Study the Effect of Push Over Analysis for G+15 STORY R.C.C Structure with and without Zipper Frame using Sap-2000

DOI : 10.17577/IJERTV9IS080196
Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version


Study the Effect of Push Over Analysis for G+15 STORY R.C.C Structure with and without Zipper Frame using Sap-2000

Navanath Vitthal Ingale1, L. G. Kalurkar2

1P.G. Student MGMs JNEC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.

2Associate Professor, the Department of Civil Engineering MGMs JNEC, Aurangabad-431003, Maharashtra, India.

Abstract -The modern earthquakes including the last Algerian earthquake in which many concrete structures have been severely damaged or failed have shown the need for assessing the seismic capacity of existing buildings. In particular, the improvement of older concrete structures in high seismicity areas is a focus of increasing concern, since structures venerable to damage must be identified and an adequate level of safety must be determined. To make such an assessment, simplified linear-elastic methods are not sufficient. Thus, the structural engineering community has developed a new generation of design and seismic procedures that include performance-based structures and are moving away from Simplified linear elastic methods and towards a more non-linear technique. Modern concerns in the development of performance-based codes for the design or improvement of buildings in seismic alert areas show that an inelastic procedure commonly referred to as the pushover analysis is a viable approach to assess damage vulnerability of buildings. Pushover analysis is a range of incremental static analysis carried out to produce a capacity curve for the structure. Based on the capacity curve, a target displacement which is an evaluation of the displacement that the design earthquake will produce on the building is determined. The extent of damage encountered by the structure at the target displacement is estimated representative of the damage experienced by the building when subjected to design level ground shaking. Many methods were presented to apply the nonlinear static pushover (NSP) to buildings. Certain systems can be listed as (a) the capacity spectrum method (CSM) (b) the displacement coefficient method (DCM) (FEMA- 356), (c) ATC 40 and (d) modal pushover analysis (MPA).

In this paper Study the effect of Push over analysis for G+15 STORY R.C.C Structure with and without Zipper frame by using SAP-2000 software. Also for the increasing performance of R.C.C. framed structure types of bracing systems are used in framed structure for seismic design such as Zipper braced frame. Improving seismic behaviour of structure by the new bracing system is called zipper braced frame.

Key Words: Push-over analysis, Zipper bracing, SAP-2000, Hinges formations etc.


    Nonlinear Static Analysis (PUSH-OVER): The nonlinear static analysis uses the simple inelastic approach which differs from a traditional static linear procedure that reduces seismic forces to levels that allow designing buildings under the assumption that they remain. Though chimerical and doubtless offensive, this oversimplified approach works well for brand spanking new buildings and typical existing buildings.

    Secant Method- When the analysis of building is complete with the Secant technique, a worldwide elastic model of the structure made. The stiffness values calculated for the modelled parts and parts. In general, the response spectrometry can predict a unique displacement pattern than assumed. The pushover curves area unit accustomed to choose a brand new set of part secant stiffness supported the displacements foretold by the world analysis.

    Method of Pushover Analysis

    1. Load Control: It is used once the load is thought (such as gravity load) and also the structure is predicted to be able to support the total magnitude of the load that is applied in this procedure steps.
    2. Displacement Control: In this methodology, the magnitude of the load combination is exaggerated or diminished as necessary until the management displacement reached a predefined price. it is used once specified drifts are unit wanted, the magnitude of the applied load isn’t acknowledged before, the structure is often expected to lose strength or become unstable or once displacement occurring within the design earthquake is understored.

      The pushover analysis of a structure may be a static non- linear analysis underneath permanent vertical masses and step by step increasing lateral masses. The equivalent static lateral masses or so represent earthquake evoked forces. A plot of the entire base shear versus high displacement in an exceedingly structure is obtained by this analysis that may indicate any premature failure or weakness.

      Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis- The existing building will become seismically deficient since seismic design code needs are unit perpetually upgraded and improvement in engineering data. Further, Indian buildings engineered over the past 20 years are system seismically deficient owing to lack of awareness concerning seismic behavior of structures.

      Zipper Bracing Frame:

      • One of the practical ways to prevent these frames undergoing large lateral displacements is to use diagonal members, called brace.
      • A-frame in which bracing is used called braced frames.
        • This system is similar to Chevron system, but only just one additional element, which was a vertical structural member, connected at the top and down to the beams at the this vertical strut named as the zipper, and a frame in which zipper braces were added called zipper brace frame.
        • These members increase the lateral stiffness of the frame and enhance the capacity of the energy dissipation by plastic deformations. Adding steel braces enhance greatly the strength capacity of the buildings on the dynamic characteristic of the building the zipper bracing systems are found the most efficient.

    Building Details:-

      1. Architectural details:-

        To study the behavior of RCC building under high Seismic forces as here taken

        • Area covering : 24.5 x 19.5 m.
        • Total Height of the building : 45 m
        • Floor to Floor Height : 3 m
        • Column Details:
          Floor Level Rcc Without Zipper (MM) Rcc With Zipper Frame (MM)
          Foundation to Ground 230X600 230X600
          Ground to 10th floor 230X600 230X600
          10th to 15th floor 230X530 230X530
        • Beam Details:
    Floor Level Rcc Without Zipper Rcc With Zipper


    Foundation to Ground 230X600 230X600
    Ground to 10th floor 230X530 230X530
    10th to 15th floor 230X450 230X450

    3-D model is being prepared for the frame nonlinear static analysis of the building in SAP-2000 software

    Fig 01: Shows The Skeleton Model And 3d View Of The Structure without Zipper Frame

    Fig 02: Shows the Skeleton Model And 3d View Of The Structure with Zipper Frame

    1. RESULTS: –

      (A) Time Period Of The Structure Under Earthquake Load Consideration (For Normal Frame)

      Mode Time Period In Sec For Normal Frame Time Period In Sec For Zipper Frame
      1 3.54 2.02
      2 3.05 1.69
      3 2.65 1.19
      1. Base shear Vs displacement in both directions
        1. RCC normal frame

          Graph-01 Base shear V displacement in push X direction

          Graph-02 Base shear V displacement in push Y direction

        2. RCC Zipper frame

          Graph-03 Base shear V displacement in push X direction

          Graph-04 Base shear V displacement in push Y direction

      2. Spectral Acceleration Vs Spectral Displacement in Both Directions
        1. RCC normal frame
        2. RCC Zipper frame

          Graph-07 Spectral Acceleration V Spectral Displacement In Push X Direction

          Graph-08 Spectral Acceleration V Spectral Displacement In Push Y Direction

      3. FEMA 365 Displacement V base reaction in both directions
        1. RCC normal frame

          Graph-05 SpectralAcceleration V Spectral Displacement In Push X Direction

          Graph-09 Displacement V Base Reaction in Push X

          Graph-06 Spectral Acceleration V Spectral Displacement In Push Y Direction

          Graph-10 Displacement V Base Reaction in Push Y

        2. RCC Zipper frame

        Graph-11 Displacement V Base Reaction in Push X

        Graph-12 Displacement V Base Reaction in Push Y

      4. Push over result for FEMA 365-
        TABLE: Pushover Results – FEMA356
        Output Case Step Type Step No. Base Force Displacement
        Text Text Unless KN m
        PUSHX Step 0 0 0
        PUSHX Step 1 0.028 1116.33084
        PUSHX Step 2 0.052 2195.4332
        PUSHX Step 3 0.083 2930.006451
        PUSHX Step 4 0.104 3207.946532
        PUSHX Step 5 0.284 4309.060667
        PUSHX Step 6 0.469 5119.075893
        PUSHX Step 7 0.651 5835.762419
        PUSHX Step 8 0.692 5986.801334
        PUSHY Step 0 0 0
        PUSHY Step 1 0.02 190.984229
        PUSHY Step 2 0.115 2673.290432
        PUSHY Step 3 0.147 3038.317143
        TABLE: Pushover Results – FEMA356
        Output Case Step Type Step No Base Force Displacement
        Text Text Unitless KN m
        PUSHX Step 0 0 0
        PUSHX Step 1 0.00379 233.032171
        PUSHX Step 2 0.06 7028.457419
        PUSHX Step 3 0.064 7326.948285
        PUSHY Step 0 0 0
        PUSHY Step 1 0.018 1356.755434
        PUSHY Step 2 0.056 4423.971782
        PUSHY Step 3 0.069 4925.852674
        PUSHY Step 4 0.069 4921.352429
        PUSHY Step 5 0.07 4923.509679
        PUSHY Step 6 0.076 5138.504648
        PUSHY Step 7 0.076 5140.958119
        PUSHY Step 8 0.079 5228.446584
        PUSHY Step 9 0.079 5227.706226
        PUSHY Step 10 0.079 5227.971507
        PUSHY Step 11 0.079 5234.276417
        PUSHY Step 12 0.08 5271.169366
        PUSHY Step 13 0.08 5273.113869
      5. Different Hinges Forms On Different Steps In Both Directions-
      1. RCC normal frame:-
        1. Hinges Formed in Push X
        2. Hinges Formed In Push Y
      2. RCC Zipper frame:-

      (A) Hinges Formed In Push X-

      B) Hinges Formed In Push Y-


1} The displacement values for RCC normal building (without Zipper brace frame is increasing when compared with the Zipper brace frame displacement.

2} The hinges formed in Zipper braced frame model are comparatively less than that of Without zipper frame model.

3} Due to high stiffnes in Zipper frame model the hinges are not going towards collaps, the hinges are going upto life safety.

4} After applying the zipper frame the model stiffness is increasing due to that the time period is less .

5} Displacement in all cases of Pushover analysis are going to increasing in normal model and decreasing in Zipper braced frame model as shown in above graph.

6} The pushover analysis are helping to understand the model behavior and its demand as well as capacity as shown in above results.


  1. S. Naeimi, A. Shahmari, H. EimaniKalehsar, Study of the Behavior of Zipper Braced Frames.
  2. Mahmoud R. Maheri, R. Akbari, Seismic behavior factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-braced RC buildings.
  3. Lucia Tirca, Liang Chen, The influence of lateral load patterns on the seismic design of zipper braced frames.
  4. Mangesh Lade1, Prof. DilipBudlani, Compare of various Types of Zipper Braced Damper with RCC frame.
  5. S.M. Razak, T.C. Kong, N.Z. Zainol , A. Adnan , and M. Azimi, A Review of Influence of Various Types of Structural Bracing to the Structural Performance of Buildings.
  6. A. Mirza golTabar Roshan and R. Nodeh Farahoni, An Overview of Pros and Cons of Zipper Braced Frames.
  7. Dona Mary Daniel, Shemin T. John, Pushover Analysis of RC Building.
  8. Neethu K. N., Saji K. P. Pushover Analysis of RC Building.
  9. D.N. Shinde, Nair Veena V ,Pudale Yojana M Pushover Analysis Of Multistory Building.
  10. M. Razavi, M.R. Sheidaii, Seismic performance of cable zipper- braced frames.
  11. Qi-Song Kent Yu1, Raymond Pugliesi2 , Michael Allen3 , Carrie Bischoff, Assessment Of Modal Pushover Analysis Proedure And Its Application To Seismic Evaluation Of Existing Buildings.
  12. M.Mouzzoun ,O.Moustachi , A.Taleb , S.Jalal, Seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using pushover analysis.
  13. Rahul Rana ,LiminJin And AtilaZekioglu, Pushover Analysis Of A 19 Story Concrete Shear Wall Building.
  14. Dr. Mohd. Hamraj, Performance Based Pushover Analysis Of R.C.C Frames For Plan Irregularity.
  15. Mona Dilipkumar K, Rahul Pandit and Wadekar AP, Zipper braced Frame: A Review.
  16. P. Poluraju and P. V. S. Nageswara Rao, Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame structure using SAP 2000.
  17. ATC-40 (1996) Seismic Analysis and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, volume1-2, Applied Technology Council, seismic safety commission.
  18. Mohit Bhandari Prediction of inelastic response of base isolated building frame by pushover analysis.
  19. FEMA 356, (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, ASCE, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  20. Chao Hsun Haung, Yungting Alex Tuan and Ruo Yun Hsu, Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Infilled concrete frames.

Leave a Reply