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

net/publication/319236326

Effect of Lateral Load Patterns in Pushover Analysis

Conference Paper · November 2009

CITATIONS READS

4 2,236

3 authors, including:

Rahul Leslie
Kerala Public Works Department
12 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STUDY OF COMPARISON OF APPLYING MODES IN RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS View project

Seismic Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rahul Leslie on 23 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

10th National Conference on Technological Trends (NCTT09) 6-7 Nov 2009
Effect of Lateral Load Patterns in Pushover
Analysis
Abhilash R. Biju V.
M.Tech Student Lecturer
College of Engineering College of Engineering
Thiruvananthapuram Thiruvananthapuram
priyadarsini4u@gmail.com biju_vasudevan@yahoo.com
Abstract- Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in
which the magnitude of the structural loading is incrementally
increased in accordance with a certain predefined pattern. With
the increase in the magnitude of the loading, weak links and
failure modes of the structure are found. Static pushover analysis
is an attempt by the structural engineering profession to evaluate
the real strength of the structure and it promises to be a useful
and effective tool for performance based design. The performance
point of the structure depends on the lateral load pattern applied
on the structure. Commonly applied load patterns are inverted
triangle and uniformly distributed. Then guidelines like FEMA-
257 & 356 provide guidelines for lateral loads and doing pushover
analysis. Here pushover analysis is done a typical RCC structure
by applying different lateral load patterns using ETABS and
SAP2000. The lateral load patterns used here are uniform load
distribution and equivalent lateral force distribution as per
FEMA-257, lateral loads from response spectrum analysis as per
IS-1893(2002) and the lateral load pattern as per Upper-Bound
Pushover analysis method.
Keywords: Earthquake Engineering, Performance based design,
nonlinear static analysis, Pushover analysis, Structural dynamics.
I. INTRODUCTION
Analysis methods are broadly classified as linear
static, linear dynamic, nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic
analysis. In these the first two is suitable only when the
structural loads are small and at no point the load will reach to
collapse load. During earthquake loads the structural loading
will reach to collapse load and the material stresses will be
above yield stresses. So in this case material nonlinearity and
geometrical nonlinearity should be incorporated into the
analysis to get better results.
Non Linear Static analysis or Push-over analysis is a
technique by which a computer model of the building is
subjected to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., parabolic,
triangular or uniform). The intensity of the lateral load is
slowly increased and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic
hinge formations, and failure of various structural components
is recorded. In the structural design process a series of
iterations are usually required during which, the structural
deficiencies observed in iteration is rectified and followed by
another. This iterative analysis and design procedure continues
until the design satisfies pre-established performance criteria.
College of Engineering Trivandrum
Rahul Leslie
Asst. Director
DRIQ Board
Kerala PWD
Thiruvananthapuram
rahul.leslie@gmail.com
The performance criteria for pushover analysis are generally
established as the desired state of the building, given roof- top
displacement amplitude. The non-linear static analysis is then
revisited to determine member forces and deformations at
target displacement or performance point. This analysis
provides data on the strength and ductility of the structure
which otherwise cannot be predicted. Base shear versus top
displacement curve of the structure, called pushover curves, are
essential outcomes of pushover analysis. These curves are
useful in ascertaining whether a structure is capable of
sustaining certain level of seismic load.
This method is considered as a step forward from the
use of linear analysis, because they are based on a more
accurate estimate of the distributed yielding within a structure,
rather than an assumed, uniform ductility. The generation of
the pushover curve also provides the nonlinear behaviour of the
structure under lateral load. However, it is important to
remember that pushover methods have no rigorous theoretical
basis, and may be inaccurate if the assumed load distribution is
incorrect. For example, the use of a load pattern based on the
fundamental mode shape may be inaccurate if higher modes
are significant, and the use of any fixed load pattern may be
unrealistic if yielding is not uniformly distributed, so that the
stiffness profile changes as the structure yields. Here lateral
load pattern recommended by FEMA-273, Upper bound
pushover analysis and the lateral load obtained by dynamic
analysis based on response spectra in IS-1893(2002) are used.
Pushover analysis is done on a regular single bay four
storied RCC structure using SAP2000 and ETABS. Four load
patterns are applied and the variations in performance point are
checked.
II. PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Seismic performance of a structure is described by
designating the maximum allowable damage state for an
identified seismic hazard. ATC-40 describes standard
performance levels for structural and non structural systems
and several commonly used combinations of structural and
nonstructural levels as (a) Operational, (b) Immediate
occupancy, (c) Damage control, (d) Life safety, (e) Structural
stability and (f) Not considered
1
10th National Conference on Technological Trends (NCTT09) 6-7 Nov 2009

The performance level of a building is determined

based up on its function and importance. Structures like
hospital buildings, telecommunication centers, transportation
facilities etc. are expected to have a performance level of
operational or immediate occupancy for an identified seismic
hazard that can occur for the structure. Meanwhile a residential
building must have a performance level of damage control or
life safety. Temporary structures or unimportant buildings or
structures came under the performance level of structural
stability or sometimes are not considered. The force
deformation relationship as well as the performance levels of a
structure as well as a structural element is given in fig 1.

Fig 3. General Layout of Floor Beams & Columns

Fig.1. Force-Deformation relationship of a typical plastic hinge (FEMA 356)

III. DETAILS OF THE STRUCTURE.

Structure used for analysis is a four storied RCC
structure with single bay 5m x 5m dimension. The structure is
the part of an existing structure. Height of the storey is 4m. The
section details are given in table1 and 3.
The structure is first modeled in ETABS and the
dynamic properties of the structure is calculated and based on
that the different lateral loads are calculated and the structure is
then modeled in SAP2000 and is then analyzed by applying the
different lateral loads.

Fig 4. Analysis Model (ETABS).

TABLE 1.
Structural Beams Details.
Depth Width
Name Ast(mm2) Asc(mm2)
(mm) (mm)
BF204 1000 230 653.43 473.8544
BF205 1000 230 1031.49 1053.185
BF223 1000 230 1232.45 1053.185
BF225 1000 230 1031.49 786.256
BR6 1000 230 992.24 786.256
BR7 600 230 603.186 402.124
BR20 1000 230 1031.49 786.256
BR21 1000 230 678.54 786.256
TABLE 2.
Dynamic Properties of the Structure.
Modal Properties Mode
1 2
Period (sec) 0.297076 0.262477
Participation factor 229.906679 150.62003
Modal mass factor 55.936 24.0079
Fig 2. General Layout of Roof Beams & Columns.
Mode Shape roof 1 -1
Amplitude 3rd floor 0.8049 0.1
2nd floor 0.5122 0.8333
1st floor 0.2195 0.6333

College of Engineering Trivandrum 2

10th National Conference on Technological Trends (NCTT09) 6-7 Nov 2009

Of these the first two load patterns are taken for the analysis.
Details of the load distribution are given in the tables. The
Mode Shape
uniform distribution can be calculated by the equation
1.5
Fi = mi /∑mj
Modal Displaecments

0.5
Were mi is the storey mass
0 And the equivalent lateral force can be calculated as
1 2 3 4
-0.5

-1
Fi = (mi hki)/(∑(mj hkj).
-1.5 Mode 1 where k = 1.0 T ≤ 0.5s
Storey Mode2
= 2.0 2.5 ≤ T
Fig 5. Normalized Mode Shape of the Structure. TABLE 4.
TABLE 3. Uniform distribution as per FEMA-273
Structural Column Details.
Positio Depth Width Reinforcem Stirrup Lateral force
Name Storey Mass (kN)
n (mm) (mm) ent details details distribution
CL15,CL19 Ground 900 400 12# - 28mm 10mm 1st floor 17263.69 0.183
to 2nd at 2nd floor 24530.53 0.260
floor 100mm 3rd floor 25942.84 0.275
c/c 4th floor 26758.62 0.283
CL15,CL19 3rd 700 400 4# - 25mm 10mm
floor 6# - 20mm at TABLE 5.
100mm Equivalent Lateral Force distribution as per FEMA-273
c/c Lateral force
Storey Mass (kN) Height (m)
CL15,CL19 4th 700 300 8# - 20mm 10mm distribution
floor at 1st floor 17263.69 4 0.0687
100mm 2nd floor 24530.53 8 0.1953
c/c 3rd floor 25942.84 12 0.3098
CL16,CL20 Ground 900 350 12# - 25mm 10mm 4th floor 26758.62 16 0.4261
to 2nd at
floor 100mm
c/c B. IS-1893(2002) Response Spectrum Load
CL16,CL20 3rd & 900 350 10# -20mm
4th For the linear static analysis of structures IS-
floor
1893(2002) recommends two methods; the seismic coefficient
method and the response spectrum method. Here the response
spectrum analysis of the structure is done and the lateral load
IV. LOAD PATTERNS distribution on the structure is obtained. This load is applied as
To perform a pushover analysis a load pattern which a lateral load pattern in pushover analysis.
is equivalent to the earthquake load is required. This load is TABLE 6.
Lateral Load Distribution as per IS-1893(2002)
applied laterally to the structure by increment. There are Storey Lateral force distribution (N)
several guidelines and methods available to perform pushover 4th floor 16227.66
analysis; in these different types of lateral load patterns are also 3rd floor 13088.25
recommended. Here load patterns recommended in FEMA- 2nd floor 6101.95
256, loads obtained from dynamic analysis as per IS- 1st floor 1459.16
1893(2002) and load as per Upper Bound Pushover analysis
are take. C. Upper Bound Pushover Lateral Load Distribution.

A. Fema-273 Lateral Load Distribution. The upper-bound pushover analysis (UBPA) proposed
by Jan et al. is based on utilizing a singe load vector obtained
The FEMA-273 document (Building Seismic Safety as the combination of the first mode shape and a factored
Council; 1997) recommends pushover analysis procedures by second mode shape. The spectral displacements (Dn)
applying a lateral load pattern which is a uniform distribution corresponding to elastic first and second mode periods are
over height but gradually increasing values until a target roof estimated from the elastic spectrum of the considered ground
displacement is obtained. motion and the upper-bound contribution of the second mode is
Specified in FEMA-273 are three lateral load established using modal participation factors (Гn).
distributions:
1. Uniform distribution. (q2/q1) = |(Г2D2)/( Г1D1)|.
2. Equivalent Lateral force distribution.
3. SRSS distribution. The invariant load vector (F) is then computed as the
combination of first and second mode shapes:

College of Engineering Trivandrum 3

10th National Conference on Technological Trends (NCTT09) 6-7 Nov 2009

In figure 6 curve A is obtained for uniform

F = ω12m φ1 + ω22m φ2(q2/q1). distribution as per FEMA-273, curve B is obtained for
equivalent lateral force as per FEMA-273, curve C is for load
Were φn is the normalized modal displacements. pattern as per IS 1893 and curve D is UBPA loading.
The base shear – displacement details for each loading
TABLE 7.
Lateral Load Distribution as per UBPA
is noted and the loading as well as hinge stages are noted for
Storey Lateral force distribution
each analysis.
TABLE 8.
4th floor 152410 Performance points obtained
3rd floor 173710 Performance point
2nd floor 116900 Base
1st floor 54150 Loading Pattern Displacement Effective
Shear
(mm) Time period
(kN)
Uniform loading
697.968 29 0.313
(FEMA-273)
Equivalent
Lateral loading 643.083 33 0.338
(FEMA-273)
IS-1893 (2002) 630.678 34 0.345
UBPA 671.959 30 0.326
TABLE 9.
Hinge details until performance point
Hinge performance stage
Loading Step LS-
A-B B-IO IO-LS
CP
Uniform 2 57 15 0 0
loading
Fig 6. Lateral Load Patterns (FEMA)

V. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Equivalent 2 56 13 3 0

Lateral
(FEMA)
The Structure is first modeled in ETABS and static as IS-1893 2 56 11 5 0
dynamic analysis is done. Then the dynamic behavior of the (2002)
structure such as modal participation factor, mass participation UBPA 2 57 14 1 0
factors are obtained. From static analysis the member forces,
centre of mass of each floors are obtained which is required for
VI. CONCLUSIONS
modeling the structure for pushover analysis.
Then the structure is modeled in SAP2000 and the From the study the following conclusions can be drawn
material nonlinearities are assigned as hinges; M3 flexural  For all the four type loadings the performance points
hinges for beams and PMM flexural hinges for columns. Then are very close.
each lateral load pattern is applied. The pushover curves, ie the  Performance is very close for Uniform loading from
load versus displacement curve are obtained which is given in FEMA and IS-1893 loading. Similarly Equivalent
fig 7. Lateral loading (FEMA) and UBPA loading
performance appears to be same. This is due to the
close similarity between the load patterns.
 Different loading pattern shows only slight change in
performance point in regular building. The case may
vary for irregular buildings.
 To select the exact loading, performance of buildings
in different configuration have to be studied and
should be compared with Non-linear Time history
analysis.

REFERENCES

[1]. Applied Technology Council, ATC-40. Seismic

evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings,
vols. 1 & 2. California; 1996.
Fig 7. Pushover curves obtained
[2]. FEMA-356, (2000). “Prestandards and
commentary for Seismic rehabilitation of

College of Engineering Trivandrum 4

10th National Conference on Technological Trends (NCTT09) 6-7 Nov 2009

[6]. IS 1893-2002, “Indian standard code of criteria

[3]. Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K. (2001). “A Modal
Pushover Analysis Procedure to Estimate
Seismic Demands for Buildings: Theory and
Preliminary Evaluation.” Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center Report, pp.1-87.
[4]. Jan, T.S., Liu, M.W., and Kao, Y.C. (2004). “An
upper-bound pushover analysis procedure for
estimating seismic demands of high-rise
buildings.” J. Engineering Structures,Vol-26,
pp.117–28.
[5]. Paz, M. (1979). “Structural Dynamics- Theory
and Computation.” .pp.1-560.
for design of earthquake resistant structures.”
[7]. Fajfar, P. (2000). “A Nonlinear analysis method
for performance based seismic design.” J.
Earthquake Spectra, Vol-16, No.3, pp.573-592.
[8].  Kalkan, E., and Kunnath, S.K. (2007).
“Assessment of current nonlinear static
procedures for seismic evaluation of
buildings.” J. Engineering Structures, Vol-
29, pp. 305-316.

College of Engineering Trivandrum 5

View publication stats