Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1117–1122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

On the modal incremental dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete structures,

using a trilinear idealization model
P. Zarfam, M. Mofid ∗
Civil Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

article info abstract

Article history: In order to estimate the seismic demands at the performance level, the inelastic behavior of concrete
Received 2 April 2009 structures should be considered. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) based on a nonlinear response
Received in revised form time history analysis (NL-RHA) is considered to be the most accurate method in seismic demand
13 December 2010
calculations. However, modal incremental dynamic analysis (MIDA), based on the equivalent single-
Accepted 14 December 2010
Available online 26 January 2011
degree-of-freedom (SDF) oscillator, is also often used in studying structural engineering performances.
As the MIDA method has usually not been applied to reinforced concrete (RC) structures, in this study
Keywords:
an attempt is made to investigate the performances of RC frames and to compare the results obtained
Modal incremental dynamic through the MIDA against those obtained from exact IDA. Furthermore, an innovative suggestion on
Nonlinear approximated pushover curves of the corresponding SDF model, by means of a trilinear idealization
Trilinear representation, is also offered. For this purpose, an eight-story concrete frame subjected to 30 different
Reinforced concrete earthquake records is studied with the trilinear idealization model, and the damage measures, important
Seismic performance for the seismic vulnerability of buildings, such as the maximum displacement and the interstory drift ratio,
are considered. Comparison of the results has shown reasonable and/or acceptable precision and reveals
good agreement of the MIDA method with the new idealization behavior model for concrete frames.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction nonlinear time history analysis [3]. Hernández-Montes et al.

Estimating seismic demands at low performance levels, such as
life safety and collapse prevention, requires explicit consideration
of the inelastic behavior of structures. Although nonlinear response
time history analysis (NL-RHA) is one of the most accurate methods
for seismic demand calculations, nonlinear static processes are
also used in the ordinary performance evaluation of structural
engineering. The pushover analysis method gives reliable results in
low-rise buildings that respond primarily in the fundamental mode
of vibration and have inelastic actions uniformly distributed over
their heights. In this method, the contribution of modes, higher
than the first mode, is not considered. Therefore, researchers
have been increasingly interested in developing new pushover
analysis techniques. Bracci, Gupta and Kunnath have presented
an adaptive pushover technique, which accounts for the effects of
higher modes and time-varying structural stiffness [1]. Elnashai
and his co-workers have conducted extensive comparisons
between dynamic and pushover analyses in order to identify
the domain where a pushover analysis is valid [2]. Chopra and
Chintanapakdee determined the seismic demands of irregular
frames with high stiffness and strength for 20 earthquakes
comparing two methods, modal pushover analysis (MPA) and
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 66014828; fax: +98 21 66014828.
E-mail addresses: zarfam@civil.sharif.edu (P. Zarfam), mofid@sharif.edu,
mass3001@yahoo.com (M. Mofid).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.029
observed that the roof was displaced in the reverse direction of the
lateral load in a multimodal pushover analysis. This phenomenon
is a potential impediment to MPA procedure application for
curves of higher pushover modes. To overcome this difficulty an
energy-based pushover analysis (EB-PA) technique was sugges-
ted by Hernández-Montes et al. [4], which is recommended in
FEMA-440, and the EB-PA formulation has been extended to
adaptive pushover analysis by Kunnath [5]. Then in 2006, a new
method was presented by Tjhin et al. They considered another
feature (displacement upon energy) for studying single-degree-of-
freedom (SDF) systems instead of roof displacement [6].
Similar to the process of the linear static analysis method
moving forward to become the nonlinear static pushover analysis
method, the idea of promoting the dynamic analysis method
to an incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) method was raised.
Apparently, this concept was put forward for the first time
by Bertero, in 1977 [7], and he was followed by many other
scientists and engineers such as Luco and Cornell [8], Bazzurro
and Cornell [9], Yun et al. [10], Mehanny and Deieriein [11],
Dubina et al. [12], Nassar and Krawinkler [13], Psycharis et al. [14],
Vamvatsikos and Cornell [15]. Aschheim et al. [16] and Mander
et al. [17], who worked extensively on this afterwards.
Recently, a new technique for the dynamic response of struc-
tures has been investigated. This applied procedure can evalu-
ate and predict the approximate seismic demands of structures,
1118 P. Zarfam, M. Mofid / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1117–1122

and it is fast, inexpensive, and the results are reasonably accept-

able. In fact, this novel method logically combines two different
techniques, IDA and MPA. This method takes advantage of both
methods’ ideas, such as the equivalent SDF structure of multi-
degree-of-freedom (MDF) structures and the implementation of
different scaled levels of an earthquake record to the provided
equivalent SDF structure. The modal incremental dynamic analy-
sis (MIDA) method was presented by Mofid, Zarfam and Fard in
2005 [18] and by Han and Chopra in 2006 [19]. As the MIDA method
has been less applied for concrete structures until now, it is tar-
geted to be investigated in this research. The aims of this research
are as follows.
• To observe and compare RC frame performances using IDA and
MIDA methods.
Fig. 1. Trilinear idealization of the pushover curve.
• To investigate the damage measures such as maximum
displacement and interstory drift ratio.
Table 1
• Apply a trilinear idealized force–displacement curve for appro- The characteristics of designed structural elements.
ximated SDF structure behavior.
Beam Column Story
2. Modal incremental dynamic analysis Bottom bars Top bars Size (cm) Bars Size (cm)

In this procedure, the IDA curves are not obtained from
nonlinear dynamic analysis of an MDF structure. However, the
procedure of constructing these curves is based on modeling of
the entire structure with several equivalent SDF structures and
evaluating them through the modal pushover analysis method.
In this method, the capacity curve of the MDF structure can
be approximated through an idealized model, and therefore
the specifications of the equivalent SDF oscillator will easily
be obtained. Then, the MDF structure under a lateral loading
pattern will be pushed up to the maximum displacement that was
calculated from the SDF oscillator through nonlinear time history
analysis. Consequently, the damage indexes will be obtained for
each level of imposed scaled earthquake and mode of vibration.
The results of different modes have to be combined through the
Square Root of the Sum of the Squares, SRSS, method. Hence,
the MIDA curve will express the behavior and/or performance of
the structure. But, it is fairly understandable that an MIDA curve
constructed through one scaled ground motion record cannot
solely present the general behavior of structures in a probable
earthquake. However, considering different scaled ground motion
records and creating multi-MIDA curves through an averaging
technique will be more reasonable and practical. This technique
possesses all the advantages of the IDA method in studying the
performance of structures in different levels of earthquake. In
addition, it benefits from easy usage, high solving speed and
less computational CPU time and in conforming to the modified
idealized curves [20].
3. Trilinear pushover curve idealization
The nonlinear force–displacement relationship between the
base shear and the displacement of the control node is replaced
with an idealized bilinear relationship. This idealization, consid-
ered in the bilinear FEMA-356 idealization [21], has sufficient ac-
curacy to approximate the steel element behavior. However, it has
less precision for concrete structures. Therefore, in this study, the
trilinear model is presented to characterize a model more similar
to the RC frame pushover curve (Fig. 1). Three basic assumptions
are taken into account in the trilinear idealization. These are as fol-
lows.
1. The slope of the initial part of the bilinear curve is equal to the
initial slope of the primary curve.
2. The area underneath the curve is equal to the area of the initial
curve.
3. The effective yield shear (vy ) is not greater than the maximum
base shear in the initial curve.
6Φ 20 6Φ 25 45 × 45 12Φ 28 50 × 50 1, 2
6Φ 20 6Φ 25 45 × 45 12Φ 22 45 × 45 3, 4
6Φ 18 6Φ 25 40 × 40 8Φ 28 40 × 40 5, 6
4Φ 18 5Φ 25 35 × 35 8Φ 25 35 × 35 7, 8
The trilinear curve obtained has the following parameters.
Initial stiffness (Ke ): The elastic part of the curve is the initial
stiffness, located between the original point (0, 0) and the yielding
point (uy , Vy ).
Hardening stiffness (Ks ): This stiffness is the fraction of initial
stiffness located between the yielding point (uy , Vy ) and the peak
point of the pushover curve (uc , Vc ). The hardening stiffness is
Ks = αs Ke .
Post-capping stiffness (Kc ): This stiffness is also defined as the
fraction of initial stiffness located between the peak point of the
pushover curve (uc , Vc ) and the failure point (uo , Vo ), and it is Kc =
αc Ke .
The flow-chart shown in Fig. 2 presents the working procedure
for the formation of the multi-MIDA curves.
4. Modeling and record selection
The test model is a moment-resisting reinforced concrete
frame which is designed based on specific ductility principles.
The frame has eight stories with 3.2 m height and four bays
with 5 m spans. In order to provide the necessary ductility as
well as for economical reasons, the reinforcement percentages are
limited to 1–3% and 1.7% for columns and beams, respectively.
The dimensions and reinforcements of different elements of the
frame are given in Table 1. Also, the concrete strength and steel
yield strength are considered to be 28 and 300 MPa, respectively.
The real modeling of nonlinear behavior of the reinforced concrete
is mostly effective in the exactness of the damage assessment
processes, structural vulnerability determination, and the accuracy
of the results. At the same time, factors such as trilinearity, stiffness
degradation, strength deterioration and pinching are considered in
the modeling of concrete hysteretic behavior. The pushover curves
together with the consequential trilinear curves for different
vibration modes are shown in Fig. 3.
The ground motion records required for the time history
analysis were selected appropriately from reliable sources. In this
regard, 30 modified ground motion records were double checked
and chosen. The selected records are all from the California region,
and some control parameters, such as closest distance to fault,
earthquake magnitude, and soil type, were considered in this
selection. In order to prevent any resonance phenomenon, the
 P. Zarfam, M. Mofid / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1117–1122
Fig. 2. MIDA working procedure flow-chart.
predominant period and vibration mean period are computed
accordingly for all records and compared with the first mode
period of the structure. All features of ground motion records are
presented in Table 2.
5. Results
In this section, the results obtained by modal incremental
dynamic analysis method are presented and compared with those
from the exact analysis. The analyses, charts and results cannot
be presented in this paper, regarding their too much detailing.
However, a comparison of the bilinear and trilinear idealization
methods is shown in Fig. 4 for the maximum displacement and
interstory drift ratio.
Fig. 3. Pushover curve and idealized trilinear curve: (a) first mode, (b) second mode, and (c) third mode.
1119
In this research, the dynamic instability capacity of the
structure occurs when the final point of the local tangent reaches
20% of the elastic slope. It should be mentioned that, in all
processes, the form of the IDA curve is considered in order to
prevent errors such as negative slope, etc.
Single IDA and MIDA curves of the roof displacement and
maximum relative displacement of stories (interstory drift ratio)
are illustrated for all records in Figs. 5 and 6.
6. Discussion of the resulting errors
As mentioned before, MIDA is a new and practical method
for studying the seismic behavior and real performance of
structures in earthquakes. This method, like others, has some
limitations, and the assumptions should be considered prior to any
implementation. These limitations are as follows.
• Increasing the number of modes will significantly decrease the
difference between the two techniques, especially in estimation
of the interstory drift ratio. However, this is more acceptable
for the lower level of the scaled earthquake records, where the
structure behaves in the linear region [22].
• Approximating the base shear versus maximum displacement
with an idealized curve induces some practical errors; however,
the new approximated trilinear capacity curve, illustrated in
Fig. 4, shows proper improvement in the transformation error.
• As a structure enters the nonlinear zone, the stiffness matrix
changes, and consequently the modal shapes will change as
well. However, in the MIDA method, the appropriate modes,
calculated in the linear phase, are still used in nonlinear
regions [23]. Also, assuming a lateral deformation pattern with
no changes in the nonlinear zone will probably induce dramatic
errors. To find the maximum damage indexes in the MIDA
method, these maximums may occur in different modes, which
should reasonably be considered [24].
• Conversion of MDF structure specifications into the equivalent
SDF oscillator and vice versa is only correct for linear conditions,
and the use of these equations for nonlinear conditions induces
some errors.
• Increasing the seismic intensity level does not necessarily
increase the errors of the MIDA method. It can simply be
observed that if the structure remains in the linear zone, the
errors of the MIDA scheme will remain constant in comparison
with the IDA method. However, when the structure enters the
nonlinear region, on increasing the seismic intensity level, the
behavior of the errors changes, i.e. an error may increase or
decrease according to the type of earthquake; see Fig. 7.
7. Multi-MIDA curves
Studying the single IDA and MIDA curves shows that their
extension up to the same levels is not reliable for all records,
1120 P. Zarfam, M. Mofid / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1117–1122

Table 2
The features of selected records.
Record Station Soil type Distance (km) PGA (g)

1 Imperial Valley 1979 Chihuahua C, D 28.7 0.25

2 Imperial Valley 1979 Chihuahua C, D 28.7 0.27
3 Northridge 1994 Hollywood Storage C, D 25.5 0.23
4 San Fernando 1971 Lake Hughes #1 –, C 25.8 0.15
5 San Fernando 1971 Hollywood Stor Lot C, D 21.2 0.21
6 Super Stition Hills 1987 Wildlife Liquefaction Arrey –, D 24.7 0.13
7 Super Stition Hills 1987 Wildlife Liquefaction Arrey –, D 24.7 0.13
8 Super Stition Hills 1987 Salton Sea Wildlife Refuge D,D 21.7 0.12
9 Super Stition Hills 1987 Plaster City C, D 21 0.19
10 Super Stition Hills 1987 Calipatria Fire Station C, D 28.3 0.25
11 Landers 1992 Barstow B, D 36.1 0.14
12 Cape Mendocino 1992 Rio Dell Overpass C, B 18.5 0.39
13 Cape Mendocino Rio Dell Overpass C, B 18.5 0.55
14 Coalinga 1983 Parkfield - Fault Zone 3 –, D 36.4 0.16
15 Whittier Narrows 1987 Beverly Hills B, C 30.3 0.13
16 Northridge, 1994 LA, Baldwin Hills B, B 31.3 0.24
17 Imperial Valley, 1979 El Centro Array #12 C, D 18.2 0.14
18 Loma Prieta, 1989 Anderson Dam Downstream B, D 21.4 0.24
19 Loma Prieta, 1989 Anderson Dam Downstream B, D 21.4 0.24
20 Loma Prieta, 1989 Agnews State Hospital C, D 28.2 0.16
21 Loma Prieta, 1989 Anderson Dam Downstream B, D 21.4 0.24
22 Loma Prieta, 1989 Coyote Lake Dam Downstream B, D 22.3 0.18
23 Imperial Valley, 1979 Cucapah C, D 23.6 0.31
24 Loma Prieta, 1989 Sunnyvale Colton Ave C, D 28.8 0.21
25 Imperial Valley, 1979 El Centro Array #13 C, D 21.9 0.12
26 Imperial Valley, 1979 Westmoreland Fire Station C, D 15.1 0.07
27 Loma Prieta, 1989 Sunnyvale Colton Ave C, D 28.8 0.21
28 Imperial Valley, 1979 El Centro Array #13 C, D 21.9 0.14
29 Imperial Valley, 1979 Westmoreland Fire Station C, D 15.1 0.11
30 Loma Prieta, 1989 Hollister Diff. Array –, D 25.8 0.27

Fig. 4. Comparing bilinear and trilinear techniques with the NL-RHA method: (a) maximum displacement of record No. 10 and (b) interstory drift ratio of No. 10.

Fig. 5. Maximum displacement of 30 records: (a) IDA method and (b) MIDA method, including three modes.

because of the records’ natural differences. Therefore, after global
collapse of the structure (i.e. the IDA and MIDA curves are quite
flat), concrete frame responses are omitted in each record. Then,
multi-IDA and multi-MIDA curves are prepared for all 30 records
after revising the damage indexes data; see Fig. 8. Investigation of
the average results reveals that the error in the damage indexes
calculated from the MIDA method is lower than that from the IDA
method.
In Fig. 7, it is observed that the displacement and interstory
drift ratio error of the MIDA method has been significantly
increased after Spectra acceleration =1.1g in comparison with the
accurate IDA method. Furthermore, the final point of the local
 P. Zarfam, M. Mofid / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1117–1122 1121

Fig. 6. Interstory drift ratio of 30 records: (a) IDA method and (b) MIDA method, including three modes.

Fig. 7. Comparing the errors of the MIDA method, including three modes, with those of the IDA method for the average of 30 ground motion records: (a) maximum
displacement and (b) interstory drift ratio.

Fig. 8. Comparing the multi-IDA and multi-MIDA methods for the average of 30 ground motion records: (a) maximum displacement and (b) interstory drift ratio.

Fig. 9. Comparing the multi-MIDA, including three modes, and NL-RHA methods for PGA = 0.4g: (a) maximum displacement and (b) interstory drift ratio.

tangent reaches 20% of the elastic slope, seen in the IDA curve,
Fig. 8. As mentioned before, this is evidence of unstable phases
in the structure. Therefore, the structure is unstable at Spectra
acceleration=1.1g which ends to increasing the errors.
The average results for the maximum displacement and
interstory drift ratio of 30 records for PGA = 0.4g with the multi-
IDA and multi-MIDA methods are shown in Fig. 9. According to
the comparison, in order to calculate the maximum displacement
of conventional structures, it would be sufficient to consider only
the first mode of vibration. However, calculation of the interstory
drift ratio, especially in concrete buildings, requires at least the first
three modes.
8. Conclusion
• The MIDA method with a trilinear idealized model gives reliable
results for concrete frames.
• The results obtained by the MIDA method are occasionally
underestimates compared with nonlinear time history analysis
even with the consideration of higher-mode effects.
1122 P. Zarfam, M. Mofid / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1117–1122
• The difference between the damage measures obtained by
MIDA and IDA methods is higher in the upper stories than in
the lower ones.
• The difference between the interstory drift ratio obtained in the
first mode and the result of mode combination is higher in the
upper stories than in the lower ones.
• It is observed that the errors of the MIDA procedure are
increased with increasing earthquake intensity in comparison
with the exact IDA method. Reliable results can be obtained
when the contribution of the first dominant mode is high in the
frames by using that mode. The effects of higher modes are to
decrease the errors which usually occur where the errors are at
the highest levels.
• Several interstory drift ratio irregularities obtained by the IDA
procedure cannot be reconstructed by the MIDA method.
• Modeling multi-story buildings through an equivalent SDF sys-
tem greatly reduces the costs of performing of time-consuming
nonlinear dynamic analysis. This fact is very important in
achieving average curves of several seismic records.
• The error rates of the MIDA method in the near-fault earth-
quakes are higher than those of the exact IDA method.
References
[1] Gupta B, Kunnath SK. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic
evaluation of structures. Earthq Spectra 2000;16(2):367–92.
[2] Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal pushover analysis
using vertically irregular frames. In: 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Vancouver (BC, Canada); 2004. Paper 2139.
[3] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Role of higher-mode pushover analyses in seismic analysis
of buildings. Earthq Spectra 2005;21(4):1027–41.
[4] Hernández Montes E, Kwon O-S, Aschheim M. An energy-based formulation
for first- and multiple-mode nonlinear static (pushover) analyses. J Earthq Eng
2004;8(1):69–88.
[5] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for
seismic evaluation of buildings. Eng Struct 2006;29(3):305–16.
[6] Tjhin T, Aschheim M, Hernández-Montes E. Observation on the reliability
of alternative multiple-mode pushover analysis methods. J Struct Eng 2006;
132(3):471–7.
[7] Bertero VV. Strength and deformation capacities of buildings under extreme
environments. Struct Eng Struct Mech 1977;211–5.
[8] Luco N, Cornell CA. Effects of random connection fractures on demands and
reliability for a 3-story pre- Northridge SMRF structural. In: Proceedings of the
6th US national conference on earthquake engineering. Seattle (Washington,
EERI, EI Cerrito, California); 1998.
[9] Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Seismic hazard analysis for non-linear structures. I:
methodology. ASCE J Struct Eng 1994;120(11).
[10] Yun SY, Hamburger RO, Cornell CA, Foutch DA. Seismic performance for steel
moment frames. ASCE J Struct Eng 2001.
[11] Mehanny SS, Deieriein GG. Modeling and assessment of seismic performance
of composite frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams.
Report no. 136. Stanford: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center
Stanford University; 2000.
[12] Dubina D, Ciutian A, Stratan A, Dinu F. In: Mazzolani FM, editor. Ductility
demand for semi-rigid joint frames. Moment resist connections of steel frames
in seismic areas. New York: E & FN Spon; 2000.
[13] Nassar AA, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for SDF and MDF systems. Report
no. 95. Stanford: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center; 1991.
p. 62–155.
[14] Psycharis IN, Papastramatiou DY, Alexandris AP. Parametric investigation of
the stability of classical columns under harmonic and earthquake excitation.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29:1093–109.
[15] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2002;31(3):491–514.
[16] Aschheim M, Tjhin T, Hamburger R, Comartin C, Inel M. The scaled nonlinear
dynamic procedure. Eng Struct 2007;29(7):1422–41.
[17] John ManderB, Dhakal RajeshP, Mashiko Naoto, Solberg KevinM. Incremental
dynamic analysis applied to seismic financial risk assessment of bridges. Eng
Struct 2007;29(10):2662–72.
[18] Mofid M, Zarfam P, Fard BR. On the modal incremental dynamic analysis. The
Struct Des Tall Special Build 2005;14:315–29.
[19] Han SW, Chopra AK. Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the
modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35(15):
1853–73.
[20] Zarfam P, Mofid M. Evaluation of modal incremental dynamic analysis, using
input energy intensity and modified bilinear curve. The Struct Des Tall Special
Build 2008.
[21] FEMA356. Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[22] Zarfam P, Mofid M. On the assessment of modal nonlinear pushover analysis
for steel frames with semi-rigid connections. Struct Eng Mech 2009;32(3).
[23] Inel M, Ozmen H. Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of
reinforced concrete buildings. Eng Struct 2006;28(11).
[24] Zou X, Chan C. Optimal seismic performance-based design of reinforced
concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover analysis. Eng Struct 2005;27(8).