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

net/publication/346751804

Seismic Assessment of an RC Building Using Pushover Analysis

Article in Engineering, Technology and Applied Science Research · June 2014

DOI: 10.48084/etasr.428

CITATIONS READS

29 1,168

3 authors:

Riza Suwondo Mohammedsohaib Alama

The University of Manchester King Abdulaziz University
54 PUBLICATIONS 221 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sajjad kathem Ashour

University of Al-Qadisiyah
10 PUBLICATIONS 193 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sajjad kathem Ashour on 03 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3, 2014, 631-635 631

Seismic Assessment of an RC Building Using

Pushover Analysis

Riza Ainul Hakim Mohammed Sohaib Alama Samir A. Ashour

Civil Engineering Department, Civil Engineering Department, Civil Engineering Department,
King Abdul-Aziz University, King Abdul-Aziz University, King Abdul-Aziz University,
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract— Current research works and observations indicated inelastic deformation applied demanded by an earthquake,
that parts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have low to moderate besides the stresses induced by the equivalent static forces as
seismic regions. Major parts of buildings were designed only for specified in seismic regulations and codes [2, 3].
gravity load and were poorly detailed to accommodate lateral
loads. This study aims to investigate building performance on Nonlinear dynamic analysis is a principally convenient
resisting expected seismic loadings. Two 3D frames were approach. However, it is very complex and not practical for
investigated using pushover analysis according to ATC-40. One every design. Such analysis faces certain difficulties, such as
was designed according to a design practice that considers only the complexity of the three dimensional modeling structure,
the gravity load and the other frame was designed according to uncertainty of the structural properties, and the randomness of
the Saudi Building Code (SBC-301). Results showed that the the ground motion data required for analysis. From the
building designed considering only the gravity load was found practical point of view, this method is not suitable for every
inadequate. On the other hand, the building designed according design use, and for the time being it is mostly appropriate for
to SBC-301 satisfies the Immediate Occupancy (IO) acceptance research and design of important structure [4-6].
criteria according to ATC-40.
To estimate seismic demands for a building, the structural
Keywords-pushover; seismic analysis; capacity spectrum; SBC- engineering profession is now using the non-linear static
301; ATC-40 procedure, known as pushover analysis. It is a commonly used
technique, which provides acceptable results. The term static
I. INTRODUCTION implies that static analysis is applied to represent a dynamic
phenomenon [7, 8].
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia lies within a low to moderate
seismic region. According to the U.S. Global Survey (USGS) Pushover analysis is a series of incremental static analysis
data, earthquakes have been detected recently in Tabuk (2009) carried out to develop a capacity curve for the building. This
and Gizan (2013). In the past decades, the inclusion of dynamic procedure needs the execution of a nonlinear static analysis of
loads in the design of buildings in Saudi Arabia was limited to the structure that allows the monitoring of the progressive
important huge structures. Recently, the Saudi Building Code yielding of the structure component [3]. The building is
(SBC-301) has been released for trial application. This code subjected to a lateral load. The load magnitude increases until
provides minimum load requirements for the design of the building reaches the targeted displacement. This target
buildings and other structures. displacement is determined to represent the top displacement
when the building is subjected to design level ground
Most of existing buildings do not meet the current design excitation.
standards due to design shortage or construction shortcomings.
There are various reasons such as the lack of a national code, Pushover analysis produces a pushover curve or capacity
the noncompliance with applicable code requirements, the curve that presents the relationship between the base shear (V)
updating of codes, the design practices and changes in the use and roof displacement (∆). The Pushover curve depends on the
of buildings. Therefore, existing buildings should be evaluated strength and deformation capacities of the structure and
regarding their capacity for resisting expected seismic effects describes how the structure behaves beyond the elastic limit [3,
before rehabilitation works [1]. 6, 8].
It is believed that the conventional elastic design analysis Structural response to ground motion during earthquake
method cannot capture many important aspects that affect the cannot be accurately predicted because of the complexity of the
seismic performance of the building. The ability of a building structural properties and ground motion parameters. In
to undergo inelastic deformations determines the structural pushover analysis, a set of lateral displacement is used directly
behavior of building during seismic ground motions. For that as design condition. The displacement is an estimate of the
reason, the evaluation of a building should be based on the

www.etasr.com Hakim et al.: Seismic Assessment of RC Building Using Pushover Analysis

 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3, 2014, 631-635 632

maximum expected response of the structure during ground Δ roof

motion [2, 3]. sd = (4)
MPF1  φ roof1
A. Capacity Spectrum Where:
The building performance level can be determined by target
displacement using the capacity spectrum method (ATC 40). V=base shear
The capacity spectrum method allows for a graphical w=building load weight
comparison between the structure capacity and the seismic Δroof=roof displacement
demand. The pushover curve represents the lateral resisting To convert a demand spectrum from Sa and T format to
capacity and the response spectrum curve represents the ADRS format, it is required to calculate the value of Sd for
seismic demand. each point of the curve using the following equation:

The capacity spectrum method, which is described in 2Sa

Figure 1, is started by producing a force-displacement curve sd = (5)
4 2
that consider the inelastic condition. The result is then plotted The performance point is obtained by superimposing
to ADRS (Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum). demand spectrum on capacity curve into spectral coordinate or
The demand is also converted into ADRS format so that the ADRS format. The capacity spectrum method has been built in
capacity curve and the demand curve are in the same format [9, SAP2000 program.
12].
According to ATC 40, the performance levels of buildings
are as shown in Table I.

TABLE I. PERFORMANCE LEVEL OF BUILDING

Level Description
Operational Very light damage, no permanent drift, structure
retains original strength and stiffness, all systems are
normal
Immediate Light damage, no permanent drift, structure retains
Occupancy original strength and stiffness, elevator can be
restarted, Fire protection operable
Life Safety Moderate damage, some permanent drift, some
residual strength and stiffness left in all stories,
Fig. 1. Capacity spectrum method. damage to partition, building may be beyond
economical repair
The general process for converting the capacity curve to Collapse Severe damage, large displacement, little residual
Prevention stiffness and strength but loading bearing column and
capacity spectrum is to first calculate the modal participation wall function, building is near collapse
factor (MPF1) and the modal mass coefficient (α), using the
following equations: B. Nonlinear Plastic Hinge
Pushover Analysis requires the development of the force-
MPF1 =
m φi i1
(1) deformation curve for the critical section of beams and column
m φi
2
i1 by using the guideline in [10]. Such a curve is presented in
Figure 2.
[ mi φi1 ]2
a= N N
(2)
w
[ i ] [ mi φi21 ]
i 1 g i 1
(2)
Where:
wi
=mass assigned to level i
g Fig. 2. Typical Load-deformation relation and target performance level
φi1 =amplitude of mode 1 at level i
Point A corresponds to the unloaded condition. Load
N=level N
deformation relation shall be described by the linear response
from A to an effective yield B. Then the stiffness reduces from
Then Sa and Sd are calculated for every point on the point B to C. Point C has a resistance equal to the nominal
capacity curve using the following equations: strength then a sudden decrease in lateral load resistance to
Sa Vb 1 point D, the response at reduced resistance to E, final loss of
=  (3) resistance. The slope of the BC line is usually taken between 0
g w a
and 10% of the initial slope. The CD line corresponds to an

www.etasr.com Hakim et al.: Seismic Assessment of RC Building Using Pushover Analysis

 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3, 2014, 631-635 633

initial failure of the member. The DE Line represents the TABLE II. ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODEL

residual strength of the member. These points are specified Material

according to FEMA to determine hinge rotation behavior of RC Concrete 27.5 MPa
members. The points between B and C represent acceptance Steel A615Gr60
criteria for the hinge, which is Immediate Occupancy (IO), LS Loading
(Life Safety), and CP (Collapse Prevention). Self-weight Automatically by Software
Dead load 2.7 kN/m2
Live Load 2.5 kN/m2
II. DESCRIPTIVE OF THE BUILDING TEST Wind Load Not Considered
Modelling
The prototype building is a 6-story reinforced concrete
Element Linear element for beam and column
structure, with a height story of 4.0 m. The overall plan is Shell element for slab
18x18 square meters. Figure 3 shows the typical structural P-delta effect Not considered
layout. All beams are 600/400. The columns are 500/500 mm Diaphragm Shell element for slab
rectangular. The type of soil is soft rock or site class C Support Fixed
according to the Saudi Building Code 301.

Fig. 3. Structure layout

Fig. 4. 3D model (SAP2000)
The structural system was designed using two methods, the
first is a design practice that considers only the gravity load
whereas the intermediate resisting frame (IMRF) according to TABLE III. SITE PARAMETERS
SBC 301 was considered for the second. A summary of the
SS S1 Fa Fv SMS SM1 SDS SD1
model’s assumption is presented in Table II.
0.865 0.281 1.054 1.519 0.912 0.427 0.608 0.285
In this study, pushover analysis is carried out using the
Where:
SAP2000 program. A three-dimensional model of structure has SS: the maximum spectral response acceleration at short periods
been created as shown in Figure 4. Beams and columns are S1: the maximum spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 sec
modeled as nonlinear frame elements at the start and the end of Fa: acceleration-based site coefficient
element. The FEMA 356 rule, which is built in SAP 2000 with Fv: velocity-based site coefficient
the IO, LS, and CP limit states for hinge rotation have been SMS : the maximum spectral response acceleration at short periods
used for the acceptance criteria. The pushover analysis is adjusted for site class
executed separately for the two designs. The pushover analysis SM1: the maximum spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 sec
is achieved using a displacement control strategy, where the adjusted for site class
building is subjected to the lateral load pattern until the roof SDS: the design spectral response acceleration at short periods
displacement reaches a target value. The minimum number of SD1: the design spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 sec
state used is 10 and the maximum is 100.
Pushover analysis is performed in Haql, which is the most SBC-301 provides the required minimum standards for the
severe seismic zone according to SBC-301 [11] and the type of equivalent lateral force procedure of seismic analysis of a
soil is soft rock or site class C. A summary of seismic site structure as presented in Table IV. The design response
parameters are presented in Table III. spectrum is developed as indicated in Figure 5.

www.etasr.com Hakim et al.: Seismic Assessment of RC Building Using Pushover Analysis

 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3, 2014, 631-635 634
TABLE IV. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETER which the three limit states of plastic hinges are reached and
R I H Ta (s) Cs W (kN) V (kN) the corresponding values on the pushover curve are obtained
4 1 12 0.412 0.152 9227.0 1402.1 from Figure 7 and 8.
For gravity load design, the structural frame is not
satisfactory because the lower columns yields exceed C
(Collapse) condition. On the other hand, although most of
elements in IMRF design are in yield condition, the damage of
the structure is still limited since yielding occurs at event B
(yielding) to IO (Immediate Occupancy).

Fig. 5. Design response spectrum

III. ANALYSIS RESULTS

Pushover curves for the building for both designs are
presented in Figure 6. These curves represent the global
behavior of the frame with stiffness and ductility. Under
incrementally increasing lateral load, the structural element
may be yield sequentially. At every step, the structure
experience loss in stiffness. Therefore, the slope of the Fig. 7. Capacity spectrum for gravity load design
pushover curve is gradually decreasing.
The comparison of the pushover curve shows that the
stiffness of frame is larger in IMRF (SBC301) compared to the
gravity load design. This means that SBC design has a greater
capability to resist lateral load (seismic load) than the gravity
load design.

Fig. 8. Capacity spectrum for IMRF according to SBC

Fig. 6. Pushover curve

The performance point has been obtained by superimposing

the demand spectrum on the capacity curve into spectral
coordinates as shown in Figures 7 and 8.
At every deformation step of the pushover analysis
determine plastic rotation hinge location in the elements and
hinges reach the FEMA limit state, which are IO, LS, and CP
using colors for identification (Figures 9 and 10). The steps at Fig. 9. Plastic hinge formation for gravity load design

www.etasr.com Hakim et al.: Seismic Assessment of RC Building Using Pushover Analysis

 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3, 2014, 631-635 635
[7] R. Martino, E. Spacone, G. Kingsley, “Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of
RC Structures”, Proceedings of Advanced Technology in Structural
Engineering 2000, pp. 1-8, 2000
[8] A. Vijayakumar, D. L. V. Babu, “Pushover Analysis of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures”, European Journal of Scientific
Research, Vol.71, No. 2, pp. 195-202, 2012
[9] ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings: Applied Technology Council:1996
[10] FEMA-356: Prestandard and Commentary for The Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000
[11] The Saudi Building Code 301 Structural – Loading and Forces, The
Saudi Code National Building Committee 2007.
[12] A. K. Chopra, R. K. Goel, “Capacity-Demand-Diagram Methods Based
on Inelastic Design Spectrum”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.
637-656, 1999

Fig. 10. Plastic hinge formation for IMRF design according to SBC

IV. CONCLUSION
The test building is investigated using pushover analysis.
These are conclusion obtained from this analysis:
 Pushover analysis can identify weak elements by
predicting the failure mechanism and account for the
redistribution of forces during progressive yielding. It
may help engineers take action for rehabilitation work.
 Pushover analysis is an approximation method based
on static loading. It may not accurately represent
dynamic phenomena.
 The results show that design considering only gravity
load is found inadequate. Therefore, a structural
engineer should consider earthquakes in designing
building.
 On the other hand, the building that was designed
according to SBC-301 is satisfactory. The performance
point location is at IO (Immediate Occupancy) level. It
means the design satisfies pushover analysis according
to ATC -40.

REFERENCES
[1] M. S. Attar, “Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of A Typical
School Building”, M. S. Thesis, King Abdul Aziz University, Saudi
Arabia, 2003
[2] M. N. Abd-alla, “Application of Recent Techniques of Pushover for
Evaluating Seismic Performance of Multistory Building”, M. S. Thesis,
Cairo University, Egypt, 2007
[3] P. I. Giannopoulos, “Seismic Assessment of RC Building according to
FEMA 356 and Eurocode 8”, 16th Conference on Concrete, TEE,
ETEK, 21-23/10/2009
[4] A. Whittaker, G. Hart, C. Rojahn, “Seismic Response Modification
Factors”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 4, pp. 438–
444, 1999
[5] A. K. Chopra, R. K. Goel, “A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure to
Estimate Seismic Demands for Unsymmetric-plan Buidings”,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp.
903–927, 2004
[6] P. Poluraju, N. Rao, “Pushover Analysis of reinforced concrete frame
structure using SAP 2000”, International Journal of Earth Science and
Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 06, pp. 684-690, 2011

www.etasr.com Hakim et al.: Seismic Assessment of RC Building Using Pushover Analysis

View publication stats