.
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS.
In pushover analysis, a pattern of forces is applied to a structural model
that includes non-linear properties (such as steel yield), and the total
force is plotted against a reference displacement to define a capacity
curve. This can then be combined with a demand curve (typically in the
form of an acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS)). This
essentially reduces the problem to a single degree of freedom (SDOF)
system. Nonlinear static procedures use equivalent SDOF structural
model and represent seismic ground motion with response spectra.
Story drifts and component actions are related subsequently to the
global demand parameter by the pushover or capacity curves that are
basis of the non-linear static procedures.
Target Displacement.
The fundamental question in the execution of the pushover analysis is
the magnitude of the target displacement at which seismic performance
evaluation of the structure is to be performed. The target displacement
serves as an estimate of the global displacement of the structure is
expected to experience in a design earthquake. It is the roof
displacement at the center of mass of the structure. In the pushover
analysis it is assumed that the target displacement for the MDOF
structure can be estimated as the displacement demand for the
corresponding equivalent SDOF system transformed to the SDOF domain
through the use of a shape factor. This assumption, which is always an
approximation, can only be accepted within limitations and only if great
care is taken in incorporating in the predicted SDOF.
2.2 TECHNICAL PAPERS
2.2.1 M. Azaz, et.al. (2015)
This paper emphasizes on pushover analysis on reinforced concrete structure. In
which G+10 building was subjected to push in x and push in y direction. Analysis was done
in sap2000 15. Based on the performance point obtain from the analysis we get to know that
the structure will perform well or not during seismic activities. If the performance points
obtain from the analysis are within collapse able range the structure will perform well. The
slope of pushover curve gradually changes with increase of the lateral displacement of the
building. This is due to the progressive formation of plastic hinges in beams and columns
throughout the structure.
From the results obtained in x-direction and y- direction there are nearly 6 elements
exceeding the limit level between life safety (LS) and collapse prevention(CP). This means
that the building not requires retrofitting.

2.2.2 D. B. Karwar et.al. (2014)

The main aim of this study was to understand the behavior of Reinforced Concrete
framed structures by using nonlinear static procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis in finite
element software “SAP2000”.and the Comparative study made for different models in terms
of base shear, displacement, performance point.
To achieve this objective, two typical new R.C.C. buildings were taken for analysis:
G+8 and G+12 to cover the broader spectrum medium and high rise building construction.
Different modeling issues were incorporated through ten model for the same building were;
bare frame ,having shear wall with and without considering soft storey, infill as X- type
concrete bracing with and without considering soft storey.
It was observed that base shear is minimum for bare frame, and maximum for frame
with infill for G+8 building. For G+12, the base shear is minimum for bare frame and
maximum for frame with shear wall.
The results obtained in terms of demand, capacity and plastic hinges gave an insight
into the real behavior of structures. Most of the hinges developed in the beams and few in
the columns but with limited damage.
2.2.6 Shambhu Nath Mandal (2013)
The majority of buildings that failed during the Bhuj earthquake (2001) and Gujraat
earthquake were of the open ground storey type. The sudden reduction in lateral stiffness and
mass in the ground storey results in higher stresses in the columns of ground storey under
seismic loading. In conventional design practice, the contribution of stiffness of infill walls
present in upper storeys of OGS framed buildings are ignored in the structural modelling
(commonly called bare frame analysis). Design based on such analysis, results in underestimation
of the bending moments and shear forces in the columns of ground storey, and
hence it may be one of the reasons responsible for the failures observed. The MF value
however does not account for number of storeys, number of bays, type and number of infill
walls present, etc and hence it is independent of all of the above factors.
The objective of present study was the study of comparative performance of OGS
buildings designed according to various MFs using nonlinear analysis. The variations in the
type of the infill walls using in Indian constructions are significant. Depending on the
modulus of elasticity and the strength, it can be classified as strong or weak. The two
extreme cases of infill walls, strong and weak are considered in the study. Depending on the
foundations resting on soft or hard soils, the displacement boundary conditions at the bottom
of foundations can be considered as hinged or fixed. As the modeling of soils is not in the scope of the
study, two boundary conditions, fixed and hinged, that represent two extreme
conditions are considered.
The highest deformation can be seen in the case of frame designed with MF 2.5
which is about 90 mm whereas for others it’s maximum up to 75 mm only

a) Infilled frame b) Deformed frame c) Equivalent strut model

Figure 2.4 Showing behavior of infilled frame building
 Figure 2.5 Showing the behavior of infill frame

Figure 2.6 Showing pushover curve

2.2.7 M.Mouzzoun1, et.al. (2013)

In this paper author’s proposed to assess seismic performance of a five storey
reinforced concrete building designed according to the Moroccan seismic code RPS2000[1].
The building is residential and has a reinforced concrete frame structural system. In the first
time a set of dynamic analysis are carried out to compute dynamic properties of the building
(fundamental period, natural frequencies, deformation modes,) in the second time a pushover
analysis was performed to assess the seismic performance of the building and detect the
locations of the plastic hinges. Pushover analysis was performed using SAP2000. the results
obtained from this study show that designed building perform well under moderate
earthquake, but is vulnerable under severe earthquake.
 Figure 2.7 Construction of pushover curve

Figure 2.8(a) Plastic hinges IO under moderate shaking (b) Plastic hinges LS under severe
Shaking
CONCLUSION The pushover analysis is a useful tool for assessing the
inelastic strength and deformation demands and for exposing design
weakness. The pushover analysis is a relatively simple way to explore the
non-linear behavior of the structure. The pushover analysis is
undertaken by loading the structure to the calculated base shear for
limiting displacement, then the structure is pushed to a state of
complete collapse and a pushover curve is obtained using Etabs v2009.
Taking into account the low level of seismicity of Thane and the
characteristic features of the structure and using ASCE 41-06, the target
displacement is calculated. Upon loading the structure to the calculated
base shear and limiting the displacement of control node, the pushover
analysis reveals the structure is SAFE and hence the building needs
minor retrofitting. 5.2 FUTURE SCOPE OF STUDY An inclusion of shear
failure limits in the performance criteria may lead to a better and more
comprehensive understanding of the building’s behavior. Non-linear
time history analysis can be used for the structure to have a more
accurate assessment of the structure’s capacity and understanding a
more realistic demand scenario.

2.3 CRITICAL COMMENTS ON LITERATURE

1. Short period structures are more vulnerable to earthquakes.
2. Non-linear static (pushover analysis) is one of the best method of assessing
performance of the structures.
3. There are three methods of determining target displacement till date Capacity
Spectrum Method gives more accurate result.
4. The current nonlinear static procedures, when applied to nonlinear model of the
building developed using generally accepted engineering practice may lead to either
significant over-estimation or under-estimation of the target roof displacement when
compared with the peak roof displacement observed during a selected earthquake.
5. There is considerable shift in design procedure for earthquake loads as per IS-
1893:1962 to IS-1893:2002. Revision of 1893 is due, the structure which were
design as per older versions must be analysed to find stability of the structure as per
current practice.
6. It is observed that base shear is minimum for bare frame, and maximum for frame
with infill.
7. It is observed that the displacements obtained by Equivalent static analysis are
higher than Dynamic analysis such as Response Spectrum and Time History
Analysis.
8. Equivalent static analysis is not sufficient when buildings are irregular buildings and
it is essential to carry out Dynamic analysis due to non-linear distribution of force.
9. Indian Standard IS 1893: 2002 allows analysis of open first storey buildings without
considering infill stiffness but with a multiplication factor 2.5 in compensation for
the stiffness discontinuity. As per the code the columns and beams of the open
ground storey are to be designed for 2.5 times the storey shears and moments
calculated under seismic loads of bare frames (i.e., without considering the infill
stiffness). However, as experienced by the engineers at design offices, the
multiplication factor of 2.5 is not realistic for low rise buildings.
10. Capacity of the building significantly increases when ductile detailing is adopted.
Also, it is found that affect on concrete grade and also steel are not that significant.
11. With increase in ground floor column the maximum displacement, inter storey drift
values are reducing. The base shear and overturning moment vary with the change in
column dimension.
12. Recent earthquakes in India show that not only non-engineered but also engineered
buildings in our country are susceptible even to moderate earthquakes.
13. There are many buildings which do not meet the current seismic requirement and
suffer extensive damage during the earthquake.