DISCUSSION OF:

‘‘Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover

Analyses: SAC Buildings’’
Manuscript Reference: Rakesh K. Goel and Anil K. Chopra, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20,
no. 1 共February 2004兲: 225–254.

Bruce F. Maison,a) M.EERI

[DOI: 10.1193/1.1851546]

The writer congratulates the authors for their evaluation of pushover analysis. The
paper presents the results from extensive analyses covering a wide variety of cases via
numerous computer earthquake response simulations using the SAC model buildings.
The authors point out the inadequacies of FEMA-356 nonlinear static procedure to cap-
ture the ‘‘exact’’ response from nonlinear response history analysis (RHA). They go on
to propose an improved Modal Pushover Analysis (requiring an intricate ten-step proce-
dure), but note that even this improved procedure still has problems when the structure
deforms far into the inelastic range.
State-of-practice seismic analysis of multistory buildings uses computer software ap-
plications that require creating a numerical model of the building. With modern com-
puter codes, there is not much difference in the level of effort to create a building model
and perform either static or dynamic analysis. Multiple nonlinear static cases (as in
pushover analysis) or multiple nonlinear time-history analyses (as in RHA) can easily be
done in a single computer run. Since actual seismic response is dynamic, RHA should
be the preferred method.
The writer thinks pushover methods are obsolete for the reasons cited above, but rec-
ognizes that he may be unaware of advantages they have over RHA. The writer would
appreciate the authors’ comments on such advantages, and on what conditions they
would recommend use of pushover analysis over RHA.

a)
Structural Engineer, 7309 Lynn Ave., El Cerrito, CA 94530

275
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 21, No. 1, pages 275–275, February 2005; © 2005, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute