# Introduction onlinear static analysis, or pushover analysis, has been developed over the past twenty years and has become the preferred analysis procedure for design and seismic performance evaluation purposes as the procedure is relatively simple and considers post elastic behavior. However, the procedure involves certain approximations and simplifications that some amount of variation is always expected to exist in seismic demand prediction of pushover analysis. Although, in literature, pushover analysis has been shown to capture essential structural response characteristics under seismic action, the accuracy and the reliability of pushover analysis in predicting global and local seismic demands for all structures have been a subject of discussion and improved pushover procedures have been proposed to overcome the certain limitations of traditional pushover procedures. However, the improved procedures are mostly computationally demanding and conceptually complex that uses of such procedures are impractical in engineering profession and codes. As traditional pushover analysis is widely used for design and seismic performance evaluation purposes, its limitations, weaknesses and the accuracy of its predictions in routine application should be identified by studying the factors affecting the pushover predictions. In other words, the applicability of pushover analysis in predicting seismic demands should be investigated for low, mid and high-rise structures by identifying certain issues such as modeling nonlinear member behavior, computational scheme of the procedure, variations in the predictions of various lateral load patterns utilized in traditional pushover analysis, efficiency of invariant lateral load patterns in representing higher mode effects and accurate estimation of target displacement at which seismic demand prediction of pushover procedure is performed. # a) Analysis and Design The recent advent of performance based design has brought the nonlinear static pushover analysis procedure to the forefront. 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. The loading is monotonic with the effects of the cyclic behavior and load reversals being estimated by using a modified monotonic force-deformation criteria and with damping approximations. 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 ATC-40 and FEMA-273documents have developed modeling procedures, acceptance criteria and analysis procedures for pushover analysis. These documents define force-deformation criteria for hinges used in pushover analysis. As shown in Figure 5.1, five points labeled A, B, C, D, and E are used to define the force deflection behavior of the hinge and three points labeled IO, LS and CP are used to define the acceptance criteria for the hinge. (IO, LS and CP stand for Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention respectively.) The values assigned to each of these points vary depending on the type of member as well as many other parameters defined in the ATC-40 and FEMA-273 documents. This article presents the steps used in performing a pushover analysis of simple three-dimensional building.SAP2000, a state-of-the-art, general-purpose, three-dimensional structural analysis program, is used as a tool for performing the pushover. The SAP2000 static pushover analysis capabilities, which are fully integrated into the program, allow quick and easy implementation of the pushover procedures prescribed in the ATC-40 and FEMA-273 documents for both two and three-dimensional buildings. Pushover analysis is performing for old as well as new building. In our case we consider the new # Results & Discussion # Conclusion The result of the nonlinear static pushover analysis quantitatively establish that the seismic performance of a masonry infill R/C adversely and significantly affected if the infill panels were discontinued in the ground story resulting in the structural configuration with an open story, commonly termed as 'weak' story , at the ground levels. Hinges formation in the beam is more than column and demonstrates rational nonlinear displacement-based analysis methods for a more objective performance-based seismic evaluation of the masonry infilled R/C frames with seismically undesirable (and preferred) distribution of masonry infill panels over the frame elevation. 2![so, first Analysis G+6 Residential building and Design by SAP2000 V11.0 software. Design sections of Beam, Column are take input for Nonlinear Static analysis. Architectural layouts and structural framing plans of masonry infill R/C framed building constructed in practice, the following reprehensive and practically relevant structural configuration of a planer masonry infill panels over the frame elevation were identified for the nonlinear static analysis(a) Bars frame considering the dead weight of the masonry infill panels while disregarding their structural contribution in the nonlinear static analysis, a hypothetical case consistent with the prevalent design practice. (b) Completely infill frame (c) Masonry in filled frames without infill panels in the ground storey (i.e. 'open' or 'soft' storey at the ground level corresponding to building supported on stilt columns) with designed for horizontal seismic base shear computed using the response spectrum method degrading the 'soft' storey effect (a) (b) b) Properties Material properties and design parameter for masonry infill wall c) Properties of Grade of Concrete and Steel Grade of concrete = M20 Grade of steel = Fe415 Density of concrete = 25kN/m 3 d) Seismic Coefficient for Response Spectrum method 1. Seismic Zone v, Zone Factor 0.36 2. Medium soil, Soil type II 3. Residential building, Importance factor 1 4. Response reduction factor (SMRF) 5 5. Loads on Frame: i). Dead Load of External Wall = 13.80 KN/M 2 ii). Dead Load of External Wall =6.90 KN/M 2 iii). Floor Finish= 0.75 KN/M 2 iv). Live Load on Floor = 3.0 KN/M 2 v). Live Load on Roof = 1.5 KN/M](image-2.png "2 e") 1![Figure 1 : Sectional Elevation along Y-Direction II.](image-3.png "Figure 1 :") 3![Figure 3 : Story level Vs Horizontal Force Curve](image-4.png "Figure 3 :") 45![Figure 4 : Story No Vs Story Shear Curve](image-5.png "Figure 4 :Figure 5 :") 1Year 20137XIII Issue v v IV Version IStepBARE FRAME Displace-ment Base ForceStory ShearDisplace-mentINFILL WALL Base ForceStory ShearDisplace-mentWEAK STORY Base ForceStory ShearVolumeMKNKNmKNKNMKNKND D D D )(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Displacement in m2.97E-06 0.00958 0.013547 0.05683 0.138688 0.168203 0.269185 Storey Vs Displacement in m 0 11992.32 2.97E-06 998.235 11992.32 0.005923 1453.227 35808.585 0 35808.585 1258.552 10994.08 0.011458 3254.491 34355.358 1910.125 9735.532 0.05683 6258.258 31100.867 2005.568 7825.407 0.115645 7207.032 24842.609 2562.258 5819.839 0.12389 8721.291 17635.577 3257.581 3257.581 0.127093 8914.286 8914.286 2000 4000 Horizontal 6000 8000 10000 force in kN Storey Vs Horizontal Force 2.97E-06 0 26326.93 0.01256 1453 26326.93 0.01355 2213 24873.71 0.08625 4258 22660.46 0.13523 5896 18402.34 0.15498 6135 12506.65 0.1682 6372 6371.674Global Journal of Researches in Engineering000 Bare Frame24 Storey from GF Infill Walls Weak Storey 680 Bare Frame24 Storey from GF 6 Infill Walls Weak Storey 8Figure 2 : Story Level Vs Displacement Curve Story Level Vs Storey Shear4000040000Year 2013Storey Shear in kN0 10000 20000 3000012 BARE FRAME3 Storey No. 4 INFILL WALL5 WEAK STORY 60 20000 Storey Shear Bare Frame 0 2 4688rsion IXIII Issue vVolumeD D D D )(Global Journal of Researches in Engineering © 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US) Pushover Analysis of Multistoried Building * Seismic Evaluation and Retrofitting of Concrete Builing ATC40 1 Applied Technology Council * Fema-356 Federal Emergency Management Agency Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building Nov-2000 * Fema-440 Federal Emergency Management Agency ,Improvement of Non-Linear Static Seismic Analysis Procedure Redwood city, California, Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington D.C 2004-2005 240 Appliedb Technology Council (ATC-55 Project) 201 Redwood Shores Parkway * Fema-273 Federal Emergency Management Agency ,NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building Redwood city, California, California Seismic Safety Commission, Washington D.C October-1997 ATC-33 Project Applied Technology Council * Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures IS 1893(Part1): 2002 2002 Bureau of Indian Standards New Delhi