Structures Congress Lignos DKK 2011

Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2204
Seismic Evaluation of Steel Moment Frames and Shear Walls Using

Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedures
D. G. Lignos1, C. Putman2, F. Zareian3, and H. Krawinkler4

1
McGill University, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Room
278C, Montreal, QC H3A 2K6; PH (514) 398-2198; FAX (514) 398-7361; email:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dimitrios.lignos@mcgill.ca
2
Degengolb Engineers; 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 450, Oakland, CA 94612;
PH (510) 250-1242; email: cputman@degenkolb.com
3
University of California at Irvine, Department of Civil and Environment Engineering
EG E4141; CA 92697-2175; PH (949) 824-9866; FAX (949) 824-2117; email:
zareian@uci.edu
4
Stanford University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Room
231; 473 Via Ortega Stanford, CA, 94305; PH (650) 723-4129; FAX (650) 723-7514;
email: krawinkler@stanford.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the effectiveness of simplified nonlinear static methods

for predicting the seismic response of various steel moment resisting frames (MRFs)
and shear wall structures. Different nonlinear static analysis procedures are discussed.
Results from focused studies of different archetype structural systems are compared
with nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA). The main engineering demand
parameters considered are story drift ratios, story shear forces and overturning
moments. Suggestions are made for improving accuracy and required effort of
alternative nonlinear static procedures used to predict the seismic response of steel
MRF and shear wall structural systems.
INTRODUCTION
In civil engineering practice it is common to employ nonlinear static analysis

procedures (known as pushover analysis) for design, evaluation and rehabilitation of
structural systems. The pushover analysis (PA) is a useful analytical tool in order to
assess in an approximate manner the inelastic seismic demands of a structural system,
such as story drift ratios, story shear force distributions, overstrength and inelastic
element deformations. Further, PA can identify regions in which the deformation
demands of a structural system are high, and story mechanisms due to strength
discontinuities that may not appear in an elastic analysis(Krawinkler and Seneviratna,
1998). Guidance on utilization of nonlinear static analysis procedures has been
provided in various engineering documents, such as ATC-40 (ATC, 1996),
ASCE/SEI 31-03 (ASCE, 2003), FEMA 440 (FEMA, 2005) and ASCE/SEI 41-06
(ASCE, 2007) and more recently in FEMA P-440A (FEMA, 2009a).
FEMA 440 concluded that current nonlinear static analysis procedures, which
are based on single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) models, are limited in their ability to
capture the complex behavior of structures that experience multiple-degree-of-
Structures Congress 2011

freedom (MDOF) response, and that improved nonlinear analysis techniques to more
reliably address MDOF effects were needed. This paper summarizes part of a study
that was initiated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
address this need. Using FEMA 440 as a starting point, the goal is to improve
nonlinear MDOF modeling for structural design practice by providing guidance on:
(1) the minimum level of MDOF model sophistication necessary to make
performance-based engineering decisions and (2) selection of appropriate nonlinear
analysis methods.
ARCHETYPE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
In order to evaluate important engineering demand parameters (EDPs) from results

obtained from “best estimate” nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA), we use 2-
dimensional numerical models of 2-, 4- and 8-story special steel moment frames
(SSMF) and reinforced concrete shear wall (RCSW) structures. These structural
systems are archetypes that were designed and analyzed as part of the ATC-76-1
project concerned with evaluation of the FEMA P-695 (FEMA, 2009b) Methodology
for Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Both the SSMF and
RCSW structures were designed for seismic design category Dmax (SDS = 1.0g and SD1
= 0.60g). The EDP values obtained from such NRHA serve as benchmark values for
assessing predictions by means of simplified methods. Details regarding the design of
these structural systems are summarized in NIST (2010).
Steel Moment Resisting Frames: The structures comprise 3-bay moment resisting
frames that serve as the lateral load resisting system of steel buildings. The final
report of this project (NIST, 2010) describes the SSMFs in detail. The subset consists
of three structures that have been designed based on response spectrum analysis
(RSA). In summary, these buildings are,
• 2-story SSMF (Archetype ID 2-Dmax-RSA)
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls: The salient features of the subset of RCSWs
utilized in this study are summarized below. The subset consists of three structures,
designated here as,
• 2-story ATC-76-1 RCSW (Archetype ID 12)
Note that the structures have been designed with a low 0.075Agfc’ axial stress level.
NUMERICAL MODELING OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
Steel Moment Resisting Frames: The bare frame structure is analyzed with the
latest version of either the Drain-2DX program (Prakash et al., 1993) or the Open
System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) platform

(http://opensees.berkeley.edu, McKenna, 1997, Version 2.1.1), utilizing recently

developed component moment-rotation models (Lignos and Krawinkler, 2009, 2011).
The models for flexural behavior of steel components, which are identical in the
Drain-2DX and OpenSees versions used in this study, are based on the point hinge
concept and utilize a backbone, a bilinear hysteretic model, and cyclic deterioration
parameters discussed in detail in Lignos and Krawinkler (2009, 2011). The
deterioration parameters are based on regression equations derived from experimental
results and provide different values for different steel W-sections as a function of
geometric section properties and material properties that control deterioration in
strength and stiffness due to local and lateral torsional buckling (Lignos and
Krawinkler, 2011). This component model is referred to as the “modified IK model,”
and analysis performed based on this component model is referred to as Analyt.M1.
Results obtained with Analyt.M1 account for cyclic deterioration in NRHA but they
do not account for cyclic deterioration in a pushover analysis, which is based on the
initial backbone curve. An example of global pushover curves for the 4- and 8-story
SSMFs is shown in Figure 1 after utilizing the Analyt.M1 component model.
NORMALIZED BASE SHEAR vs ROOF DRIFT RATIO-Analyt.M1 NORMALIZED BASE SHEAR vs ROOF DRIFT RATIO-Analyt.M1
ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax,T1=1.56sec ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 8-Story-RSA-Dmax,T1=2.14sec
1st Mode Lateral Load Pattern 1st Mode Lateral Load Pattern
0.2 0.2
1-Bay 1-Bay
3-Bay 3-Bay
Norm. Base Shear V/W
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Roof Drift θ r=δ r/H [rad] Roof Drift θ r=δ r/H [rad]
Figure 1. Comparison of global pushover curves (VI/W –θr) of 1- and 3-bay steel SMF
analytical models, 4-, and 8-story steel SMFs.
It is often acceptable to represent all moment resisting frames by a single bay

frame, resulting in a simplified model. Such a model reduces the computational
effort and often facilitates interpretation of global results. But the simplified model
may not be adequate to extract local demands such as plastic hinge rotations in
individual components and axial and shear forces in columns. Thus, its primary
purpose is to assess global and story level EDPs and to detect weaknesses that may
become the subject of a more detailed evaluation. The resulting single bay frame is
similar to the ‘fishbone’ model used extensively in Japan (Luco et al., 2003), with the
added advantage that overturning moments and column axial deformation effects are
represented in the model. Figure 1 shows a comparison of global pushover curves of
1- and 3-bay steel SMF analytical models of the 4-story and 8-story steel SMFs.
Details regarding the improved ‘fishbone’ model are summarized in NIST (2010).

Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls: Displacement- based beam-column elements

together with translational shear springs were used to model wall elements for all the
shear wall archetypes. The OpenSees C02 model was used for modeling both
confined and unconfined concrete. Concrete crushing was taken as the point where
the post-peak linear descending branch reaches the residual concrete stress (defined
as 20% of the peak confined concrete stress). Confined concrete model parameters
were varied over the wall height at locations where transverse reinforcement
changed. Concrete tensile strength (ft), concrete tensile modulus (Et), and unloading
parameter (λ), which defines the unloading slope in terms of the initial concrete
modulus (unloading slope = λE0), were selected based on the information provided
by Orakcal et al. (2006). Reinforcement was modeled as a “hysteretic material” in
OpenSees. Expected values of yield and ultimate strength of reinforcement were
taken as 68 ksi and 100 ksi, respectively. A tensile strain value of 0.05 was selected
to correspond to failure associated with rebar buckling and subsequently rebar
fracture. After reaching a strain of 0.05, the stress capacity of the reinforcing
bar drops to near zero. Flexural behavior was modeled by 6”x6” fiber elements.
Shear behavior was modeled by a translational shear spring. Such a spring was
inserted in every story. The properties of the shear spring were based on the NIST
(2010) study.
NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURES
Given a prescribed lateral load pattern, there are different options for modeling a
structure for pushover analysis and for selecting the method for target displacement
prediction. In general, the latter is based on predicting the displacement demand for
an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system that represents the first mode
characteristics of the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structure and mapping this
demand back to the global pushover curve to find the point at which the structure
should be evaluated (sometimes referred to as performance point). In the ASCE/SEI
41-06 coefficient method (ASCE, 2007) this process is greatly simplified and the
equivalent SDOF system does not become an explicit part of the target displacement
estimation. Figures 2 and 3 show an example of the global pushover analysis of a 2-
story SSMF and 4-story RCSW structure, respectively, together with an equivalent
single degree of freedom system.
Pushover Analysis Options for SSMFs: The following two options are explored for
models of structural components, which then are assembled in the OpenSees analysis
platform:
• ASCE41: ASCE/SEI 41-06 component models are used, but assuming a post-
capping stiffness obtained by linearly connecting peak point C and point E of the
generic ASCE/SEI 41-06 model. This modification is made in order to avoid

numerical analysis stability problems and to conform better to data and analysis
models developed over the last decade.
• Analyt.M1: Modified IK component model with monotonic backbone curve is
used, i.e., ATC-72-1 analysis option 1 (PEER/ATC, 2010); cyclic deterioration is
not reflected in pushover analysis.
Pushover Analysis Options for Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls: In this study
the following options are explored for models of structural components, which then
are assembled in the OpenSees analysis platform:
• ASCE41: ASCE/SEI 41-06 component models are used, but assuming a post-
capping stiffness obtained by linearly connecting peak point C and point E of the
generic ASCE/SEI 41-06 model.
• FM: Fiber model described in NIST (2010) is utilized to represent flexural
behavior, and a story shear spring is used to represent shear behavior.
The FM analysis option was executed for all three RCSWs, whereas the
ASCE41 option was explored only for the 4-story RCSW.
NORMALIZED BASE SHEAR vs ROOF DRIFT RATIO –Analyt.M1 EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM-Analyt.M1
ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 2-Story-RSA-Dmax,1-bay,T =0.95sec ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 2-Story-RSA-Dmax,1-bay,T 1=0.95sec
1
st
1 Mode Lateral Load Pattern 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
Norm. Base Shear V*/W*
0.4
0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
V(I) 0.1
0.1
V(I+P-Δ)
Trilinear
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Roof Drift Ratio θ r=δ r/H [rad] Drift Ratio θ *=δ */H* [rad]
Figure 2. Utilization of global pushover of 2-story SSMF to develop and equivalent

SDOF system
Target Displacement Options for Steel Moment Resisting Frames and Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls
• ASCE41: Target displacement obtained from ASCE/SEI 41-06 coefficient
method. For a shear wall system the target displacement is obtained with an
idealized trilinear force-displacement curve recommended in ASCE 41-06 as
shown in Figure 3a. This curve utilizes an effective elastic stiffness obtained by
placing a line through the displacement at 0.6Vy.
• EqSDOF: Target displacement based on median displacement obtained from a
first mode equivalent SDOF system and NRHA using the 44 ground motions of
the FEMA P-695 set and the analysis tool IIIDAP (Lignos, 2009). Equivalent
SDOF properties are obtained from the base shear VI – roof displacement
pushover curve (not the VI+P- – roof displacement pushover curve), which
implies that P-delta effects are accounted for approximately in the development of

the equivalent SDOF system (see Figure 2). In the case of shear wall structures in
which the global pushover curve shows a clear kink around cracking, the
idealized force-displacement curve is better represented by a multi-linear curve
that has at least 4 stiffnesses (pre-cracking, post-cracking, post-yielding, and post-
capping) as shown in Figure 3.
It should be noted that the primary focus is on target displacements that

correspond to three scale factors (SF) of median ground motion intensity (SF=0.5, 1.0
and 2.0)
NORMALIZED BASE SHEAR vs ROOF DRIFT RATIO –FM NORMALIZED BASE SHEAR vs ROOF DRIFT RATIO -FM-Eq.SDOF
ATC76-1 RCSW, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax-Low ,T =0.66sec
1 ATC76-1 RCSW, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax-Low,0.66sec
1st Mode Lateral Load Pattern 1st Mode Lateral Load Pattern
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 V(I) 0.1 V(I)

V(I+P-Δ) V(I+P-Δ)
Trilinear Multi-linear simplification
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Roof Drift Ratio θ r=δ r/H [rad] Roof Drift Ratio θ r=δ r/H [rad]
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Utilization of global pushover of 4-story RCSW to develop an equivalent
SDOF system; (a) ASCE 41 procedure; (b) Eq.SDOF system
Findings for Special Steel Moment Frames: Only a summary of results from all the
studies is presented herein due to brevity. For illustration, peak story drift ratios, peak
story shear forces and peak floor overturning moments for a scale factor of 2 are
compared between NSP and NRHA for the 4- and 8-story SSMFs. A summary of
findings for the 2-story frame structure is also included. It should be noted that story
shear forces are obtained as the summation of the inertia and P-Delta forces noted as
VI+P-Δ. Story shear forces are normalized with respect to the seismic weight W of the
frame structure. Similarly, floor overturning moments are based on VI+P-Δ multiplied
by the individual story heights and are normalized with respect to the seismic weight
W multiplied by the total height H of the frame structure.
2-story Steel Moment Resisting Frame: In the Analyt.M1 component model the
post-yield stiffness is caused by a 10% increase in My regardless of the amount of
pre-capping plastic hinge rotation capacity.
The ASCE/SEI 41-06 criteria for post-capping behavior result in a steep post-
capping tangent stiffness leading to rapid deterioration. This does not correspond to
statistical data from component tests on which the Analyt.M1 model is based (Lignos
and Krawinkler, 2009, 2011). The ASCE/SEI 41-06 coefficient method pays no
attention to the aforementioned differences, i.e., it results in the same target
displacement prediction for both the ASCE41 and Analyt.M1 pushovers.

All target displacement predictions are within 10% of the median roof drift
obtained from NRHA. NSP results compare well with NRHA results, except for the
story drift predictions for SF = 2.0 based on the ASCE/SEI 41-06 pushover. The
reason is the negative tangent stiffness in the post-yield range of the ASCE41
pushover.
4- and 8-story Steel Moment Resisting Frames: In theses structures the ASCE/SEI
41-06 pushover underestimates post-yield strength and deformation capacities of

structures compared to the Analyt.M1 model. The latter model is based on expected
values of component properties, whereas more conservative (low) values have been
selected intentionally in the ASCE/SEI 41-06 modeling criteria.
The use of the low estimate ASCE/SEI 41-06 pushover model together with
an equivalent SDOF model for target displacement prediction (ASCE41-EqSDOF)
may provide estimates of performance that are lower than NRHA but might be
justifiable. For SF = 2.0 the EqSDOF leads to 33 collapses, which are direct
consequences of the relatively short yield plateau obtained in the ASCE/SEI 41-06
pushover. For all options, NSP story drift predictions show a significant deviation
from median NRHA values (see Figure 4). In the inelastic range (SF = 2.0) drifts in
the lower stories are overestimated and drifts in the upper stories are underestimated.
This can be seen in Figure 4 that shows a comparison between peak story drift ratios
along the height of the 4- and 8-story SSMFS as obtained from NRHA and alternative
NSP methods.
PEAK STORY DRIFT RATIOS, SF= 2 PEAK STORY DRIFT RATIOS, SF= 2
ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax, 1-Bay,1.56sec, 44 Records ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 8-Story-RSA-Dmax, 1-Bay,2.14sec, 44 Records
roof roof
NRHA Median NRHA Median
ASCE41-ASCE41 8 ASCE41-ASCE41
Analyt.M1-ASCE41 ASCE41-EqSDOF
4 Analyt.M1-EqSDOF 7 Analyt.M1-ASCE41
Analyt.M1-EqSDOF
6
Floor
Floor
3 5
2 3
1 1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Peak Story Drift Ratio (θ si=(δ fi-δ fi-1)/hi) Peak Story Drift Ratio (θ si=(δ fi-δ fi-1)/hi)
Figure 4. Peak story drift ratios for SF=2 for 4- and 8-story SSMFs
NSP story shear predictions are not good representations of NRHA results in
the inelastic range (SF = 2.0). Story shears are consistently underestimated,
particularly in the upper stories. But also the maximum NSP base shear, which
corresponds to the peak of the VI+P-delta pushover curves is about 25% below the
NRHA median base shear. The reason is dynamic redistribution, which amplifies
story shear forces compared to those obtained from a predetermined lateral load
pattern. If story shears are an important performance consideration, then the validity
of quantitative values obtained from a pushover analysis diminished for the 4- and 8-
story steel SMFs (see Figures 5a and 5b). Similar observations apply to floor

overturning moments, which control axial forces in columns of frame structures. In

the upper stories the NSP predictions are less than half of those obtained from
NRHA. This can be seen from Figures 5c and 5d that show a comparison between the
peak floor overturning moments along the height of the 4- and 8-story SSMFs,
respectively, as obtained by NRHA and various NSP methods. The situation is better
at the base, because maximum shear forces in individual stories occur at different
times. The outcome is that even for this relatively low-rise steel SMF structure NSP
predictions may provide misleading quantitative information, particularly for force

quantities.
PEAK NORMALIZED STORY SHEAR FORCES, V(I+P-Δ ), SF=2
PEAK NORMALIZED STORY SHEAR FORCES, V(I+P-Δ), SF=2
ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax, 1-Bay,1.56sec, 44 Records
ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 8-Story-RSA-Dmax, 1-Bay,2.14sec, 44 Records
roof roof
ASCE41-ASCE41 ASCE41-ASCE41
8
Analyt.M1-EqSDOF
6
Floor
Floor
3 5
2 3
1 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Peak Normalized Story Shear (V(I+P-Δ )/W) Peak Normalized Story Shear (V(I+P-Δ )/W)
(a) (b)
PEAK NORM. FLOOR OVERTURNING MOMENTS, OTM(I+P-Δ ), SF=2 PEAK NORM. FLOOR OVERTURNING MOMENTS, OTM(I+P-Δ ), SF=2
ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax, 1-Bay,1.56sec, 44 Records ATC76-1 Steel SMF, 8-Story-RSA-Dmax, 1-Bay,2.14sec, 44 Records
roof roof
ASCE41-ASCE41 8 ASCE41-ASCE41
Analyt.M1-EqSDOF
6
Floor
Floor
3 5
2 3
1 1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Peak Normalized Floor Overturning Moment (Σ [V(I+P-Δ )*h ]/(W*H)) Peak Normalized Floor Overturning Moment (Σ [V(I+P-Δ)*h ]/(W*H))
i i
(c) (d)
Figure 5. Peak normalized story shear forces and floor overturning moments for the
4- and 8-story SSMFs for SF=2
Findings for Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls: For all RCSW structures (2, 4, and
8 stories) the FM-ASCE41 NSP option (as recommended presently in ASCE/SEI 41-
06) leads to rather poor predictions of story drift ratios. An example can be seen from
Figure 6 for the 4-story RCSW. Therefore, emphasis was placed on a better
representation of the global pushover curve in the equivalent SDOF system in order
to obtain a better estimate of the target displacement. For this purpose the global

pushover curve was represented in a multi-linear manner rather than the trilinear
manner recommended in ASCE/SEI 41-06. An example of this improved SDOF
system can be seen in Figure 3b. The target displacement of the corresponding
equivalent SDOF system was predicted with the program IIIDAP (Lignos, 2009), by
subjecting the equivalent SDOF system to the set of 44 FEMA P-695 ground motions
and computing the median displacement, which was then mapped back to the MDOF
domain. This mapped value was used as target displacement to predict the EDPs
from the global pushover. The EDP predictions obtained in this manner (denoted as
FM-Eq.SDOF) show a large improvement over the predictions obtained from use of
the trilinear ASCE/SEI 41-06 equivalent SDOF system for SF=0.5 and 1.0. Figures 6
and 7 summarize the peak story drift ratios, normalized peak story shear forces and
peak normalized overturning moments along the height of the 4-story RCSW
structure for the two scale factors of interest.
PEAK STORY DRIFT RATIOS, SF=0.5 PEAK STORY DRIFT RATIOS, SF=1.0
ATC76-1 RCSW, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax-Low,0.66sec, 44 Records ATC76-1 RCSW, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax-Low,0.66sec, 44 Records
roof roof
FM-ASCE41 FM-ASCE41
FM-EqSDOF FM-EqSDOF
4 ASCE41-ASCE41 4 ASCE41-ASCE41
Floor
Floor
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Peak Story Drift Ratio (θ si=(δ fi-δ fi-1)/hi) Peak Story Drift Ratio (θ si=(δ fi-δ fi-1)/hi)
Figure 6. Peak story drift ratios for the 4- story RCSW for SF=0.5 and 1.0
As an alternative, EDP predictions for the 4-story RCSW were also obtained from
using ASCE/SEI 41-06 component models to perform the pushover analysis together
with the ASCE/SEI 41-06 target displacement procedure (ASCE41-ASCE41 option).
The challenge here was to determine moment and shear force strength properties
based on ASCE/SEI 41-06 recommendations. The values for bending strength
obtained from the FM model and computed from ACI criteria together with
ASCE/SEI 41-06 criteria for expected material properties differ by a significant
amount. Due to brevity, details about this model can be found in NIST (2010) report.
The estimated strength values (Mc) are significantly larger than would be
calculated from basic engineering models and using the reinforcement layout
provided in the NIST (2010) report. The FM peak moment value Mc can be obtained
only with a much larger axial force that was used in design of this structure. The
bending capacity of the wall is very sensitive to the axial force in the wall. A small
difference in axial force changes the bending capacity by a large amount, and
consequently the failure mode in the wall may change from bending to shear or vice
versa. Nonlinear dynamic response in a wall that deforms primarily in shear may be
very different from that deforming primarily in bending. This is the reason for the
large differences between NSP predictions (ASCE41-ASCE41) compared to those

obtained from FM-ASCE41 and FM-Eq.SDOF in story drift ratios (see Figure 6) and
peak story shear forces and overturning moments (see Figure 7). ASCE41-ASCE41
predictions were possible only for SF = 0.5 and 1.0, because for larger ground motion
scale factors the predicted roof drift exceeded the deformation capacity indicated by
the ASCE/SEI 41-06 pushover.
PEAK NORMALIZED STORY SHEAR FORCES, V(I+P-Δ ), SF=0.5 PEAK NORMALIZED STORY SHEAR FORCES, V(I+P-Δ ), SF=1.0

roof roof
FM-ASCE41 FM-ASCE41
FM-EqSDOF FM-EqSDOF
4 ASCE41-ASCE41 4
Floor
Floor
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Peak Normalized Story Shear (V(I+P-Δ )/W) Peak Normalized Story Shear (V(I+P-Δ )/W)
PEAK NORM. FLOOR OVERT. MOMENTS, OTM(I+P-Δ ), SF=0.5 PEAK NORM. FLOOR OVERT. MOMENTS, OTM(I+P-Δ ), SF=1.0
roof roof
FM-ASCE41 FM-ASCE41
FM-EqSDOF FM-EqSDOF
4 ASCE41-ASCE41 4 ASCE41-ASCE41
Floor
Floor
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Peak Normalized Floor Overturning Moment (Σ [V(I+P-Δ )*h ]/(W*H)) Peak Normalized Floor Overturning Moment (Σ [V(I+P-Δ )*h ]/(W*H))
i i
Figure 7. NSP to NRHA comparison, 4-story ATC-76-1 RCSW, three different NSP
options, SF = 0.5 and 1.0.
The upshot is that there is a large discrepancy between EDP predictions

obtained from a fiber model pushover analysis and an ASCE/SEI 41-06 pushover
analysis. This study can only point out this discrepancy but cannot attempt to solve
it. The discrepancy is evident in the NSP predictions. The ASCE41 pushover
predicts unacceptable performance (represented by intolerable roof drift in the
ASCE/SEI 41-06 pushover and by collapses in NRHA with the FM model) at ground
motion intensities (represented by the scale factor SF) less than one third of that
predicted by the FM model. These observations do not imply that the ASCE/SEI 41-
06 component models are incorrect; it merely implies that there are huge differences
between a pushover curve obtained from ASCE/SEI 41-06 and a pushover curve
obtained from the FM model used in the ATC-76-1 study.

Given that the FM model is an appropriate model to predict EDPs by means

of NRHA, it is important to note that the FM-Eq.SDOF NSP approach provides a
very good match with NRHA median results for all three story EDPs (drift, shear
force, and OTM) – up to a ground motion scale factor of 2.0. The improvement is the
multi-linear representation of the pushover curve for formation of the equivalent
SDOF system, as compared to the FM-ASCE41 approach in which the pushover
curve is represented by a trilinear diagram. The latter does not lead to good EDP
predictions in most cases.
SUMMARY
This paper summarizes part of a study that was conducted in order to provide
guidance on the selection of nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) for steel special
moment frame and reinforced concrete shear wall structures. It also summarizes
limitations of use for NSPs to predict engineering demand parameters. Rather than
developing new, complex NSP methods, improvements on current NSP methods that
are utilized in various guideline documents are suggested.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper relies on results obtained under Task Order 6 of the NEHRP Consultants
Joint Venture (a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and Consortium of
Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering), under Contract
SB134107CQ0019, Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research, issued by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. The views expressed do not
necessarily represent those of the organizations identified above.
REFERENCES
ATC (1996). “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings,” ATC 40

Report, Volumes 1 and 2, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
ASCE (2003). “Seismic evaluation of existing buildings,” ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI
31-03, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute,
Reston, VA.
ASCE (2007). “Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings,” ASCE Standard
ASCE/SEI 41-06, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering
Institute, Reston, VA.
FEMA (2005). “Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures,”
FEMA 440 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009a). “Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on seismic response,”
FEMA P-440A Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009b). “Quantification of building seismic performance factors,” FEMA
P-695 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Krawinkler, H., Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). “Prons and cons of a pushover

analysis of seismic performance evaluations,” Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol. 20 (4-6), pp. 452-464.
Lignos, D.G., (2009) “Interactive Interface for Incremental Dynamic Analysis,
IIIDAP: Theory and example applications manual, Version 1.1.5,” Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
Lignos, D.G., and Krawinkler H. (2009). “Sidesway collapse of deteriorating
structural systems under seismic excitations,” Report No. TR 172, John A.

Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University, CA.
Lignos, D.G., and Krawinkler, H. (2011). “Deterioration modeling of steel
components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under
earthquake loading,” ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering (accepted for
publication).
Luco, N., Mori, Y., Funahashi, Y., Cornell, A., Nakashima, M. (2003). “Evaluation
of predictors of non-linear seismic demands using ‘fishbone’ models of SMRF
buildings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 32(14) pp.
2267-2288.
McKenna, F. (1997). “Object oriented finite element programming frameworks for
analysis, algorithms and parallel computing,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
NIST (2010). “Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 methodology for quantification of
building seismic performance factors, GCR 10-917-8,” prepared by the
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Orakcal, K., Massone, L. M., Wallace, J. W. (2006). “Analytical modeling of
reinforced concrete walls for predicting flexural and coupled-shear-flexural
responses,” Report 2006/07, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, 2006.
PEER/ATC (2010). “Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and
analysis of tall buildings,” PEER/ATC-72-1, prepared by the Applied
Technology Council in cooperation with the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Redwood City, CA.
Prakash, V., Powell, G.H., and Campbell, S. (1993). “DRAIN-2DX: Basic program
description and user guide,” Report No. UCB/SEMM-1993/17, University of
California, Berkeley.

Structures Congress Lignos DKK 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures Congress Lignos DKK 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2204

Seismic Evaluation of Steel Moment Frames and Shear Walls Using

D. G. Lignos1, C. Putman2, F. Zareian3, and H. Krawinkler4

This paper discusses the effectiveness of simplified nonlinear static methods

In civil engineering practice it is common to employ nonlinear static analysis

Structures Congress 2011

ARCHETYPE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

In order to evaluate important engineering demand parameters (EDPs) from results

NUMERICAL MODELING OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

Structures Congress 2011

(http://opensees.berkeley.edu, McKenna, 1997, Version 2.1.1), utilizing recently

It is often acceptable to represent all moment resisting frames by a single bay

Structures Congress 2011

Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls: Displacement- based beam-column elements

NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURES

Structures Congress 2011

Figure 2. Utilization of global pushover of 2-story SSMF to develop and equivalent

Structures Congress 2011

It should be noted that the primary focus is on target displacements that

Norm. Base Shear V/W

0.1 V(I) 0.1 V(I)

Structures Congress 2011

41-06 pushover underestimates post-yield strength and deformation capacities of

Structures Congress 2011

overturning moments, which control axial forces in columns of frame structures. In

predictions may provide misleading quantitative information, particularly for force

Structures Congress 2011

Structures Congress 2011

ATC76-1 RCSW, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax-Low,0.66sec, 44 Records ATC76-1 RCSW, 4-Story-RSA-Dmax-Low,0.66sec, 44 Records

The upshot is that there is a large discrepancy between EDP predictions

Structures Congress 2011

Given that the FM model is an appropriate model to predict EDPs by means

predictions in most cases.

ATC (1996). “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings,” ATC 40

Structures Congress 2011

Krawinkler, H., Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). “Prons and cons of a pushover

structural systems under seismic excitations,” Report No. TR 172, John A.

Structures Congress 2011

You might also like