Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of

tall buildings
Mehdi Poursha a , Faramarz Khoshnoudian a,∗ , A.S. Moghadam b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
International Earthquake and Seismology Research Centre, Tehran, Iran

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The nonlinear static procedure (NSP), based on pushover analysis, has become a favourite tool for use
Received 6 August 2007 in practical applications for building evaluation and design verification. The NSP is, however, restricted
Received in revised form to single-mode response. It is therefore valid for low-rise buildings where the behaviour is dominated
19 October 2008
by the fundamental vibration mode. It is well recognized that the seismic demands derived from the
Accepted 20 October 2008
Available online 10 December 2008
conventional NSP are greatly underestimated in the upper storeys of tall buildings, in which higher-
mode contributions to the response are important. This paper presents a new pushover procedure
Keywords:
which can take into account higher-mode effects. The procedure, which has been named the consecutive
Consecutive modal pushover (CMP) modal pushover (CMP) procedure, utilizes multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses. The final
procedure structural responses are determined by enveloping the results of multi-stage and single-stage pushover
Seismic demands analyses. The procedure is applied to four special steel moment-resisting frames with different heights.
Higher-mode effects A comparison between estimates from the CMP procedure and the exact values obtained by nonlinear
Tall buildings response history analysis (NL-RHA), as well as predictions from modal pushover analysis (MPA), has been
carried out. It is demonstrated that the CMP procedure is able to effectively overcome the limitations of
traditional pushover analysis, and to accurately predict the seismic demands of tall buildings.
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction important limitations, and it cannot take higher-mode effects into

Nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA) is a robust tool
for calculating seismic demands, as well as for identifying plastic
hinge mechanisms in structures. However, the response of NL-
RHA is strongly affected by the modelling parameters and by the
characteristics of the earthquake input such as frequency content,
intensity, and duration [20,24]. It is therefore necessary to carefully
choose a set of representative ground motion records. This causes
additional computational effort [24]. On the other hand, the
nonlinear static procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis, unlike
dynamic analysis, can easily provide valuable information about
the locations of structural weaknesses and failure mechanisms
in the inelastic range [22]. Also, pushover analysis is capable
of using a code’s response spectrum as a demand diagram and
computing the earthquake-induced demands [7]. Thus, in recent
years the NSP has gained importance as a standard tool for building
assessment and design verification. However, pushover analysis
suffers from several inherent deficiencies [21,22]. Among them,
invariant load distribution in the traditional NSP is one of the most
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khoshnud@aut.ac.ir (F. Khoshnoudian).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.10.009
consideration [10,16,22]. Recently, attempts have been made to
develop enhanced pushover procedures and to consider higher-
mode effects.
About 10 years ago, the ‘‘multi-mode pushover’’ (MMP)
method [26] was proposed, but the seismic demands were not
quantified. More recently, the ‘‘pushover results combination’’
(PRC) method [23] was proposed, in which the maximum seismic
response was derived from combining the results of several
pushover analyses and utilizing a mode-shape as a load pattern in
each analysis. The final response was determined as a weighted
(using modal participation factors) summation of the results
from each pushover analysis. About the same time, ‘‘modal
pushover analysis’’ (MPA) [10] was developed, in which the
seismic demands were separately determined for each of the
modal pushover analyses and combined using the appropriate
modal combination rule. It was concluded that the MPA procedure
would be accurate enough in practical applications for building
evaluation and design [10]. Nevertheless, the plastic rotations
of the hinges were considerably underestimated [10,11,17,25],
even if a large number of modes were included. A modified
version of the MPA (MMPA) [12] was then proposed, in which
the seismic demands of the structure are obtained by combining
the inelastic response of first-mode pushover analysis with the
elastic response of higher modes. In another investigation, an
592 M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599

in the body of this paper, indicate the effectiveness of the CMP

Notations procedure in estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings.

c damping matrix of the structure

2. Modal response analysis and the required concepts
h height of the structure
k lateral stiffness-matrix of the structure
The differential equation governing the response of a multi-
m diagonal mass-matrix of the structure
degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system to earthquake-induced ground
mi lumped mass of the ith floor
motion is as follows [8]:
Mn∗ effective modal mass of the nth mode
M∗ total mass of the structure mü + c u̇ + ku = −miüg (t ) (1)
N number of storeys where m, c, and k are the diagonal mass, damping, and lateral
Ns number of stages in the multi-stage pushover stiffness matrices of the structure, respectively, and i is the unit
analysis vector. The right-hand side of Eq. (1) represents the effective
Peff (t ) the effective earthquake forces earthquake forces, Peff (t ), and can be written as
qn (t ) modal co-ordinate
r the peak response of the structure in the CMP Peff (t ) = −miüg (t ) = −süg (t ) (2)
procedure where s defines the spatial distribution of the effective earthquake
s∗n incremental lateral force distribution for the nth forces over the height of the building, and can be expanded as a
stage of multi-stage pushover analysis summation of the modal inertia force distributions, sn , as follows:
T predominant period of the structure
üg (t ) acceleration of the ground motion N
X N
X
u( t ) displacement of the NDOF system s = mi = sn = Γn mφn (3)
φn nth mode-shape of the structure n =1 n =1

ζn damping ratio of the nth mode in which Γn is the modal participating factor of the nth mode and
ωn natural frequency of the nth mode φn is the corresponding mode-shape. The displacement of an N
Γn modal participating factor of the nth mode degree-of-freedom (NDOF) system, u, can be defined by the sum
αn effective modal participating mass ratio of the nth of the modal contributions:
mode N
δt target displacement of the roof
u( t ) =
X
φn qn (t ) (4)
n =1

upper-bound pushover analysis [18] was developed in which the where the modal co-ordinate, qn (t ), is governed by
contributions of the first two elastic modes to the invariant load
q̈n + 2ζn ωn q̇n + ωn2 qn = −Γn üg (t ) (5)
pattern were combined through the absolute sum rule. A single
pushover analysis was then implemented with the resulting load in which ωn and ζn are the natural vibration frequency and
pattern. Other researchers proposed a two-phase load pattern [19], damping ratio of the nth mode, respectively. Γn is obtained as
and found it suitable for approximating the seismic capacity curve follows:
only for low- to mid-rise buildings. This procedure was not verified φnT mi
with respect to the estimation of the seismic demands of buildings. Γn = . (6)
In another study, an ‘‘incremental response spectrum analysis’’ φnT mφn
(IRSA) [3] was developed. In this procedure, whenever a new The solution to Eq. (5) is
plastic hinge occurs, elastic modal spectrum analysis is executed in
qn (t ) = Γn Dn (t ) (7)
order to take into account the changes in the dynamic properties
of the structure. More recently, an adaptive modal combination where Dn (t ) is governed by the equation of motion for a single-
(AMC) [20] procedure was proposed, in which the applied lateral degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system subjected to üg (t ):
forces are updated in accordance with the changes in the dynamic
characteristics during inelastic analysis, for each mode. The total D̈n + 2ζn ωn Ḋn + ωn2 Dn = −üg (t ). (8)
response is obtained by combining the peak modal responses, The floor displacements, u(t ), can be expressed by substituting Eq.
using an appropriate combination scheme at the end. The accuracy (7) into Eq. (4), so that
of this procedure was not demonstrated for the estimation of
N
plastic rotations of the hinges. X
The main objective of the present paper is therefore to propose a u( t ) = Γn φn Dn (t ) . (9)
n=1
new procedure which can take into account higher-mode effects in
the pushover analysis of tall buildings, and can improve estimates Making use of Eq. (6), the effective modal mass, Mn∗ , and the
of seismic demands, especially of the plastic rotations of the hinges. effective modal participating mass ratio for the nth mode, αn , can
The new procedure, called the consecutive modal pushover (CMP) be defined as
procedure, benefits from the concepts of structural dynamics
Mn∗ = Ln Γn (10)
and uses multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses that are
∗
elaborated in detail in this paper. To demonstrate its applicability Mn
αn = (11)
and effectiveness, the procedure has been applied to four special M∗
steel moment-resisting frames. Predictions based on the MPA in which
procedure are also presented for the sake of comparison to
those obtained by the CMP procedure. Seismic demands obtained Ln = φnT mi (12)
by approximate pushover procedures are compared with exact N
X
solutions derived from nonlinear response history analysis. The M∗ = mj (13)
results of the comprehensive analyses, which are summarized j =1
 M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599
where M ∗ is the total mass of the structure obtained by summation
of the lumped masses, mj , over all floor levels. An important result
can be derived by pre-multiplying Eq. (3) by iT :
N N
X X
Mn∗ = mj .
n=1 j =1
This result shows that the sum of the effective modal masses over
all modes (N) is equal to the total mass of the building [8]. As a
result from Eqs. (11), (13) and (14), the summation of effective
modal participating mass ratios over all modes is equal to unity.
3. Consecutive modal pushover procedure
The consecutive modal pushover (CMP) procedure is presented,
which can be used to estimate the peak response of inelastic struc-
tures subjected to earthquake excitation. Some pushover analyses
are employed in the CMP procedure since it is possible to use dif-
ferent pushover analyses and to envelope the results [16]. The pro-
cedure uses multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses. The
multi-stage pushover analysis benefits from consecutive imple-
mentation of modal pushover analyses, including a limited number
of modes, such that when one stage (one modal pushover analysis)
has been completely performed, the next stage (the next modal
pushover analysis) begins with an initial structural state (stress
and deformation) which is the same as the condition at the end
of the previous stage. Consecutive modal pushover analyses are
carried out with force distributions using mode-shapes obtained
from eigen-analysis of the linearly elastic structure. Changes in
the modal properties of the structure are ignored when the struc-
ture experiences nonlinear yielding under increasing lateral loads
during pushover analysis. The number of modes in the consec-
utive modal pushover analyses (i.e. the number of stages in the
multi-stage pushover analysis) depends on the fundamental pe-
riod, T , of the building structure. When the fundamental period of
the building (with a moment-resisting frame system) is less than
2.2 s, the multi-stage pushover analysis is carried out in two stages.
For buildings with fundamental periods of 2.2 s or more, both two-
and three-stage pushover analyses are used. The displacement
increment at the roof is obtained, in each stage of multi-stage anal-
ysis, as the product of a factor and the total target displacement of
the roof. This factor is determined from the initial modal proper-
ties of the structure. The displacement increment, uri , at the roof in
the ith stage of multi-stage pushover analysis, is therefore calcu-
lated as
uri = βi δt
in which
βi = αi for the stages before the last stage
and
Ns −1
X state at the end of the analysis in the previous stage.
βi = 1 − αj for the last stage
j=1
where δt is the total target displacement at the roof, and Ns is the
number of stages included in the multi-stage pushover analysis.
Also, αi is the effective modal mass ratio for the ith mode, which
is derived from Eq. (11). Several different approaches can be used
to establish the total target displacement at the roof level. This
displacement can be determined by using the capacity spectrum
method [2], the displacement coefficient approach [4,5], the N2
method [15,16], or dynamic analysis of the structure [14,23,24,28].
As demonstrated previously, in addition to multi-stage pushover
analysis, single-stage pushover analysis is used in the procedure.
The single-stage pushover analysis is performed separately with
593
a triangular or uniform load distribution. Finally, the seismic
demands are obtained by enveloping the peak responses derived
from the multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses.
The details of the CMP procedure are expressed as a sequence
of the following steps:
(14)
1. Calculate the natural frequencies, ωn , and the mode-shapes,
φn . These properties are determined by eigen-analysis of the
linearly elastic structure for the first three modes. The mode-
shapes are normalized so that the roof component of φn equals
unity (φrn = 1).
2. Compute s∗n = mφn , where s∗n shows the distribution of
incremental lateral forces over the height of the structure for
the nth stage of multi-stage pushover analysis.
3. Compute the total target displacement of the structure at the
roof, δt .
4. The CMP procedure consists of single-stage and multi-stage
pushover analyses. First apply the gravity loads and then per-
form these displacement-control pushover analyses according
to the following sub-steps:
4.1 Perform the single-stage pushover analysis using an
inverted triangular load pattern for medium-rise buildings
and a uniform force distribution for high-rise buildings,
until the control node at the roof sways to the predefined
total target displacement, δt .
4.2 The second pushover analysis is a two-stage pushover
analysis. In the first stage, perform the nonlinear static
analysis, using the incremental lateral forces s∗1 = mφ1 ,
until the displacement increment at the roof reaches ur1 =
β1 δt (Eq. (15); i = 1), where β1 = α1 (Eq. (16); i = 1).
Then implement the second stage of analysis using the
incremental lateral forces s∗2 = mφ2 until the displacement
increment at the roof equals ur2 = β2 δt (Eq. (15); i = 2),
where β2 = 1 − α1 (Eq. (17); i = 2). It is noted that
the initial condition in the second stage of the two-stage
pushover analysis is the same as the state at the last step of
analysis in the first stage.
4.3 The third analysis is a three-stage pushover analysis. It is
only performed for buildings having a fundamental period
of 2.2 s or more. The first stage is exactly the same as the
first stage of the two-stage pushover analysis described
above. After the first stage, continue the nonlinear static
analysis using the incremental lateral forces s∗2 = mφ2
until the displacement increment at the roof reaches ur2 =
β2 δt (Eq. (15); i = 2) where β2 = α2 (Eq. (16); i = 2).
(15) Thereafter, perform the third (last) stage of the three-stage
pushover analysis using the incremental lateral forces s∗3 =
mφ3 . The displacement increment at the roof at this stage
(16) is equal to ur3 = β3 δt (Eq. (15); i = 3) where β3 =
1 − α1 − α2 (Eq. (17); i = 3). It is again noted that the initial
condition at each stage of the analysis is the same as the
(17) 5. Calculate the peak values of the desired responses, such as
displacements, storey drifts, and hinge plastic rotations, for the
pushover analyses described above. The peak values resulting
from the one-, two-, and three-stage pushover analyses are
denoted by r1 , r2 , and r3 , respectively.
6. Calculate the envelope, r, of the peak responses as follows:
r = Max {r1 , r2 } T < 2.2 s (18)
r = Max {r1 , r2 , r3 } T ≥ 2.2 s (19)
showing that the seismic demand of the inelastic structure
in the CMP procedure is obtained by enveloping the peak
responses resulting from the single- and multi-stage pushover
analyses.
594 M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599
Table 1
Characteristics of the analyzed frames.
No. No. of storeys h (m) b (m)
S1 10 32 15
S2 15 48 15
S3 20 64 15
S4 30 96 15
Fig. 1. Configuration of two-dimensional frames.
It is notable that the nonlinear behaviour of the structure de-
pends on the loading path, and separation between the loading in-
put and the structural response is not possible [21]. Consequently,
modal pushover analyses must, in the CMP procedure, be carried
out consecutively in the order of modes, from the first to the higher
ones, as has been demonstrated in detail.
4. Description of the analytical models and assumptions
The structures considered were three-bay frames with four
different heights of 10, 15, 20, and 30 storeys, covering a wide
range of fundamental periods. All the frames had 5 m bays. A storey
height of 3.2 m was assumed throughout. The configuration of the
frames is shown in Fig. 1. The dead and live loads were equal to 650
and 200 kg/m2 on the floor area, assuming the loading width of the
frames to be 5 m. The concentrated seismic masses were assumed
to be equal at all floors of each structure and to consist of the dead
load plus 20% of the live load. The lateral load-resisting system of
the structures was a special steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF).
More characteristics of the frames and their first three natural-
vibration periods are listed in Table 1. All of the frames were
assumed to be founded on type ‘II’ firm soil of the Iranian seismic
code [27] (class C of NEHRP [6]), and located in the region of highest
seismicity. The seismic effects were determined in accordance with
the requirements of the Iranian code of practice for the seismic-
resistant design of buildings [27]. The frames were designed
according to the allowable stress design method [1]. All buildings
were also designed to satisfy the drift criterion and the strong-
column/weak-beam philosophy. P–∆ (second-order) effects were
included, but the panel zone size, strength, and deformation were
neglected. The sections of the beams and columns were assumed
to be of the plate girder and box type, respectively. More details
about the members can be found in [25].
The nonlinear behaviour of the structures occurred in discrete
hinges in the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. Hinges were
defined at the ends of the frame members. Hinges based on the
interaction of the axial forces and bending moments were defined
for column members, whereas hinges based on bending moments
were assigned to beams. Fig. 2 shows the load–deformation curve
of the hinges. The hinge properties and modelling parameters a, b,
and c (Fig. 2) were specified according to FEMA-273 [4]. The post-
yield slope was assumed to be 3% of the elastic slope. It is noted
that Q and Qy , in Fig. 2, are the generalized and yield component
loads, respectively.
Seismic mass of floors (kg s2 /m) Periods
T1 (s) T2 (s) T3 (s)
5440 1.697 0.605 0.347
5546 2.338 0.854 0.493
5600 3.092 1.135 0.670
5650 3.866 1.381 0.798
Fig. 2. Generalized load–deformation curve for hinges (BSSC 1997).
5. Ground motion characteristics
Seven ground motions were selected from the strong ground
motion database of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
(PEER) Centre (http://peer.berkeley.edu). The selected ground
motions were far-field records, and corresponded to locations
which were at least 12 km from a rupturing fault. Also, the soil
at the site corresponds to NEHRP site class C. To ensure that
the structures respond into the inelastic range when subjected
to ground motions, the records were scaled up to 0.7g. More
characteristics of the ground motion records used are given in
Table 2. The elastic pseudo-acceleration and displacement spectra,
together with the corresponding the mean spectra, are presented,
for a 5% damping ratio, in Fig. 3. The mean spectra are shown by a
thicker line.
6. Types of analysis
To verify the proposed CMP procedure, elaborated in detail
earlier, the procedure was performed, together with NL-RHA, for
frames S1, S2, S3, and S4. The predicted results from the MPA
procedure are also presented for the purpose of comparison. The
MPA procedure was carried out for each ground motion. The
seismic responses were calculated for the medium-rise (i.e. 10 and
15 storey) frames, including three modes, and for the high-rise
(i.e. 20 and 30 storey) frames, including five modes. The mean
value of the responses was then determined over the set of used
ground motions. P–∆ effects were included in the CMP and MPA
for all modes. In the CMP procedure, the target displacement at
the roof was obtained as the mean of the maximum top floor
displacements resulting from the NL-RHA for the selected ground
motions. The target displacements were equal to 26.92, 33.05,
38.27, and 61.26 cm for frames S1, S2, S3, and S4, respectively.
The nonlinear response history analyses were performed using the
numerical implicit Wilson–θ time integration method, in which
the stability and accuracy characteristics are determined by the
parameter θ . This parameter was assumed to have a value of 1.4. A
damping ratio of 5% was considered for the first and third modes
of vibration, in order to define the Rayleigh damping matrix. The
response resulting from each pushover procedure was compared
with the mean value of the maximum seismic demands computed
by rigorous nonlinear response history analyses. It is noted that the
nonlinear version of the computer program SAP2000 [13] was used
to perform these analyses.
 M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599 595

Fig. 3. (a) Pseudo-acceleration spectra and (b) displacement spectra of the set of far-field records of ground motions, damping ratio = 5%.

Table 2
List of the ground motions used.
No. Earthquake name Date Magnitude Station name Station number Component (deg) PGA (g)

1 Duzce, Turkey 1999/11/12 Ms (7.3) Lamont 1061 E 0.134

2 Northridge 1994/01/17 Ms (6.7) LA - Baldwin Hills 24157 90 0.239
3 Trinidad, California 1980/11/08 Ms (7.2) Rio Dell Overpass, FF 1498 270 0.147
4 Victoria, Mexico 1980/06/09 Ms (6.4) Cerro Prieto 6604 45 0.621
5 Hollister 1986/01/26 Ml (5.5) SAGO South - Surface 47189 295 0.09
6 Imperial Valley 1979/10/15 Ms (6.9) Parachute Test Site 5051 315 .204
7 Morgan Hill 1984/04/24 Ms (6.1) Corralitos 57007 310 0.109

Fig. 4. Peak values of storey drift ratios derived from pushover analyses used in the
CMP procedure and from NL-RHA for the 10-storey frame. Fig. 5. Peak values of storey drift ratios derived from pushover analyses used in the
CMP procedure and from NL-RHA for the 20-storey frame.

For a yielding structure, the occurrence of structural damage is

closely related to storey drift [9]. The reduction of drift protects
the structural components and elements, as well as non-structural
components which are sensitive to drift-induced damage. To
evaluate the structural performance, the hinge plastic rotations
are usually compared to the acceptability criteria specified in
FEMA-273/356 [4,5]. For this reason, storey drift ratios (storey
drifts/height of the storey) and the hinge plastic rotations of the
internal beams at all floor levels are presented in the current paper.
The errors in the seismic demands obtained from the approximate
pushover procedures are also shown. Because floor displacements
are incapable of indicating structural damage [9], they are not
displayed.
7. Discussion of the results
First, the implication of using multi-stage and single-stage
pushover analyses in the CMP procedure is discussed in detail.
As explained earlier, the seismic demands in the CMP procedure
are obtained by enveloping the peak responses from the multi-
stage and single-stage pushover analyses. Figs. 4 and 5 show the
peak storey drift ratios resulting from the multi-stage and single-
stage pushover analyses in the CMP procedure, as well as from
NL-RHA, for the 10- and 20-storey frames. As could be expected,
the single-stage pushover analysis with triangular or uniform
load distribution controls the seismic demands only at the lower
storeys. Fig. 4 provides evidence that the storey drifts derived from
the two-stage pushover analysis for the 10-storey frame are close
to the results of NL-RHA for the five upper storeys. As can be seen
from Fig. 5, the seismic demands at the mid and upper storeys of
the 20-storey frame are controlled by two- and three-stage modal
pushover analyses, respectively, because the higher modes in the
consecutive modal pushover analyses strongly affect the responses
at the mid and upper storeys, contrary to the lower storeys. The
same trend can be demonstrated for the other seismic demands.
Shown in Fig. 6 are the storey drift ratios obtained by the MPA
and CMP procedures, together with NL-RHA, for the medium-rise
(10- and 15-storey) frames. The errors in the storey drifts from the
pushover procedures are displayed in Fig. 7. The figures illustrate
that the MPA and CMP procedures produce satisfactory estimates
of storey drifts. The CMP provides better estimates than the MPA
at some upper storeys, whereas the errors from the MPA are less
596 M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599
(a) Storey drift ratios of the 10-storey frame.
Fig. 6. Height-wise variation of the storey drifts for the 10- and 15-storey frames.
(a) Storey drift ratios of the 10-storey frame.
Fig. 7. Errors in the storey drifts for the 10- and 15-storey frames.
than those from the CMP at some lower storeys. For example, in
the 15-storey frame, the storey drift ratios are underestimated by
up to 11.7% and 25% at the upper eight storeys by the CMP and MPA
procedures, respectively. In the lower seven storeys, the errors
from the MPA and CMP procedures reach 5% and 14%, respectively.
More detailed discussion about the results of the MPA procedure
is available in [25].
The height-wise variation of hinge plastic rotations and the
errors from pushover procedures for the medium-rise frames are
shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. The figures show that the
MPA procedure fails to accurately predict hinge plastic rotations
at the upper floor levels of the 10- and 15-storey frames, whereas
noticeable improvement was achieved in the estimates of these
rotations by the CMP procedure. The figures illustrate that the CMP
procedure is in closer agreement with the NL-RHA. As a result, the
hinge plastic rotations obtained by the CMP procedure are more
accurate than those obtained by the MPA procedure, especially at
the mid and upper floors. It is noted that the 100% errors resulting
from the CMP procedure at the last floor of the 10-storey frame and
at the first floor of the 15-storey frame are ignored since the plastic
rotations predicted by the CMP procedure are zero, whereas the
rotations obtained by NL-RHA are very small. At some lower floor
levels, the CMP procedure occasionally provides better estimates of
plastic rotations than the MPA procedure, and vice versa. Also, the
CMP procedure tends to slightly overestimate the plastic rotation
of the hinges at some lower floor levels.
From Figs. 10–13, consequences similar to those for the
medium-rise frames can be almost deduced for the high-rise (20-
and 30-storey) frames. Figs. 10 and 11 provide evidence that the
MPA and CMP procedures are accurate enough in predicting storey
drift ratios. As can be seen from Figs. 12 and 13, the CMP procedure,
(b) Storey drift ratios of the 15-storey frame.
(b) Storey drift ratios of the 15-storey frame.
in general, provides substantially better estimates of hinge plastic
rotations than the MPA procedure for high-rise frames. It is
noteworthy that a key aspect of the CMP procedure is the fact
that modal pushover analyses are carried out continuously. The
consecutive implementation of modal pushover analyses means
that rotations of the plastic hinges are continuously accumulated
at the mid and upper floor levels during the modes of interest in
the multi-stage pushover analysis, whereas the MPA procedure
attempts to estimate the total response quantities by combining
the individual peak responses obtained separately for each
mode. The trend of the higher-mode influences and incremental
application of lateral forces in the multi-stage pushover analysis
of the CMP procedure indicate a significant improvement in
comparison with the MPA procedure in predicting hinge plastic
rotations at the mid and upper floor levels. However, the pushover
procedure suffers from the limitation that it is unable to take into
account the cumulative rotation of hinges due to cyclic hysteretic
behaviour [21]. It is noted that the results derived from the CMP
procedure may be occasionally inaccurate at some mid or lower
floors of high-rise frames in which the plastic rotations obtained by
NL-RHA are small. Some large errors in hinge plastic rotations (such
as in the case of the last floor of frame S3) are also not important
since the rotations computed by NL-RHA are very small.
As can be seen from Figs. 6, 8, 10 and 12, the height-wise
distribution of storey drifts and hinge plastic rotations derived
from the CMP procedure is more similar to the distribution
obtained by the benchmark solution (NL-RHA) than to that
obtained by the MPA procedure. This achievement by the CMP
procedure is more remarkable for the plastic rotations of the hinges
in comparison with the MPA procedure.
 M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599 597

(a) Hinge plastic rotations of the 10-storey frame. (b) Hinge plastic rotations of the 15-storey frame.

Fig. 8. Height-wise variation of the hinge plastic rotations for the 10- and 15-storey frames.

(a) Hinge plastic rotations of the 10-storey frame. (b) Hinge plastic rotations of the 15-storey frame

Fig. 9. Errors in the hinge plastic rotations for the 10- and 15-storey frames.

(a) Storey drift ratios of the 20-storey frame. (b) Storey drift ratios of the 30-storey frame.

Fig. 10. Height-wise variation of the storey drifts for the 20- and 30-storey frames.

The locations of the plastic hinges for the 15- and 20-storey
frames are shown in Figs. 14 and 15, respectively. They were
obtained by the MPA and CMP procedures, together with NL-
RHA. The results of the MPA procedure, shown in the figures,
were obtained by using the mean spectrum of the selected ground
motions. As shown in the figures, the MPA and CMP procedures
are almost able to identify the yielding of beams in the upper
floor levels. The CMP procedure is nearly able to recognize yielding
at most of the floors, but it fails to predict yielding at some
locations. It was shown in the previous investigation [25] that
FEMA force distributions [4] are unable to identify the yielding of
beams at the upper floor levels of tall frames, in which higher-
mode contributions to the response are important. It has also
been demonstrated that the seismic demands are considerably
underestimated in the upper storeys of tall frames through the
FEMA force distributions. It can therefore be concluded that, in
the case of tall building structures, the CMP procedure provides
substantially better estimates of seismic response than the FEMA
force distributions.
8. Conclusions
To take into account higher-mode effects in pushover analysis
for estimating the seismic demands of tall building structures, the
consecutive modal pushover (CMP) procedure has been proposed.
The procedure employs multi-stage and single-stage pushover
598 M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599

(a) Storey drift ratios of the 20-storey frame. (b) Storey drift ratios of the 30-storey frame.

Fig. 11. Errors in the storey drifts for the 20- and 30-storey frames.

(a) Hinge plastic rotations of the 20-storey frame. (b) Hinge plastic rotations of the 30-storey frame.

Fig. 12. Height-wise variation of the hinge plastic rotations for the 20- and 30-storey frames.

(a) Hinge plastic rotations of the 20-storey frame. (b) Hinge plastic rotations of the 30-storey frame.

Fig. 13. Errors in the hinge plastic rotations for the 20- and 30-storey frames.

analyses. In the multi-stage pushover analyses, modal pushover
analyses are conducted consecutively with force distributions,
using mode-shapes derived from the eigen-analysis of the linearly
elastic structure. The single-stage pushover analysis is performed
with a triangular or uniform load distribution. The seismic
demands are then determined by enveloping the peak responses
resulting from the multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses.
The former analyses control the seismic demands in the mid and
upper storeys, whereas the latter analysis controls the responses
in the lower storeys of tall buildings.
Using the CMP procedure, storey drifts can be estimated with
acceptable accuracy. At some (upper) storeys, the storey drifts
are more accurately estimated by the CMP than by the MPA,
whereas the MPA yields better estimates of storey drift than the
CMP at some other (lower) storeys of the analyzed tall frames. A
significant improvement has been achieved in estimating the hinge
plastic rotations through the CMP procedure. The plastic rotations
produced by the CMP procedure are substantially better than those
obtained by the MPA procedure, especially at the mid and upper
floor levels, when compared to NL-RHA. The improvement in the
CMP procedure results from the consecutive implementation of
modal pushover analyses, so that rotations of the plastic hinges
are continuously accumulated at the mid and upper floor levels
during the modes of interest in the multi-stage pushover analysis.
Also, the height-wise distribution of the hinge plastic rotations
produced by the CMP procedure is, in general, more similar to that
obtained by the benchmark solution (NL-RHA) than that produced
by the MPA procedure. The CMP procedure is more accurate than
the FEMA load distributions in predicting the seismic demands of
tall buildings.
 M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591–599
Fig. 14. Locations of the plastic hinges yielded by several analyses for the 15-storey
frame.
Fig. 15. Locations of the plastic hinges yielded by several analyses for the 20-storey
frame.
In order to confirm these conclusions with greater certainty,
the CMP procedure should be verified for different lateral force-
resisting systems, reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, and a variety
of ground motion sets. Work in this area is underway.
Acknowledgements
The first author wishes to express his deep thanks to Professor
Peter Fajfar for having given him the opportunity to stay and
do research at the University of Ljubljana. He has also benefited
from valuable discussions with Professor Fajfar. Comments from
anonymous reviewers helped to improve the manuscript.
References
[1] AISC-ASD. Manual of steel construction, allowable stress design. Chicago (IL):
American Institute of Steel Construction; 1989.
599
[2] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings. vol. 1–2. Redwood City (California); 1996.
[3] Aydinoglu MN. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure
on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance
evaluation. Bull Earthq Eng 2003;1:3–36.
[4] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-273, Washington (DC): Federal Emergency
Management Agency; 1997.
[5] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). Pre-standard and commentary for
the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356, Washington (DC): Federal
Emergency Management Agency ; 2000.
[6] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP recommended provisions
for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. FEMA-450,
Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency ; 2003.
[7] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity–demand-diagram methods for estimating seis-
mic deformation of inelastic structures: SDOF systems. PEER Report 1999/02.
Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Cali-
fornia. 1999.
[8] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures. In: Theory and applications to earthquake
engineering. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 2001.
[9] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic
demands for buildings. PEER Report 2001/03. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Center, University of California. 2001.
[10] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating
seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:561–82.
[11] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic
demand for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:
903–27.
[12] Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanapakdee C. Evaluation of a modified MPA
procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands.
Earthq Spectra 2004;20(3):757–78.
[13] Computers & Structures Incorporated (CSI). SAP 2000 NL. (USA, CA): Berkeley.
2004.
[14] Fajfar P, Gaspersic P. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC
buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1996;25:31–46.
[15] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 1999;28:979–93.
[16] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design.
Earthq Spectra 2000;16(3):573–92.
[17] Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analysis: SAC
Buildings. Earthq Spectra 2004;20(1):225–54.
[18] Jan TS, Liu MW, Kao YC. An upper-bound pushover analysis procedure for
estimating the seismic demands of high-rise buildings. Eng Struct 2004;26:
117–28.
[19] Jing Jiang S, Ono T, Yangang Z, Wei W. Lateral load pattern in pushover analysis.
Earthq Eng Eng Vibration 2003;2(1):99–107.
[20] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear
static analysis of building structures. ASCE, J Struct Eng 2006;132(11):
1721–31.
[21] Kim S, D’Amore E. Pushover analysis procedure in earthquake engineering.
Earthq Spectra 1999;15:417–34.
[22] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of
seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 1998;20(4-6):452–62.
[23] Moghadam AS. A pushover procedure for tall buildings. In: Proc. 12th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. London (United Kingdom):
Elsevier Science Ltd; 2002. paper 395.
[24] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic analysis of R/C
buildings. Eng Struct 2001;23:407–24.
[25] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. Assessment of modal pushover
analysis and conventional nonlinear static procedure with load distributions
of Federal Emergency Management Agency for high-rise buildings. J Struct Des
Tall Spec Build; 2008 (in press) corrected proof available online.
[26] Sasaki KK, Freeman SA, Paret TF. Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP) —
a method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. In:
Proceedings of 6th US nat. conf. on earthq. eng., Seattle (Washington); 1998.
[27] Standard No. 2800-05. Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of
buildings. 3rd ed. Building and Housing Research Centre, Iran; 2005.
[28] Tso WK, Moghadam AS. Pushover procedure for seismic analysis of buildings.
Progress in Struct Eng Mat 1998;1(3):337–44.