Download - Sesmic Analysis Project
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
1/129
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND
FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
BUILDINGS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
of the degree of
Master of Technology
in
Structural Engineering
by
A.Pavan Kumar
(08304022)
Under the supervisionof
Prof. Ravi Sinha
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY
POWAI, MUMBAI 400076
JUNE 2010
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
2/129
ii
Acknowledgement
I express a deep sense of sincere gratitude to Prof. Ravi Sinha for his constant, encouraging
and inspiring guidance and support throughout this study. It was great experience working
under Prof. Ravi Sinhas supervision, which helped me to achieve in depth insight in this
field.
A.Pavan Kumar
08304022
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
3/129
iii
Acceptance certificate
This M.Tech project thesis titled Seismic Performance Evaluation and Fragility Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Buildingssubmitted by A.Pavan Kumar (Roll No: 08304022) is
approved for the degree ofMaster of Technology in Structural Engineering.
Examiners
..
..
Supervisor
..
Chairman
.
Date: 2nd July, 2010
Place: IIT Bombay
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
4/129
iv
Abstract
Earthquakes are one of the most destructive calamities and cause a lot of casualties, injuries
and economic losses leaving behind a trail of panic. Earthquake risk assessment is needed for
disaster mitigation, disaster management, and emergency preparedness. Vulnerability of
building is one of the major factors contributing to earthquake risk. The vulnerability
functions developed for specific building or building class is input parameter for loss
estimation.
In this report procedure for seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings is
studied. Three methods namely capacity spectrum method (CSM), displacement coefficient
method (DCM), modal pushover analysis (MPA) are discussed for estimating seismic
inelastic displacement. Using these methods seismic performance of reinforced concrete
buildings is evaluated. The validation of these methods has been done with models reported in
literature. Two example problems have been evaluated using the methods mentioned.
Procedure for developing vulnerability or fragility curves of specific building or generic
building type is discussed. Applicability of HAZUS drift ratio based damage state thresholds
for building designed as per IS 456-2000 code is studied. Comparison of fragility curves
developed using different procedures is studied and applicability is discussed. Seismic
fragility curves were developed and damage probability indices has been constructed for the
chosen example problems. Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of commercial
building class is studied and band of fragility curves representing medium rise commercial
reinforced building class is developed.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
5/129
v
Table of Contents Page
NoAbstract iv
List of figures viii
List of tables xii
Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Scope of the Dissertation 2
1.3 Organization of the Report 3
Chapter 2 4
Seismic Performance Evaluation of Buildings 4
2.1 Seismic performance based evaluation and design 4
2.1.1 Performance objectives 5
2.1.2 Performance levels 5
2.2 Earthquake ground motion 6
2.3 Basic safety objective 8
2.4 Preliminary evaluation of structure 8
2.5 Retrofit strategy and retrofit method 8
2.6 Methods of evaluation of seismic performance of buildings 9
2.6.1 Elastic method of analysis 102.6.1.1 Seismic coefficient method 10
2.6.1.2 Linear elastic dynamic analysis 10
2.6.2 Inelastic method of analysis 10
2.6.2.1 Inelastic time history analysis 10
2.6.2.2 Inelastic static analysis or pushover analysis 11
2.6.2.2.1 Background to pushover analysis 12
2.6.2.2.2 Implementation of pushover analysis 14
2.6.2.2.3 Limitations of pushover analysis 15
2.7 Estimation of inelastic displacement demand 16
2.7.1 Capacity spectrum method (CSM) 16
2.7.1.1 Design demand spectrum 18
2.7.1.2 Conversion of design demand spectrum into ADRS format 19
2.7.1.3 Conversion of capac ity curve into capacity spectrum 19
2.7.1.4 Bilinear representation of capacity spectrum 21
2.7.1.5 Calculation of spectral reduction factors 21
2.7.2 Displacement coefficient method-FEMA 273,1997 21
2.7.3 Modal pushover analysis 23
2.8 Acceptance criteria for different performance levels 26
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
6/129
vi
2.9 Discussions 26
Chapter 3 27
Seismic Vulnerability and Fragility Analysis of Buildings 27
3.1 Seismic vulnerability of building 273.2 Fragility curves of building 27
3.2.1 Procedure to develop DPM of building for given level of earthquake 28
3.2.1.1 Building type and classification 28
3.2.1.2 Seismic design levels and quality of construction 29
3.2.1.3 Damage states 29
3.2.1.4 Calculation of cumulative damage probability of particular damage
state
30
3.2.1.5 Calculation of discrete damage probability of damage states 31
3.2.1.6 Median spectral displacements for different damage states 31
3.2.1.7 Development of damage state variability 36
3.3 Discussions 36
Chapter 4 37
Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Buildings 37
4.1 Introduction 37
4.2 Modeling of nonlinearity in beams and columns 37
4.3 Bilinear representation of nonlinear curve 37
4.4 Procedure to develop moment-curvature relationship 384.4.1 Conversion of moment-curvature into moment-rotation 40
4.4.2 Validation of program for moment-curvature relationship 41
4.5 Modeling of nonlinearity in infill walls 43
4.6 Modeling of nonlinearity in shear wall 44
4.7 Discussions 47
Chapter 5 45
Analysis and Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings 45
5.1 Analysis and validation of 2D frame (Inel,2006) 45
5.1.1 Modal analysis of 2D frame 45
5.1.2 Nonlinear static analysis of 2D frame 46
5.1.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 2D frame -CSM 48
5.1.3.1 Manual calculation of performance point of 2D frame 48
5.1.3.2 SAP 2000 calculation of performance point of 2D frame 52
5.1.4 Discussions 56
5.2 Analysis and validation of 3D frame (Fajfar,1996) 56
5.2.1 Modal analysis of 3D frame 58
5.2.2 Nonlinear static analysis of 3D frame 58
5.2.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 3D frame-CSM 59
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
7/129
vii
5.2.4 Discussions 61
5.3 Analysis and evaluation of 3 storey buildings (Irtem,2007 ) 61
5.3.1 Modal analysis of 3 storey buildings 61
5.3.2 Pushover analysis of 3 storey buildings with and without infill walls 625.3.3 Seismic performance evaluation of 3 story bare frame (3SBF)-DCM 64
5.3.4 Seismic fragility analysis 3 story bare frame 66
5.3.5 Probability of different damage states of 3SBF for E4 level of earthquake 68
5.3.6 Discussions 69
5.4 Analysis and evaluation of example building no1 70
5.4.1 Linear static analysis of example building no1 70
5.4.2 Modal analysis of example building no1 70
5.4.3 Nonlinear static analysis of example building no1 72
5.4.4 Performance evaluation of example building no1 using SCM 73
5.4.5 Performance evaluation of example building no1 using CSM 74
5.4.5.1 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone III, MCE 75
5.4.5.2 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone IV, MCE 76
5.4.5.3 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone V, MCE 76
5.4.6 Discussions 78
5.5 Analysis and evaluation of example building no 2 79
5.5.1 Modal analysis of original and designed example building no 2 80
5.5.2 Pushover analysis of original and designed example building no 2 81
5.5.3 Seismic fragility analysis of original and designed example building no 2 82
5.5.4 Seismic performance of original example building no 2 for DBE,MCE 87
5.5.4.1 Seismic performance evaluation for design basis earthquake 87
5.5.4.2 Seismic performance evaluation for maximum considered earthquake 90
5.5.5 Probability of damage states of original example building no 2 for DBE,
and MCE
93
5.5.6 Discussions 94
5.6 Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of reinforced concrete 95commercial buildings
5.6.1 Discussions 1005.7 Discussions 100
Chapter 6 103
Discussions and Conclusions 103
6.1 Discussions 103
6.2 Conclusions 104
6.3 Scope for future work 105
References
Appendix 1Appendix 2
106
109113
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
8/129
viii
List of Figures
Fig.
No
Description PageNo
2.1 Performance levels on pushover curve and load deformation curve (Irtem,2007)
7
2.2 Pushover or capacity curve of the building (Sermin ,2005) 12
2.3 Force displacement characteristics of MDF and equivalent SDF system(Krawinkler, 1998)
14
2.4 Capacity spectrum method (HAZUS MH MR4) 17
2.5 Spectral acceleration coefficients vs. time period (IS 1893-2002) 18
2.6 Traditional response spectrum vs. ADRS spectrum (ATC 40,1996) 19
2.7 Capacity curve vs. capacity spectrum (ATC 40,1996) 20
2.8 Bilinear representation of pushover or capacity curve (FEMA 273, 1997) 23
2.9 Properties of the nth-mode inelastic SDF system from the pushover curve(Chopra , 2002)
24
3.1 Log-normally distributed seismic fragility curves (HAZUS-MHMR1) 28
3.2 Flowchart to develop damage probability matrix 29
3.3 Idealized component load versus deformation curve (FEMA 273,1997) 33
3.4 Damage state thresholds on bilinear capacity spectrum (Barbat , 2008) 35
4.1 Bilinear representation of nonlinear curve 38
4.2 Stress-strain curve for concrete 39
4.3 Stress-strain curve for Fe415 grade steel 39
4.4 Flowchart to develop moment curvature relationship 40
4.5 Moment curvature relationship of with P and without P (C++) 42
4.6 Moment curvature relationship (Matlab) 42
4.7 Mathematical modeling of infill walls (Irtem, 2007) 43
4.8 Load deformation curve of diagonal strut (Irtem, 2007) 43
5.1 Elevation view of 2D frame (Inel, 2006) 46
5.2 Layout of columns of 2D frame (Inel, 2006) 46
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
9/129
ix
5.3 Comparison of pushover curve of 2D frame (User vs. default propert ies) 47
5.4 Pushover curves of 2D frame (Inel,2006) 47
5.5 Design response spectrum for zone III, MCE, soil type II 48
5.6 Capacity spectrum of 2D frame 49
5.7 Capacity and demand spectra of 2D frame in ADRS format 49
5.8 Bilinear representation of capacity spectra of 2D frame (Trail 1) 50
5.9 Reduced spectra of 2D frame with initial assumed point (Sdi,Sai) (Trail 1) 50
5.10 Bilinear representation of capacity spectra of 2D frame (Trail 2) 51
5.11 Reduced spectra of 2D frame with second assumed point (Sdi,Sai) (Trail 2) 51
5.12 Member level performances of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type II 52
5.13 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type I 53
5.14 Member level performances of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type I 53
5.15 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type II 54
5.16 Member level performance level for zone III ,MCE, soil type II 54
5.17 Performance point of 2D frame for zone III, MCE, soil type III 55
5.18 Member level performance level for zone III ,MCE, soil type III, 55
5.19 Elevation view of 7 story building (Fajfar,1996) 57
5.20 Plan view and layout of beams and columns of 7 story building (Fajfar,1996) 57
5.21 Reinforcement details of beams and columns of 7 story building(Fajfar,1996) 58
5.22 Comparison of pushover curves for 7 story building 59
5.23 Performance point of 7 storey building for zone III, MCE, soil type II 60
5.24 Member level performance level of 7 storey for zone III, MCE, soil type II 60
5.25 Building configurations with and without infill walls of 3 storey building
(Irtem, 2007)
62
5.26 Pushover curves of 3SBF with different load patterns 63
5.27 Pushover curves of 3SIF-I with different load patterns 63
5.28 Pushover curves of 3SIF-II with different load patterns 63
5.29 Comparison of pushover curves for 3 storey building with and without infill
walls
64
5.30 Pushover curves for 3 storey building (Irtem ,2007) 64
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
10/129
x
5.31 Bilinear representation of pushover of 3SBF ( FEMA 273, 1997 ) 65
5.32 Damage state thresholds on capacity spectrum of 3SBF 67
5.33 Seismic fragility curves for 3SBF in terms of spectral displacement 67
5.34 Seismic fragility curves for 3SBF in terms of roof displacement 68
5.35 Probability of different damage states of 3SBF for E4 level of earthquake 68
5.36 Building configuration of example building no1 71
5.37 Another view of building configuration of example building no1 71
5.38 Capacity curves of example building no1 with different load patterns in X-
direction
72
5.39 Pushover curve of the example building no1 pushed in Y-direction 73
5.40 Performance of example building no1 for different zone levels of
earthquake
74
5.41 Capacity spectrum of example building no1 building 74
5.42 Demand imposed by different zones on the example building no1 building 75
5.43 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone III, MCE 75
5.44 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone IV, MCE 76
5.45 Performance evaluation of example building no1 for zone V, MCE 77
5.46 Building configuration of example building no 2 80
5.47 Pushover curves for original and designed example building no 2 fordifferent load patterns in X-direction
81
5.48 Pushover curves for original and designed example building no 2 in Y-direction
82
5.49 Fragility curves for original example building no 2 in terms of roof
displacement
83
5.50 Fragility curves for original example building no 2 in terms of spectral
displacement
83
5.51 Comparison of fragility curves as per HAZUS and Barbat,2008 method for
original example building no 2
84
5.52 Median damage states in terms of peak ground acceleration for original
example building no 2
84
5.53 Fragility curves of original example building no 2 in terms of peak ground
acceleration
85
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
11/129
xi
5.54 Fragility curves for designed example building no 2 in terms of roof
displacement
85
5.55 Fragility curves for designed example building no 2 in terms of spectral
displacement
86
5.56 Comparison of fragility curves for original, designed example building no 2 86
5.57 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for DBE 87
5.58 Bilinear representation of pushover of original example building no 2 as perFEMA 273, 1997
88
5.59 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for DBE,CSM 89
5.60 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for DBE,DCM 89
5.61 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for MCE (Trail1) 90
5.62 Performance evaluation of original example building no 2 for MCE (Trail2) 90
5.63 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for MCE,CSM 92
5.64 Member level performances of original example building no 2 for MCE,DCM
92
5.65 Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for DBE 93
5.66 Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for MCE 93
5.67 Plan layout of 4, 6, 8 storey buildings with 4m span length 96
5.68 Comparison of capacity curves for varying storey numbers in terms of drift
ratio
97
5.69 Comparison of capacity curves for varying storey height for 6 storey building 97
5.70 Comparison of capacity curves of 6 storey building with varying span length 97
5.71 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of reinforced concrete buildings withvarying storey number
98
5.72 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of reinforced concrete buildings with
varying storey height
98
5.73 Fragility curves of collapse resistance of reinforced concrete buildings with
varying span length
99
5.74 Band of fragility curves of collapse resistance for medium rise reinforced
concrete buildings
99
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
12/129
xii
List of Tables
Table
No
Description Page
No
2.1 Description of structural performance levels (ATC 40,1996) 5
2.2 Description of nonstructural performance levels (ATC 40,1996) 6
2.3 Building performance levels (ATC 40,1996, FEMA 273,1997) 6
2.4 Earthquake hazard levels (ATC 40,1996) 7
2.5 Earthquake hazard levels (FEMA 273,1997) 7
2.6 Configuration deficiencies in a building (ATC 40,1996) 9
2.7 Global acceptability limits for various performance levels (ATC 40,1996) 26
3.1 Guidance for selection of damage state medians (HAZUS-MH MR1) 32
3.2 Guidance for relating component deformation to the average inter-story
drift ratios of structural damage-state medians (HAZUS-MH MR1)
34
3.3 Damage state thresholds (Barbat ,2008) 34
3.4 Average inter-story drift ratio for structural damage states
(HAZUS-MH MR1)
35
4.1 Beam details and validation of program with reported results 41
5.1 Comparison of modal analysis results of 2D frame with reported results 45
5.2 Parameters used in estimating seismic inelastic displacement of 2D frame
by CSM
50
5.3 Summary of member level performances of 2Dframe for zone III, MCE,soil type II (Manually estimated)
52
5.4 Summary of member level performances of 2D frame for given level of
earthquake under different soil conditions
56
5.5 Comparison of modal analysis results of 7 storey building with reported
results
58
5.6 Summary of member level performances of 7 storey building for zone III,
MCE, soil type II
59
5.7 Details of diagonal strut used in mathematical modeling of 3 storey 61
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
13/129
xiii
building
5.8 Comparison of modal analysis results of 3 storey buildings with reported
results
61
5.9 Comparison of parameters used in DCM for 3SBF with reported results 66
5.10 Damage state thresholds and variability for 3SBF 69
5.11 Results of modal analysis of example building no1 70
5.12 Design base shear values and member level performances of example
building no1 in various zones using SCM
73
5.13 Member level performances of example building no1 in different zones
using CSM
77
5.14 Comparison of estimated inelastic displacement of example building no1
by SCM and CSM
78
5.15 Comparison of modal analysis results of original and designed example
building no 2
80
5.16 Damage state thresholds and variability of original and designed example
building no 2
82
5.17 Parameter values used in evaluation of original example building no 2using CSM for DBE,MCE
91
5.18 Element performance levels of original example building no 2 using
CSM,DCM for DBE,MCE
91
5.19 Damage state probabilities of original example building no 2 for DBE and
MCE
94
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
14/129
xiv
Declaration sheet
I declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my own words and where
others ideas or words have been included; I have adequately cited and referenced the
original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and
integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea/data/fact/source
in my submission. I understand that any violation of the above will be cause for disciplinary
action by the Institute and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have thus not
been properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken when needed.
A.Pavan Kumar
(Roll No. 08304032)
Date: 2nd July, 2010
Place: IIT Bombay
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
15/129
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Earthquakes can create serious damage to structures. The structures already built are
vulnerable to future earthquakes. The damage to structures causes deaths, injuries, economic
loss, and loss of functions. Earthquake risk is associated with seismic hazard, vulnerability of
buildings, exposure. Seismic hazard quantifies the probable ground motion that can occur at
site. Vulnerability of building is important in causing risk to life. The seismic vulnerability ofa structure can be described as its susceptibility to damage by ground shaking of a given
intensity. The aim of a vulnerability assessment is to obtain the probability of a given level of
damage to a given building type due to a scenario earthquake. The level of damage is directly
associated with deaths, injuries, economic losses. Damage functions are to be developed to
assess the damage level for given level of earthquake. The outcome of vulnerability
assessment can be used in loss estimation. Loss estimation is essential in disaster mitigation,
emergency preparedness.
Although force-based procedures are well known by engineering profession and easy to
apply, they have certain drawbacks. Structural components are evaluated for serviceability in
the elastic range of strength and deformation. Post-elastic behavior of structures could not be
identified by an elastic analysis. However, post-elastic behavior should be considered as
almost all structures are expected to deform in inelastic range during a strong earthquake. The
seismic force reduction factor "R" is utilized to account for inelastic behavior indirectly by
reducing elastic forces to inelastic.
Elastic methods can predict elastic capacity of structure and indicate where the first yielding
will occur, however they dont predict failure mechanisms and account for the redistribution
of forces that will take place as the yielding progresses. Real deficiencies present in the
structure could be missed. Moreover, force-based methods primarily provide life safety but
they cant provide damage limitation and easy repair. The drawbacks of force-based
procedures and the dependence of damage on deformation have led the researches to develop
displacement-based procedures for seismic performance evaluation. Displacement-based
procedures are mainly based on inelastic deformations rather than elastic forces and use
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
16/129
2
nonlinear analysis procedures considering seismic demands and available capacities
explicitly.
1.2 Scope of the Dissertation
1. Seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings using capacityspectrum method (ATC 40, 1996) and displacement coefficient method (FEMA273,
and FEMA 356, 2000) is studied.
2. Basics of pushover analysis, advantages and limitations are discussed in detail. 3. Estimation of seismic inelastic displacement by capacity spectrum method,
displacement coefficient method, seismic coefficient method and modal pushover
analysis is explained in detail.
4. Modeling of member nonlinearity in flexural members, axial members, and shearwalls has been studied in detail.
5. Developed coding to generate moment-curvature relationship for reinforced concretesections in Matlab and C++.
6. Comparison of capacity curves developed using SAP 2000 default hinge propertiesand user defined hinge properties developed based on IS 456-2000 is studied andimportance of using user defined hinge properties is discussed.
7. Effect of infill walls on lateral resistance and capacity of building is studied andcompared with bare frame.
8. Influence of soil conditions on seismic inelastic displacement of building for givenlevel of earthquake is studied.
9. Different methods of developing fragility curves and damage probability matrix arestudied and comparisons were made.
10.Applicability of HAZUS based drift ratios and fragility curves for buildings designedas per IS 456-2000 have been studied.
11.Influence of age of construction of buildings on fragility curves of buildings is studied.12.Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of commercial building class is
studied.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
17/129
3
1.3 Organization of the Report
Second chapter discuss seismic performance evaluation of RCC buildings as per ATC 40,
1996 and FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines. The methods for evaluation of performance of
structure are discussed in brief. Basics of pushover analysis, advantages and limitations have
been discussed in detail. It also explains methods for estimating seismic inelastic
displacement using capacity spectrum method (CSM), displacement coefficient method
(DCM), and modal pushover analysis (MPA).
Thirdchapter explains different procedures in development of fragility curves and damage
probability matrices. The different ways of defining median damage states for developing
fragility curves have been discussed along with their limitations.
Fourth chapter discusses modeling of nonlinear component properties in flexural members,
axial members, and shear walls. The validation of developed moment curvature relationships
with already published results has been done. The modeling of infill walls as diagonal struts
and its load deformation characteristics has been studied.
Fifth chapter deals with modal analysis, performance evaluation and fragility analysis of
buildings. It starts with models taken from published literature and results were compared.
Fragility curves developed with different methods were compared and conclusions were
drawn. Influence of structural parameters on vulnerability of commercial building class has
been studied.
Sixth chapter deals with discussions, conclusions and scope for further work.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
18/129
4
Chapter 2
Seismic Performance Evaluation of Buildings
2.1 Seismic performance evaluation
The seismic performance evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings pose a great challenge
for the owners, architects, and engineers. The risk, measured in both lives and dollars, are
high. Equally high is the uncertainty of where, when, and how large future earthquakes will
be. The inherent complexity of concrete buildings and of their performance during
earthquakes compounds uncertainty. Traditional procedures developed primarily for newconstruction are not wholly adequate tools for meeting this challenge. Filiatrault et al, 1997
studied seismic behavior of two half scale reinforced concrete structures experimental and
analytically. Performance based evaluation procedure provides insight about the actual
performance of buildings during earthquake. The steps to be followed in seismic performance
evaluation of structures and rehabilitation of structures are given below
1. Select the performance objective of the building as required by owner to achieve forgiven seismic hazard.
2. Review the existing building conditions by visual inspections, existing drawings, andtests on structure and perform preliminary evaluation of the building.
3. Formulate a strategy for achieving the desired performance objective for given level ofseismic hazard.
4. Assess the performance of the retrofitted structure with any analysis procedures.5. Check the performance of the structure with desired performance objective. 6. If performance objective is not achieved, formulate new strategy and assess the
performance of the structure again. Do the above process till desired performance
objective is achieved.
The steps for performance based design remain same as above. In design we have flexibility
in changing the configuration of building, and sections. Once the design is fixed the above
process remains same. The explanation of performance levels, preliminary evaluation of
building and formulation of the retrofit strategy is discussed in brief in the following sections.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
19/129
5
2.1.1 Performance objectives
Performance objective specifies the desired seismic performance of building. Seismic
performance is described by designating the maximum allowable damage state for an
identified seismic hazard.
2.1.2 Performance levels
Performance level describes a limiting damage condition which may be considered
satisfactory for a given building and a given ground motion. Performance levels are
qualitative statements of damage the structure going to experience in future prescribed
earthquakes. Performance levels are described for structural components and nonstructuralcomponents.ATC 40, 1996 defines 6 levels of structural damage or performance levels and 5
levels of nonstructural damage. The brief details of structural and non-structural performance
levels are given in table 2.1 and table 2.2.
Table 2.1 Description of structural performance levels (ATC 40, 1996)
Structural
performance level
Damage description
Immediate
occupancy(IO)
Very limited structural damage and risk to life is negligible. Vertical
and lateral resisting system retains all pre-earthquakes characteristics.
Damage control Range with more damage than IO and less than LS
Life safety (LS) Significant damage to structural elements with some residual strength.
Risk to life from structural damage is very low.
Limited safety Range with more damage than LS and less than SS
Structural
stability(SS)
Building is on verge of partial or total collapse. Significant degradation
in stiffness and strength of lateral resisting system. Gravity load
resisting remains to carry gravity demand.
There is not considered (NC) option in performance level. This is option for owner weather to
consider structural or nonstructural performance level. FEMA 273, 1997 defines same
definitions of performance levels as described in ATC 40, 1996 but instead of structural
stability (SS) FEMA 273, 1997 describes as collapse prevention (CP).
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
20/129
6
Table 2.2 Description of nonstructural performance levels (ATC 40, 1996)
Nonstructural
performance level
Damage description
Operational Nonstructural systems are in place and functional. All equipment
and machinery will be in working condition
Immediate occupancy Minor disruption of nonstructural elements and functionality is not
considered. Seismic safety status should not be affected
Life safety Considerable damage to nonstructural elements. Risk to life from
nonstructural damage is very low.
Hazards reduced Extensive damage to nonstructural damage. Risk to life because of
collapse or falling of large and heavy items should be considered
Building performance level is combination of structural and nonstructural performance levels.
There so many combinations of performance levels for owner to choose based on
requirement. Building performance levels that commonly used are given in table 2.3. The
building performance levels represented on pushover curve and load deformation curve are
shown in figure 2.1
Table 2.3 Building performance levels (ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997)
Building performance
levels
Combination of structural and nonstructural performance
level
Operational Immediate occupancy(S)+ Operational (NS)
Immediate occupancy Immediate occupancy(S)+Immediate occupancy(NS)
Life safety Life safety (S)+ Life safety(NS)
Structural stability (or)
Collapse prevention
Structural stability (or) Collapse prevention (S)+Not
considered
2.2 Earthquake g round motion
Earthquake ground motion is combined with a desired building performance level to perform
a performance objective. The earthquake ground motion can be specified as level of shaking
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
21/129
7
associate with a given probability of occurrence or in terms of maximum shaking from single
event. ATC 40, 1996 defines three levels of earthquake ground motions as given in table 2.4
Table 2.4 Earthquake hazard levels (ATC 40, 1996)
Level of earthquake Definition
Serviceability earthquake
(SE)
Ground motion with a 50 percent chance of being exceeded in
50 year period
Design earthquake (DE) Ground motion with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in
50 year period
Maximum earthquake
(ME)
Ground motion with a 5 percent chance of being exceeded in 50
year period
FEMA 273, 1997 defines two levels of earthquake ground motions as given in table 2.5
Table 2.5 Earthquake hazard levels (FEMA 273, 1997)
Level of earthquake Definition
Basic safety earthquake 1
(BSE~1)
Ground motion with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in
50 year period
Basic safety earthquake 2
(BSE~2)
Ground motion with a 2 percent chance of being exceeded in
50 year period
Figure 2.1 Performance levels on pushover curve and load deformation curve (Irtem, 2007)
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
22/129
8
2.3 Basic safety objective
As per ATC 40, 1996 Basic performance objective is defined as achieving life safety
performance level for design earthquake (DE) and structural stability performance level for
maximum earthquake (ME). As per FEMA 273,1997 guidelines basic safety objective is
defined as achieving life safety performance level for basic safety earthquake~1 (BSE~1) and
collapse prevention performance level for basic safety earthquake~2(BSE~2). The wide
variety of building performance level can be combined with various levels of ground motion
to form many possible performance objectives. Performance objectives for any building may
be assigned using functional, policy, preservation or cost considerations.
2.4 Preliminary evaluation of structure
A general sense of expected building performance should be developed before performing a
detailed analysis. Preliminary evaluation involves acquisition of building data, review of the
seismic hazard, limited analysis, and characterization of potential deficiencies. With
preliminary analysis we can judge whether to go for higher level of analysis or to use
simplified analysis. If sufficient data of the building is not there then material testing has to be
done. Sometimes with preliminary analysis it is observed that the building meets the desired
performance objective. The typical deficiencies that could be observed in a building during
preliminary evaluation are described in the table 2.6
2.5 Retrofit strategy and retrofit system
Retrofit strategy is a basic approach adopted to improve the seismic performance of the
building or otherwise reduce the existing seismic risk to an acceptable level. Both technical
strategies and management strategies can be employed to obtain seismic risk reduction.
Technical strategies include such approaches as increasing building strength, correcting
critical deficiencies, altering stiffness, and reducing demand. Management strategies include
such approaches as change of occupancy, incremental improvement, and phased construction.
Retrofit system is the specific method used to achieve the selected strategy. If the basic
strategy is to increase building strength, then the alternative systems that may used to
accomplish this strategy could include addition of shear walls, thickening of existing shear
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
23/129
9
walls, and addition of braced frames. It is necessary to select a specific system in order to
complete a design.
Table 2.6 Configuration deficiencies in a building (ATC 40, 1996)
Configuration
deficiencies
Explanation of deficiencies
Incomplete load
path
Complete load path is required to transfer lateral load to foundation.
Missing links in the load path must be identified.
Vertical
irregularities
Vertical irregularities typically occur in a story which is significantly
weaker, more flexible or heavier than the stories above or below.
Horizontal
irregularities
Horizontal irregularities are typically due to odd plan shapes, re-entrant
corners, diaphragm openings and d iscontinuities.
Weak
column/Strong
beam
Optimum seismic performance is gained when frame members have shear
strengths greater than bending strengths of column are greater than beams
to have controlled failure mode. Column hinging can lead to story
mechanism creating large deflections and inelastic rotations.
Detailing concern Non-ductile frame exhibit poor seismic performance. Quantity, spacing,
splicing, location, size, anchorages of bars are to be checked.
Beam column
joint
The lateral stability of the frame is dependent upon beam column joint
capacity. Adequate stiffness and strength must be provided to sustain
repeated cyclic stress reversals. Adequate reinforcement should be
provided in joint.
2.6 Methods of analysis for evaluation of seismic performance
evaluation of buildings
Basically two methods of analysis are available to predict the seismic performance of
structures. Each method has its own advantages and limitations. The details of the two
methods are given below.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
24/129
10
2.6.1 Elastic method of analysis
It is assumed that the structure will remain elastic under probable loads. So the strains and
stress are linear along the depth of section. But to design a building to remain elastic for
earthquake forces is uneconomical.
2.6.1.1 Seismic coefficient method
In seismic coefficient method the maximum base shear is calculated based on the fundamental
time period, importance factor, reduction coefficient. Lateral forces are distributed
proportional to square of height. R factor is used to allow structure to go into inelastic to
dissipate energy through yielding.
2.6.1.2 Linear elastic dynamic analysis
This analysis required for Irregular buildings and Tall buildings. Dynamic Analysis can be
time history analysis or response spectrum analysis. Sufficient number of modes must be
considered in analysis such that total mass participation is at least 90%.Elastic Methods can
predict elastic capacity of structure and indicate where the first yielding will occur, however
they dont predict failure mechanism and account for the redistribution of forces that will take
place as the yielding progresses. Moreover, force-based methods primarily provide life safety
but they cant provide damage limitation and easy repair.
2.6.2 Inelastic method of analysis
Inelastic method of analysis incorporates material nonlinear behavior and geometric
nonlinearity. Material nonlinearity is modeled using nonlinear stress-strain curve. Geometric
nonlinearity is incorporated in structure by calculating secondary moment for each time step.
2.6.2.1 Inelastic time history analysis or nonlinear response history analysis
In NRH analysis the reduced stiffness in nonlinear range is considered and the force
deformation is not single valued function. It depends on direction of motion as well. The
inelastic time history analysis is the most accurate method to predict the force and
deformation demands at various components of the structure. However, the use of inelastic
time history analysis is limited because dynamic response is very sensitive to modeling and
ground motion characteristics. It requires proper modeling of cyclic load deformation
characteristics considering deterioration properties of all important components. Also, it
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
25/129
11
requires availability of a set of representative ground motion records that accounts for
uncertainties and differences in severity, frequency and duration characteristics. Moreover,
computation time, time required for input preparation and interpreting voluminous output
make the use of inelastic time history analysis impractical for seismic performance
evaluation.
2.6.2.2 Inelastic static analysis or pushover analysis
In pushover analysis the structure is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral loads until
target displacement is reached. A predefined load pattern is applied and increased till yielding
in one member occurs then the structure is modified and lateral loads are increased further.
Sermin et al, 2005 studied application of pushover of procedure for frame structures. He
studied the effect of different lateral load patterns on capacity of structure. The pushover or
capacity curve of the building is shown figure 2.2. Lateral loads are increased till structure
reaches its ultimate capacity. The pushover is expected to provide information on many
response characteristics that cannot be obtained from an elastic static or dynamic analysis.
The following are examples of such response characteristics are taken from Krawinkler et al,
1998.
1. The realistic force demands on potentially brittle elements, such as axial forcedemands on columns, force demands on brace connections, moment demands on
beam-to-column connections, shear force demands in deep reinforced concrete
spandrel beams, shear force demands in un reinforced masonry wall piers, etc.
2. Estimates of the deformation demands for elements that have to deform in elasticallyin order to dissipate the energy imparted to the structure by ground motions.
3.
Consequences of the strength deterioration of individual elements on the behavior ofthe structural system.
4. Identification of the critical regions in which the deformation demands are expectedto be high and that have to become the focus of thorough detailing.
5. Identification of the strength discontinuities in plan or elevation that will lead tochanges in the dynamic characteristics in the inelastic range.
6. Estimates of the inter story drifts that account for strength or stiffness discontinuitiesand that may be used to control damage and to evaluate P- effects.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
26/129
12
7. Verification of the completeness and adequacy of load path, considering all theelements of the structural system, all the connections, the stiff nonstructural elements
of significant strength, and the foundation system.
Figure 2.2 Pushover or capacity curve of the building (Sermin, 2005)
2.6.2.2.1 Background to pushover analysis
Pushover analysis is based on the assumption that the response of the structure can be related
to the response of an equivalentsingle degree-of- freedom (SDOF) system. The formulation of
the equivalent SDOF system is not unique, but the basic underlying assumption common to
all approaches is that the deflected shape of the MDOF system can be represented by a shape
vector that remains constant throughout the time history, regardless of the level of
deformation. Accepting this assumption and defining the relative displacement vector of
an MDOF system as .The governing differential equation of an MDOF system
can be written as
(1)
Where M and C are mass and damping matrices, Q denotes storey force vector and is
ground acce leration. If we define the reference SDOF displacement as
(2)
Pre-multiply differential equation by and substitute for we obtain the followingdifferential equation for the response of the equivalent SDOF system as
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
27/129
13
(3)
Where are the properties of the equivalent SDOF system and are given by
(4)
(5)
(6)
Presuming that the shape vector is known, the force deformation characteristics of the
equivalent SDOF system can be determined from the results of a nonlinear
incremental static analysis of the MDOF structure, which usually produces a base shear
versus roof displacement diagram of the type shown in figure 2.3 below. In order to identify
nominal global strength and displacement quantities, the multi linear diagram needs to
be represented by a bilinear relationship that defines a yield strength and effective elastic
stiffness and post elastic stiffness for the structure.
The simplified pushover is shown in the figure 2.3 is needed to define the properties of the
equivalent SDOF. The yield value of base shear and corresponding roof displacement
are used to compute force displacement relationship for equivalent SDF system as follows.
(7)
(8)
Where is story force vector at yield i.e.,
The initial period of equivalent SDOF is given by following equation
(9)
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
28/129
14
Figure 2.3 Force displacement characteristics of MDF and equivalent SDF system
(Krawinkler, 1998)
The strain hardening ratio of of the MDF system defines the strain hardening ratio
of equivalent SDF system. 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 the structure is expected to experience in a design earthquake. A convenientdefinition of target displacement is the roof displacement at the center of mass of the struct ure.
The properties of the equivalent SDOF system, together with spectral information for inelastic
SDOF system provide the information necessary to estimate the target displacement. The
target displacement for inelastic SDOF system is calculated from inelastic spectra using the
period calculated above. Then this target displacement is converted into global roof
displacement. To use inelastic response spectrum we need ductility factor which we can get
from R-factor (i.e. ratio of elastic strength to yield strength). The R-factor can be calculated
from the above data. The displacement obtained from inelastic spectrum has to be modified to
account for effect, stiffness degradation, strength deterioration.For performance
evaluation of a structure, the structure is pushed to calculated target displacement, and then
desired responses at target displacement are found out from pushover data base.
2.6.2.2.2 Implementation of pushover analysis
The process is to represent the structure in a two- or three dimensional analytical model that
accounts for all important linear and nonlinear response characteristics, apply gravity loads
followed by lateral loads in predetermined or adaptive patterns that represent approximately
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
29/129
15
the relative inertia forces generated at locations of substantial masses, and push the structure
under these load patterns to target displacements that are associated with specific performance
levels. The internal forces and deformations computed at these target displacements are used
as estimates of the strength and deformation demands, which need to be compared to
available capacities. The emphasis in performance evaluation needs to be on the following
points.
1. Verification that an adequate load path exists.2. Verification that the load path remains sound at the deformations associated with the
target displacement level.
3. Verification that critical connections remain capable of transferring loads between theelements that form part of the load path.
4. Verification that individual elements that may fail in a brittle mode and are importantparts of the load path are not overloaded.
5. Verification that localized failures (should they occur) do not pose a collapse or lifesafety hazard, i.e. that the loads tributary to the failed element(s) can be transferred
safely to other elements and that the failed element itself does not pose a falling
hazard.
2.6.2.2.3 Limitations of pushover analysis
A carefully performed pushover analysis will provide insight into structural aspects that
control performance during severe earthquakes. For structures that vibrate primarily in the
fundamental mode, such an analysis will very likely provide good estimates of global as well
as local inelastic deformation demands. It will also expose design weaknesses that may
remain hidden in an elastic analysis. Such weaknesses include story mechanisms, excessive
deformation demands, strength irregularities, and overloads on potentially brittle elements,
such as columns and connections. Although pushover analysis posses a lot of advantages, it
has several limitations also.
1. Pushover analysis is approximate in nature and based on static loading, so it cannotrepresent dynamic phenomena in large accuracy. It may not detect some important
deformation modes that may occur in a structure subjected to severe earthquakes, and
it may exaggerate others.
2. Limitations are imposed also by the load pattern choices. Whatever load pattern ischosen, it is likely to favor certain deformation modes that are triggered by the load
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
30/129
16
pattern and miss others that are initiated and propagated by the ground motion and
inelastic dynamic response characteristics of the structure. Thus, good judgment needs
to be employed in selecting load patterns and in interpreting the results obtained from
selected load patterns.
3. Pushover analysis will give reasonable results when the structure is vibrating infundamental mode. But its accuracy decreases when the higher modes become
important in particular structure.
2.7 Estimation of inelastic displacement demand
The structure undergoes inelastic displacement for severe earthquake. Linear analysis
methods cannot predict the inelastic displacement. Nonlinear response history analysis gives
exact behavior of the buildings under severe earthquakes. Nonlinear response history analysis
is very sensitive to ground motions and building characteristics. The other method which uses
inelastic static analysis (pushover analysis) is effective way of estimating inelastic
displacement. Three methods for estimating inelastic displacement are discussed in detail.
2.7.1 Capacity spectrum method
ATC 40, 1996 has developed a simple iterative procedure to estimate seismic inelastic
displacement for given level of earthquake. For seismic evaluation of existing structures the
procedure can be easily implemented. This procedure requires pushover curve which is
obtained from nonlinear static analysis of structure. Demand spectrum has to be developed for
the given site considering level of earthquake (Serviceability earthquake (SE), Design
earthquake (DE), and Maximum earthquake (ME)). This are defined based on percentage
chances of probability of exceeding particular ground motion during 50 year time period.
IS1893 defines two levels of earthquakes (Design basis earthquake (DBE), Maximum
considered earthquake (MCE)). The procedure to estimate seismic inelastic displacement as
per ATC 40, 1996 procedure is given below.
1. Develop design demand spectrum ( vs T) for the given site considering soil effects,level of earthquake.
2. Convert demand spectrum ( vs T) into acceleration displacement responsespectrum (ADRS) format.
3. Develop the capacity curve i.e., pushover curve obtained with incremental invariantlateral load pattern applied to structure until structure reaches ultimate capacity.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
31/129
17
4. Convert capacity curve into capacity spectrum which is representation of capacitycurve in acceleration-displacement response spectra (ADRS) format.
5. Bilinear representation of capacity spectrum is needed to estimate the effectivedamping and appropriate reduction of spectral demand associated with
displacement .
6. Calculate the effective viscous damping associated with maximum displacementi.e. hysteretic damping represented as equivalent viscous damping plus inherent
viscous damping.
7. Calculate spectral reduction factors which are required to reduce 5%damped elastic design response spectrum to account for yielding.
8. Draw demand spectrum in ADRS format on the same plot as the capacity spectrum asshown in the figure 2.4
9. If reduced demand spectrum intersects the capacity spectrum at initially assumeddisplacement then it is the performance point. Performance point is the inelastic
displacement of the structure for the given level of earthquake.
10.If reduced demand spectrum does not intersects the capacity spectrum at initiallyassumed displacement then assume next displacement based on judgment. Repeat
steps 5 to 8 until convergence is achieved. The plot showing capacity spectrum
method is given in figure 2.4
Figure 2.4 Capacity spectrum method (HAZUS MH MR 4)
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
32/129
18
Conversion of capacity curve and demand spectrum into acceleration-displacement response
spectrum is explained in the following sections. Calculation of effective damping and spectral
reduction factors are also explained in the following sections.
2.7.1.1 Design demand spectrum ( vs T)
The design demand spectrum has to be developed for given site considering range of
earthquakes or IS 1893-2002 code gives design response spectrum for different zones. IS
1893-2002codes gives design response spectrum for three sites i.e., rocky or hard soil,
medium soil, soft soil sites is represented in figure 2.5. The classification of site into above
mentioned categories is based on IS 1893-2002. The design response spectrum is for 5%
damped structure. IS1893 gives modification factors for other damping values. For special
structure site design spectrum has to be developed. The reduction factors given in IS1893 for
other damping can be used as reduction factors to get reduced design demand response
spectrum.
Figure 2.5 Spectral acceleration coefficients vs. time period (IS 1893-2002)
The mathematical expressions to calculate spectral acceleration coefficient for different sites
as per IS1893 are given below.
For rocky or hard soil sites
(10)
For medium soil sites
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
33/129
19
(11)
For soft soil sites
(12)
2.7.1.2 Conversion of design response spectrum into ADRS format
Every point on response spectrum curve has associated with it a unique spectral
acceleration , spectral velocity , spectral displacement and time period T. To convert
a spectrum from standard to ADRS format it is necessary to determine the value
for each point on the curve . The line radiating from origin to point on the curve
represents the time period . The representation of response spectrum in traditional and in
ADRS format is shown in figure 2.6. It is observed that the period lengthens as the structure
undergoes inelastic displacement. This spectral displacement is related to spectral acceleration
and time period as given in equation no 13.
(13)
Figure 2.6 Traditional response spectrum vs. ADRS spectrum (ATC 40, 1996)
2.7.1.3 Conversion of capacity curve into capacity spectrum
To use capacity spectrum method it is necessary to convert the capacity curve into capacity
spectrum. Capacity spectrum is plot in terms spectral acceleration and spectral
displacement . The demand imposed on the structure i.e., design response spectrum ( vs
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
34/129
20
T) is also converted into ADRS format. Both capacity spectrum and design response spectrum
in ADRS format are p lotted on graph. The performance point i.e., inelastic seismic demand is
intersection of capacity spectrum and reduced demand spectrum such that capacity of
structure and demand imposed on the structure are equal. The required equations to make
transformation are given in equation no 14 to equation no 17. Conversion of capacity curve
into capacity spectrum is shown in figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7 Capacity curve vs. capacity spectrum (ATC 40, 1996)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
The meaning of notations are given below
=Mode shape vector at level i
=Modal mass participation factor for the first natural mode
V= Base shear
W= Seismic weight of the building i.e., dead load and likely live load
Mass assigned to level i
=Spectral acceleration
=Spectral d isplacement
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
35/129
21
2.7.1.4 Bilinear representation of capacity spectrum
A bilinear representation of the capacity spectrum is needed to estimate the effective damping
and appropriate spectral reduction factors . Construction of the bilinear
representation requires definition of the point . This point is the trial performance
point which is estimated to develop a reduced demand response spectrum. The first estimate
of the point is designated as the second , and so on. Equal
displacement approximation is used as an estimate of ap1, dp1. Equal displacement
approximation is based on the assumption that the inelastic spectral displacement is the same
as that which would occur if the structure remained perfectly elastic. The procedure to
construct bilinear curve is explained in section 4.3. Once bilinear capacity spectrum
developed we can calculate the effective damping and spectral reduction factors
using the expressions given in equation no 18.
(18)
Where are initial assumed values based on equal displacement approximation
method. The yield values are obtained from bilinear curve of capacity spectrum. -
factor is measure of the extent to which actual building hysteresis is well represented by
idealized parallelogram. The - factor depends on structural behavior of the building and
duration of ground shaking. The values for factor can be obta ined from ATC 40, 1996.
2.7.1.5 Calculation of spectral reduction factors
Spectral reduction factors are required to reduce the elastic 5% damped design response
spectrum to account for yielding i.e. hysteric effect. The spectral reduction factors
are given in equation no 19, and 20.
(19)
(20)
2.7.2 Displacement coefficient method
FEMA273, 1997 has developed displacement coefficient method for calculating the
displacement demand. The displacement coefficient method provides a numerical process for
calculating the displacement demand. There are some differences in terminology used
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
36/129
22
compared to ATC 40, 1996. Bilinear representation of pushover curve is different from the
procedure used in ATC 40, 1996.
The step by step procedure to calculate the inelastic displacement of structure is given below.
1. Develop a capacity curve (base shear versus roof displacement) of the overall structure bypushover analysis.
2. Bilinear representation of pushover is developed to know initial stiffness, secant stiffnessand post elastic stiffness. These parameters are required to modify time period of the
structure. The method for bilinear representation of pushover curve as per FEMA 273,
1997 guidelines is explained in section 2.8.1
3. Calculate the effective fundamental time period using expression given below(21)
Where
=Initial elastic lateral stiffness of building in the direction under consideration.
=Effective lateral stiffness of building in the direction under consideration.
=Effective fundamental time period
=Elastic fundamental time period calculated by elastic dynamic analysis
Calculate the target displacement as
(22)
Where
=Modification factor to relate spectral displacement and likely building roof displacement
=Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement to displacement
calculated for linear elastic response
=Modification factor to represent the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum
displacement response
=Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to second order effects.
The values and expressions to calculate above factors are given in FEMA 273, 1997.
In this approach, a line representing the average post-elastic stiffness, of capacity curve is
first drawn by judgement. Then, a secant line representing effective elastic stiffness is
drawn such that it intersects the capacity curve at 60% of the yield base shear. The yield base
shear is defined at the intersection of and lines. The process is iterative because the
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
37/129
23
value of yield base shear is not known at the beginning. An illustrative capacity curve and its
bilinear representation are shown in figure 2.8
Figure 2.8 Bilinear representation of pushover or capacity curve (FEMA 356, 2000)
2.7.3 Modal pushover analysis
Chopra et al, 2007 developed an improved pushover analysis procedure named Modal
Pushover Analysis (MPA) to account for the effects of higher modes on structural response
and for the redistribution of inertial forces during progressive yielding. This procedure is
shown to be equivalent to response spectrum analysis (RSA) when applied to linear elastic
systems. In the modal pushover analysis, the seismic demand due to the individual terms in
the modal expansion of effective earthquake forces is determined by pushover analysis using
the inertia force distribution at each mode. Combining these modal demands due to first two
or three terms of the expansion provide an estimate of the total seismic demand on the
inelastic systems. The differential equation governing the response o f a multistory building to
horizontal earthquake ground motion is
(23)
The standard approach is to directly solve these coupled equations leading to exact nonlinear
response history analysis. The spatial distribution s of effective earthquake forces is
expanded into modal coordinates with assumption that coupling of modal coordinates
arising from yielding of the system is neglected. The governing equation for the nth mode
inelastic SDF system is
(24)
The resisting force is given as
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
38/129
24
The vibration properties natural frequency and damping ratio are properties ofnth mode
of the corresponding linear MDF system. The relationship is obtained from
pushover curve with load distribution with structure pushed till structure reaches
its ultimate capacity.
The pushover curve ( is converted to as explained in the following
equations. The two sets of forces and displacements are related as follows
, (25)
The above equation is used to convert pushover curve to desired relation, the yield
values of and are
, (26)
Where = is the effective modal mass
The vibration period of the nth mode inelastic SDF system is computed as
(27)
Figure 2.9 Properties of the nth-mode inelastic SDF system from the pushover curve
(Chopra, 2002)
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
39/129
25
The procedure to estimate the seismic demands of inelastic systems consists of following
steps.
1. Determine the natural frequencies and mode shapes for linearly elasticvibration of the structure.
2. For the nth mode, develop the 'modal' capacity curve (base shear versus roofdisplacement) of the overall structure for the lateral load distribution
where is the mass matrix.
3. Obtain the force-displacement relationship of the nth mode inelastic SDOF from thecorresponding 'modal' capacity curve as described in preceding paragraphs.
4. Perform a nonlinear dynamic analysis for the ground motion excitation by utilizing theforce-d isplacement relationship ofnth mode inelastic SDOF system to obtain the peak
deformation of n-th mode inelastic SDOF system.
5. Calculate the peak roof displacement of MDF system associated with the n-thmode inelastic SDOF system as
(28)
Where
Modal participation factor for the nth mode
Mode shape value ofnth mode MDF system at roof level
: Peak spectral displacement ofnth mode inelastic SDOF system
6. Extract any peak response parameter (shear force, bending moment, drift ratios,plastic rotation) from the pushover results at roof displacement .
7. Repeat above steps for as many modes required. The condition for number modes tobe considered is the total mass participation should be at least 90%.
8. Determine the peak value of total response by combining the peak modal responsesusing any appropriate modal combination (square root of sum of squares (SRSS),
complete quadratic combination (CQC)).
,
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
40/129
26
2.8 Acceptance criteria for different performance levels
To determine whether a building meets a specified performance objective, response quantities
obtained from above mentioned analysis procedures are compared with limits for appropriateperformance levels. The response limits fall into two categories.
These response limits include requirements for the vertical load capacity, lateral load
resistance, and lateral drift. The gravity load capacity of the building structure should remain
intact for acceptable performance at any level. The lateral load resistance of the building
should not degrade by more than 20 percent of the maximum resistance of the structure. The
deformation limits for various performance levels are given in table 2.7
Table 2.7 Global acceptability limits for various performance levels (ATC 40, 1996)
Inter-story drift limit Immediate
occupancy
Damage
control
Life
safety
Structural
stability
Maximum total drift 0.01 0.01-0.02 0.02
Maximum inelastic
drift
0.005 0.005-0.015 No limit No limit
Where =Total calculated lateral shear force in story i
= Total gravity load at story i
Each component must be checked to determine if its components respond within acceptable
limits. The acceptable limits for various performance levels for beams and columns are given
in ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA 273, 1997 guidelines.
2.9 Discussions
Seismic performance evaluation of buildings is discussed. The various steps to be followed in
evaluation procedure are explained in detail. Various seismic methods of analysis of structure
are discussed in brief. Basics of pushover or nonlinear static analysis, advantages and
limitations are explained clearly. Methods of estimating seismic inelastic displacement as per
ATC 40, 1996 and FEMA356, 2000 guidelines are explained in detail. Modal pushover
analysis procedure proposed by Chopra et al, 2007is also explained.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
41/129
27
Chapter 3
Seismic Vulnerability and Fragility Analysis of Buildings
3.1 Seismic vulnerability of building
Earthquake risk assessment is needed to estimate the casualties, losses (direct losses,
economic losses, social impact) and to mitigate the risk associated. Earthquake risk is depends
on hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. A significant component of a loss model is a
methodology to assess the vulnerability of the built environment. The seismic vulnerability of
a structure can be described as its susceptibility to damage by ground shaking of a givenintensity. The aim of a vulnerability assessment is to obtain the probability of a given level of
damage to a given building type due to a scenario earthquake. There are two methods of
assessing vulnerability of given building type. Empirical methods developed based on
observed damage in past earthquakes. Analytical methods developed by simulation done on
computer model. Lang et al, 2002 studied seismic vulnerability of existing buildings in
Switzerland. He developed analytical capacity curves for masonry building reinforced
buildings. Damage grades were defined on capacity curves. Calvi et al, 2006 has discussed
the development of vulnerability assessment methods in 30 years.
3.2 Fragility curves of building
Fragility curves describe the probability of damage to building. Building fragility curves are
lognormal functions that describe the probability of reaching, or exceeding, structural and
nonstructural damage states, given median estimates of spectral response, for example
spectral displacement. These curves take into account the variability and uncertaintyassociated with capacity curve properties, damage states and ground shaking.
The fragility curves distribute damage among slight, moderate, extensive and complete
damage states. For any given value of spectral response, discrete damage-state probabilities
are calculated as the difference of the cumulative probabilities of reaching, or exceeding,
successive damage states. The probabilities of a building reaching or exceeding the various
damage levels at a given response level sum to 100%. Discrete damage-state probabilities are
used as inputs to the calculation of various types of building-related loss. Each fragility curve
is defined by a median value of the demand parameter (e.g., spectral displacement) that
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
42/129
28
corresponds to the threshold of that damage state and by the variability associated with that
damage state. The typical fragility curve is shown in figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Log-normally distributed seismic fragility curves (HAZUS-MHMR1)
3.2.1 Procedure to develop damage probability matrix (DPM) of building
for given level of earthquake
The steps involved in development of fragility curve as per HAZUS-MH MR1 are explained
in the flowchart shown in figure 3.2.
3.2.1.1 Building type and classification
Buildings are classified both in terms of their use, or occupancy class, and in terms of their
structural system, or model building type. Damage is predicted based on model building type,
since the structural system is considered the key factor in assessing overall buildingperformance, loss of function and casualties. Occupancy class is impo rtant in determining
economic loss, since building value is primarily a function of building use
Buildings are classified based on structural characteristics like number of stories as
1. Low-rise (1-3 stories),2. Mid-rise (4-7 stories)3. High-rise (8+ stories)
Building classification is done based on the material used for construction: steel frame,
concrete frame, brick masonry burned and unburned, stone masonry and mud wall.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
43/129
29
Building Model Type
Structural Building Characteristics
Seismic Design Level
Develop Response Spectra Generate Capacity Curve
Calculate Building Peak Response (Sd)
Generate Fragility Curve for defined Damage States
Calculate Discrete Damage Probabilities for Damage States
Ground Motion and Seismic Data
Damage Probability Matrix for
particular Building Model Type
Figure 3.2 Flowchart to develop damage probability matrix
3.2.1.2 Seismic design levels and quality of construction
The building damage functions distinguish among buildings that are designed to different
seismic standards, have different construction quality, or are otherwise expected to perform
differently during an earthquake. These differences in expected building performance are
determined primarily on the basis of seismic zone location, design vintage and use (i.e.,
special seismic design of essential facilities).Damage functions are provided for three Code
seismic design levels, labeled as High-code, Moderate-code and Low-code, and an additional
design level for Pre-code buildings.
3.2.1.3 Damage states
Damage states are defined separately for structural and nonstructural systems of a building.
Damage is described by one of four discrete damage states: slight, moderate, extensive, and
complete. Loss functions relate the physical condition of the building to various loss
parameters (i.e., direct economic loss, casualties, and loss of function).
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
44/129
30
Slight structural damage: Flexural or shear type hairline cracks in some beams and columns
near joints or within joints.
Moderate structural damage: Most beams and columns exhibit hairline cracks. In ductileframes some of the frame elements have reached yield capacity indicated by large flexural
cracks and some concrete spalling.
Extensive structural damage: Some of the frame elements have reached their ultimate
capacity indicated in ductile frames by large flexural cracks, spalled concrete and buckled
main reinforcement; non-ductile frame elements may have suffered shear failures or bond
failures at reinforcement splices or broken ties or bucked main reinforcement in columns
which may result in partial collapse.
Complete structural damage: Structure is collapsed or in imminent danger of collapse due
to brittle failure of non-ductile frames or loss of frame stability.
3.2.1.4 Calculation of cumulative damage probabilities of particular damage state
The damage function is assumed to be lognormal function. To define a probability
distribution median and standard deviation values are required. For a given median spectral
displacement and standard deviation for a particular damage state , design level
the conditional probability of being in or exceeding is defined by
(29)
Where
= Median value of spectral displacement at which the building reaches the threshold of
damage state,
=Standard deviation of the natural logarithm of spectral displacement for damage state,
= Standard normal cumulative distribution function.
= Given peak spectral displacement
Probability of being in or exceeding slight damage state,
Probability of being in or exceeding slight moderate state,
Probability of being in or exceeding slight extensive state,
Probability of being in or exceeding collapse damage state,
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
45/129
31
3.2.1.5 Calculation of discrete damage probabilities of damage states
The probability of discrete damage state is given below
Probability of complete damage =
Probability of extensive damage =
Probability of moderate damage =
Probability of slight damage =
Probability of no damage =
3.2.1.6 Median spectral displacements for different damage s tates
There are certain key aspects to the damage functions of which users must be aware when
developing fragility parameters. First, the damage functions should predict damage without
bias such as that inherent to the conservatism of seismic design codes and guidelines. In
general, limit states of the NEHRP guidelines (or ATC 40, 1996) will under-predict the
capability of the structure, particularly for the more critical performance objectives, such as
collapse prevention (CP). The NEHRP guidelines criteria for judging CP certainly do not
intend that 50 out of 100 buildings that just meet CP limits would collapse. Most engineers
would likely consider an acceptable fraction of CP failures (given that buildings just meet CP
criteria) to be between 1 and 10 in every 100 buildings. In contrast, the median drift value of
the Complete structural damage state ofHAZUS is the amount of building displacement that
would cause, on the average, 50 out of 100 buildings of the building type of interest to have
Complete damage (e.g., full financial loss). In general, users should not derive median values
ofHAZUS damage states directly from the performance limits of the NEHRP guidelinesand
ATC 40, 1996.
Fragility parameters of the more extreme damage states are particularly difficult to estimate
since these levels of damage are rarely observed even in the strongest ground shaking. In the
1995 Kobe earthquake, the worst earthquake disaster to occur in a modern urban region, only
about 10 in every 100 mid-rise commercial buildings located close to fault rupture had severe
damage or collapse. Typically, the fraction of modern buildings with such damage (e.g.,
complete structural damage) is much less than 10 in 100. In selecting median values ofdamage states, users should be mindful that median values represent the 50 percentile (e.g., 50
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
46/129
32
in every 100 buildings have reached the state of damage of interest). Median values of
spectral displacement (or spectral acceleration) for the more extensive states of damage may
appear large relative to seismic code or guideline design criteria.
Development of damage-state medians involves three basic steps
1. Develop a detailed understanding of damage to elements and components as acontinuous function of building response (e.g., average inter-story drift or floor
acceleration)
2. Select specific values of building response that best represent the threshold of eachdiscrete damage state
3. Convert damage-state threshold values (e.g., average inter-story drift) to spectralresponse coordinates (i.e., same coordinates as those of the capacity curve).
The general guidelines for selection of damage state medians are given table 3.1
Table 3.1 Guidance for selection of damage state medians (HAZUS-MH MR1)
Damage
state
Likely amount of damage, direct economic loss, building condition
Range of
possible lossratios
Probability of
long-termbuilding closure
Probability of
partial or fullcollapse
Slight 0% - 5% P = 0 P = 0
Moderate 5% - 25% P = 0 P = 0
Extensive 25% - 100% P 0.5 P 0
Collapse 100% P 1.0 P
In using the acceptance criteria of the NEHRP guidelinesusers must be aware and account for
each of the following four issues
Conservative deformation limits: The deformation limits of the NEHRP guidelines are, in
general, conservative estimates of true component or element capacity. The Collapse
Prevention deformation limits of primary components or elements are defined as 75% of that
permitted for secondary elements, reflecting added conservatism for design of primary
components or elements. While appropriate for design, conservatism should be removed from
deformation limits used to estimate actual damage and loss.
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
47/129
33
Deformation limits vs. Damage states :The NEHRP guidelinesprovide limits on component
or element deformation rather than explicitly defining damage in terms of degree of concrete
cracking, nail pull-out, etc., or whether component of element damage is likely to repairable
(or not). For estimating direct economic loss it is important to understand the type of damage,
not just the degree of yielding, to establish if repair would be required and what the nature
(and cost) of such repairs would be.
Global vs. Local damage: Local damage (as inferred from the deformation limits of the
NEHRP guidelines) of individual components and elements must be accumulated over the
entire structure to represent a global damage state.
Collapse failure: Reaching the collapse prevention deformation limit of components or
elements does not necessarily imply structural collapse. Typically, structural systems can
deform significantly beyond Collapse Prevention deformation limits before actually
sustaining a local or global instability.
The load deformation curve used as per NEHRP guidelines is given in figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 Idealized component load versus deformation curve (FEMA 273, 1997)
The median of Slight damage is defined by the first structural component to reach control
point C on its load deformation curve. Moderate damage is defined by a median value for
which a sufficient number of components have each reached control point C (on their
respective load deformation curves) such that it will cost at least 5% of the replacement value
of the structural system to repair (or replace) these components. Extensive damage is defined
by a median value similar to moderate damage, except that damage repair now costs at least
25% of the value of the structural system. Complete damage is defined by a median value for
which at least 50% (in terms of repair/replacement cost) of structural components have each
lost full lateral capacity, as defined by control point E on their respective load deformation
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
48/129
34
curves. The general guidance for relating component deformation to the average inter-story
drifts ratios of structural damage-state medians are given in table 3.2
Table 3.2 Guidance for relating component deformation to the average inter-story drift ratios
of structural damage-state medians (HAZUS-MH MR1)
Damage state Component (Criteria Set No. 1) Component (Criteria Set No. 2)
Fraction2 Limit3 Factor4 Fraction2 Limit3 Factor4
Slight > 0% C 1.0 50% B 1.0
Moderate 5% C 1.0 50% B 1.5
Extensive 25% C 1.0 50% B 4.5
Collapse 50% E 1.0-1.55 50% B 12
1. The average inter-story drift ratio of structural damage state is lesser of the two drift ratios
defined by criteria sets no. 1 and no.2, respectively.
2. Fraction defined as the repair or replacement cost of components at limit divided by the
total replacement value of the structural system.
3. Limit defined by the control points of figure 3.3 and the acceptance criteria of NEHRP
guidelines.
4. Factor applied to average inter-story drift of structure at deformation (or deformation ratio)
limit to calculate average inter-story drift ratio of structural damage-state median.
5. Complete factor is largest value in range for which the structural system is stable.
Barbat et al, 2008 has defined median spectral displacement for each damage state. This
method uses capacity spectrum to define threshold for each damage state. Push the structure
to its ultimate capacity. Convert pushover in to capacity spectrum (ADRS format). Bilinear
the capacity spectrum with ultimate and yield points. Bilinear representatio n of capacity
spectrum with damage thresholds is shown figure 3.4.
Table 3.3 Damage state thersholds (Barbat ,2008)
Median spectral displacement Damage state
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
49/129
35
Figure 3.4 Damage state thresholds on bilinear capacity spectrum (Barbat, 2008)
The damage state medians for different code level designs and heights of the generic building
type are given in table 3.4 (HAZUS-MH MR1). These values doesnt represent for a specific
building.
Table 3.4 Average inter-story drift ratio for structural damage states (HAZUS-MH MR1)
Model building
type
Structural damage states
Concrete
moment frame
(C1)
Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse
Low rise buildingHigh- code design level
0.005 0.010 0.030 0.080
Low rise buildingModerate- code design level
0.005 0.009 0.023 0.060
Low rise buildingLow- code design level
0.005 0.008 0.020 0.050
Low rise buildingPre- code design level
0.004 0.006 0.016 0.040
Mid-rise buildings
2/3*LR 2/3*LR 2/3*LR 2/3*LR
High rise buildings
1/2*LR 1/2*LR 1/2*LR 1/2*LR
-
8/2/2019 Sesmic Analysis Project
50/129
36
Mid-rise and high-rise buildings have damage-state drift values based on low-rise (LR) drift
criteria reduced by factors of 2/3 and 1/2, respectively, to account for higher-mode effects and
differences between average inter-story drift and individual inter-story drift.
The median spectral displacement for each damage state is given by equation
(30)
Average inter-story drift ratio at the threshold of damage state,
=Height of building at the roof level
=Modal mass participation factor for the first natural mode
3.2.1.7 Development of damage state variability
Lognormal standard deviation values describe the total variability of fragility-curve
damage states. Three primary sources contribute to the total variability of any given state
namely, the variability associated with the capacity curve, the variability associated with
the demand spectrum , and the variability associated with the discrete threshold of each
damage state
(31)
HAZUS gives standard deviation values based on the following criteria
1. Building height group - Low-rise buildings, Mid-rise buildings, High-rise buildings2. Post-yield degradation of the structural system Minor, Major and Extreme
degradation
3. Damage-state threshold variabilitySmall, Moderate