This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori Università degli Studi di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

ROSE SCHOOL

**A REVIEW OF EXISTING PUSHOVER METHODS FOR 2-D REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
**

A Individual Study Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the PhD Degree in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

By MANUEL ALFREDO LÓPEZ MENJIVAR Supervisor: Dr. RUI PINHO

September 2004

The dissertation entitled “A review of existing pushover methods for 2-D reinforced concrete buildings”, by Manuel Alfredo López Menjivar, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Earthquake Engineering.

Rui Pinho

Stelios Antoniou

Abstract

ABSTRACT

It is well known, within the Earthquake engineering community, that the most accurate method of seismic demand prediction and performance evaluation of structures is nonlinear time history analysis. However, this technique requires the selection and employment of an appropriate set of ground motions and having a computational tool able to handle the analysis of the data and to produce ready-to-use results within the time constrains of design offices; clearly, a simpler analysis tool is desirable. One method that has been gaining ground, as an alternative to time history analysis, is the nonlinear static pushover analysis. The purpose of the pushover analysis is to assess the structural performance by estimating the strength and deformation capacities using static, nonlinear analysis and comparing these capacities with the demands at the corresponding performance levels. Traditionally, conventional (i.e. non-adaptive) has been used and implemented in design codes. Although it provides crucial information on response parameters that cannot be obtained with conventional elastic methods (either static or dynamic), this method is not exempt from some limitations such as the inability to include higher mode order effects or progressive stiffness degradation. Therefore, the need for a fully adaptive procedure that overcomes the above deficiencies is readily noted. A revision of the “nonconventional” pushover procedures recently proposed was carried out, from which advantages and disadvantages of each approach were identified. It was noted that adaptive pushover methodology constitute a viable option to nonlinear dynamic analysis since it solves the inherent deficiencies that conventional pushover analysis possesses. Additionally, the possibility of using an alternative modal combination to the quadratic modal combination rules (i.e. SRSS and CQC) has been proposed and assessed. The technique is named Direct Vectorial Addition, DVA. The feasibility of this alternative modal combination is tested by using case models of actual buildings. To verify the accuracy of the different pushover schemes the results obtained by these nonlinear static methods are compared to those from the nonlinear time history analysis and the standard error is used to evaluate the accuracy of the comparisons.

i

Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii .

...2 Modelling .........4 2..................................3 Nonlinear dynamic analysis................................9 3..............................13 3....................1 Introduction .....................20 iii ...... INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ V LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................2 Generalities.........2 1.......................................................................2..........................................................................................................13 3..III LIST OF TABLES ..............................13 3..........................................1 1.........................18 3.......................................................13 3.............................................1 Analytical tool ........................4 Case study two: The ICONS frame ..........................................Index INDEX ABSTRACT ....................................................2 Modelling of the members ....II INDEX.........................................................................................................................................................................................................2.....................................1 1................................. NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS (PUSHOVER) – OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................................................3 Case study one: RM15.................................................1 Description of the traditional pushover analysis.......2 2. VI 1.................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Scope ..I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................2..............................................................................................5 2................................................5 2...............................4 2.................................................................3 Development and assessment of the method ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................2........13 3.............................................................................................................................................2 Objectives.................................................................................... DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................................2..................................................3 Outline of this Dissertation...............................................14 3.............................................................................................................

.......................................1 Summary ........................................................24 4..................2 Pushover analysis using DVA .......................................................................................................................................................................................7 Possible drawbacks due to the use of quadratic modal combination rules .............34 4..........................45 6.............................................................................................1 Non-adaptive non-modal pushover analysis ...........24 4....................46 iv ........................................................................................................................................................................................8...............................................................................................................................39 4..........25 4..........21 4..........................................................................8 The ICONS frame..............................................................................................3 Non-adaptive non-modal pushover analysis...............................................................................................1 Case study one: RM15......................26 4..........................................................................................2 Case study two: The ICONS frame ................................................................................. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF PUSHOVER METHODOLOGIES ..............................................................Index 3.........................................................2 Measuring the accuracy of the pushover techniques ........................1 Introduction ..................................44 5..................................................................................5 Force-based adaptive pushover procedures ...................2 Future Research ....4 Non-adaptive modal pushover analysis ...20 3.29 4.......36 4..........................3......40 5...............................................................................44 5..39 4...........................................................6 Displacement-based adaptive pushover procedures .24 4..........................3..........................................8......... REFERENCES .............

..10 ...11 and Figure 4...21 Table 4..................................1.....7 .......................16 Table 3..........................................9 ...1 Standard error of the pushover schemes in Figure 4...................4 Calculated floor gravity loads and masses.....36 Table 4............8 Standard errors of the profiles shown in Figure 4........40 Table 4......................................12.25 Table 4...3 Standard error of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4.................. after Antoniou and Pinho [2004a]....15 and Figure 4.......7 and Figure 4........................................Index LIST OF TABLES Table 3...... after Mwafy [2001] .........5 Standard error of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4.........................7 Standard error of the pushover schemes in Figure 4....4.....8 and Figure 4..........................2 Standard error of the pushover schemes in Figure 4.................15 Table 3.3 Material properties used in the assessment.....34 Table 4...................42 v ................8 ........................................................................16..............................1 Definition of the considered structural system....................15 Table 3........6 Standard error of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4......................38 Table 4....................................9 Standard errors of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4.................39 Table 4......................................13 to Figure 4........5 Characteristics of the records employed by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a]......................................4 Standard error of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4........18 Table 3....2 Member cross-sectional dimensions for regular buildings.............28 Table 4......................... after Mwafy [2001].........41 Table 4..........................14 ....................

..............................................................3 Displacement profiles of the ICONS simplified model under constant-force and constantdisplacement distributions........................23 Figure 4...............22 Figure 3.....25 Figure 4..26 vi ..........................................Index LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2........................................4 Adopted modelling approach.............10 Artificial acceleration time histories for (a) 475 year (Acc-475) and (b) 975 year (Acc-975) return period...................................... after Carvalho et al..................................... [1999].................al.....................................................................2 Pushover curves of the equivalent SDOF and bilinear systems...........................8 Elastic response spectra of the four records (5% equivalent viscous damping)....12 Analytical and experimental drift profiles: (a ) Acc-475....... ....... after Alvarez-Botero and López-Menjivar [2004] ..23 Figure 3.......2 Location of Gauss points along the member length....................6 Reinforcement detail of the columns.......... 1996].....6 Figure 2...... ...............................................................................................22 Figure 3...................... after Mwafy [2001] ......14 Figure 3.......... after Mwafy [2001]..............5 Elevation and plan views of the frame...........1 Pushover curves of the MDOF and equivalent SDOF systems....7 Scheme of vertical loads for nonlinear analysis........................... ..................... after Carvalho et al........................20 Figure 3. (b) Acc-975 ...1 Comparison of drift profiles from triangular and uniform pushovers with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for the RM15 frame..............................19 Figure 3...................... (b) Acc-975.8 Figure 3......... ................17 Figure 3.......................11 Analytical and experimental top frame displacement: (a ) Acc-475. after Carvalho et al......................1 Fibre plasticity discretization in a reinforced concrete section.......19 Figure 3........................ (b) displacement..... [1999] ......................................................................................................21 Figure 3...........................................3 Plane and sectional elevation of the 12-storey regular frame building set.................14 Figure 3................................ [1999]...........9 Respose spectra of input motion: (a) acceleration............................................................................................15 Figure 3.6 Figure 2............................................... after Alvarez-Botero and López-Menjivar [2004]............................................. ........2 The multimodal pushover procedure [after Paret et...

....................11 Comparison of drift profiles from triangular and uniform pushovers with the drift profile at the time step of maximum inter-storey drift from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record...................14 Comparison of drift profiles from FAP with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record ...41 Figure 4......................6 Graphical interpretation of incremental updating using tangent stiffness ................................27 Figure 4.................................................................................................................................................................12 Comparison of drift profiles from triangular and uniform pushovers with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record.40 Figure 4...............................................................................33 Figure 4...16 Comparison of drift profiles from DAP with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record .....................................33 Figure 4.......................................8 Comparison of drift profiles from DAP (SRSS) with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for RM15 ..40 Figure 4.......42 Figure 4......3 Properties of the nth mode inelastic SDOF system derived from the corresponding pushover curve [after Chopra and Goel.................................................5 Graphical representation of loading force vector calculation with incremental updating .....41 Figure 4..................7 Comparison of drift profiles from FAP (SRSS) with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for RM15 ...........28 Figure 4....................................................13 Comparison of drift profiles from FAP with the drift profile at the time step of maximum inter-storey drift from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record . 2001].32 Figure 4..........15 Comparison of drift profiles from DAP with the drift profile at the time step of maximum inter-storey drift from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record .............................................................10 Comparison of drift profiles from DAP (DVA) with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis ......4 Comparison of drift profiles from MPA with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for RM15 frame ................39 Figure 4..............................................................................................42 vii ..........................................9 Comparison of drift profiles from FAP (DVA) with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for RM15 ...............................38 Figure 4...................................................................................................................Index Figure 4...........36 Figure 4.....................

.

Two variants of the method currently exist: Force-based Adaptive Pushover (FAP) and Displacement-based Adaptive Pushover (DAP). A set of characteristic ground motions that may affect the area [Bommer et al. 1. 2004b]. The assessment is based on the estimation of important structural parameters. the adaptive pushover may not be exempt of limitations the main of which could be the way how different modes are combined..1 INTRODUCTION SCOPE The best way to assess the performance and to predict the demand on a structure subjected to earthquake action is nonlinear time history analysis. since they are squared. The analysis accounts for the geometrical nonlinearity and material inelasticity. for this technique to be reliable some parameters need to be clearly defined. as well as the redistribution of internal forces. element deformations and internal forces. the need for a fully adaptive procedure that overcomes the above deficiencies is readily noted. the latter has already proved to provide results very similar to those obtained from the time history analysis when the response of seismically design buildings has been analysed [Antoniou and Pinho. 2004b]. the nonlinear static pushover analysis has been gaining ground among the structural engineering society as an alternative mean of analysis. such as global and inter-storey drift. Typically. During the last decade. Although it provides crucial information on response parameters that cannot be obtained with conventional elastic methods (either static or dynamic). Moreover. a simpler yet reliable method of structural analysis is desirable. torsional modes are almost wiped away and their contribution to the overall force vector is completely modified because the signs of the modal displacements are removed by the present modal combination rules. and the modification of the inertial forces due to spectral amplification. the traditional procedure is to push the structure with a constant triangular or uniform distribution of forces. 2003] and a mathematical tool able to handle all analyses often exceed the capabilities of a design office which works under tight time constraints. with different signs. The modal combination rules used are SRSS and CQC that remove the contribution of negative quantities.Chapter 1: Introduction 1. rendering results that are always positive. nonlinear analysis and comparing these capacities with the demands at the corresponding performance levels. An appealing adaptive pushover method is the one proposed by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a. The possible flaw is evident when the response of 3D structures is studied. along the height of the structure. This became obvious during the research performed by López-Menjivar [2003] on 1 . its period elongation. Nevertheless. In this case. this method is not exempt from some limitations such as the inability to include higher mode order effects or progressive stiffness degradation. The purpose of the pushover analysis is to assess the structural performance by estimating the strength and deformation capacities using static. the lateral load distribution is not kept constant but is continuously updated during the process. according to modal shapes and participation factors derived by eigenvalue analysis carried out at each analysis step. Therefore. It is known that during an earthquake the deform shape of a building is not always positive instead it can be composed of a wide range of displacements. Thus. of the two variants. However. The method is multimodal and accounts for softening of the structure. In this adaptive pushover technique.

The second purpose is to explore the possibility of using and alternative modal combination ruled. despite its efficiency and applicability. more study is needed before stating a definite conclusion. It covers several aspects ranging from the motivation behind the selection of the research topic. Innovations such as considering high mode order effects.2 OBJECTIVES The nonlinear static pushover analysis is an alternative method. By making an extensive review of the current pushover methods. to the testing of different pushover methods and the validation of this new scheme by applying it to two case studies. One such successful attempt. such as target displacements and the applied load pattern. the adaptive pushover analysis proposed by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a. Its merits and drawbacks are also discussed. 2004b]. Thus. to be used in an adaptive pushover analysis. named DVA. coinciding also with the location of lap-splicing. with respect to the nonlinear time history analysis. 1. Along the development of the chapter. the Direct Vectorial Addition (DVA) is proposed and expounded as a solution. stiffness degradation and input motions have been developed. it has been made obvious that. a case study is used to compare the response 2 . 2004b] is described and scrutinized here. it was observed in a previous research [Antoniou and Pinho. Nevertheless.3 OUTLINE OF THIS DISSERTATION This research is organized into five chapters. RM15. 2004b]. The first structure. which has recently attracted considerable attention as a tool for seismic assessment. However. Structural characteristics of each building are illustrated in Chapter 3. along with essential issues. Recently. 1. a new approach to combine the contributions of the modes is clearly needed. to the usual SRSS and CQC rules to further improve the capabilities of the above mentioned adaptive approach. The nonlinear static pushover analysis procedure. the literature review. The study employs two reinforced concrete buildings. An attempt is made at identifying a limitation of the above adaptive pushover method following which a scheme. Chapter 1 is devoted to the presentation of the research topic and the identification of the general scope and specific objectives. of demand prediction and performance evaluation that has been used in the last decade. named ICONS frame hereafter. 1998]. many attempts have been proposed to improve the capability of the pushover analysis. the development of a new modal combination scheme. The latter is attributed to a drastic change in strength and stiffness at this level through a reduction in both the reinforcement content and the section dimensions in the columns between the second and third storeys. belongs to a set of buildings already employed in a by Antoniou [2002] and includes frames that are seismically design. Therefore. the main aims of this research are the following: The first one is to discuss and assess different pushover methodologies by employing a typical seismically designed concrete frame structure. that DAP might overcome the flaw mentioned in the precedent paragraph in the case of seismically design 2D building structures. is described in detail in Chapter 2.Chapter 1: Introduction 3D reinforced concrete buildings. it exhibits significant limitations [Krawinkler and Seneviratna. The second case study is a four-storey bare frame known to have a soft storey at the third floor. A review of recent research carried out worldwide on pushover analysis is presented in Chapter 4 with particular emphasis placed on attempts to extend its applicability and efficiency. One of those current methods is an adaptive pushover analysis elaborated by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a.

Chapter 5 is a summary of the most important aspects discussed in the dissertation.Chapter 1: Introduction obtained from different pushover analyses to obtain preliminary conclusions. a thorough presentation of the main findings and conclusions. 3 . The chapter closes with the application of DVA to another case study. and the identification of the possible projects for future research are also outlined.

Response characteristics that can be obtained with the pushover analysis include [Krawinkler and Seneviratna. there have also been some attempts to derive fully adaptive procedures [Bracci et al. in order to dissipate energy. 1995. 1998. 2001. 1997. 2002. 1996. 2000. 4 - . Elnashai. shear dominated elements. 2003]. 2002. Gupta and Kunnath. Lawson et al. 1998]. Hence it provides crucial information on response parameters that cannot be obtained with conventional elastic methods (either static or dynamic).1 The use of the nonlinear static analysis. moment demands on beam-to-column connections or shear forces demands on short.. Estimates of the deformation demands on elements that have to deform inelastically. Sasaki et al.. Aydinoğlu. Only very recently. It is expected to gain more popularity in the future and it is already included in some codes [PCM. there have been efforts to extend pushover analysis to take into account higher mode effects [Paret et al. named as pushover analysis hereafter. 2000. Consequences of the strength deterioration of particular elements on the overall structural stability. SEAOC. The purpose of the pushover analysis is to assess the structural performance by estimating the strength and deformation capacities using a static. Krawinkler and Seneviratna.. Initially the majority of them concentrated on discussing the range of applicability of the method and its advantages and disadvantages. CEN 1995]. 2002]. such as axial demands on columns. 1998]: Realistic force demands on potentially brittle elements.g. The assessment is based on the estimation of important structural parameters. The analysis accounts for the geometrical nonlinearities and material inelasticities.Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview 2. Moghadam and Tso. compared to elastic or non-linear dynamic procedures [e. Requena and Ayala.. as well as the redistribution of internal forces. Chopra and Goel. non-linear analysis algorithm and comparing these capacities with the demands at the corresponding performance levels. 1997.. 2003] with update force distributions that take into account the strength and stiffness state of the building at each step. The potential of the pushover analysis has been recognised in the last decade and it has found his way into seismic guidelines [ATC. Furthermore. NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS (PUSHOVER) – OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION 2. Antoniou et al. 2000. 1994. such as global and interstorey drift or element deformation and forces. dates back to the 1970’s but only after gaining importance during the last 10-15 years had dedicated publications started to appear on the subject.

2. The static pushover analysis has no robust theoretical background. accounting for strength and stiffness discontinuities. 1995]. The target displacement is intended to represent the maximum displacement likely to be experienced during the expected ground motion. 2003] and NEHRP guidelines [ATC.1997]. In this way. Identification of strength irregularities in plan or elevation that cause changes in the dynamic characteristics in the inelastic range. Verification of the adequacy of the load path. both structural and non-structural. until either the target displacement is exceeded or the building collapses.{1} {Φ}T ⋅ M ⋅ {Φ} (2. Italian Building code [PCM. The sequence of cracking. The force-deformation characteristics of the equivalent SDOF system can be determined from the results of the nonlinear pushover analysis of the MDOF system by employing the equation 2.2. damage on non-structural elements can be controlled. associating with incorporating all-important elements and modelling their inelastic load-deformation characteristics.Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview - Identification of the critical regions. throughout the time-history. M is the mass vector of the MDOF system. regardless of the level of deformation. where the inelastic deformations are expected to be high. Sequence of the member’s yielding and failure and the progress of the overall capacity curve of the structure. Γ can be computed thorough equation 2. This implies that the dynamic response of the MDOF system is determined by a single mode only and that the shape {Φ} of that mode is constant.2) 5 .1) where. considering all the elements of the system. Presuming that the vector {Φ} is known. The Nonlinear Static Procedure (commonly known as pushover analysis) is described as follows: “A model directly incorporating inelastic material response is displaced to a target displacement and resulting internal deformations and forces are determined”.2 d * = dn Γ F * = Fb Γ (2. in a rough manner. Clearly. Γ= {Φ}T ⋅ M . the transformation factor. these benefits come at the cost of additional analysis effort. It is based on the assumption that the response of the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structure is directly related to the response of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system with appropriate hysteretic characteristics.1. proposals contain in the EC-8 [CEN. Estimates of the interstorey drifts.1 GENERALITIES Description of the traditional pushover analysis The subsequent description abides by. A certain load pattern is selected and the intensity of the lateral load is monotonically increased.2 2. plastic hinging and failure of the structural components throughout the procedure is observed.

after Alvarez-Botero and LópezMenjivar [2004] From such plot an idealized elasto-perfectly plastic force-displacement relationship can be constructed. EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM AND BILINEAR SYSTEM 1000000 750000 Base Shear [N] 500000 250000 0 0 100 200 Displacement [mm] Equivalent SDOF System 300 400 Figure 2.1 Pushover curves of the MDOF and equivalent SDOF systems. Fb and dn are the base shear force and control node displacement of the MDOF system. top displacement curve for the equivalent SDOF system (Figure 2. The yield force Fy*. 1996]. Em* is the area under the equivalent SDOF system pushover curve. The initial stiffness of the idealized elastic-perfectly plastic system is determined in such a way that that the areas under the actual and the idealized system force-deformation curve are equal. if the structural response is dominated by the fundamental mode [Krawinkler and Seneviratna. which represents the ultimate strength of the idealized system. is equal to the peak force of the pushover curve of the equivalent SDOF system. The procedure derives a base shear vs.3) where. 1994. sensitivity studies have shown that the modification factor Γ can be considered constant for small to moderate changes in {Φ} and that rather accurate predictions can be attained.2. PUSHOVER CURVES OF THE MDOF AND EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEMS 1200000 1000000 BASE SHEAR (N) 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 DISPLACEMENT (mm) MDOF System Equivalent SDOF System Figure 2.2 Pushover curves of the equivalent SDOF and bilinear systems. Figure 2. see Figure 2. Lawson et al.1). Based on this assumption. the yield displacement of the idealized SDOF system dy* is given by: ⎛ E* ⎞ * d * = 2⎜ d m − m ⎟ y ⎜ * Fy ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2. after Alvarez-Botero and López-Menjivar [2004]. Although these considerations are apparently incorrect. 6 .. 1998. Fajfar and Gaspersic.Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview where.2.

Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview

The maximum displacement of the equivalent SDOF system, dt*, subjected to the expected ground motion can now be found by means of elastic spectra, inelastic spectra or time-history analysis. The expected deformation level of the MDOF structure, dt, can be estimated by the equation:

d t = Γd t*

(2.4)

Several critical parameters of the procedure are worthy of consideration, namely the target displacement, the shape of the load distribution, as well as its nature (forces or displacements). 2.2.1.1 Target displacement The target displacement of pushover analysis should approximate the maximum level of deformation that is expected during the design earthquake. It can be calculated by any procedure that accounts for the effects of non-linear response on displacement amplitude. It was explained in the previous section that it is assumed that the target displacement for the MDOF structure can be estimated from the displacement demand of the equivalent SDOF system, through the use of the selected shape vector {Φ} (usually corresponding to that of the fundamental mode) and equation (2.4). Therefore, a method is sought to determine the target displacement of the SDOF system. For increased sophistication, dynamic time-history analysis of the SDOF model can be used, assuming simple hysteretic rules. However, several other approaches exist. The N2 method [Fajfar and Gaspersic, 1996] utilises the strength reduction factor R, the period T of the SDOF model and Rµ-T relationships to calculate the ductility demand µ = dt*/d*y and , consequently, the displacement demand dt*. Similar procedures have been presented by Krawinkler and Seneviratna [1998]. The Capacity Spectrum Method estimates the displacement demand by comparing graphically the lateral capacity of the system with highly damped spectra (or inelastic spectra as modified by Fajfar [1999]) in the Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum format. 2.2.1.2 Applied forces vs. applied displacements Considering earthquake loading as a set of imposed energy input, ground displacements and deformations of the structural members rather than a set of lateral forces seems a much more rational approach. After all, the fact that earthquake input has been modelled as forces rather than displacements can only be explained by historical reasons, related to the developments of contemporary engineering methods in countries of low seismic hazards, like England and Germany, where the most significant actions are the vertical gravity loads. Had the modern engineering made its initial step in earthquake-prone regions like New Zealand, California or Southern Europe, today’s code provisions would probably be based on deformations. Therefore, applying displacements rather than force patterns in the pushover procedures appears to be more appropriate and theoretically correct [Priestley, 1993]. However, displacement-based pushover analysis suffers from significant inherent deficiencies. Due to the constant nature of the applied patterns, it can be conceal important structural characteristics, such as strength irregularities. This is illustrated by means of an example in Figure 2.3, where the ICONS frame model, which will be described in section 3.2.4, has been pushed to the same target displacement with constant displacement and constant force patterns (triangular distributions). Although the interstorey drift at the soft-storey during an earthquake is expected to be larger than the other storeys, the displacement-based pushover yields equal drifts for all the storeys.

7

Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview

4

3

Storey

2

1

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Displacement (mm) Constant force profile Constant displacement profile

Figure 2.3 Displacement profiles of the ICONS simplified model under constant-force and constantdisplacement distributions.

Hence, to apply displacements, rather than forces, requires adaptiveness meaning to update the displacement patterns, according to the structural properties of the analysed model, such as the stiffness of the mass distribution. The applied displacements at every step would be determined by modal analysis or any other method that explicitly accounts for the structural characteristics at the current level of inelasticity, in a way that approximates the expected dynamic deformations. On one side, such procedure would be theoretically more rigorous and match the new trends for displacementbased design and assessment, and, alternatively, it would expose the structural weakness that are concealed with fixed-displacement patterns and yield accurate results both at the local and the global level [Antoniou and Pinho, 2004b]. 2.2.1.3 Lateral load patterns The lateral load patterns should approximate the inertial forces expected in the building during an earthquake. Although, clearly, the inertia force distributions will vary with the severity of the earthquake and with time, usually an invariant load pattern is used. This approximation is likely to yield adequate predictions of the element deformation demands for low to medium-rise framed structures, where the structure behaviour is dominates by a single mode. However, pushover analysis can be grossly inaccurate for structure of larger periods, where higher mode effects tend to be important. Moreover, Mwafy and Elnashai [2000] and Lawson et al. [1994] observed that pushover procedures are particularly poor in predicting the response of frame-wall structures, probably due to significant period shift and change of inertia force distribution upon yielding of the wall base. Several investigations [Mwafy and Elnashai, 2000; Gupta and Kunnath, 2000] have found that, whereas in the elastic range force distributions of a triangular or trapezoidal shape provide a better fit to dynamic analysis results, at large deformations the dynamic envelopes are closer to the uniformly distributed force solutions. The above happens after the structure has sustained significant damage at a particular storey level, favouring a pattern akin to a SDOF system. Since the constant distribution methods are incapable of capturing such variations in characteristics of the structural behaviour under earthquake loading, the use of at least two different patterns has been proposed. Various codes and guidelines [CEN, 1995; PCM, 2003; ATC, 1997] suggest that use of a “uniform” pattern, where the lateral forces are proportional to the local masses at each floor level, and a “modal” pattern, which is determined by a modal combination using a sufficient number of modes and an appropriate spectral shape. Alternatively, the “triangular”, in which the accelerations are proportional to the storey heights, rather than the “modal” pattern, may be utilized.

8

Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview

Different suggestions have been made in the past. These include the use of lateral loads proportional to the deflected shape of the structure [Fajfar and Fichinger, 1988] or proportional to the storey shear resistances at the previous step [Bracci et al., 1997], whereas Gupta and Kunnath [2000]. Similarly, Requena and Ayala [2000] suggested the derivation of the forces through modal combinations using the square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) method, taking into account a predefined number of modes of interest. 2.3 DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE METHOD

Inelastic static analysis in Earthquake engineering has been first employed by Gulkan and Sozen [1977] and Saiidi and Sozen [1981]. In their Q-model, Saiidi and Sozen suggested the use of the moment-curvature relationships of the individual members to derive the top-level displacement vs. shape moment curve of the MDOF (as opposed to the base shear that is normally used nowadays). The curve is idealized with a bilinear curve to derive the force displacement characteristics of the SDOF system. The deflected shape at yield is assumed to describe the characteristic vibration shape of the building {Φ}. A similar procedure is followed by the N2 method [Fajfar and Fischinger, 1998; Fajfar and Gaspersic, 1996] which after carrying out the pushover analysis relates the quantities Q* of the SDOF system with the quantities Q of the MDOF structure through the equation (2.5).

Q* = Q Γ =

{Φ}T ⋅ M ⋅ {Φ} ⋅ Q = ∑ mi ⋅ Φ i2 ⋅ Q ∑ mi ⋅ Φ i {Φ}T ⋅ M ⋅ {1}

(2.5)

and it uses R-T-µ relationships to calculate the displacement demands. A number of publications has recently reviewed the merits and deficiencies of the method. Lawson et al. [1994] discuss in some detail the range of applicability and the expected realism for various structural systems, and highlight the encountered difficulties. Four steel structures, which heights vary from two to 15 storeys, have been analysed using DRAIN-2DX under three different patterns of static loading (uniform, triangular and modal using the SRSS method to combine the modal shapes and their spectral amplifications). The results were compared against dynamic analysis using seven different earthquake records. The correlation between static and dynamic responses was good for the two and five storey buildings. However, the predictions of the static analysis were inadequate for the 10 and 15 storey buildings. The authors concluded that pushover analysis might be grossly inaccurate for tall buildings, where high mode effects are important. Surprisingly, the pushover analyses with the modal distribution yielded unacceptably poor results, which has been attributed to an exaggeration of highermode effects by the SRSS combination method. Further, unsuccessful attempts to correlate the hysteretic energy of the dynamic analysis with the area under the pushover curve showed that this area is a poor indicator of cumulative damage effects. The paper also discusses the issue of the target displacement, at which the building should be pushed. The procedure proposed by Qi and Moehle [1991] and Miranda [1991] is presented together with a simple method, whereby the target displacement of the MDOF system is calculated from its fundamental period and the spectral ordinate corresponding to it. Both methods provided good estimates of the target displacements. The authors close their paper with some recommendations on why, when and how to use pushover analysis. It is advisable to use the method, when there is doubt about the efficiency of simple elastic code-based procedures, for the seismic evaluation of existing structures and the design of retrofit schemes, but always with great care and good engineering judgment for the interpretation of results. On the same basis, Faella [1996] compares the response of three, six and nine storey buildings subjected to artificial and real earthquakes with pushover analysis, and concludes that static analysis can, indeed, identify collapse mechanisms and critical regions, yielding reasonable estimates for the interstorey drifts. Although the effect of different load patterns is not investigated, confining the observations to the triangular distribution, the importance of accurate determination of the target displacement is stressed. It is also suggested that, since the sum of the maximum dynamic drifts is

9

shear failure mechanisms and the post peak behaviour. mentioning that most of the programs are not capable to model adequately the post peak response. the simplicity of the method makes it a more attractive approach for everyday practice than nonlinear time-history analysis. as discussed in the previous sections. for the latter. as it cannot describe the dynamic nature of the response during earthquakes. Krawinkler [1995] presents pushover analysis as a simplified performance evaluation method that can also be used as a design tool. P-∆ effects and gravity loading. if used with caution and acute engineering judgment. The roof displacement vs. Presenting an example of a successful pushover analysis they discuss the limitations of the method. that not all dynamic analyses of the same structure under a set of different earthquake records are predicted by pushover analysis. Ken and D’Amore [1999] assess the accuracy of the method. and suggest areas of future development. [1994] the authors suggest that use or more than one invariant load pattern. Moreover. once a local mechanism has formed. Traditional pushover analysis can be extremely useful tool. Amongst other issues. In the course of describing recent trends in seismic design methodology. then either the push has to be stopped at the onset of the first hinging. they note that “if an analysis package cannot model structural failure. due to the random nature of earthquake loading. there are good reasons for using pushover analysis rather than simplified elastic methods for estimating the deformation demands. and the important issues of the target displacement and the lateral load pattern are discussed. but. cases in which the pushover predictions are inadequate or even misleading. The latter is one of the most significant problems of conventional static procedures. base shear curve is considered too simplistic and inadequate. as expected. the selected performance objectives. In particular. especially when a predefined and fixed transverse load vector is used. and consider the application of adaptive pattern rather attractive.” is considered the most important problem to be solved. as an improvement the authors suggest the use of pushover analysis supplemented by the use of 3-D nonlinear dynamic analysis. or extreme care must be exerted on the interpretation of the post-failure behaviour as reported by the program”. Finally. “it is advisable to compute the static interstorey drift for a maximum roof displacement higher than the dynamic one”. are identified. Naeim and Lobo [1999] present the common mistakes committed during a pushover analysis. the authors discuss the importance of the loading shape function. it exhibits significant shortcomings and limitations. the author points out difficulties with static-dynamic comparison when the strong-motion input is rich in long period frequencies. due to higher mode effects”. Moreover. Krawinkler and Seneviratna [1998] summarise the basic concepts of the method stressing that its theoretical background is not rigorous. which are summarised below: 10 . the superiority of the method compared to the code-based procedures is recognised. Like Lawson et al. Furthermore. under which pushover analysis can provide adequate information. He discusses the theoretical limitations of the method. as discussed in previous sections. being based on the assumption that the MDOF response is related to the response of a SDOF oscillator. “the higher mode effects. As already mentioned. they mention that the selection of the load pattern is more important than that of the target displacement and that to their belief “the load pattern issue is the weak point of the pushover analysis procedure”. as well as the procedures for the estimation of the targer displacement. Moreover. Not surprisingly. The conditions. Finally. in comparison with inelastic timehistory procedures using DRAIN-2DX to analyse an instrumented six storey steel building built in 1977. However. but can be solved or mitigated with the application of adaptive patterns.Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview larger than the maximum dynamic roof displacement. They conclude. and emphasises the fact that pushover analysis “cannot disclose performance problems cused by changes in the inelastic dynamic characteristics.

1. As a consequence of point 1. The vertical component of the earthquake loading. from the summary of pitfalls short listed above. 8. This degradation leads to changes in the periods and the modal characteristics of the structure that affect the loading attracted during earthquake ground motion. such as the kinetic and the viscous damping energy. in dynamic time-history analysis the shape of the fundamental mode itself may vary significantly depending on the level of inelasticity and the location(s) of damage. the deformation estimates obtained from a pushover analysis may be highly inaccurate for structures where higher mode effects are significant. Nevertheless. In the cases where this contribution is significant.2. A separation between the supply and the demand is implicitly in the method. once a local mechanism has formed. This is clearly incorrect. The theoretical background of the method is not robust and it is difficult to defend. the pushover estimates may be totally misleading. the stiffness degradation. However. as discussed in 2. 6. points 1 to 5 can be overcome with the derivation of a fully adaptive procedure. It is difficult to model three-dimensional and torsional effects. there is no consensus regarding the application of the lateral force in one or both horizontal directions. Moreover. pushover analysis lacks many important features of dynamic non-linear analysis and it will never be a substitute as the most accurate tool for structural analysis and assessment. Being a static method. 7. such as strength irregularities. explicitly ignores the contribution of the higher modes to the total response. 3. Traditional pushover analysis is still force-based. Therefore.Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview 1. pushover analysis concentrates on the strain energy of the structure. since no method has been proposed up to now on how to combine pushover analysis with actions that account for the vertical ground motion. which are associated with the dynamic response. Although in several cases the response is dominated by the fundamental mode. Pushover analysis is very well established and has been extensively used with 2-D models. Moreover. In this way. The progressive stiffness degradation that occurs during the cyclic non-linear earthquake loading of the structure is not taken into account. as currently prescribed in codes and seismic guidelines. several possible developments can considerably improve the efficiency of the method. little work has been carried out for problems that apply specifically to asymmetric 3-D systems. it is by no means clear how to derive the load distributions and how to calculate the target displacement for the different frames of the building. which can be in some cases of great importance is ignored. the period elongation and the higher mode effects can be 11 . an important implicit assumption behind pushover analysis is that the response of a multidegree-of-freedom structure is directly related to an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system. Indeed. it neglects duration effects and cumulative energy dissipation demand. However. Only horizontal earthquake load is considered. Moreover. which accounts for both higher mode contributions and the alterations of the local resistance and the modal characteristics. 2. 4. The method. this can by not means be a generalised statement. with stiffness or mass irregularities. Obviously. neglecting other sources of energy dissipation.2. 5. it would be theoretical more rigorous to find a way to apply displacement distributions that are appropriately updated at different deformation levels since displacement are better related to structural damage. As mentioned earlier. due to the inability of displacement-based pushover to capture important structural weakness. as the inelastic structural response is load-path dependent and the structural capacity is always associated to the earthquake demand.

the application of adaptive displacement rather than force patterns will provide a both conceptually appealing and accurate tool to replace “traditional” force-based approaches. Moreover. somehow. the expected ground motion in the analysis will provide site-specific results that apply to certain areas with particular seismic hazard characteristics. finding a way to incorporate. 12 .Chapter 2: Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) −Overview explicitly considered. Finally. This can be achieved with the utilisation of spectra representative of these areas.

. The model takes into account geometrical nonlinearity and material inelasticity. If a sufficient number of fibres is employed.1 DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION In order to assess different pushover methodologies two buildings have been selected. the distribution of material nonlinearity across the section area is accurately modelled. nonlinear static time-history analysis. Material inelasticity is explicitly represented through the employment of a fibre modelling approach which allows for the accurate estimation of structural damage distribution. Subsequently. RM15 and the ICONS frame. 3. SeismoStruct accepts static loads (either forces or displacements) as well as dynamic (accelerations) actions and has the ability to perform eigenvalues. 3.2. it results that its application is only fully valid to model the nonlinear response of relatively short members and hence a number of elements (usually three to four per structural member) is required to accurate model the structural frame members. nonlinear dynamic analysis and incremental dynamic analysis. 2004] is utilized to run all analysis.1 13 . the spread of material inelasticity across the section area and along the members length. a detailed description of the analytical tool. 1999]. 3. nonlinear static pushover (conventional and adaptive). In the fibre model the sectional stress-strain state or beam-column elements is obtained through the integration of the nonlinear uniaxial stress-strain response of the individual fibres in which the section has been subdivided. Sources of geometrical nonlinearity considered are both local (beam-column effect) and global (large displacement/rotation effects). Since a constant generalized axial strain shape function is assumed in the adopted cubic formulation of the element. 2002] and the latter is a model of a full scaled structure constructed for pseudo dynamic testing [Carvalho et al.2 Modelling of the members Structural members have been discretised by using a beam-column model based on distributed plasticity-fibre element approach. even in the highly elastic range.Chapter 3: Description of case studies 3.2 3. the modelling approach as well as the nonlinear dynamic analyses used is presented.1 MODELLING Analytical tool The finite element analysis program SeismoStruct [SeismoSoft.2. The former has been already used in previous research [Antoniou. see Figure 3. taking into account both geometric nonlinearities and material inelasticity. The structural package is able to predict the large displacement behaviour of space frames under static or dynamic loading.

Additionally. The latter represent common reinforced concrete structures and are based on buildings designed and detailed at the University of Patras [Fardis. Additionally. Subsequently. 14 . resulting in a total of 12 models. and non-hysteretic type damping was assumed to be negligible within the scope of the present endeavour. Figure 3. 1994]. and were then adapted by Rovithakis [2001]. warping strains and warping effects are not considered in the current formulation.3 Case study one: RM15 The description of RM15 has mainly been taken from Antoniou and Pinho [2004a] and Mwafy [2001]. If a sufficient number of elements is used the plastic hinge length of structural members subjected to high levels of material inelasticity can be accurately estimated. No viscous damping was considered in any dynamic analysis. The RM15 model is part of a set of structures that three different structural configurations were employed: a 12 storey regular frame.1. this clearly involves some degree of approximation for the case of reinforced concrete sections. 3. Two integration Gauss points per element are used for the numerical integration of the governing equations of the cubic formulation.2. the elastic torsional rigidity is used in the formulation of the nonlinear frame elements. The spread of inelasticity along member length then comes as a product of the inelastic cubic formulation suggested by Izzudin [2001]. in addition. an eight storey irregular frame and a dual wall-frame system. The Rm15 belongs to the group of regular buildings and their general characteristics are defined in Table 3. they were modelled by Mwafy [2001] under a framework of different project.1 Fibre discretisation in a reinforced concrete section. seemingly according to the 1995 version Eurocode 8 [CEN. since energy dissipation through hysteresis is already implicitly included within the nonlinear fibre model formulation of the inelastic frame elements. different ductility classes and design ground acceleration were considered. either. It is worth mentioning that shear strains across the element cross section are not modelled.2 Location of Gauss points along the member length.2.Chapter 3: Description of case studies R C S ectio n U n co n fin ed C o n crete F ib res C o n fin ed C o n crete F ib res S te el F ib res Figure 3. Figure 3. 1995].

0 m Z 3 x 5.70 .740 The geometric characteristics of the structural system is illustrated in Figure 3. (1st storey) Beams b × h X-dir.75 3. Slab RH30 RM30 RM15 RL15 .60 .60 .80×.50 0.15 5.00 3.745 0.70 .0 = 36.3.70×.35×.65 . after Antoniou and Pinho [2004a] Structural System Number of Storeys Structure Reference Ductility Level Design PGA (g) Behavior Factor (q) Tuncracked (s) Regular Frame 12 RH30 RM30 RM15 RL15 High Medium Medium Low 0.35×. Table 3.70×.70 . The total height is 36 metres.30 0. The member cross-section sizes are given in Table 3.719 0.65 . with equal storey heights of 3m.65 .3 Plane and sectional elevation of the 12-storey regular frame building set.70 .0 = 20. The lateral force resisting system is a moment frame.80×.30×.35×.60 . The floor system is solid slab.14 0.14 12 x 3.70×.60 .35×.70×.35×.30×.0 m 5 x 4.2 Member cross-sectional dimensions for regular buildings.3.Chapter 3: Description of case studies Table 3.70×. 15 .) Z-dir.1 Definition of the considered structural system.697 0. after Mwafy [2001] Columns SR Internal External Corner X-dir.30×. wall-frame sub-set has both a central core extending over the full height and moment frames on the perimeter.60 0. after Mwafy [2001] Mean values of material strengths are utilised in the analyses rather than the characteristics values used in the design.30×.70×.80 . The overall plan dimensions is 15m by 20m.80 .2.0 m X Solid slabs Figure 3.30×.75 2.30×.70 .70 .14 0.14 0.80×.70 .60 .60 .70×. (Long. These values are presented in Table 3.80 . an approach consistent with ‘assessment’.80×.35×.60 .70 .70×.60 .80 .0 = 15.

Chapter 3: Description of case studies Table 3. εc Modulus of elasticity. which is intended for design purposes. The contribution of the slab width to the beam has a significant effect on the stiffness and hence on the overall response of the buildings. It is also recommended by EC8 to reduce the effective slab width for buildings subjected to seismic forces due to inelastic effects. Ec 33 N/mm2 2. seven elements are used to model each beam. as a result of the moment reversal and the low contribution of the flange in tension [Paulay and Priestley. 16 . the joint elements connecting the frames in the orthogonal direction. 1994] as well as in the current analysis. On the structure level 1064 elements are used to model the 12-storey regular frame. 1995] to use an effective slab width equal to one half of that recommended for gravity load design. This provides values between the conservative flange width of EC8. as shown in Figure 3. after Mwafy [2001] Material parameter Concrete grade C25/30 Values used in analysis Mean compressive strength. respectively. It is suggested [ACI 318.0022 30. the confinement factors for the cross-section of these elements are evaluated using the mean values of material strengths. On the member level. Due to the fact that the participation of the slab to the beam stiffness is less than the participation to the flexural strength. Three of them are elasto-plastic elements representing the beam between the faces of the columns. as subsequently discussed. 1992]. fu Ultimate strain. This includes the number of cubic elasto-plastic elements. fct Crushing strain. and the full slab or the width recommended for gravity load design. fcm Mean tensile strength.094 200 kN/mm2 Yield strength. fy Steel S500 Ultimate strength. The beam width plus 7% of the clear span of the beam on either side of the web is the effective flange width that is adopted in the model employed in the design of the buildings [Fardis. Es Reinforced concrete column-section and T-section are used for modelling of columns and beams. Several values for the flange width are recommended by seismic codes. On the basis of the arrangement of the transverse reinforcements.3 Material properties used in the assessment. the cubic elastic elements and the shear spring elements. εsu Young’s modulus.4(a).5 kN/mm2 585 N/mm2 680 N/mm2 0. Two rigid elements are utilised to connect the beam ends with the framing columns (the length between the face and the centreline of the vertical elements. The lengths of these elements are determined in accordance with the distribution of transverse and longitudinal reinforcement specified in the design.6 N/mm2 0.

15 Q + EL where. with the exception of the core.0 G + 0. - Slab self-weight. Wf = 2. Q = 2. The total joint deformations can be considerable as a consequence of this cyclic load.3 Q + EL For other storeys: 1. masses are calculated in a manner consistent 17 . the following static loads per unit area are considered to calculate the total gravity loads on the frames. On the other hand. Ψ2 and φ. two shear spring elements are introduced in the present study to represent the shear stiffness of the beam-column connection. Typically. To account for inertia effects during dynamic analysis. Gravity loads are applied as point loads at beam nodes.0 G + 0. The numerically-dissipative Hilber-Hughes-Taylor α-integration scheme is utilised to integrate the equations of motion. 1992]. the structural mesh employs three cubic elasto-plastic elements for modelling of each vertical element. the vertical loads are combined with seismic actions by applying the following rules: At top floor: 1. 1994].58 L 0.Chapter 3: Description of case studies Zero length joint elements connecting the frames in the orthogonal direction External Frames a Shear spring with zero length Column Beam critical Column lengths Rigid arms (a) Beam column connection 0 Art-rec1 Internal Frames 10 sec b Gauss sections Concrete and steel layers 0 Kobe Loma Prieta 15 sec 0 15 sec Regular frame building 0. To account for inertia effects during dynamic analysis.0 kN/m2 Live load.4 Adopted modelling approach. According to the data used in the design [Fardis. Gravity loads are applied as point loads at nodes.0 kN/m - Using the appropriate coefficients. Towards this end. A simple linear elastic force-deformation relationship is utilised to calculate the shear stiffness of the joint. masses are distributed in the same pattern adopted for the gravity loads and are represented by lumped 2D mass elements. from the design code. G is the dead load and EL is the seismic load. The method adapted to model the core is described below.21 L L (b) Cubic elasto-plastic element c Global Y Global Z D1D2 B1 B2 d2 d1 Monitoring point Confined concrete fibre Steel fibres Unconfined concrete fibre Global X b2 b1 (c) Decomposition of beam T-section into fibres Irregular frame building Figure 3. after Mwafy [2001] Under earthquake load.21 L 0. beam-column joints are subjected to high shear stresses that could lead to diagonal cracking and significant shear deformation. 20% of the interstorey drift due to earthquake forces may be originate from joint deformations [Paulay and Priestley.

g.Chapter 3: Description of case studies with the gravity loading combinations and represented by a lumped 2D mass element.88 36398.96 3058.48 36398.4 3710. testing and set up of the experimental rig can be found at Carvalho et al. Figure 3.88 3883. The reinforcement details attempted to mirror the construction practices used in southern European countries in the 1950’s and 1960’s. was design and built at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at Ispra.96 3147.4 Case study two: The ICONS frame The second case study is a four-storey bare frame known to have a soft storey at the third floor. three-bay reinforced concrete bare frame. Such characteristics are common in buildings designed predominantly for gravity-loading and the failure of a storey mid-way up a building has been observed in past devastating earthquakes such as the Kobe earthquake of 1995 (e.8 3820.2.6.96 3147. The full-scale model was constructed for pseudo-dynamic testing. The columns were non ductile.24 38099.24 2758.5. Figure 3. under the auspices of the EUfunded ECOEST/ICONS programme.96 3058. EERI.60 37475. The frame was designed essentially for gravity loads and a nominal lateral load of 8% of its weight. Table 3. The latter is attributed to a drastic change in strength and stiffness at this level through a reduction in both the reinforcement content and the section dimensions in the columns between the second and third storeys.24 3058. 1997).1 3710.24 3058. The four-storey.92 2758.4 3.4 Calculated floor gravity loads and masses Group Structure reference RH30 1 RM30 RM15 RL15 Gravity load (kN) 1 floor st Total mass Total Other Top floor 3199. smooth reinforcing bars were used. coinciding also with the location of lap-splicing.24 2900. Table 3. Detailed information about the frame. 18 .24 3199. [1999] and Pinho and Elnashai [2000].04 2847.4 summarises the total gravity loads and mass values for different storeys of the building. Italy. capacity design principles were ignored and lap splicing occurred in critical regions.

7 shows the scheme of vertical loads applied to the structure. finishes.5 Elevation and plan views of the frame. The vertical loads considered in the design consisted of the self-weight of the slab and transverse beams. 1991) and smooth reinforcement steel class Fe B22k (Italian standards). infill walls and the quasi-permanent static load. [1999] Figure 3.Chapter 3: Description of case studies Figure 3. Figure 3. after Carvalho et al. 19 .6 Reinforcement detail of the columns. The latter refers to smooth bars with a yield stress of 235 MPa and ultimate strength of 365 MPa. after Carvalho et al. [1999] The materials considered at the design phase were a low strength concrete class C16/20 (CEN.

with an isotropic hardening constitutive relationship (Filippou et al.1 NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS Case study one: RM15 Four input time-histories. Indeed. Concrete is represented by a uniaxial constant confinement model (Mander et al. [1999] In total. All member sections are represented explicitly and.3. capable of representing progressive cracking and spread of inelasticity. was adopted. were employed for the dynamic analysis of the study carried out by Antoniou [2002]. and the ratio between the significant duration (defined as the interval between the build up of 5% and 95% of the total Arias Intensity [Bommer and Martinez-Pereira. 1999] and three natural records (Loma Prieta earthquake. in terms of frequency content. The length of the elements varies according to their location. 3. are subdivided into a number of fibres (200-300) varying according to the section size. All connections are assumed rigid and fully-fixed boundary conditions are adopted at the base of the building. 112 inelastic frame elements.7 Scheme of vertical loads for nonlinear analysis. 1983). for an equivalent viscous damping of 5%. the Menegotto-Pinto [1973] steel model. following the formulae presented in Eurocode 2 [CEN. the spectral shapes are markedly distinct and provide high amplifications at different periods. Figure 3. respectively.5.7. for the purpose of strain/stress evaluation. duration and number of high amplitude cycles.Chapter 3: Description of case studies Figure 3. 1989).8. The characteristics of the records are summarised in Table 3.. the original PGA of the records varies between 0. while their elastic response spectra.0 m and 0. 1988) and is calibrated using the concrete characteristics values obtained during testing. peak ground acceleration. are used to model the bare frame. USA. As for the reinforcement bars.3 3. with smaller elements being used in the vicinity of beam-column connections where large levels of inelastic deformation are expected. Effective slab widths of 1.8. 1999]) and the total duration ranges from 22% to 72%. are shown in Figure 3. The selection of these four records aimed at guaranteeing that all models would be subjected to a wide-ranging type of earthquake action. 20 . 1991].12g and 0.65 m were adopted for the long and short spans. consisting of one-artificially generated accelerogram [Campos-Costa and Pinto. after Carvalho et al. Vertical loads and masses are applied at each beam node and at the beam-column joints mirroring the load and mass distribution presented previously in Figure 3.93g.

90 0.28 0. 1999).16 s 9.24 s 69.52 s 8.2 1 0.50 s 7.2 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 Period (s) Period (s) (a) Record A975 0.2.6 0. 975 and 2000 years. A set of hazardconsistent time histories was artificially generated to fit the uniform risk spectra (URS) for return periods of 100.2 s 10.5 Characteristics of the records employed by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a] Record PGA (g) PRA (g) 5% AI Threshold 95% AI Threshold Total Duration ttotal Significant Duration teff teff/ttotal A975 Emeryville Hollister Loma 0.6% 72. In Figure 3.5 0.8 0. was chosen.8 Acceleration (g) 0.4 0.12 0.5 0.3% 25.3g to 1.44 s 12. the acceleration and displacement elastic response spectra for all accelerograms.93 s 8.68 s 15. For the purpose of the experimental programme. 3.3.30 0.5% 22.8 Elastic response spectra of the four records (5% equivalent viscous damping). Figure 3.25 0.6 Acceleration (g) 0 1 2 3 4 0. 475.10 shows the artificial Acc-475 (475 years return period) and Acc-975 (975 years return period) accelerograms.2 0. computed for an equivalent viscous damping of 5%.0 s 33.1 0. the severity class “Moderate-High”. only these two records will be considered in the nonlinear dynamic and pushover 21 .23 s 1. typical of Southern European countries.5 seconds.5 3 (b) Record Emeryville 2. These indicate peak acceleration response for periods of vibration of up to 0.02 s 1.3 Acceleration (g) 0 1 2 3 4 2 1.43 s 8.25 2.1 Earthquake input A collection of artificial records was available for use in the pseudo-dynamic experimental programme.5 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 Period (s) Period (s) (c) Record Hollister (d) Record Loma Figure 3.4 Acceleration (g) 0.32 s 11.2 Case study two: The ICONS frame 3.0 s 40.93 1.Chapter 3: Description of case studies Table 3.75 s 20.4 0. with values ranging from 0.1g. The records were derived following a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis carried out at JRC (Campos-Costa and Pinto.9.50 4.4% 1 1 0.0 s 10.3. are shown.

80 0.2. Figure 3. It suffices that the nonlinear fibre 22 .1 0. In addition.10 Artificial acceleration time histories for (a) 475 year (Acc-475) and (b) 975 year (Acc-975) return period 3. the top displacement response obtained by numerical simulation of each test has been superimposed.0 0.11a and Figure 3.60 0.3.0 -0. As is common with artificial records.12 shows the drift profiles at the peak displacement from both the analytical and experimental time-histories. Nonlinear dynamic analyses of the model described in Section 3. Further refinement of the analytical model could perhaps produce a closer match between the analytical and experimental drift profiles but this is not within the scope of the present exercise.00 2000 years 975 years 475 years 100 years Displacement [mm] 4 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 Period [s] Period [s] (a) (b) Figure 3.3 0. 1. The soft-storey in the test case frame can only be identified through observation of the inter-storey drift profile. it is clear that the analytical model is able to predict the soft-storey at the third floor.2 -0. Inter-storey drift is a crucial parameter in terms of structural response since it is closely related to the damage sustained by buildings during seismic action.2 Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) 0.5 was subjected to a pseudo-dynamic test using the Acc-475 input motion and subsequently to a second test carried out with the Acc-975 input motion.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 -0.40 0.1 0. for the Acc-475 record and the Acc-975 record are shown in Figure 3. 0. It may be concluded that the analytical prediction agrees with the results obtained through testing. (b) displacement.2 0.2. The results of the tests showed that the deformation demand concentrated in the 3rd storey for the Acc-475 test and that collapse of the 3rd storey was almost reached for the Acc-975 test (Pinho and Elnashai.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time (s) Time (s) (a) (b) Figure 3.1 -0.20 0. a wide range of frequencies is present in the accelerograms. The top frame displacements.11b. respectively. 2000).00 300 250 2000 years 975 years 475 years 100 years Acceleration [g] 0.2 Comparison of experimental and analytical results The bare frame specimen of Figure 3.9 Respose spectra of input motion: (a) acceleration.1 -0. obtained for the experimental test.3 ACC-475 0.20 1.4 have been carried out for the two records by placing them consecutively in order to reproduce the testing sequence and better predict the behaviour of the frame.4 ACC-975 0.Chapter 3: Description of case studies analyses carried out herein.2 -0.

8 0 0 0. The structure was modelled as it is.8 1 1. (b) Acc-975 4 4 3 3 Storey 2 Storey Analytical Experimental Analytical 2 Experimental 1 1 0 0 0. however.6 0. it is more useful from a design or assessment point of view and so it would be desirable to obtain a pushover that could capture such a profile giving the maximum drift at all storeys.6 Drift (%) Drift (%) (a) (b) Figure 3. not yet incorporated in the program used.2 0.4 2. The latter envelope is a combination of drifts occurring at different time steps and so is not a state within which the structure ever exists.12 Analytical and experimental drift profiles: (a ) Acc-475.4 0.11 Analytical and experimental top frame displacement: (a ) Acc-475.6 0. TOP LEVEL DISPLACEMENTS 100 150 TOP LEVEL DISPLACEMENTS 100 DISPLACEMENTS (mm) DISPLACEMENTS (mm) 0 2 4 6 8 TIME (S) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL EXPERIMENTAL 10 12 14 50 50 0 0 -50 -50 -100 -100 -150 0 2 4 6 8 TIME (S) ANALYTICAL 10 12 14 (a) (b) Figure 3.6 1.4 1.2 0. Note that no post-test calibration has been carried out. 23 . The differences between Analysis versus experiment are likely to be due to the fact the third storey developed a shear failure mechanism. The former profile corresponds to a real state of the structure.2 2.Chapter 3: Description of case studies analysis can predict the soft-storey at the third floor and thus this will be the reference to which all other analytical analyses will be compared.2 1. structural equilibrium is thus conserved and so comparison of this profile with a pushover would seem more logical.4 0. which may be obtained from the dynamic analysis: the profiles corresponding to the time step when the maximum inter-storey drift at any level is reached and the envelope of maximum drift in all storeys.8 2 2. (b) Acc-975 There are two drift profiles.

the interstorey drift has been selected as the parameter to compare the different analyses. however. failed to provide acceptable response predictions. will be presented. ranging from traditional to adaptive. that should be employed in comparison analyses. adaptive or fixed. Because structural damage is directly related to local deformations. The profile has been obtained at 2. rather than to forces.5% total drift since at this percentage of global drift the structure is already deep within the inelastic range. it is more useful from a design or assessment point of view. ∆iP is the corresponding inter-storey drift from the pushover analysis and n is the number of storeys. For the case of RM15. The envelope of maximum drift in all storeys will be the interstorey drift profile to be employed. 4. when applied to the adaptive pushover method followed by Antoniou and Pinho. At the same time. rather than the so-called pushover curve. The selected record was deliberately chosen as that for which all the force-based variants. it is the drift profile. ∆iD is the inter-storey drift at a given level i from the dynamic analysis. highly amplified by the selected ground motion. The ground motion record employed to perform the dynamic analysis is Hollister.2 MEASURING THE ACCURACY OF THE PUSHOVER TECHNIQUES Note that.1) where. the inter-storey drift profiles obtained from each pushover analysis are to be compared to the drift profiles from the nonlinear dynamic analysis and the standard error of the pushover results. The standard error of the profile is found using the following formula: Error (%) = 100 1 n ⎛ ∆ iD − ∆ iP ∑⎜ n i =1⎜ ∆ iD ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (4. the closer the pushover response is to the nonlinear dynamic response. with respect to the dynamic. the dynamic drifts tend to increase from the structure’s mid-height upwards. a feature that all force-based static techniques struggle to reproduce 24 .1 In the following sections different pushover approaches. calculated. The inter-storey drift profiles obtained from each pushover analysis are to be compared to the drift profiles from the nonlinear dynamic analysis and the standard error of the pushover results. Additionally. both case studies will be employed to examine the performance of the direct vectorial addition. with respect to the dynamic. The evaluation will be performed by using the RM15 and the ICONS frames.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies 4. This envelope is a combination of drifts occurring at different time steps and so is not a state within which the structure ever exists. the performance of selected pushover methodologies will be assessed. as showed by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a]. Due to the effects of higher modes. DVA. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF PUSHOVER METHODOLOGIES INTRODUCTION 4. calculated. The closer the standard error is to zero.

g.1 Comparison of drift profiles from triangular and uniform pushovers with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for the RM15 frame Table 4. the drift at each storey will be obtained from the pushover analysis at a roof displacement corresponding to the maximum roof displacement obtained during the dynamic analysis.1 wherein it may be noted that the triangular pushover analysis produces lower standard errors. The shape of this profile might follow a triangular or uniform distribution.2.00% 3.3.3 NON-ADAPTIVE NON-MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS The current state of the practice e.00% 2. For the first profile mentioned previously. they are still of an unacceptable magnitude.1.00% 5.00% 6. Immediately. the changes in the modal characteristics. 25 .60 Considering the problems and limitations of constant force distributions. FEMA 356 (ASCE. for the ICONS frame case. 2. The drift at the lower storeys are largely overestimated while the upper ones are underestimated. however. the use of enhanced adaptive patterns.00% Figure 4.00% 1. Such pushover analyses have been carried out on the RM15 frame and are compared with the drift profile described previously.00% INTERSTOREY DRIFT 4. Figure 4.50% 12 DYNAMIC TRIANGULAR 10 UNIFORM 8 STOREY 6 4 2 0 0. which are updated at every step to account for the progressive stiffness degradation that occurs during the actual earthquake loading. the period elongation and the different spectral amplifications can be considered. For the second type of drift profile.1 Standard error Uniform Triangular 51.1 Standard error of the pushover schemes in Figure 4.07 91. the drift at each storey will be found from the pushover analysis at a roof displacement level corresponding to the roof displacement at the time step when the maximum inter-storey drift in the dynamic analysis is reached. seems an attractive alternative. the results of selected pushover analyses presented herein will be compared with both of the profiles described in section 3. it is apparent that both the triangular and uniform pushover analyses fail to estimate dynamic drift profile. In this way. 2000) requires a pushover curve to be computed by applying monotonically increasing lateral loads to the structure with an invariant vertical profile. 4.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies Additionally. The standard errors are presented in Table 4.

βi is the modal participation factor of mode i and Ri is the value of the corresponding response from the pushover analysis that utilises a load pattern with the shape of mode i. multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP) illustrated in Figure 4. 2. The procedure is intuitive. The final structural response is calculated form the pushover analyses results. A similar procedure. the maximum seismic response is again estimated by combining the results of several pushover analyses.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies 4. the effects of higher modes cannot be easily quantified. derive the top displacement vs. since the method does not provide estimation of the response. However. base shear curve. where m is the mass matrix of the structure. and does indeed provide qualitative information and identify potential problems due to higher modes that conventional single mode pushover analysis fails to highlight. which was proposed by Moghadam [2002].φn.2) where R is the final estimation of the response at a particular location. Paret et al. Perform eigenvalue analyses to compute the natural frequencies and modes φn. [1998] suggested the simple. employing force distributions sn* according to sn*=m. yet efficient.. is the MPA (Modal Pushover Analysis) method suggested by Chopra and Goel [2002]. This method comprises several pushover analyses under forcing vectors representing the various modes deemed to be excited in the dynamic response.2. according to the following combination rule: R = ∑ β i ⋅ Ri i =1 N (4. Usually. 26 .4 NON-ADAPTIVE MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS In an attempt to consider higher mode effects. The procedure consists of the following steps: 1. For a selected number of modes. also based on MMP. The individual pushover curves are converted to the Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) format and the Capacity Spectrum Method is utilised to compare the structural capacity with the earthquake demand. which are carried out using load patterns that match the modal shapes of a predefined number of modes. According to this method. it becomes apparent which mode is more critical and where damage is likely to occur. In this way. the first three or four modes are considered. 1996] A refinement of the multi-mode pushover procedure is the PRC method (Pushover Results Combination). [1996] and Sasaki et al.al. Figure 4.2 The multimodal pushover procedure [after Paret et.

2001] The researches further stated that when compared to inelastic dynamic analysis the MPA gave rather good estimates for global response parameters. Calculate the peak roof displacement associated to the nth mode. The elastic period of vibration of the nth system is: Tn = 2π Ln Dny Fsny 6. such as interstorey drifts or floor displacements. storey drifts. From the pushover analysis extract values of the desired response rn (floor displacements. two or three modes are enough. Fsny Ln = V bny * Mn . Figure 4. and Ln = ∑ mk ϕ kn k =1 N 5. Mn* = LnΓn is the effective modal mass Γn = k =1 N k =1 ∑ mk ϕ kn ∑ mk ϕ kn 2 N . Typically. 8. Determine the total demand by combining the peak modal response using the SRSS rule. 7. Convert the idealized curves to the Fsn/Ln – Dn relation. 27 .) at the peak roof displacement. etc.3 Properties of the nth mode inelastic SDOF system derived from the corresponding pushover curve [after Chopra and Goel. it was found inadequate to compute local response quantities. The results were superior to the results of the pushover analysis with the fixed force distributions suggested by FEMA. although this has been a characteristic problem of all the pushover procedures employed and not specifically of the suggested multi-modal variation. Use as many modes as required for sufficient accuracy.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies 3. Idealise the pushover curve as bilinear curve (Figure 4. which greatly underestimated drift demands and led to unacceptable large errors. plastic hinge rotations. according to the authors. such as plastic rotations. where.3) 4. Compute the peak deformation of the nth inelastic SDOF system through response history or spectral analysis. However. and Dny = u rny Γnϕ rn .

Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies It has been shown in the previous section the failure of traditional pushover analysis in predicting the dynamic drift profile of the RM15.2 presents the standard error for the aforementioned analysis.2 Standard error of the pushover schemes in Figure 4. completely underestimates the drifts at the top storeys failing to capture the largest drifts that are developed in the frame.00% Figure 4.00% 2. however. among the non-adaptive modal pushover analyses. However. a relative improvement for this particular case study has obtained.21 51. The drift profile obtained from MPA predicts very well the dynamic drift shape for the lower storeys. to be employed to explore the improvement that this analysis might have over conventional pushover methods. it is stressed that only a single frame has been used herein and so general conclusions on the accuracy of any single method of pushover analysis should not be made. Such outcome calls for an analysis technique which is an improvement to the non-adaptive non-modal pushover analysis. that the current application follows the author’s interpretation of the MPA with the possibility of miscalculation not being excluded.4 and Table 4. incorporating already estimation of the seismic demand. Thus. 2. it is gaining attention from the seismic engineering community.07 91.4 Standard error MPA Triangular Uniform 36. the drift profiles computed by MPA (with the first three modes considered) are compared to those from nonlinear dynamic analysis Figure 4.00% 5. using a triangular or uniform distribution of forces. Since it is a such well developed method seems to be a reasonable choice.00% 1.60 28 . thus.50% 12 MPA DYNAMIC TRIANGULAR UNIFORM 10 8 STOREY 6 4 2 0 0. Note that the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) is actually a complete procedure.4 Comparison of drift profiles from MPA with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for RM15 frame Table 4. Note.00% 3.00% 6. therefore. The standard error is smaller than those from the uniform and triangular pushovers. It is certainly rigorous and the relationship between ductility and damping has been thoroughly dealt with.00% INTERSTOREY DRIFT 4. also.

and rational. V j' = S nV j = ∆V Vj V (4.g. i is the storey number. the above multi-modal procedures are a significant improvement of conventional pushover analysis. where the principle of superposition holds. Nonetheless. 4. in order to be used in the eigenvalue analysis of the next step. The number of modes of interest that will be taken into account is predefined and the storey forces for each mode are estimated by: Fij = Γ j ϕ ijWi S a ( j ) (4.3) where. and provides already a full approach for assessment of structures. a site-specific spectrum can be used to define the loading pattern. as well as calculations to attain satisfactory accuracy may be a significant drawback that undermines the main objective of pushover analysis. the combination of the effects obtained from different pushover analyses. In particular MPA has been extensively developed and verified. the need to carry out three or four different analyses. However. since they explicitly consider the response of mode than one mode and the expected ground motion. 29 .4) (4. each of which corresponding to a given mode. eigenvalue analysis is carried out before each load increment. the utilisation of SRSS to combine the responses. as represented by equations 4. it is customary. implies that equilibrium is not satisfied at the end of each step. They are theoretically more robust and conceptually more attractive. the structural stiffness state is assessed. utilising the current structural stiffness state.4 and 4. Φij is the mass normalised mode shape value for the ith storey and the jth mode. which is to be simple and efficient replacement of detailed dynamic analysis. Gupta and Kunnath [2000] proposed a methodology in which the applied load is constantly updated. The estimates of interstorey drifts and the sequence of the formation of local or global collapse mechanism presented in the paper were satisfactory.5 FORCE-BASED ADAPTIVE PUSHOVER PROCEDURES When multiple modes are taken into account. However.5) F j' = S n Fij = ∆V Fij V A static analysis is then carried out for each mode independently. The calculated action effects for each mode are combined with SRSS and added to corresponding values form the previous step. this is only valid when one consider elastic systems (e. However. At the end of the step. rather than the applied forces. derived for each mode. since procedures to estimate demand are included. Wi is the weight of the ith storey. N is the number of the modes considered in the analysis.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies Overall. For the case of nonlinear systems. Sa(j) is the spectral amplification of the jth mode and Γj is the modal participation factor for the jth mode computed by using Γ j = ∑ m k φ kj k =1 N k =1 2 ∑ m k φ kj N The modal base shears Vj are calculated and combined using SRSS to compute the building base shear V. to combine the effects. elastic modal analysis and MPA). and thus yield results that are closer to rigorous inelastic time history analysis. depending on the instantaneous dynamic characteristics of the structure. leads to internal force which do not correspond to an equilibrium state. According to the method. j is the mode number. in addition. The storey forces are then uniformly scaled using the ratio Sn between the predetermined base shear increment ∆V and the base shear calculated from the modal analysis V.5.

2 ∑ (ϕ i⋅ j Γ j ) m m 2 Wi Fi = N j =1 L =1 ∑ W L ∑ (ϕ L⋅ j Γ j ) j =1 ⋅ ∆Vb + Fiold (4. Vb is the base shear and ∆Vb is the increment of the base shear. The alternative approach 2-B accepts the existence of an “equivalent” fundamental mode φ i .Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies More conceptually sound is instead to carry out single nonlinear adaptive pushover analysis. j is the mode number. Further. i is the storey number. Along this line of thinking. however. whereas the additional loads {∆Fi} imposed in subsequent increments are calculated from the instantaneous base shear and storey resistances of the previous load step. Γj is the modal participation factor of mode j. rather than the responses.. whereby the modal combination is applied to the forces. i is the storey number.8) where. m is the number of modes considering in the analysis. k is the increment number. which is determined through a combination of vibration modes using the SRSS rule: φi = 2 ∑ (φij Γ j ) N N N j =1 (4.7) where. Requena and Ayala [2000] discussed two variations of adaptive pushover (referred as approaches 2-A and 2-B) and compared them with a modal fixed pattern scheme (approach 1). [1997] were the first to introduce such procedure that utilises fully adaptive patterns.9) 2 ∑ m k φ kj Γj is the participation factor of mode j defined as Γ j = ∑ m k φ kj k =1 k =1 The distribution of the lateral loads is defined according to: 30 . N is the number of storey in the building and ∆Vb is the increment of the base shear. usually triangular. obtaining. 1996] leading to the attainment of apparently promising results. which employed an additional force scaling equation. Bracci et al. equation 4. Lefort [2000] implemented an extended version of this method. according to the equation: ⎛ F k F k −1 ⎞ ⎛ k ⎟ + ∆V k +1 ⎜ Fi ∆Fik +1 = V j ⎜ i − i b ⎜ V k V k −1 ⎟ ⎜V k b ⎝ b ⎠ ⎝ b ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (4. The procedure was implemented in the dynamic analysis package IDARC [Valles et al. økj is the modal shape for the kth storey and the jth mode and Sαj is the pseudo-spectral acceleration mode j.7.6) where. The analysis starts by assuming an initial lateral load pattern {Fi}. Φij is the mass normalised mode shape value for the ith storey and the jth mode. to account for higher mode contributions. According to approach 2-A the force applied to the different storey levels is derived by the combination of the contributions of the considered modes using SRSS and equals to: ⎛⎡ N ⎜ ∑ mk φ kj N ⎜⎢ ∑ ⎜ ⎢ k =1 N 2 j =1 ⎜ ⎢ ⎜ ⎢ ∑ mk φ kj ⎝ ⎣ K =1 Fi = ( )⎤ ⎥ ⎞ ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ φij Sα j mi ⎟ ⎟ ⎥ ⎟ ⎥ ⎟ ⎦ ⎠ 2 (4. limited-accurate response predictions.

must always feature a uniform (rectangular) distribution shape. In order for such scaling vector to reflect the actual stiffness state of the structure. force distribution update to be carried out. or numerical failure. the Lanczos algorithm [Hughes. in height. it is noteworthy that the adaptive pushover requires the inertia mass M of the structure to be modelled. by means of load control or response control strategy. P = λ. and the load factor λ at that step (see Equation 2. the analytical results presented by the authors were only limited and the accuracy procedures could not be effectively assessed or judged. Two variants of the method exist: Force-based adaptive pushover (FAP) and Displacement-based adaptive pushover (DAP). (i) definition of the nominal load vector and inertia mass. according to modal shapes and participation factors derived by eigenvalue analysis carried out at each analysis step. when the structural stiffness changes. is computed at the start of each load increment. The method is multimodal and accounts for softening of the structure. To this end. The loading vector shape is automatically defined and updated by the solution algorithm at each analysis step. its period elongation. described as it follows. Whilst the first step is carried out only once. for which reason the nominal vector of forces. The new load distribution may be used for the subsequent steps of the analysis. P0. and unfortunately. defined above. The algorithm can be structured in four main stages. an eigenvalue analysis is carried out. (ii) computation of the load factor. rather than discrete. however. not-necessarily realistic.P0 (4. at the start of the analysis. The magnitude of the load vector P at any given analysis step is given by the product of its nominal counterpart P0.10) It is possible. was confined to the application to simplified. the lateral load distribution is not kept constant but is continuously updated during the process. The work of Elnashai. so that the eigenvalue analysis. to calculate a new distribution of the lateral loads that reflects the current state of inelasticity. and the modification of the inertial forces due to spectral amplification.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies Fi = mi φ i k =1 ∑ mk φ k N (4. so as not to distort the load vector configuration determined in correspondence to the dynamic response characteristics of the structure at each analysis step. as obtained at the end of the previous load increment. In the adaptive pushover approach followed by Antoniou and Pinho. 31 . F . They are theoretically rigorous and they explicitly account for higher modes and spectral contributions. its three remaining counterparts are repeated at every equilibrium stage of the nonlinear static analysis procedure. was also suggested by Elnashai [2001]. “stick-models”. The latter is automatically increased. due to the formation of plastic hinges. A methodology conceptually identical to the 2-A method proposed by Requena and Ayala. used to determine the shape of the load vector (or load increment vector) at each step. until a predefined analysis target. In addition.11) The normalized modal scaling vector. However. 2004b] extended and verified the method to the case of actual reinforced concrete frames and implemented it in a finite element package that is freely available from the internet [SeismoSoft. until the stiffness state of the structure changes again. These two alternative adaptive methods are appealing indeed. The difference being that its implementation within a fibre analysis framework allowed for a continuous.15). is reached. 2004].. may be carried out. (iii) calculation of the normalised scaling vector and (iv) updating of the loading force vector. employed in updating the load vector shape. Antoniou and Pinho [2004a.

the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) method. Γj is the modal participation factor for the jth mode. or a weighted vectorial addition. Φij is the mass normalized mode shape value for the ith storey and jth mode. F . a newly derived load vector increment. normalised shape at step t nominal load vector new increment of forces ∆Pt = ∆λt × ∑=1 × = new increment of forces existing forces new forces applied at step t Pt=Pt-1+∆Pt= + = Figure 4. and Mi is the mass of the ith storey. not the magnitude. through piecewise linearization. as schematically shown in Figure 4.13) ∑ Fi (4. the lateral load pattern is spectrum independent and is only determined by the modal properties of the system. Further. the tangent stiffness is used not to calculate the whole load P. of the load or load increment vector. This approach can be viewed like “shifting” the origin of the system to the actual state of force and displacement. the analysis is run in incremental fashion.14) Once the normalised scaling vector and load factor have been determined. if cross-coupling of the modes and respective viscous damping is to be considered. As in nonlinear time-history analysis. but the incremental quantity ∆P to increase P of the previous analysis step. and from the 32 .5 Graphical representation of loading force vector calculation with incremental updating In incremental updating. the loading vector Pt at a given analysis step t is obtained by adding to the load vector of the previous step. the forces obtained from the modal combination rules. If a spectral shape is considered. named as incremental updating by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a]. is schematically represented in Figure 4. Sa(j) is the spectral amplification of the j mode. Pt-1 (existing balance loads).15) The procedure. the current modal scaling vector F and the nominal vector P0: Pi = Pt-1+∆ λt F i P0 (4. i is the storey number and j is the mode number. The lateral load profiles of each vibration mode are then combined by using either the Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS). if the modes can be assumed as fully uncoupled.12) where. are normalized with respect to the total value Fi = Fi th (4. since only the relative values of storey forces (Fi) are of interest in the determination of the normalised modal scaling vector.6.12 becomes: Fij = Γj Φij Mi Sa(j) where. and knowing also the value of the initial nominal load vector. computed as the product between the current load factor increment ∆λt.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies 1987] is employed to determine the modal shape and participation factors of any given predefined number of modes.5. As defined in the above equation. as a sort of pre-loaded state. Starting from that point. presented above. after which the total storey forces Fij can be determined as: Fij = Γj Φij Mi (4. Equation 4. which defines the shape.

but also secant in the “shifted coordinates”). Analysis with spectral amplification has been undertaken by employing the elastic response spectra for the Hollister record. exhibits a displacement-based variant and is implemented in a freely available finite element package. but it is increased according to the actual stiffness state.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies actual stiffness state of the system (tangent in “global coordinates”.00% 5.6 Graphical interpretation of incremental updating using tangent stiffness It is noted how the computation of the response in terms of piece-wise linear increments renders fully valid the use of tangent stiffness to compute the vibration characteristics of the system. because the modal combination is applied to the loads rather than to responses.00% 1.00% 6.00% Figure 4.7 and the standard errors are shown in Table 4. the increment of load ∆P is calculated according to the spectrum scaling. as well as spectral amplification.50% 12 FAP-SRSS DYNAMIC TRIANGULAR UNIFORM 10 8 STOREY 6 4 2 0 0. The loads from all modes have been combined by using the SRSS rule. 2.3.00% 2. The load on the structure is not dependent as whole on the actual stiffness state.7 Comparison of drift profiles from FAP (SRSS) with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for RM15 33 . The force-based adaptive pushover analysis has been employed in the present section. F t+ ∆ F t Ft F k+ ∆ F k Fk Kk O 'k O 't Kt O d k d k+ ∆ d k dt d t+ ∆ d t Figure 4. record used in the dynamic nonlinear analysis. the adaptive pushover adopted by Antoniou and Pinho seems to be a good selection to be applied to the example case.00% 3.00% INTERSTOREY DRIFT 4. Since it is a conceptually sound method. The results of the analysis with FAP are presented in Figure 4.

where λ represents the load factor. determined by means of load control algorithm and U0 is the nominal vector. if displacement loading is to be employed in pushover runs. Whilst the first step is carried out only once. 2004b]. and the standard errors presented in Table 4.32 51. applied loads and response deformations can be considered as effectively coincident. The normalized modal scaling vector. D . 34 . For this reason. an innovative algorithm has been proposed that will allow displacement-based pushover analysis to be carried out without the aforementioned shortcomings [Antoniou and Pinho.60 The results obtained through FAP appear to be similar to those from conventional pushover analysis.3 Standard error of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4. 2004) is not required here. thus structural characteristics such as strength irregularities and soft-storeys are concealed and the results are misleading.3 are comparable. rather than forces (P). a method to realistically update the deformation patterns. through Equation 2.7.16) It is noted that in DAP. Hence. in view of the fact that load and response control types lead to the attainment of equal results. is computed at the start of each load increment. the employment of the slightly more elaborate response control algorithm (see Antoniou and Pinho. practical problems arise when one pushes the structure with a fixed pattern of displacements: the relative displacement between consecutive floor levels is fixed. the simpler load control algorithm (see Antoniou and Pinho. In order for such scaling vector to reflect the actual stiffness state of the structure.6 DISPLACEMENT-BASED ADAPTIVE PUSHOVER PROCEDURES In non-adaptive pushover.20. its three remaining counterparts are repeated at every equilibrium stage of the nonlinear static analysis procedure. In general terms. the Lanczos algorithm [Hughes. To this end. which always leads to a positive load profile that pushes the structure. Thus. Hence. 4.7 Standard error FAP-SRSS Triangular Uniform 93. U = λ.07 91. the former is obtained. (i) definition of the nominal load vector and inertia mass. at each step of analysis. (iii) calculation of the normalised scaling vector and (iv) updating of the loading displacement vector. as the stiffness of the structure changes. 2004) is used. The reason for the disappointing results could be the use of the SRSS rule.U0 (4. as described in the following subsections. as obtained at the end of the previous load increment. is required The employment of displacements rather than forces is conceptually more desirable and follows the present drive towards deformation-based design and assessment methods. The implementation of the proposed displacement-based algorithm can be structured in four main stages.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies Table 4. (ii) computation of the load factor. with the only difference consisting in the fact that the load vector now consist of displacements (U). since both consist of displacement. Steps (i) and (ii) above are identical to those described for the Force-based adaptive pushover algorithm (FAP). A possible solution to this problem is explored in section 4. used to determine the shape of the load vector (or load increment vector) at each step. an eigenvalue analysis is carried out. at the start of the analysis.

17) The maximum displacement of a particular floor level. inter-storey drifts feature a much clearer and direct relationship to horizontal deformation demand on buildings. D . has also been developed. Dt . Modal loads can be combined by using either the Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) or the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) method. of the load or load increment vector. j − φi −1. which is of course unrealistic. the displacements obtained by Equation 4. Displacement-based scaling refers to the case whereby storey displacement patterns Di are obtained directly from the eigenvalue vectors. whereby maximum inter-storey drift values obtained directly from modal analysis. provides insufficient insight into the actual level of damage incurred by buildings subject to earthquake loading. being essentially the relative displacement between that floor and the ground.e.18 are normalised so that the maximum displacement remains proportional to the load factor. it is still approximate. Hence.18) It is nonetheless noted that. Φij is the mass normalized mode shape value for the ith storey and the jth mode. Since only the relative values of storey displacements (Di) are of interest in the determination of the normalised modal scaling vector. The procedure for the computation of the scaling displacement vector. rather than from the difference between not-necessarily simultaneous maximum floor displacement values.20: Ut = Ut-1+∆ λt Dt U0 (4. and load factor Γt or load factor increment ∆Γt have been determined. i. incremental updating. as shown in Equation 4. as give in Equation 4. j )]2 ij n n j =1 j =1 (4. and n stands for the total number of modes. as described in Equation 4. the loading vector Ut at a given analysis step t can be updated using the alternative previously introduced. making use of the maximum storey displacements calculated directly by modal analysis to determine the scaling displacement vector: Di = 2 ∑ Dij = n j =1 j =1 ∑ (Γ jφij ) n 2 (4. On the contrary. where i is the storey number and j is the mode number. thus. which defines the shape. an alternative scaling scheme. In such an interstorey drift-based scaling technique. while the displacement pattern Di at the ith storey is obtained through the summation of the modal-combined inter-storey drifts of the storeys below that level. since it assumes that all drift maxima at different storeys occur at the same time.19) Once the normalised scaling vector. although the summation of modal inter-storey drifts constitutes an improvement over direct combination of displacements. through displacement.18. The first approach is analogous to the force-based adaptive procedure. Work carried out by Antoniou and Pinho [2004b] indicates that interstorey drift scaling is better. D. it is the scaling technique that have been adopted. Γj is the modal participation factor of the jth mode. not the magnitude. however. and knowing also the value of the initial nominal load vector U0.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies 1987] is employed to determine the modal shape and participation factors of any given predefined number of modes. the eigenvalue vectors are thus employed to determine the inter-storey drifts for each mode ∆ij.17. drifts ∆1 to ∆i: Di = ∑ ∆ k k =1 i with ∆i = ∑ ∆2 = ∑ [Γ j (φi .or drift-based approach is described next. as required within a load control framework: Di = Di max Di (4. are used to compute the scaling displacement vector.20) 35 .

As it was for FAP. even though the attainment of fully accurate predictions was not observed. thus implying permanently positive storey drift profiles. Modal Pushover Analysis [Chopra and Goel.4 Standard error of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4.58 51. a feature beyond the capabilities of force-based pushovers. 4. the standard error of DAP is the smallest obtained so far from the studied pushover methods. 2. the loads from all modes have been combined using the SRSS rule.00% 1.8 Comparison of drift profiles from DAP (SRSS) with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for RM15 Table 4. In effect. Spectral amplification has been utilized in the present example. DAP was capable of predicting the trend of the dynamic drift envelopes.00% 6. 2001] and the methodology proposed by Antoniou and Pinho 36 .00% INTERSTOREY DRIFT 4. When such gradient variations imply a reduction of the drift of a given storey with respect to its two adjacent floor levels.e. invariable they use SRSS and CQC modal rules to combine the contributions from different structural modes.4. At the same time. The reason for this satisfactory outcome may lies in that although SRSS is used to combine the contributions of each mode. then the corresponding applied storey horizontal force must also be reduced.7 POSSIBLE DRAWBACKS DUE TO THE USE OF QUADRATIC MODAL COMBINATION RULES Analysis methods.00% 5. the trend with which drift values change from one storey to the next).8 and the standard errors are shown in Table 4.00% 2. As it was stated above the interstorey drift scaling has been adopted.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies Because of the reasons exposed in the previous section. in some cases to the extend of sign inversion. DAP drift profiles do feature changes of their respective gradient (i.00% Figure 4. the Displacement-based variant of the adaptive pushover method adopted by Antoniou and Pinho is applied to the example case. The results DAP are presented in Figure 4.50% 12 DAP-SRSS DYNAMIC TRIANGULAR UNIFORM 10 8 STOREY 6 4 2 0 0. which employ mode shapes to compute actions or responses.07 91.00% 3.60 It is clearly observed that the displacement-based adaptive pushover did manage to provide much improved approximation of the highly irregular dynamic deformation profile envelope.8 Standard error DAP-SRSS Triangular Uniform 25. introduced by the contributions the higher modes.

j is the mode number. 2004b] are examples where the modal combination is performed by using any of mentioned rules. be they forces or displacements. is to try it on the example case comparing results with both nonlinear time history analysis and nonadaptive pushovers. full mode participation. thus. The contribution of each modal load pattern can be scaled and shift the sign as well. the author does not express a definite way or rule to combine the modal load vectors and points out the need for more research to achieve a unique set of modal factor adequate to match the dynamic response in any case. hereafter. Each pushover would have an invariant load distribution vector obtained from the addition of load patterns which have been computed from the deform shape of each individual mode. A manner to test the suitability of the proposed method. corresponding to the period of vibration of the jth mode. This process will be exposed and described next. Such problem has been previously identified by Priestley [2003] and by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a]. However. øij is the mass normalised mode shape value for the ith storey and the jth mode. in the following fashion: Ψi = ∑ η j Ψij j =1 n (4. to compute responses of structures. Ψi is the storey loads which either could be forces or displacements. 2004b]: Ψij = Γ jφij M i S a. the contribution from each mode is fully taken with no modification. Therefore.j is the response spectrum ordinate. Direct Vectorial Addition (DVA). j (4. The idea of using modal addition. in an algebraic fashion. no mode participation. Sa. can take a value ranging from zero. For the force-based pushover a weighting of 100% to the first three modes will be applied (positive in the first and third modes and negative in 37 . ηj is the participation factor of each mode which could be either positive or negative. Priestley [2003] sketched some ideas about vectorial addition by using a finite number of modes to obtain response quantities of wall buildings. Mi is the mass of the ith storey. The lateral load profiles of each vibration mode are then combined using the Direct Vectorial Addition. Such procedure will be named. Γj is the modal participation factor of mode j. to 1. More recently. Two shortcomings of the modal combination rules can be pointed out: the first one is that the result obtained does not fulfil equilibrium.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies [2004a. The proposal developed in this research is to add the participation of each mode directly.22) where. is not strange to Earthquake Engineering field. played an important role during the research performed by López-Menjivar on 3D reinforced concrete buildings. DVA. in all the following analyses. envelopes that contain the dynamic response of structures can be constructed. an alternative modal combination is needed. The latter. without removing any sign. The direct vectorial addition of the first three modes will be applied to combine the loads/response. it is believed. the second limitation is that signs are lost during the combination process eliminating the contribution of negative quantities. either acceleration or displacement. The procedure can be expressed in the following way. This participation factor. The Direct Vectorial Addition (DVA). It is showed that by this approach.21) where. The modal storey loads are computing by using the approach proposed by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a. Kunnath [2004] proposed to perform various pushover analyses. i is the storey number. Ψij is the modal storey loads which either could be forces or displacements. ηj.

whilst for the displacement-based pushover 100% weighting to the first mode. DAP has managed to improve the prediction of the dynamic interstorey drift when is DVA is used.7 and Figure 4. by employing DAP is further reinforced by the standard error calculations presented in Table 4.32 51. is compared to the drift profiles from nonlinear dynamic analysis and traditional pushovers in Figure 4. Figure 4.50% 12 FAP-DVA DYNAMIC TRIANGULAR UNIFORM 10 8 STOREY 6 4 2 0 0.6. The inter-storey drift profile obtained from FAP.00% 1.9 Standard error FAP-DVA FAP-SRSS Triangular Uniform 38. The superior performance. The dynamic profile envelope is closely matched by the drifts obtained from DAP. 38 .60 The displacement-based adaptive pushover has again been applied to the case study frame using the inter-storey drift scaling technique but this time with a vectorial addition of the modal loads.00% Figure 4.07 91. in predicting the dynamic drifts. 2. as opposed to using the SRSS rule. with a vectorial sum of the modes.00% 3.00 93. A clear improvement is observed when DVA is used in FAP since the adaptive pushover drift profile is now closer to the dynamic drift envelope than its non-adaptive counterparts.9. The force-based adaptive algorithm has been applied to the RM15 frame with a vectorial addition of the modal loads at each adaptive step.00% INTERSTOREY DRIFT 4.5.5 Standard error of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4.00% 2.10.00% 5. 10% to the second mode and 10% to the third mode will be considered.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies the second mode).00% 6. The enhancement is also noticed by comparing the standard errors presented in Table 4.9 Comparison of drift profiles from FAP (DVA) with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis for RM15 Table 4. As was the case of FAP.

50% 12 DAP-DVA DYNAMIC TRIANGULAR UNIFORM 10 8 STOREY 6 4 2 0 0.7 wherein it may be noted that the triangular pushover analysis produces lower standard errors.11 and Figure 4.00% INTERSTOREY DRIFT 4. described previously. 39 . as presented in Figure 4.1 THE ICONS FRAME Non-adaptive non-modal pushover analysis The triangular and uniform loading profile pushovers been carried out on the case study frame and are compared with the two types of dynamic drift profile. The standard errors are presented in Table 4.00% Figure 4. The drifts at the lower storeys are also largely overestimated with both force distributions.60 To further test the applicability of the DVA in predicting the response obtained from nonlinear time history analysis the new methodology will be applied and assessed by using the ICONS frame.81 25. Immediately it is apparent that both the triangular and uniform pushover analyses fail to estimate the soft-storey in the third floor of the frame.8. for a single case study building known to have structural characteristics that may not be reproduced using conventional pushover approaches. 4.00% 1.10 Standard error DAP-DVA DAP-SRSS Triangular Uniform 14.07 91. The idea to use the ICONS frame is to examine the performance of DVA.12. however. when applied to the adaptive pushover method followed by Antoniou and Pinho.00% 2.8 4.00% 3.8 and Figure 4.58 51.00% 5.6 Standard error of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4.10 Comparison of drift profiles from DAP (DVA) with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis Table 4. they are still of an unacceptable magnitude.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies 2.00% 6.

manages to capture the soft-storey mechanism in the third floor for both records.4 0.2 1.6 1. with a vectorial sum of the modes.5 1 1.2 0.8 0 0 0.2 0.8. with direct modal combination.5% to the third mode will be considered.6 0.12 Comparison of drift profiles from triangular and uniform pushovers with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record Table 4.12 Profile at time step of maximum inter-storey drift Acc-475 Uniform Triangular Acc-975 Envelope of max. whilst for the displacement-based pushovers 90% weighting to the first mode.8 1 1. For the force-based pushovers a weighting of 100% to the first three modes will be applied (positive in the first mode and negative in the higher modes). in all the following analyses. The inter-storey drift profile obtained from FAP. The force-based adaptive pushover (FAP) has been applied to the case study frame with a vectorial addition of the modal loads at each adaptive step.13 and Figure 4.2 Pushover analysis using DVA The direct vectorial addition of the first three modes will be applied to combine the loads/response.8 1 0 0 0. -10% to the second mode and -2.7 Standard error of the pushover schemes in Figure 4. The force-based adaptive pushover.14.4 0. be they forces or displacements. interstorey drifts Acc-475 Acc-975 50 % 23 % 52 % 30 % 36 % 29 % 47 % 25 % 4.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies 4 4 3 3 2 Storey Storey Dynamic Triangular Uniform 1 Dynamic 2 Triangular Uniform 1 0 0 0.2 0.8 2 Drift (%) Drift (%) (a) (b) Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.11 Comparison of drift profiles from triangular and uniform pushovers with the drift profile at the time step of maximum inter-storey drift from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record 4 4 3 3 Dynamic Storey Storey 2 Dynamic 2 Triangular Uniform Triangular Uniform 1 1 0 0 0. It can be observed that the agreement between the profiles is very close both in both shape and magnitude.5 2 Drift (%) Drift (%) (a) (b) Figure 4.4 0. and 40 . is compared to the drift profiles from nonlinear dynamic analysis in Figure 4.4 1.6 0.6 0.

Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies matches closely the drift levels in all other storeys. An improvement to the non-adaptive pushover results is observed through the consideration of the changing stiffness characteristics of the structure with adaptive pushover.8 0 0 0. Figure 4.8 Standard errors of the profiles shown in Figure 4.4 0. 4 4 3 3 Storey 2 Storey Dynamic Adaptive Dynamic 2 Adaptive 1 1 0 0 0.2 1.6 0. the displacement-based adaptive pushover (DAP) has been applied to the case study frame using the inter-storey drift scaling (IDAP) technique with a vectorial addition of the modal loads as the modal combination rule. The adaptive pushovers have again managed to predict the drift shape of the dynamic analysis for both records.2 0.6 0.6 1. 41 .2 1. The superior behaviour predicted by FAP is further reinforced by the standard error calculations presented in Table 4.4 1.4 0.4 1.6 0.13 Comparison of drift profiles from FAP with the drift profile at the time step of maximum inter-storey drift from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record 4 4 3 3 Storey 2 Storey Dynamic Adaptive Dynamic 2 Adaptive 1 1 0 0 0.8 1 1.13 to Figure 4.475 Triangular Uniform FAP with DVA Acc-975 Envelope of max.2 0.8 1 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.14 Profile at time step of maximum inter-storey drift Acc.4 0.8 2 Drift (%) Drift (%) (a) (b) Figure 4.15 show the inter-storey drift profiles from DAP as well as those from dynamic analysis at the time step of maximum inter-storey drift.14 Comparison of drift profiles from FAP with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record Table 4.8 1 0 0 0.8 2 Drift (%) Drift (%) (a) (b) Figure 4.2 0. The comparison of the results obtained by DAP with the maximum envelope of inter-storey drift from dynamic analysis is presented in Figure 4.8.4 0. The soft-storey is anticipated with DAP the drift ratios in all other floors are closely predicted.16. inter-storey drifts Acc-475 Acc-975 23 % 50 % 11 % 30 % 52 % 10 % 29 % 36 % 14 % 25 % 47 % 6% Subsequently.

8.2 0. By referring back to Table 4.4 0.8 1 1.2 1. Therefore.9 Standard errors of pushover schemes shown in Figure 4. interstorey drifts Acc-475 Acc-975 23 % 50 % 20 % 30 % 52 % 8% 29 % 36 % 18 % 25 % 47 % 8% It has been observed that all adaptive pushover variants with vectorial modal addition. it must be highlighted that general conclusions on the accuracy of any method cannot be made from a couple of buildings and that this would require statistical studies to be carried out. A significant improvement to the results is noted by the use of vectorial addition of the modes rather than the SRSS rule.6 0. These conventional pushover methods failed to reproduce both the local and global dynamic response of the frame.6 1.4 1. number of storeys and bays subjected to several ground motions. were able to predict the third floor soft-storey and produced much lower standard errors than the traditional pushover analyses.8 2 Drift (%) Drift (%) (a) (b) Figure 4. The response obtained by using the 42 .15 Comparison of drift profiles from DAP with the drift profile at the time step of maximum inter-storey drift from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record 4 4 3 3 Storey 2 Storey Dynamic Adaptive Dynamic 2 Adaptive 1 1 0 0 0.4 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.2 0. 4 4 3 3 Storey Storey Dynamic 2 Dynamic 2 Adaptive Adaptive 1 1 0 0 0.8 2 Drift (%) Drift (%) (a) (b) Figure 4.16 Comparison of drift profiles from DAP with the envelope of maximum inter-storey drifts from dynamic analysis using the a) Acc-475 record and b) Acc-975 record Table 4. Finally.15 and Figure 4. the next step of the research is to apply the newly proposed methodology to a group of buildings that display different characteristics such as height.6 0.4 0. as the modal combination employed.Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies The standard errors are presented in Table 4.8 1 1.2 0.16 Profile at time step of maximum inter-storey drift Acc.4 0.9 for DAP.6 1.2 0. falling short to predict the softstorey at the third floor.8 0 0 0.6 0.475 Triangular Uniform DAP with DVA Acc-975 Envelope of max. in order to conclude the present chapter.8 1 0 0 0. it can be observed that slightly higher errors have been obtained with displacement-based adaptive pushover than force-based adaptive pushover but they are now much more comparable.

43 .Chapter 4: Description and assessment of pushover methodologies proposed method of modal combination will be compared to results obtained through a rigorous nonlinear time history analysis.

a set of site-specific ground motions [Bommer et al. the accuracy of traditional pushover analyses. it was noted that the adaptive pushover methodology constitute a viable alternative to nonlinear dynamic analysis since solve the inherent deficiencies that conventional pushover analysis possesses. From the above comparative study. modal pushover analysis and adaptive pushover algorithm in predicting the seismic response characteristics of a non-seismically designed reinforced concrete frame model has been studied. which is to change the sign of modal quantities involved turning them into positive values The initial phase of this research reiterated that currently the most accurate procedure of demand prediction and performance evaluation of structures is the non-linear time history analysis. The first aim was carried out by employing a typical seismically designed concrete frame structure in order to evaluate the results obtained by using different pushover approaches. this method is not exempt from some limitations such as the inability to include higher mode order effects or progressive stiffness degradation. the need for a procedure that overcomes the above deficiencies is readily noted. appropriate and accurate force-deformation relationships of various structural components and a robust mathematical tool capable of handling all analysis data and producing results within the time constrains of a design office. The purpose of the pushover analysis is to assess the structural performance by estimating the strength and deformation capacities using static. 2003]. At the same time. the reliability of this method hinges on the unambiguous definition of certain indispensable parameters such as. a simpler yet reliable technique of structural analysis is desirable. Nevertheless. which attempts to overcome the problem presented by the current quadratic modal rules.. Although it provides crucial information on response parameters that cannot be obtained with conventional elastic methods (either static or dynamic).Chapter 5: Conclusions 5. Consequently. CONCLUSIONS 5. The second objective has been attain by proposing a modal combination scheme. nonlinear analysis and comparing these capacities with the demands at the corresponding performance levels. named Direct Vectorial Addition (DVA). from which advantages and disadvantages of each approach were identified. Comparisons between drift profiles obtained through static (pushover) and dynamic nonlinear fibre analysis have been made and the standard error has been computed to test the accuracy of each method for a test case. An alternative to the nonlinear time history analysis is the nonlinear static pushover analysis. Therefore. One methodology is particularly appealing which is the adaptive 44 .1 SUMMARY The main objectives of this research were (i) to discuss and assess different pushover methodologies and (ii) to explore the advantages that the use of an alternative modal combination rule could bring when applied to adaptive pushover methodology proposed by Antoniou and Pinho. A revision of the state-of-the-art pushover procedures was carried out.

The adaptive pushover of Antoniou and Pinho uses the SRSS. The above fact affects mainly the force-based variant of the method for reasons already discussed (Section 4.5). employed in the evaluation of different pushover schemes. its period elongation. 5. The DVA directly combine the modes in algebraic fashion without changing the sign of the modal contributors. DVA. the next step of the research is to apply the newly proposed methodology to a group of buildings that display different characteristics such as height. the similarity will actually be quantified by using the Standard error of each pushover respect to the Time history analysis. this particular characteristic may mislead the response when flexible and tall buildings are analysed. was presented as an alternative to the usage of SRSS. number of storeys and bays subjected to several ground motions. The response obtained by using the proposed method of modal combination will be compared to results obtained through a rigorous nonlinear time history analysis. since structural response peculiarities introduced by individual input motions are not smoothed out through results averaging. for 2D frame systems. the DVA was tested with a well-known case study. therefore. according to modal shapes and participation factors derived by eigenvalue analysis carried out at each analysis step. it is logical to assess if an alternative method will lead to better results. The above methodology has proved to give similar results to those obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis. as opposed to the statistical average of all dynamic cases. or CQC. In doing it so. The method is multimodal and accounts for softening of the structure. Therefore. 2004b]. These rules transform the contribution of negative quantities turning them into positive values. Nevertheless. and the modification of the inertial forces due to spectral amplification.2 FUTURE RESEARCH It is highlighted that general conclusions on the accuracy of any of the methods presented in previous chapters cannot be made from two case studies and that this would require statistical studies to be carried out. 45 . it is believed that a much more demanding and precise assessment of the static procedures is effectively carried out. Thus. The proposed modal combination was tested by using the seismically designed reinforced concrete frame model. due to the way the modal combination is carried out. as modal combination rule. As it was done for the case of RM15 and ICONS frame. the ICONS frame where it was observed that the failure behaviour of such structure could be fully captured by using DVA. to compute and update the load vector.Chapter 5: Conclusions pushover approach proposed by Antoniou and Pinho [2004a. The Direct Vectorial Addition. It is noted that each pushover result will be compared to Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis output obtained for each single accelerogram. In this method. the lateral load distribution is not kept constant but is continuously updated during the process. especially when its displacement-based variant has been employed. it was expressed that the methodology might have a drawback. In addition.

5. “Pushover analysis: An energy based approach. 49 pag. United Kingdom. S. pp. S. pp. pp 127-172. Washington D. 273. United Kingdom.” FEMA Report No. pp. USA. A. [2001]. Antoniou. and Martinez-Pereira. Albanesi. 3(2). and commentary ACI318R95. REFERENCES ACI318 [1995]. Elsevier Science Ltd.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Aydinoğlu. Paper 605. R. Regione Toscana (Technical Report). Bommer. and Pinho R. London. Department of Civil Engineering. and López-Menjivar M. “Pushover analysis for seismic assessment of RC structures. No.” American Concrete Institure. Imperial College London.. MI. “Earthquake effects on reinforced concrete structures. [2004a]. [2002]. USA. No. 46 . 497-522. [2004] “Assessment of the ‘Sede comunale Piazza Europa’ building. US-Japan research. Detroit. Paper No.Chapter 6: References 6. S. and Pinho. imperial College London. Universitá degli Studi di Pavia. Vol. University of London. Antoniou. [2003]. Alvarez-Botero J. T. Biondi. Detroit. “Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. M. Rovithakis A. 8.” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 822.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 8(4). Provincia di Luca.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering. S. Antoniou S. Antoniou. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Comune di Vagli Sotto. American Concrete Institute (ACI) [1984]. UK.N.” Transfer Report. “An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation. American Concrete Institute. S. R [2004b].” PhD Thesis.J. J.C. “Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure..” EUCentre. 643-661. and Pinho. Antoniou. “Advanced inelastic static analysis for seismic assessment of structures. 1. 3-36.” Proceedings Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. M. [2002] “Development and verification of a fully adaptive pushover procedure. “Building code requirements for structural concrete ACI318-95. [2002]. NEHRP “Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. [1999] “The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. MI.C.” Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. ATC [1997]. Applied Technology Council.” Publication SP-84.A. and Petrangeli.

American Concrete Institute. Part I: Bare structures. Berkeley. and Panagiotakos. [2003]. pp. [1983] "Modelling of R/C joints under cyclic excitations. Kunnath. P. [1994] “Analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings according to Eurocode 2 and 8. 367-391. Comite Europeen de Normalisation. pp 219-256. USA. A. “Seismic design and response of bare and masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings.A.K. “A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for buildings: Theory and preliminary evaluation. 109. A. pp. B. and Pinto A. 16(2). [1999]. [1997]. Fardis. European Prestandard ENV1998-1-1: Eurocode 8 – Earthquake resistant design of structures.X. G. CEN [1991]. Belgium. CEN [1995]. “Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures. S. “Seismic assessment and retrofit of RC structures. 47 . “Asymmetric multi-storey R/C frame structures: push-over versus nonlinear dynamic analysis. No. A. “The selection and scaling of real earthquake accelerograms for use in seismic design and assessment. and Kunnath.” Proceedings of the ACI International Conference on seismic bridge design and retrofit. No. Italy. Coelho. M. Belgium. Vol.” Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering – Invited Lectures. V. M.” PEER Report 2001/03.” JRC Special publication No. 5 and 6.99. Campos-Costa. A.XX. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute [1997] “The EERI Annotated Slide Collection”.” ICONS Report. 1. [2001]. pp. [1998]. and Goel. Popov E. Rotterdam. 11.J.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering. [2000].. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 237-249.M. Ispra.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. R. Fajfar.C. “The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings.N. Chopra. and Campos-Costa.P. P.B. J. Bracci.” Journal of Structural Engineering. University of California.N. College of Engineering. Brussels. Filippou F. Comite Europeen de Normalisation. [1997]. EERI.. E. J. Gupta.K.” Earthquake Spectra.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 31. T. and Douglas. and Gasperic.B. Faella. Chopra. and Reinhorn. Brussels. Configuration 3. S. “Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures.” Reports on Prenormative Research in Support of Eurocode 8. [1999]. European TMR Network. K. 3-10.C. Fajfar." Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. P. pp. and Kilar. 561-582. France. [1996]. “European seismic hazards scenarios – An approach to the definition of input motion for testing and reliability assessment of Civil Engineering structures. E.K. and Goel. 1. Innovative Seismic Design Concepts for New and Existing Structures...K. Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings”. A. Vol 25:31-46. J. LNEC. Ballkema. Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings. Paris. Carvalho.” Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2666-2684.. Joint Research Centre.V. [2002]. A. January. pp. Acevedo. “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. R. and Bertero V. Fardis.Chapter 6: References Bommer.M. “European Prestandard ENV 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures. 123(1). [1999] “Preparation of the full-scale tests on reinforced concrete frames.K. Oakland. Vol.V. A.

1804-1826 Menegotto M. ROSE School. pp.” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. Kilar. [2003] “3D Pushover of irregular reinforced concrete buildings." Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads.” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vol. Paper 997. 1029-1053. Krawinkler. pp. pp. pp 246-259. Vol.S. California. Pergamon. pp 452-464. P. W. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. [1998]. Moghadam. M. V. Universitá degli Studi di Pavia. P. P. pp.S. 15-22. Imperial College of Science. Kilar. Oakland. 91/2. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. Kunnath. Lawson. “Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. and Fajfar. [2001] “Conceptual issues in geometrically nonlinear analysis of 3-D frame structures.” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.” Master’s Thesis. [2000]. and Krawinkler.J. 191. [1996]. Switzerland. Mander J.” Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section. Vol. P. 20(4-6)." Journal of Structural Engineering. V. W. [1998].N. 20-31. [1994]. Moghadam. [2001]. H.” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. and Park R.why.A. 114. V. 20-31.R. 1. and Seneviratna.E. [1997]. T. Paper 1011.K. Oakland.” European Earthquake Engineering. v. Kilar. Lefort.K. and Fajfar. and Tso. XV(1). Tehnology and Medicine. T. Zurich. I. Jan-Apr. H. México.Chapter 6: References Hughes.” Proceedings of the Fifth U. No. “Simple push-over analysis of asymmetric buildings.P.. “Identification of modal combination for nonlinear static analysis of building structures.” Engineering Structures.233-249. [1988] "Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete.B.S.S. B. Acapulco. “Nonlinear static push-over analysis . 19. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. G. Kilar. [1987].K. México. Acapulco.K. Report No. JanApr. Elsevier Science Ltd. “Advance pushover analysis of RC multi-storey buildings. pp. [2001]. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vol I:283-292. Pergamon. March 1991.J. 8. California. and how?. “Pushover analysis for asymmetrical multistory buildings. López-Menjivar. 13 pag. Vance. Elsevier Science Ltd. V. S. [1996]. 48 . XV. Inc. “Simplified push-over analysis of building structure. and Pinto P. [2004].A. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending.D.S.” Proceedings of the Sixth U. Prentice-Hall. when. and Fajfar. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. No. A.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. [1973] "Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R. “On the applicability of pushover analysis to the seismic performance evaluation of asymmetric buildings. The Finite Element Method.C. V. Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis. and Fajfar. 72. R. 26. “On the applicability of pushover analysis to the seismic performance evaluation of asymmetric buildings” European Earthquake Engineering. Priestley M.. pp. pp. and Tso. Izzuddin. A. Vol. “Damage assessment of eccentric multistory buildings using 3-D pushover analysis..

and Paret.N. [2000b]. A. and Kappos.” Vision 2000 Committee Structural Engineering Association of California. K. and Elnashai. Paper 395. [2001]. United Kingdom. [1998]. [2002].J.” John Wiley and Sons. A. Mwafy. and Freeman. Paret. A. “Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP) – a method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. “Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering-conflicts between design and reality. Myth and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering.K. Elibeck.J. Ordinanza no. 406. “Pushover analysis for asymmetric and set-back multistory buildings.M. [1993].F. Upper Hutt. Pergamon. SEAOC [1995].H. January. “Seismic performance of code-designed RC buildings.K.S. Norme Tecniche per il Progetto. Sasaki. Imperial College of Science. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. “Verification of adaptive pushover analysis procedures. [1996]. [2003]. “Static pushover versus dynamic-to-collapse analysis of RC buildings. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology.” Proceedings of the Sixth U. A. 143-164 Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri [2003]. New York.” Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section. [2000a]. [2001]. Moghadam. Moghadam. S. California. 49 . A. Requena. Paper No. “Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings.S.S. California. W.J. [2000]. pp. Paper 966. 3274. Elsevier Science Ltd. Paper 1093. and Tso. pp. la Valutazione e l'Adeguamento Sismico Degli Edifici. W. Mwafy. 2(3). Imperial College of Science. M. G. Elsevier Science Ltd. M. [2000]. Rovitahkis.” Proceedings of the Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.M. Paper 015. T. 3.A. A. A. M. Sacramento. Technology and Medicine.A. Freeman. R. 12 pages. A. “3-D pushover analysis: The issue of torsion” Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 00/1. London. Italy. New Zealand. and Ayala. 26. “Dynamic collapse testing of a full-scale four storey RC frame”. No. Elsevier Science Ltd.” Proceedings of the Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. W. [2000].F.” Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Chapter 6: References Moghadam. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. 329-341.. S. Technology and Medicine.” Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. “Evaluation of a simplified method for the determination of the non-linear seismic response of RC frames. Pavia. “Approximate inelastic procedures to identify failure mechanism from higher mode effects” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. pp. and Elnashai.K.” Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering. [1992]. 744 pag.” PhD Thesis.S.N. Paper 2109. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. M. [2002]. Pristley.N... New Zealand.J.K.” MSc. Acapulco. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Revisited. “Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. Paulay. and Tso.S. Penelis.K. Imperial College London. IUSS Press. Vol. 37(4). Oakland. D. México. “3-D pushover analysis for damage assessment of buildings. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Report No. Upper Hutt. T. Priestley. and Tso. Sasaki. K.A. Dissertation.23-3. Pinho. “A pushover procedure for tall buildings. G. S. T and Priestley.

Buffalo. [1996].” Technical Report NCEER 96-0010. S. “IDARC2D Version 4.Chapter 6: References SeismoSoft [2004]. A..” Available from URL: http://www.M. A.seismosoft. C. and Madan.K.0: A computer program for the inelastic analysis of buildings. Li. 50 . NY.. Kunnath.. State University of New York at Buffalo. “SeismoStruct. Reinhorn.com Valles. R.A computer program for Static and Dynamic Non-linear Analysis of Framed Structures [online].E.

- The Projection and Construction of New Schools
- New Classrooms Construction
- AITC-H - Flexural Tensile Strength of Brick Unit (15!09!14)
- AITC-H - Direct Shear Strength Test (15!09!14)
- AITC-H - Flexural Tensile Strength of Brick Unit (15!09!14)
- AITC-H - Compression Strength of Individual Bricks (15!09!14)
- AITC-H - Flexural Tensile Strength of Brick Unit (15!09!14)
- seika
- Bentley Code
- d5000_16p
- AutoCAD Shortcuts
- Bridge Design
- 03DiI-03
- AutoCAD Shortcuts
- In-Plane Cyclic Shear Performance of Interlocking Compressed Eart
- Behaviour of Masonry Wall Constructed Using Interlocking Soil Cement Bricks
- 1614-FP-4233-TI 0.01-SF 8
- 1787-FP-4531-TI 0.01-SF 3.36
- 1614-FN-4233-TI 0.01-SF 8
- 838-FN-2000-TI 0.02-SF 6.36
- 164-FN-6374-TI 0.01-SF 5.53
- AITC-Alphaland Makati-UHS (20130904)
- ASCE31 and ASCE41 What Good Are They Final
- Adb Nep Kiran Jnbs v1
- Hem Engineering Structure

- 98269174 Calibration of Force Reduction
- Non-Linear Analysis of RC Structure for Dynamic Loading
- Dissertation Report
- Structsource - Earthquake Analysis With Sap2000 Part 1
- 2
- iamhung_1
- Bao 2010 Engineering-Structures
- 650
- The Effect Of Panel Zone
- staad-basics
- Active Seismic Dampers
- Assessing Existing Buildings With Eurocode 8-3_Pinto_2008
- Application of Supervisory Fuzzy Logic Controller to the Base-Isolated Benchmark Structure
- 14_S14-009
- Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance_Part 4 Silos, tanks and pipelines
- INF_Snonlinear seismic analysis of infilled steel frames by ET method
- ETABS-AUTOMATIC SEISMIC LOADS
- Teorie Analiza Push Over
- Incremental Dynamic Analysis
- Seismic Response Control for Parallel Building Structures Using MR Damper
- 2-07_Push Over Analysis an Energy Based Approach_ Albanesi Biondi Petrangeli
- View
- percaktimi kapacitetite mbetes
- Comparative Study on Lateral Load Analysis by Bnbc 1993 and Proposed Bnbc 2012
- US Army
- Reyes Chopra
- Capacity Design of Vertical Boundary Elements in Steel Plate Shear Walls
- 13_3233.pdf
- Drift Design Method for High-rise Buildings Using Dynamic Resizing Algorithm

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd