PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF

TEN STORIED RC BUILDING

PRESENTED BY: GUIDED BY:
Dona Mary Daniel Mr. Shemin T. John
M4 SE, Roll. No.8 Asst. Professor
MBCET MBCET
 OVERVIEW
• INTRODUCTION

2/16/2021
• LITERATURE REVIEW

• OBJECTIVE

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• METHODOLOGY

• BUILDING MODELLING IN SAP2000

• RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

• CONCLUSION

• SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK 2

• REFERENCE
 INTRODUCTION
• Earthquakes have the potential for causing the greatest

2/16/2021
damages
• Engineering tools need to be sharpened for analyzing

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
structures under the action of these forces
• Earthquake loads are to be carefully modelled to assess
the real behavior of structure
• Pushover analysis is looked upon as an alternative for the
conventional analysis procedures 3
 Pushover Analysis
• The promise of performance-based seismic engineering

2/16/2021
is to produce structures with predictable seismic
performance

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• The recent advent of performance based design has
brought the Pushover analysis to the forefront
• It is a static non-linear procedure where the magnitude
of lateral load is incremented
4
 Pushover Analysis contd.
• The analysis is continued till the structure collapses, or

2/16/2021
the building reaches certain level of lateral displacement
• Pushover analysis is of two types

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
(i) force controlled
(ii) displacement controlled
• The non-linear static procedure is described in FEMA-356
and ATC 40
5
 Structural Analysis Program (SAP2000)
• Developed by Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI)

2/16/2021
intended for use on civil structures
• CSI is one among the most leading structural and

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
earthquake engineering software companies
• SAP can perform static or dynamic, linear or nonlinear
analysis of structural systems

6
 Structural Analysis Program (SAP2000)contd.
• Building models can be developed with different

2/16/2021
member and material properties
• It is fully equipped with US, Canadian and International

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Design standards and codes like ACI concrete code,
AISC building codes and AASHTO specifications

7
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Author Year Description

2/16/2021
• Conducted case study on two buildings damaged by
earthquake using non-linear dynamic and static
Trevor et al. 2000 procedures

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• NSP provides estimate of the performance of
buildings under severe earthquake loads

• Investigated the applicability and accuracy of

pushover analysis in predicting the seismic response
Mwafy et al. 2001 of RC buildings
• It is more adaptable for low rise and short period
frame structures and can provide insight into the 8
elastic as well as the inelastic response of buildings
 LITERATURE REVIEW contd.
Author Year Description

2/16/2021
• Presented a detailed procedure on modal pushover
analysis by performing analysis on six different
Chopra et al. 2001 buildings

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• Modal pushover analysis method gave more
accurate results for evaluating story drift
requirements than the other methods
• Carried out pushover analysis on a nineteen story
reinforced concrete building having shear wall
Rana et al. 2004 • On performing the analysis it was found that certain
alterations were to be made to the original design 9
to satisfy the design earthquake requirements
 LITERATURE REVIEW contd.
Author Year Description

2/16/2021
• Studied the implementation Modal Pushover
analysis on symmetric and asymmetric buildings
Qi-Song et al. 2004 including torsional moments and lateral forces

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• Suggested the possibility of incorporating MPA into
FEMA 356
• Performed Modal Pushover Analysis on reinforced
concrete and steel moment resisting frames for
Serminoguz et al. 2005 various invariant lateral load patterns
• Pushover results depends mainly on the load path,
properties of the structure and the characteristics of 10
the ground motion
 LITERATURE REVIEW contd.
Author Year Description

2/16/2021
• Studied the influence of various parameters on user
defined and default hinge model of four and seven
Inel et al. 2006 story building by plotting pushover curve

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• Plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement
spacing had not much influence on the base shear
capacity but displacement capacity could be
enhanced
• User defined hinge model gave better results than
default hinge model
11
 LITERATURE REVIEW contd.
Author Year Description

2/16/2021
• Analyzed reinforced structure by pushover method
to assess the damage vulnerability designed as per
Algerian code

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Kadid et al. 2008 • Target displacement was estimated based on the
capacity curve
• Corresponding damage was found to be
representative of the damage experienced when
subjected to design level ground shaking.
• Four story building frame was analyzed
Poluraju et al. 2011 • Pushover analysis gave a better understanding of 12
the real behaviour of the structures.
 LITERATURE REVIEW contd.
 MOMENT-CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP
Author Year Description

2/16/2021
• Moment-curvature relation is an important tool for
performing non-linear analysis of a structure
Menon 2006 • To review the response under large deformations

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
and seismic loads, both geometrical and material
non-linearity has to be considered.
• Conducted parametric study on reinforced beam
and column sections to understand the influence in
Sifat 2011 moment-curvature relationship
• It is important to have a better understanding
about the moment-curvature relation to establish 13
hinges to perform pushover analysis
 LITERATURE
 STUDIES ON CODE PROVISIONS
REVIEW contd.
Author Year Description
• Conducted comparative study of various provisions

2/16/2021
related to site classification, design response spectrum,
Khose et al. 2010 modelling guidelines, drift control criteria and ductile
detailing of IS 1893 and IS 13920 with ASCE 7

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• In IS code, the ignorance of amplification in short period
results in highly non-conservative design spectra
Singh et al. 2012 • Studied the seismic performance of RC frame building
designed using different codes
• Codes differ significantly on the issue of minimum
design base shear, and Eurocode and IS 1893 have no
minimum limit on design base shear 14
• Significant differences in the site amplification models
of the two codes result in different design spectra
 COMMENTS ON LITERATURE REVIEW
• Non-linear static pushover analysis provides reasonable

2/16/2021
estimate of the performance of building under
earthquake loads

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• It can provide insight into elastic as well as inelastic
response of buildings
• User defined hinge model can give better results than
default hinge model
15
COMMENTS ON LITERATURE REVIEW contd.
• Moment-curvature relation is an important tool for

2/16/2021
performing non-linear analysis of structure
• Target displacement is representative of the damage

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
experienced when subjected to design level earthquake

16
 OBJECTIVE
• Find the moment–curvature relationship for beam and
column sections to define the user defined hinges

2/16/2021
• Determine the base shear and various loads acting on
the structure

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• Plot the pushover curve and identify the formation of
hinges resulting from the analysis
• Determine target displacement and check the seismic
adequacy of the structure
17
 METHODOLOGY
Literature review

2/16/2021
Find the moment curvature values for each structural
element

Determine the hinge properties to be assigned on the

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
members

Model the structure in SAP2000

Perform push over analysis

Obtain the push over curve and interpret the results

18
Calculate target displacement and check the seismic
adequacy of structure
 MODELLING IN SAP2000

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS 2/16/2021

19
 BUILDING DESCRIPTION

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
20
Fig 1.Elevation and plan of the building frame Fig 2. 3-D model in SAP2000
 BUILDING DESCRIPTION contd.
• Ten storey RC building

2/16/2021
• Analyzed as 3-D frame model with infill
• Floor to floor height 3.2 m

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• 6 and 4 bays in X and Y direction respectively
• Each bay spans 4 m

21
 PROPERTIES OF BEAM

2/16/2021
b 200 mm
D 600 mm

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
c 25 mm
Asc 402 mm2
Ast 1030 mm2
fck 20 MPa
22
fy 415 MPa
Fig 3. Cross-section of beam
 PROPERTIES OF COLUMN
b 300 mm

2/16/2021
D 800 mm
c 40 mm

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
As1 628 mm2 at y1 = 160 mm
As2 628 mm2 at y2 = 310 mm
As3 1296 mm2 at y3 = 360 mm
fck 20 MPa
23
fy 415 MPa
Fig 4. Cross-section of column
 HINGE DEFINITION
• A - Unloaded Condition

2/16/2021
• B - Yielding
• IO- Immediate Occupancy

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• LS- Life Safety
• CP- Collapse Prevention
• C to D- Initial Failure
Fig 5. Force-deformation • D to E- Residual Strength
relationship of plastic hinge 24
 HINGE DEFINITION contd.
 Building Performance Levels(As per ASCE 41-06)
1.Operational Building Performance Level:

2/16/2021
• No damage to structural and non-structural elements
• Most efficient level

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
2.Immediate Occupancy :
• Minimal damage to structural component
• Completely safe to reoccupy the building following an
earthquake
25
• Non-structural components may have damages and may
be repaired
 Building Performance Levels contd.
3.Life Safety :
• Basic performance objective under design basis

2/16/2021
earthquake as per the FEMA 356 code
• Expected to have extensive damage

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
4.Collapse Prevention :
• May experience increased amount of risk to the life of
occupants
• Building will develop plastic hinges
• In most cases the building need to be demolished 26
MOMENT-CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP
(M- Ф)
• For small displacement of a structure M- ф relationship

2/16/2021
remains linear
• Simplified conventional elastic analysis is valid for that

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
range
• However for large deformations to ensure ductility in the
structure, plastic hinges are formed at the right locations
• In non-linear analysis, M- ф relationship is used to model
plastic hinge behaviour 27
 Iterative Procedure (beam)
1) Assign extreme concrete compressive fiber strain (εc)
2) Assume neutral axis depth (xu) from extreme

2/16/2021
compression fiber
3) Calculate strain and corresponding stress at tension

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
and compression reinforcement
4) Calculate the compressive (C) and tensile force (T)
[32]
C = (k10.447fckbxu) + (Ascfsc)
[32]
T = Astfst
28
 Iterative Procedure (beam) contd.
5) If C = T , calculate moment capacity and the

2/16/2021
corresponding curvature of the section OR Assume
new value for neutral axis depth and repeat the

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
iteration steps 3 and 4 till the value converges
6) Assign the next higher value to the extreme concrete
compressive strain and repeat steps (2) to (5)
7) Repeat the whole procedure until the complete
moment-curvature is obtained 29
 Modelling of hinges (beam)
200

2/16/2021
180

160

140

120
Moment, M (kNm)

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 2E-08 4E-08 6E-08 8E-08 0.0000001
Hundreds
Curvature,ф (mm-1) 30
Fig 6. M- ф relation of beam Fig 7. Hinge definition in SAP2000
 Iterative Procedure (column)
1) Assign extreme concrete compressive fiber strain (εc)

2/16/2021
2) Assume neutral axis depth (xu) from extreme
compression fiber

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
3) Calculate strain and corresponding stress at tension
and compression reinforcement
4) Calculate the resultant concrete compressive force (Cc)
and axial force (P)
31
 Iterative Procedure (column) contd.
5) If the values P and applied axial load are same,

2/16/2021
determine the moment capacity and curvature OR
Assume new value for neutral axis depth and repeat

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
the iteration steps from 3 to 5 till the values converge
6) Assign the next higher value to the extreme concrete
compressive strain and repeat steps (2) to (5)
7) Repeat the whole procedure until the complete
moment-curvature is obtained
32
  Modelling of hinges (column)
P=500 kN

2/16/2021
800

700

600

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Moment, M (kNm)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2E-09 4E-09 6E-09 8E-09 1E-08 1.2E-081.4E-08

Curvature,ф (mm-1)
Thousands Fig 9.Hinge definition of column 33

Fig 8. M- ф relation of column for an axial load=500 kN

 Modelling of hinges (column)
4500

2/16/2021
4000
3500
3000
Load, P (kN)

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 200 400 600 800

Moment, M (kNm)

34
Fig 10. Load-moment interaction curve Fig 11.Interaction curve data input in SAP2000
 HINGE ASSIGNMENT

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
35
Fig 12. Assignment of hinges in beams and columns
 ASSIGNMENT OF VARIOUS LOADS
LOAD TYPE

2/16/2021
Dead Load
I. Self weight Calculated by SAP2000
II. Floor Triangular load

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
III. Infill Uniform load
Live Load Triangular load
Lateral load Calculated as per IS 1893
(PART1):2002

36
 ASSIGNMENT OF VARIOUS LOADS contd.
DEAD LOAD
• Self-weight :load of beams and columns

2/16/2021
:calculated by SAP2000 itself based on the
dimensions applied

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• Floor load :assigned as triangular load
:assumed slab thickness as 120 mm and
unit weight of concrete as 25 kN/m3
37
ASSIGNMENT OF VARIOUS LOADS contd.
• Infill :assigned as uniform load

2/16/2021
:assumed infill thickness as 200 mm and
unit weight as 20 kN/m3

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
LIVE LOAD
 Assumed LL to act at roof and other floors are 1.5kN/m2
and 3 kN/m2 respectively
 As per IS 875 (Part2) for Imposed loads
38
 Assigned as triangular load
ASSIGNMENT OF VARIOUS LOADS contd.
LATERAL LOAD

2/16/2021
 Base shear was computed as per IS 1893(PART 1):2002
and distributed at each slab level as lateral load

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
 It was assigned in both X and Y direction to simulate the
earthquake effect in both directions
 The building is assumed to locate in seismic zone 3 and in
medium soil site
39
 Floor load

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
40

Fig 13.Floor load assigned along X and Y direction

 Infill load

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
41

Fig 14.Infill load assigned along X and Y direction

 Live load

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
42

Fig 15.Live load assigned along X and Y direction

 Lateral load

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
43
Fig 16.Lateral load in the frame assigned along X and Y direction
 VALIDATION OF DEAD LOAD
By manual calculation:

2/16/2021
Total DL from beams = 6960 kN
Total DL from columns = 6720 kN
Total DL from slab = 11520 kN

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Total DL from infill = 28211.2 kN
Total DL on the structure = 53411.2 kN

Using SAP2000:
Total dead load on the structure = 53411.2 kN 44
 VALIDATION OF LIVE LOAD
By Manual calculation:

2/16/2021
Assumed LL :at roof = 1.5 kN/m2
: other floors = 3 kN/m2

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Total live load on the structure = 1.5x24x16 + 3x24x16x9
= 10944 kN
Using SAP2000:
Total live load on the structure = 10944 kN
45
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS 2/16/2021

46
 PUSHOVER CURVE
• Capacity curve or pushover curve is a plot between base

2/16/2021
shear and roof displacement
• It is a good indicator of the inelastic behaviour of the

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
structure
• Capacity of the structure can be estimated on the basis
of maximum base reaction obtained from the curve

47
 PUSHOVER CURVE contd.
4000
4500
3500

2/16/2021
4000

3500 3000

Base Reaction (kN)

3000
Base Reaction (kN)

2500

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000

500 500

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Top node displacement (m)

Top node displacement (m) 48

Fig 17.Pushover curve for X axis loading Fig 18.Pushover curve for Y axis loading
 PUSHOVER CURVE contd.
Table 1. Results obtained from Pushover curve

2/16/2021
Maximum Maximum top node
Case base shear displacement

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
(kN) (m)

X axis loading 3884.855 0.1673

Y axis loading 3534.256 0.2407

49
 HINGE FORMATION

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
STEP 89 STEP 94 STEP 288
STEP 50
50

Fig 19. Hinge formation in the frame loaded in X direction (Total steps=288 )
 HINGE FORMATION contd.

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
STEP 74 STEP 89 STEP 107 STEP 205
51

Fig 20. Hinge formation in the frame loaded in Y direction (Total steps=205)
 HINGE FORMATION contd.
Table 2. Location of hinges for X and Y axis loading

2/16/2021
Location of hinges
Maximum Maximum
Load
displacement base shear IO to LS to
case A to B B to IO C to D Total
(m) (kN) LS CP

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
X-axis
0.1673 3884.855 1387 51 6 40 376 1860
loading

Y-axis
0.2407 3534.256 1501 55 17 49 238 1860
loading 52
 TARGET DISPLACEMENT (δt )
• According to ASCE 41-06, Cl.3.3.3.2,the relation between

2/16/2021
base shear force and lateral displacement of the control
node shall be established for control node displacements

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
ranging between zero and 150% of the target displacement
in non-linear analysis
• It is considered as the representation of damage that
would be experienced by the building when subjected to
design level earthquake loading
53
 TARGET DISPLACEMENT contd.
• In displacement coefficient method, the pushover curve is

2/16/2021
bi-linearized to compute target displacement

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
𝑇𝑒 2
𝛿𝑡 = 𝐶0 𝐶1 𝐶2 𝑆𝑎 𝑔[3]
4 𝛱2

54

Fig 21.Idealized Force-Displacement Curve

 TARGET DISPLACEMENT contd.
Where,
Co = modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent

2/16/2021
SDOF system to the roof displacement of the building MDOF system
C1 = modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic
displacements to displacements calculated for linear elastic response

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
C2 = modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteresis shape,
cyclic stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on
maximum displacement response
Te= effective fundamental period of the building in the direction under
consideration
Sa= response spectrum acceleration at the effective fundamental period
55
and damping ratio of the building
g = acceleration of gravity
 Idealized Pushover Curves

2/16/2021
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
56
Fig 22.Idealized pushover curve Fig 23.Idealized Pushover curve
for X-axis loading for Y-axis loading
 TARGET DISPLACEMENT contd.
Table 3. Comparison of results

Maximum top node Target 150% target

2/16/2021
Case displacement displacement displacement
(m) (m) (m)

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
X axis
0.167 0.0785 0.117
loading

y axis
0.2407 0.0791 0.118
loading

57
 Inter Storey Drift
• High storey drifts may result in unacceptable damage to

2/16/2021
cladding and other structural and non-structural elements
[37]
• Storey drift ratio = Δi/ Li

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Where,
Δi = Storey drift
Li = Storey height
• Storey drift ratio does not exceed 0.5% as per clause 21.13.6
of ACI 318-11
58
 Inter Storey Drift contd.
0.0035
Table 4. Storey drift ratio for X and Y axis loading
Storey Drift Ratio

0.003 Ux
0.0025 Storey Storey drift ratio Uy (mm) Storey drift ratio

2/16/2021
(mm)
0.002
0.0015 1 4.657 0.001455 11.873 0.00371
0.001
2 13.009 0.00261 27.604 0.004916
0.0005

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
0 3 22.281 0.002898 43.511 0.004971
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0.006 Storey Number 4 31.612 0.002916 59.172 0.004894
Storey Drift Ratio

0.005
5 40.608 0.002811 74.222 0.004703
0.004
6 48.96 0.00261 88.227 0.004377
0.003

0.002 7 56.346 0.002308 100.667 0.003888

0.001 8 62.421 0.001898 110.935 0.003209

0
9 66.884 0.001395 118.334 0.002312
59
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Storey Number
10 69.65 0.000864 122.379 0.001264
Fig 24. Storey drift ratio in X and Y direction
 CONCLUSION
• Pushover analysis is an ideal method to explore the non-

2/16/2021
linear behaviour of structure
• Moment-curvature relationship is necessary to define
user defined plastic hinge properties of the sections

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
• Load-moment interaction curve is required for defining
column hinges
• The maximum base shear capacity obtained from the
pushover curve was 13.09% and 26.04% higher than
design base shear for X and Y axis loading respectively 60
 CONCLUSION contd.
• Localized collapse occur in beams prior to columns

2/16/2021
• 77.6 % and 84.56 % of total hinges were formed within
life safety level for X axis and Y axis loading respectively
• The analysed model can withstand 150% target

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
displacement as per ASCE41-06
• The maximum inter storey drift ratio was less than the
maximum allowable value as per ACI recommendations
• The analysed building model is acceptable and safe for
the design level earthquake 61
 SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK
• Pushover analysis can be done incorporating dynamic

2/16/2021
characteristics of the structure
• Investigate variation in response of structure for different

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
pattern of lateral load
• Inclusion of shear failure limits may give better and more
comprehensive understanding of building’s behaviour

62
 REFERENCE
[1] SAP 2000 manual (Version 14), “CSI getting started with SAP2000”, Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, USA.
[2] ATC-40, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings”, Applied Technology Council, California, Volume 1,
1996

2/16/2021
[3] ASCE 41-06, “Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, USA
[4] FEMA 356, “Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of the Buildings”, Federal Emergency
Management Agency & American Society of Civil Engineers, November 2000.
[5] Trevor, E.K. and Jonathan, D, C., “Analysis Procedures for Performance Based Design”, 12th World Conference on

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Earthquake Engineering, 2000, pp.1-8
[6] Mwafy,A.M., Elnashai,A.S., “Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 3, 2001, pp-407-422
[7] Chopra,A. K. and Rakesh ,K. G., “Modal Pushover Analysis of SAC Buildings”
[8] Hasan,R. , Xu,L. and Grierson,D.E., “Push-over analysis for performance-based seismic design”, Computers and
Structures,Vol.80 ,2002 , pp.2483–2493
[9] Rana,R., Limin, J.,and Atila, Z., “Pushover analysis of a 19 story concrete shear wall building”, 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 2004,Paper No. 133
[10] Chopra,A.K., and Rakesh, K. G.,“A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for un-
symmetric plan buildings”, Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, Vol. 33, 2004,pp. 903–927 63
 REFERENCE contd.
[11] Qi-Song,K.,Y., Raymond, P., Michael ,A.,Bischoff,C,,“Assessment of modal pushover analysis procedure and its
application to seismic evaluation of existing buildings”13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August
2004,Paper No. 1104

2/16/2021
[12] Serminoğuz ,“Evaluation Of Pushover Analysis Procedures For Frame Structures”,2005
[13] Zou,X.,K. and Chan,C.,M., “Optimal seismic performance-based design of reinforced concrete buildings using
nonlinear pushover analysis”, Department of Civil Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong
Kong, China. Available online 10 May 2005.

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
[14] Inel,M., Hayri,B. O., “Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 28 ,2006, pp. 1494–1502
[15] Shuraim,A. and Charif,A., “Performance of pushover procedure in evaluating the seismic adequacy of reinforced
concrete frames”, King Saud University, 2007
[16] Kadid A., Boumrkik A. (2008): Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures, Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering (Building and Housing),Vol. 9, 2008, pp. 75-83
[17] Jianmeng,M.,Zhai,C. and Xie, L.,“An improved modal pushover analysis procedure forestimating seismic demands
of structures”, Earthquake engineering and engineering vibration,Vol.7, March 2008, pp.25-31
[18] Pietra,D., “Evaluation of pushover procedures for the seismic design of buildings”, Earthquake Engineering,2008
[19] Savoia,M., Nicola,B., Ferracutia,B., Pablo.,M. and Gustavo,.P, “Considerations about Non Linear Static Analysis of a 64
Reinforced Concrete Frame Retrofitted with FRP”, Argentina Technical University, November 2010
 REFERENCE contd.
[20] Poluraju, P. and Nageswara,R, “Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure Using SAP 2000”,
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Vol.4, pp.684-690,2011

2/16/2021
[21] Rohit,B., “Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame”, M.tech thesis, Thapar University, 2011
[22] Padmakar,M., “Pushover Analysis Of Steel Frames”, Department Of Civil Engineering National Institute Of
Technology, May 2013
[23] Shinde,D.N., Veena,N.V. and Pudale,Y.M., “Pushover Analysis of Multi Story Building”, International Journal of

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Research in Engineering and Technology, Vol.3, May 2014, pp.691-693
[24] Hyo-Gyoung,K. and Sun-Pil,K., “Nonlinear analysis of RC beams based on moment–curvature relation”, Computers
and Structures, 2002, 615-628
[25] Chugh, R., “Studies on RC Beams, Columns and Joints for Earthquake resistant Design”, M. Tech. Thesis, IIT
Madras, 2004
[26] Devdas,M., “Modelling of RC elements for non-linear analysis”
[27] Sifat,S.,M., “A Parametric Study of RC Moment Resisting Frames at Joint Level by Investigating Moment -Curvature
Relations”, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, 2011, pp.225-256
[28] Khose,V.,N., Singh,.Y. and Lang,D., “Limitations of Indian Seismic Design Codes for RC Buildings”, 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2010, pp.1416-1423 65
 REFERENCE contd.
[29] Singh,.Y,Lang,D. and Khose,V.,N., “A Comparative Study of Code Provisions for Ductile RC Frame Buildings”, 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,2012,pp.1-10

2/16/2021
[30] IS 875 (part1), Dead loads, unit weights of building material and stored and stored material (second revision),
Bureau of Indian Standards, 1987, New Delhi
[31] IS 875 (Part2) Imposed loads (second revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, 1987, New Delhi
[32] IS 456, Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice (fourth revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, 2000, New

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Delhi
[33] IS1893-2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure, Bureau of Indian Standards,
Fifth revision, New Delhi
[34] Punmia,B.,C., “Limit State Design”, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, 2007
[35] Agarwal, P. and Shrikahande,M., “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”,PHI Learning Private Limited,
Eleventh Printing,May 2013
[36] ASCE 7-10, “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures”, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Virginia, USA, 2010
[37] ACI 318-08, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary”, American Concrete Institute,
USA, 2008
[38] IS 1786-1985 (Reaffirmed 1990), “Specification for High strength Deformed Steel bars and wires for concrete 66
reinforcement”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1985
 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS 2/16/2021
67