International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering

Volume 7, Issue 12, August-2020 ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS USING SAP 2000 FOR INCREASING

MOMENT CAPACITY RATIO AT BEAM COLUMN JOINTS AND
STUDY OF THE STRUCTURE LATERAL STRENGTH
Pintu Kumar1, Prof. Dharmendra Singh2
1
Scholar M.Tech (Structure) Department of Civil Engineering, RNTU, Bhopal (M.P).
2
Guide , Department of Civil Engineering, RNTU, Bhopal (M.P).

ABSTRACT: Reinforced concrete moment resisting frames  The design of frame sections is assumed to be
(RCMRF) are structural systems that should be designed to consistent with the prevailing Indian Standard
ensure proper energy dissipation capacity when subjected to which ensures no shear failure prior to flexure
seismic loading. In this design philosophy the capacity failure in the frames. Accordingly the nonlinear
design approach that is currently used in practice demands hinges for shear are not modeled for analysis.
“strong-column / weak-beam” design to have good ductility  Fixity is assumed in all the column ends.Soil
and a preferable collapse mechanism in the structure. structure interaction is neglected.
When only the flexural strength of longitudinal beams  Only interior joints are considered in the present
controls the overall response of a structure, RC beam- study
column connections display ductile behaviour (with the
joint panel region essentially remaining elastic). The failure II. METHODOLOGY
mode where in the beams form hinges is usually considered  Five, seven and ten storey RC framed (Plane)
to be the most favourable mode for ensuring good global buildings are designed using commercial software
energy-dissipation without much degradation of capacity at STAAD-Pro.
the connections. Though many international codes  Ultimate flexural capacity of beam (Mr,b) is
recommend the moment capacity ratio at beam column determined from the design data obtained.
joint to be more than one, still there are lots of  Column reinforcement in the buildings is
discrepancies among these codes and Indian standard is progressively increased to attain different column
silent on this aspect. So in the present work pushover to beam moment capacity ratio (MCR) at
analysis is being done using SAP 2000 for increasing maximum moment, at zero axial load and at
moment capacity ratio at beam column joints and its effect design axial load.
on the global ductility and lateral strength of the structure
 Considering the beam and column reinforcement,
is studied. To incorporate the uncertainties in material
the same building is modelled using SAP2000
properties, a probabilistic approach is followed to observe
and nonlinear static analysis is being done.
the effect of ground motion intensity on probability of
exceedance of any specific damage state for structures
III. BUILDING DESIGN AND MODELLING
designed considering different moment capacity ratios
The present study is based on analysis of a family of
(MCR) at the connections. For this objective fragility curves
reinforced concrete multi-storeyed building frames. These
are developed considering the pushover curves obtained
buildings were first designed using STAAD-Pro. The
from the nonlinear static analysis. Ductility of the structure
input data required for the design of these buildings are
increases with increase of MCR. Also the buildings
presented in Table 3.1 (a-c).
designed with lesser MCR values are found to be more
Table 3.1(a) General building and location details
fragile compared to the building with higher MCR.
Keywords: pushover, moment capacity ratio, fragility, Type of structure Multi storey RC frame
ductility, lateral strength
Zone V
I. SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of present research work is limited to following Exposure mild
structural considerations: Conditions
 Regular RC framed building is selected. Vertical Soil type medium
and plan irregularity of the building is kept out of
the scope of present study. Damping 5%
 The analysis is carried out considering
Storey height 3m
unidirectional lateral loading and thereby only plane
frame is considered for the analysis. The results may Bay width 4m
vary when the lateral load acts along both the
horizontal direction simultaneously.

www.ijtre.com Copyright 2020.All rights reserved. 7317

International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering
Volume 7, Issue 12, August-2020 ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718

Design Limit State method yield and ultimate response and initiation of a collapse
philosophy conforming to IS mechanism are obtained from the pushover curves (in the
456:2000 form of base shear versus roof displacement) using bi-linear
idealization.
Table 3.1(b) Details of materials and section property Table 4.3 Median Spectral displacement (mm) corresponding
Beam 300mm300mm to different damage grades

Column 300mm400mm

fck= 25 MPa Poisons ratio = 0.3

3
Density = 25 kN/mm
Concrete Modulus of elasticity = 5000 √fck Using the Table 4.3 median spectral displacements for
=25000 MPa different damage states are obtained. Only damage states
of Gr3 and Gr4 are considered in the present study for
developing fragility curves. From the spectral
displacements obtained for 20 cases median spectral
fy = 415 MPa displacement (Sds) are obtained. Median spectral response
Steel Modulus of elasticity = 210 MPa
5 shows the threshold limit of a given damage state. Then
using the normal distribution function probability of
equal or exceeding a given damage state can be obtained.

Table 3.1(c) Loading details for the design V. PERFORMANCE OF 5-STOREY 3-BAY BUILDING
FRAMES
Dead load 20 kN/m
Fragility curves for 5-storey 3-bay framed building is
Live load 10 kN/m developed as per methods discussed above for different
MCR values for the two damage states Gr3 and Gr4.
Equivalent lateral loads as per IS 1893 (Part I):2002 The slope of fragility curve developed depends on the log
normal standard deviation value . Smaller value of
SUMMARY  indicates lesser variability of damage state and hence
steeper fragility curve is generated. So the Gr3 curves are
 Plane building frames are designed with IS-
456:2000 for loading requirement of IS- 1893:2002 stiffer than Gr4 curves (of Gr3 = 0.75 and for Gr 4 it is
and IS-875 (Part-1, 2) using STAAD-Pro for varying 0.85).
MCR.
 Nonlinear static analysis is being carried out to
understand the effect of MCR in the response of
framed building.
 It is found that with increase of MCR at design
axial load upto 1.47 for uniaxial bending in a
plane frame improves the ductility at an expense of
extra reinforcement, with further increase of
MCR there is not much increase in ductility.
Increase in strength either at yield or maximum is
not very significant with progressive increase in
MCR for a seven storey building frame. but for
5 storey and 10 storey frames strength also
increase significantly upto MCR 1.7.Since seismic
design philosophy aims to achieve good ductility
in a structure so we need not have to think for Fig. 4.2(a) shows fragility curves for 5-storey frames at
higher strength but for higher ductility. different MCR values for Gr3 damage state. It is observed
that the building designed for lesser MCR is more fragile
IV. BUILDING MODELLING AND ANALYSIS than the same building designed with higher MCR. So for
20 buildings are considered for fragility analysis MCR 1.09 the structure is most fragile. For a assumed
corresponding to each MCR value. Non- linear static spectral displacement of 200 mm with increase of MCR to
analysis(pushover) is carried out using SAP2000. This 1.26 reduces the probability of exceedance from 83 % to 55
pushover analysis method is mostly used to obtain %. There is a wider difference of fragility with increase of
quantitative limit state values. The critical points like MCR from 1.09 to 1.26.With further increase from MCR

www.ijtre.com Copyright 2020.All rights reserved. 7318

International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering
Volume 7, Issue 12, August-2020 ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718

1.26 to 1.94 there is not much decrease in the fragility of complete damage of the structure shows flatter slope as
considered building. compared to Gr3 which is extensive damage state due to
higher variability associated with it.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE

RC framed buildings regular in plan are designed using
commercial software STAADpro and modelled using
SAP2000. Pushover analysis is done first to study the effect
of increase of MCR on ductility and lateral strength of a
structure. The effect of increasing moment capacity of
column at an expense of extra reinforcement is also
observed by obtaining reinforcement ratio as a function of
MCR. Reinforcement ratio obtained to achieve different
MCR is found to be well within the limits of 6 % as specified
in IS 456 and also within 3 % considered for practical
purpose.

Fig. 4.2(b) shows the fragility curve for 5-storey building Conclusions from fragility analysis
frame for Gr4 or complete damage state in terms of Probabilistic analysis is done to evaluate the damage
probability of exceedance and spectral displacement. This statistics, and distinguish the buildings on the basis of their
curve also shows the similar pattern as Gr3 damage state relative seismic performance. From the fragility analysis of
curve. The building with MCR 1.09 is most fragile and different building using the capacity curves obtained from
with increase of MCR to 1.26 the probability of exceedance pushover analysis the following conclusions can be drawn:
of the specified damage state decreases to a greater extent.  The fragility curves indicate much higher damage
However, beyond MCR 1.26 there is no change in the probabilities for building designed with
fragility curve because of same median spectral considering very low MCR value of 1.09.
displacement. Since for a given damage state all other  The incorporation of higher MCR values
parameters being constant the probability of reaching or reduces the damage probabilities irrespective of
exceeding that state depends only on the median spectral number of storey and damage level.
displacement.  For 5-storey building increase of MCR beyond 1.26
does not decrease the probability of damage to an
SUMMARY appreciable extent.
The performance of regular RC framed buildings is  For 7-storey building wider variation of damage
considered by developing fragility curves as per HAZUS probability is observed from MCR
(2003). Uncertainties in concrete and steel material properties  1.09 and 1.26 to MCR 1.47 for a given spectral
are considered. 5,7 and 10 storey buildings are modelled for displacement. From MCR 1.47 to 1.70
different MCR values by increasing the column  the probability of exceedance of a given damage
reinforcement. Damage state definition is considered from state decrease but the difference is comparatively
Barbat et.al.(2006).Variability parameters are considered less. For MCR 1.7 to MCR 1.94 almost same
as per HAZUS (2003).The fragility curves are developed to damage probability is observed.
find out the vulnerability of buildings without designed as  10-storey building also shows same trend of
per strong column weak beam concept. The fragility curves fragility curves as of seven storey building
for different progressively increasing MCR values are frame.
compared for different damage state for a given spectral
displacement. FUTURE SCOPE
It is observed that a structure designed with lower MCR  The analysis can be extended with considering
(e.g. 1.09) shows much higher damage probabilities. more number of buildings with different varying
Fragility of a structure decreases if the columns are made parameters.
stronger than beams maintained by increasing MCR values.  Here only regular RC framed buildings are
The results for 5 storey building show little different trend considered. The analysis can be extended for
than other two building category (7 and 10storey).The irregular building having torsion effects.
damage probabilities for 5-storey building do not show  Only internal joints are considered in the present
much variation after MCR 1.26. For 7-storey building frame work. For external and corner joints also analysis
the probability of exceedance of a given damage state shows can be done.
a continuous decreasing trend with higher MCR. However  Effect of infill wall can also be evaluated in the
the variation after MCR 1.47 is comparatively less. 10- analytical models.
storey building frame also shows the similar trend as a  The ground motion parameter can be selected not
seven storey frame. Gr4 damage state that considers only as spectral displacement but also in terms of

www.ijtre.com Copyright 2020.All rights reserved. 7319

International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering
Volume 7, Issue 12, August-2020 ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718

PGA or PGV etc. By taking more MCR values the performance evaluation”. Eng’. Struct., 20(4-6),
analysis can be done for more number of buildings 452-64.
[14] Miranda. E. (1991). “Seismic evaluation and
REFERENCES upgrading of existing buildings”. PhD thesis.
[1] ACI 318-02 “Building Code Requirements for University of California, Berkeley
Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-02) and
Commentary (ACI 318RM-02)”, American
Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 318, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2002
[2] NZS 3101: Part 1:1995 “Concrete Structures
Standard, Part 1: The Design of Concrete
Structures”, New Zealand Standard, New Zealand,
1995.
[3] prEN 1998-1-3:2003 “Design provisions for
Earthquake Resistant Structures-Part 1: General
Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Building”,.
Brussels, 2003
[4] Paulay, T., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N.,
“Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Under
Seismic Actions.” ACI Journal, 1978, pp 585-593.
[5] NZS 3101: Part 2:1995 “Concrete Structures
Standard, Part 2: Commentary on the Design of
Concrete Structures”, New Zealand Standard, New
Zealand, 1995.
[6] Uma, S. R., “Seismic Behaviour of Beam Column
Joints in Moment Resisting Reinforced Concrete
Frame Structures,” submitted to Indian Concrete
Journal, October 2004
[7] FEMA-273. “NEHRP guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings.” Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC, 1997.
[8] ATC-40. “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings.” Volume 1 and 2. Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City California,
1996.
[9] Rana Rahul, Jin Limin and Zekioglu Atila (2004)
“pushover analysis of a 19 story concrete shear wall
building” submitted to 13th world conference on
Earthquake Engineering(2004).
[10] Zhang, L., and Jirsa, J.O., “A Study of Shear
Behaviour of RC Beam-Column Joints,” PMFSEL
Report No. 82-1, University of Texas at Austin, Feb.
1982.
[11] Fujii, S. and Morita, S., (1991), “Comparison
between interior and exterior RC beam column joint
behaviour,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance (SP123), American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, 145-165.
[12] T. Kihara, M. Yamanari and K. Ogawa (2004) effect
of column-to-beam strength ratio on maximum story
drift angle response of steel frames subjected to
horizontal bidirectional ground motion Proceedings
of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.Bracci. J.M. Kunnath. S.K,.and
Reinhom, AM. (1997). “Seismic performance and
retrofit evaluation of RC structures”. ST Division.
ASCE. 123(1). 3-10.
[13] Krawinkler. H.and Seneviratna. GD. (1995>. “Pros
and cons of pushover analysis of seismic

www.ijtre.com Copyright 2020.All rights reserved. 7320