Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

The modified and extended upper-bound (UB) pushover method

for the multi-mode pushover analysis of unsymmetric-plan
tall buildings
Mehdi Poursha n, Esmaiel Talebi Samarin
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Upper-bound (UB) pushover analysis method, which was proposed to consider the effect of higher
Received 30 July 2014 modes for two-dimensional (2D) tall building frames, underestimates the seismic demands at the lower
Received in revised form storeys. In this study, the limitation of the method is resolved by combining the seismic demands
12 December 2014
resulting from the upper-bound pushover method and a conventional pushover analysis that the latter
Accepted 20 January 2015
Available online 14 February 2015
controls the seismic demands at the lower storeys. Furthermore, the main aim of this study is the
extension of the upper-bound pushover analysis method to unsymmetric-plan tall buildings to take
Keywords: torsional effects into account. The extension is carried out based on the use of upper-bound lateral forces
Modified upper-bound (MUB) pushover with different patterns for various unsymmetric-plan tall buildings. The upper-bound of the contribution
analysis
ratio of higher modes is considered in computing the upper-bound lateral forces. The results elucidate
Extended upper-bound (EUB) pushover
that the extended method can predict to a reasonable accuracy the inelastic seismic demands of
analysis
Higher modes effect unsymmetic-plan tall buildings.
Torsional effect & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Unsymmetric-plan tall buildings

1. Introduction
Nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA) is a strong tool for
estimating the seismic demands of structures. On the other hand,
the seismic demands resulting from the NL-RHA are influenced by
parameters of the modeling as well as the characteristics of the
ground motions such as frequency content, intensity, magnitude and
duration [14]. Thus, the choice of an appropriate set of ground
motion records is important. This can be achieved by an extra
computational attempt [19]. On the other hand, a more simple
analysis method, i.e. nonlinear static procedure or pushover analysis
has been developed to estimate the seismic demands and to identify
the plastic hinge mechanisms in structures. In a conventional push-
over analysis, it is assumed that the seismic demands are dominated
by the fundamental mode of vibration. The assumption is not valid
for tall and irregular building structures because the seismic
demands are significantly influenced by the effect of higher-
modes. The application of a conventional pushover analysis is,
therefore, limited to low-rise and regular buildings in which the
fundamental mode dominates the seismic responses.
In recent years, considerable research attempts have been done
worldwide to develop enhanced pushover analysis methods and to
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Poursha@sut.ac.ir (M. Poursha).
consider the effect of higher modes in pushover analysis (e.g. multi-
mode pushover (MMP) method [25], modal pushover analysis (MPA)
[6], incremental response spectrum analysis (IRSA) [4], upper-bound
pushover analysis [12], modified modal pushover analysis (MMPA)
[7], improved modal pushover analysis [13], adaptive modal combi-
nation (AMC) procedure [14], consecutive modal pushover (CMP)
procedure [20], story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure [26],
generalized force vectors method [28,2], and the extended N2
method [16]). The above-mentioned procedures are limited to
planar frames and symmetric-plan three-dimensional (3D) building
structures. Over the past decade, several efforts have been made to
extend pushover analysis methods to unsymmetric-plan 3D building
structures taking torsional effects into account. Modal pushover
analysis (MPA) [8,23,24], consecutive modal pushover (CMP) proce-
dure [21,22], the extended N2 [17], adaptive modal pushover
procedure [27] and generalized force vectors method [15] were
extended to unsymmetric-plan building structures in which the
effect of higher modes in both elevation and plan (torsion) was
taken into consideration.
As mentioned above, the upper-bound (UB) pushover analysis
[12] was first proposed for two-dimensional (2D) building frames.
The UB method has a tendency to significantly underestimate the
seismic demands at the lower storeys of tall building frames. To
overcome this problem, the method is modified in the present
paper. Therefore, the first purpose of the present paper is to
modify the upper-bound pushover analysis for symmetric-plan tall

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.01.012
0267-7261/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127 115

buildings. The second and the most important purpose of the

paper is to extend the UB method to one-way unsymmetric-plan
tall building structures in which the effects of higher modes and
torsion are significant. The seismic demands derived from the
modified upper-bound (MUB) and the extended upper-bound
(EUB) pushover analyses for symmetric-plan and unsymmetric-
plan tall buildings, respectively, are compared with those from the
nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA) as a benchmark
solution. Also, the seismic demands predicted by the MUB and
EUB are compared with those derived from the MPA method since
the MPA has received more attention because of its attractive
concept which is based on structural dynamics theory.

2. Modification of the upper-bound (MUB) pushover analysis

method

The upper-bound (UB) pushover analysis method [12] was

Fig. 1. Plan of the analyzed tall buildings: (a) the original symmetric-plan
buildings; and (b) the one-way unsymmetric-plan buildings.
proposed to estimate the seismic demands of planar building
frames. The method uses the upper-bound of the contribution
ratio of the second mode, (q2/q1)UB, in computing the lateral force
distribution as follows [12]:

  
q2 Γ 2 D2 
¼   ð1Þ
q1 UB Γ 1 D1 
in which qn and Γ n (n¼1, 2) are the modal co-ordinate and the modal
participation factor, respectively; Dn (n¼1, 2) is the spectral displace-
ment derived from the elastic displacement response spectrum. The
method has a tendency to underestimate the seismic demands at the
lower storeys of tall building frames [12]. On the other hand, a
conventional pushover analysis with a triangular or a uniform load
distribution can accurately estimate the seismic demands at the lower
storeys of tall buildings where the effect of higher modes is not
important. The seismic demands can be modified by enveloping the

0.25 0.8

0.2 0.6
(qn /q1)UB

(qn /q1)UB

0.15
0.4
0.1

0.05 0.2

0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
vibrational mode vibrational mode

0.25

0.2
(qn /q1)UB

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4
vibrational mode
Fig. 2. The contribution ratios of higher modes to the first mode for 18-storey unsymmetric-plan buildings: (a) torsionally-stiff system; (b) torsionally-similarly-stiff system;
and (c) torsionally-flexible system.
116 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127

peak responses resulting from the upper-bound (UB) pushover and the upper ones in which the effect of higher modes is substantially
conventional pushover analyses. Therefore, the modified upper- significant.
bound (MUB) pushover analysis method utilizes the upper-bound
(UB) pushover and conventional pushover analyses. The upper-bound
pushover analysis is performed by using the upper-bound lateral 3. Types of unsymmetric-plan building structures
force, f s;UB , as follows [12]:

 Unsymmetric-plan buildings can be classified into three different
q
f s;UB ¼ ω21 mϕ1 þ ω22 mϕ2 2 ð2Þ types including torsionally-stiff (TS), torsionally-similarly-stiff (TSS)
q1 UB
and torsionally-flexible (TF) systems [8]. In general, the classification
where ωi and ϕi (i¼1, 2) are the natural frequency and natural can be done based on the period ratios (Ωx and Ωy) which are
vibration mode shape of the structure for the ith mode, respectively
and m is the mass matrix of the structure. This lateral force is
1.4
incrementally applied to the structure until the target displacement
at the roof is reached. It is noted that the changes in modal properties 1.2

pseudo-acceleration, A/g
of the structure are not taken into account when the structure enters 1.0
into the inelastic range under an increasing lateral force. 0.8
As demonstrated previously, in addition to the upper-bound
0.6
pushover analysis, a conventional pushover analysis is used in the
0.4
MUB method. The conventional pushover analysis is performed
separately with an inverted triangular or a uniform load distribu- 0.2
tion. The inverted triangular and uniform load distributions are 0.0
used for medium-rise and high-rise buildings, respectively. The 0 1 2 3 4
lateral forces are increased until the control node at the roof sways
to the predefined target displacement. Finally, the seismic
30
demands of the building are obtained by enveloping the peak
seismic responses computed from the upper-bound pushover (r2) 25
and conventional pushover (r1) analyses because it is possible to Deformation, D(cm) 20
use different pushover analyses and to envelope the results [10].
15
r t ¼ maxfr 1 ; r 2 g ð3Þ
10
r 1 ¼ r TLP for medium-rise buildings; and r 1 ¼ r ULP for high-rise
buildings where r TLP and r ULP are the peak seismic responses 5

resulting from the conventional pushover analysis with inverted 0

triangular and uniform load patterns, respectively. It is noteworthy 0 1 2 3 4
that the conventional pushover analysis controls the seismic Natural vibration period, Tn(sec)
demands at the lower storeys of tall buildings, whereas the Fig. 3. (a) Pseudo-acceleration spectra and (b) displacement spectra of the far-field
upper-bound pushover analysis controls the seismic demands at records of ground motions, damping ratio¼5%. The mean spectra are shown by a
thicker line.
Table 1
Details of the used building structures.

Number of Total Types of ðIoj mj Þunsymmetric Periods (s)

ðI oj mj Þsymmetric
storeys height (m) buildings
T1 T2 T3 T4

9-storey 28.8 Symmetric – 1.699 0.551 0.304 0.193

TS 0.3 1.755 0.830 0.570 0.314
TSS 1.24 1.924 1.538 0.629 0.502
TF 5.0 3.526 1.686 1.158 0.632

18-storey 57.6 Symmetric – 2.761 0.988 0.559 0.378

TS 0.3 2.840 1.281 1.019 0.578
TSS 1.37 3.100 2.508 1.136 0.910
TF 5.0 5.423 2.739 2.015 1.163
Fig. 4. Generalized load–deformation curve for plastic hinges ([5]).

Table 2
List of the ground motions used.

NO. Earthquake name Date Magnitude Station Component (deg) PGA (g) Closest to fault rupture

1 Duzce Turkey 1999/11/12 Ms (7.3) 1061 Lamont E 0.134 15.6

2 Imperial Valley 1979/10/15 Ms (6.9) 286 Superstition Mtn Camera 045 0.109 26
3 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999/08/17 Ms (7.8) Arcelik 0 0.218 17
4 Landers 1992/06/28 Ms (7.4) 23559 Barstow 0 0.132 23.2
5 Northridge 1994/01/17 Ms (6.7) 24157 LA – Baldwin Hills 090 0.239 31.3
6 Victoria, Mexico 1980/06/09 Ms (6.4) 6604 Cerro Prieto 045 0.621 34.8
7 Whittier Narrows 1987/10/01 Ms (5.7) 90058 Sunland – Mt Gleason Ave 180 0.089 27.5
 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127 117

determined as the ratio of the translational period to the torsional and torsional rotations dominate motion in the second mode. There
period, in the X- and Y-directions, respectively [11]. In torsionally-stiff is a weak coupling between lateral displacements and torsional
systems, lateral displacements dominate motion in the first mode rotations because the period of the dominantly-torsional mode is

6
Floor

NL-RHA
3 NL-RHA±STD
MPA
Upper-Bound
MUB
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

18

15

12
Floor

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Displacement/Height (%) Storey Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 5. Peak values of floor displacements and storey drifts along the elevation at the CM for the symmetric-plan buildings: (a) 9-storey building; and (b) 18-storey building.

9 18

15

6 12
Floor
Floor

NL-RHA
3 6
NL-RHA±STD
MPA
3
Upper-Bound
EUB
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Plastic Hinge Rotation (Rad) Plastic Hinge Rotation (Rad)
Fig. 6. Peak values of plastic hinge rotations along the elevation for the symmetric-plan buildings: (a) 9-storey building; and (b) 18-storey building.
118 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127

much shorter than that of the dominantly-lateral mode. On the other
hand, in torsionally-flexible systems, torsional rotations dominate
motion in the first mode and lateral displacements dominate motion
in the second mode. There is a weak coupling between lateral
displacements and torsional rotations because the period of the
dominantly-torsional mode is much longer than that of the
dominantly-lateral mode. In torsionally-similarly-stiff systems, there
is a strong coupling between lateral and torsional motions because
the periods of the first two modes are very close together. As a result,
torsionally-stiff buildings can be recognized with period ratios larger
than unity and torsionally-flexible buildings with period ratios less
than unity [11]. The period ratio is very close to unity in the case of
torsionally-similarly-stiff systems.
4. The extended upper-bound pushover (EUB) analysis method
In this section, the MUB pushover analysis method is extended to
take torsional effects into account in estimating the seismic demands
of one-way unsymmetric-plan tall buildings. The extension is carried
out based on the use of upper-bound lateral forces with different
patterns for various unsymmetric-plan tall buildings. The extended
upper-bound (EUB) pushover analysis benefits from the upper-
bound (UB) pushover analysis considering the contribution of higher
modes and a conventional pushover analysis as well. The upper-
the following expression:

  
qn Γ n Dn 
¼   ð6Þ
q1 UB Γ 1 D1 
where Γ n and Dn (n¼ 1, 2, 3, 4) were defined previously.
It is important to note that the upper-bound of the contribution
ratio of the first two modes dominates the displacement response
and the third and higher modes can be ignored in the case of
symmetric-plan tall buildings [12]. Fig. 2 shows the contribution
ratios of higher modes to the first mode (the modes are dominant
in Y-direction) for the 18-storey torsionally-stiff, torsionally-
similarly-stiff and torsionally-flexible systems (the systems are
described later). The figure illustrates that the third and forth
modes can be overlooked in the case of torsionally-stiff and
torsionally-flexible tall buildings. Hence, only the first two modes
are taken into account for the TS and TF systems in the EUB
method. On the other hand, the figure demonstrates that the
contribution ratios of the third and fourth modes are not negli-
gible in the case of torsionally-similarly-stiff systems in compar-
ison with the TS and TF systems. In other words, the upper-bound
of the contribution ratios of the first four modes dominate the
displacement response in the case of torsionally-similarly-stiff
1.4

Normalized Roof Displacement

bound pushover analysis is carried out by using the upper-bound NL-RHA
lateral forces, f si , as follows (i¼ 1, 2, 3, 4; N¼i): MPA
1.2
EUB
X
N

qn
f si ¼ ω2n mϕn ð4Þ 1.0
n¼1
q1

in which N is the number of modes included in the upper-bound 0.8

pushover analysis.
Eq. (4) inherently assumes that the modal amplitudes reach their
values concurrently, which is not the case in reality. The assumption 0.6
-10.8 -7.2 -3.6 0.0 3.6 7.2
leads to an upper bound of the contribution of higher modes. Then,
the seismic responses resulting from this method may be conserva-
tive at certain locations. The upper-bound lateral forces (f si ) in the UB
1.6
pushover analysis, in general, include two lateral forces and a
Normalized Roof Displacement

torsional moment at each floor level of unsymmetric-plan buildings.

In the case of one-way unsymmetric-plan buildings subjected to a 1.4
unidirectional seismic excitation only in the Y-direction (see Fig. 1b),
the upper-bound lateral forces along the elevation of the building 1.2
includes a lateral force in the Y-direction and a torsional moment at
each floor level of the structure. Both lateral forces and torsional
moments derived from the elastic modal properties of the structure 1.0

are utilized in the UB pushover analysis. It is noted that the lateral

forces in the X-direction are equal to zero. 0.8
Four lateral load patterns are defined as upper-bound force -10.8 -7.2 -3.6 0.0 3.6 7.2
distributions using Eq. (4) as follows (i¼1, 2, 3, 4; N ¼i):
1.2
f s1 ¼ ω21 mϕ1 ð5aÞ
Normalized Roof Displacement


q2 1.1
f s2 ¼ ω21 mϕ1 þ ω22 mϕ2 ð5bÞ
q1


 1.0
q2 q
f s3 ¼ ω21 mϕ1 þ ω22 mϕ2 þ ω23 mϕ3 3 ð5cÞ
q1 q1
0.9




q2 q q
f s4 ¼ ω21 mϕ1 þ ω22 mϕ2 þ ω23 mϕ3 3 þ ω24 mϕ4 4 ð5dÞ
q1 q1 q1 0.8
-10.8 -7.2 -3.6 0.0 3.6 7.2
in which qn (n ¼ 1, 2, 3, and 4) was defined previously. The Locations in plan (%)
response contribution ratio of a higher mode to the fundamental Fig. 7. Normalized roof displacements of the 9-storey one-way unsymmetric-plan
mode is expressed as the ratio qn/q1 [12]. This ratio is called as the building: (a) torsionally-stiff system; (b) torsionally-similarly-stiff system; and
upper-bound of the contribution ratio of the nth mode, as given by (c) torsionally-flexible system.
 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127 119

systems. Therefore, the second two modes should be included in
addition to the first two modes in the EUB method.
As mentioned above, a conventional pushover analysis is
separately fulfilled for all unsymmetric-plan building structures.
Finally, the seismic demands are obtained by enveloping the peak
responses derived from the upper-bound pushover and conven-
tional pushover analyses. In the EUB method, the upper-bound
and conventional pushover analyses control the seismic demands
at the upper and lower storeys of unsymmetric-plan tall buildings,
respectively. It is noted that the target displacement can be

Fig. 8. Peak values of floor displacements along the elevation at the left (stiff) edge, center of mass, and right (flexible) edge of the 18-storey unsymmetric-plan buildings:
(a) torsionally-stiff system; (b) torsionally-similarly-stiff system; and (c) torsionally-flexible system.
120 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127

6
Floor

3 NL-RHA
NL-RHA±STD
MPA
EUB
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

18

15

12
Floor

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Storey Drift Ratio (%) Storey Drift Ratio (%) Storey Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 9. Peak values of storey drifts along the elevation at the left (stiff) and right (flexible) edges of torsionally-stiff systems: (a) 9-storey building; and (b) 18-storey building.

obtained by approximate methods such as the capacity spectrum
method (ATC [3]), the displacement coefficient method [FEMA-
356], the N2 method [9] or dynamic analysis [30,18,16]. Although
the contribution of higher modes to the roof displacement is
usually weak, the target roof displacement, ur,UB, can also be
determined by the relationship proposed in reference [12] that
takes the effect of higher modes into account.
In order to predict the seismic demands of unsymmetric-plan tall
buildings considering the effects of higher modes and torsion, the EUB
method can be implemented as a sequence of the following steps:
1. Calculate the natural frequencies, ωn, and the mode-shapes,
Φn. Also, normalize mode shapes such that the lateral compo-
nent of Φn, at the roof, equals unity (Φryn ¼ 1).
2. Determine the contribution ratio of higher modes to the first
mode (qn/q1) by using the elastic response spectrum of the
ground motion records (Eq. (6)).
3. Compute the upper-bound lateral force distributions (f si ) over
the height of the structure for the upper-bound (UB) pushover
analysis by using Eq. (5a–d).
4. Compute the target displacement at the roof of the structure.
5. Perform the upper-bound pushover and conventional pushover
analyses in accordance with the following sub-steps after
applying gravity loads, until the control node (the center of
mass) at the roof sways to the target displacement which was
obtained in the previous step.
5.1 Fulfill a conventional pushover analysis by using an inverted
triangular load pattern for medium-rise unsymmetric-plan
buildings and a uniform force distribution for high-rise ones
until the target displacement is reached. In the case of
torsionally-flexible systems, the conventional pushover ana-
lysis is performed by using the lateral force, fs1, which is
derived from Eq. (5a–d).
5.2 Perform the upper-bound pushover analysis by using the
upper-bound lateral forces (f si ) derived from Eq. (5a–d)
until the target displacement at the roof is reached.
6. Determine the peak values of the seismic demands individually
for the upper-bound pushover and conventional pushover
analyses. The peak values obtained from these analyses are
denoted by rfsi and r1, respectively.
7. Determine the envelope (r) of the results computed in the
previous step as follows:
r ¼ Max {r1, rfs2} for the TS and TF systems
r ¼ Max {r1, rfs2, rfs3, rfs4} for the TSS systems
in which
r1 ¼ rTLP for the TS and TSS medium-rise systems
r1 ¼ rULP for the TS and TSS high-rise systems
r1 ¼ rfs1 for the TF systems
where rTLP and rULP are the peak seismic responses resulting from
the conventional pushover analysis by using an inverted triangular
load pattern and a uniform one, respectively. Also, rfs1 is the peak
seismic response obtained by the upper-bound pushover analysis
with the lateral force, f s1 (see Eq. (5a)).
As mentioned previously, in addition to the first two modes, the
second two modes including the third and fourth modes should be
 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127 121

6
Floor

NL-RHA
NL-RHA±STD
3 MPA
EUB

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

18

15

12
Floor

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Storey Drift Ratio (%) Storey Drift Ratio (%) Storey Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 10. Peak values of storey drifts along the elevation at the left (stiff) and right (flexible) edges of torsionally-similarly-stiff systems: (a) 9-storey building; and (b) 18-storey
building.

utilized in the case of torsionally-similarly-stiff systems because
these systems have a larger upper-bound of the contribution ratio
of higher modes (third and fourth modes) than the other systems.
Therefore, more modes have to be included in the extended upper-
bound (EUB) pushover analysis for torsionally-similarly-stiff systems.
In the case of torsionally-flexible systems, an inverted triangu-
lar or a uniform load pattern is not able to account for the dynamic
behavior of the structure in a conventional pushover analysis [21].
For these systems, the dynamic behavior can be considered by
using the fundamental effective mode in the conventional push-
over analysis. Then, the conventional pushover analysis is per-
formed by using the lateral force, f s1 Eq. (5a) which is derived from
the fundamental effective mode in the TF systems.
5. Definition of structural models
floor plan with three longitudinal bays by three transverse bays.
All bays were 6 m. For all buildings, the storey heights were equal
to 3.2 m. They were assumed to be vertically regular. The lateral
load-resisting system of the buildings was a special steel moment-
resisting frame (SMRF) in both directions. P–Δ effects caused by
gravity loads were included. Gravity (dead and live) loads, which
were equal to 650 and 200 kg/m2 on the floor area, were
distributed through the secondary floor structure along the beams
in the Y-direction. The seismic effects were defined in accordance
with the requirements of Iranian code of practice for the seismic
resistant design of buildings [29]. The buildings were designed
according to the allowable stress design (ASD) method [1]. For
brevity, a detailed description of the beams and columns sections
for the 9-storey building is provided in Appendix A. The structures
satisfied the deformation limitation and the strong column–weak
beam philosophy.

The structures considered in this investigation were symmetric-
plan and unsymmetric-plan buildings. The latter were created from
symmetric-plan models. The relevant assumptions for them are
described as follows:
5.1. Original symmetric-plan buildings
The original symmetric-plan structures were 9 and 18-storey
high buildings. As shown in Fig. 1(a), both buildings had the same
5.2. Unsymmetric-plan buildings
The unsymmetric-plan buildings were assumed to be mass-
eccentric; they are unsymmetric about the Y-axis but symmetric
about the X-axis. The original symmetric-plan buildings were
modified to create mass-eccentric buildings. To achieve this goal,
the center of mass (CM) was defined eccentric relative to the center
of stiffness (CS) only along the X-axis while the stiffness properties
of each symmetric-plan building were preserved [see Fig. 1(b)].
122 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127

6
NL-RHA
Floor

NL-RHA±STD
MPA
EUB
3

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

18

15

12
Floor

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Storey Drift Ratio (%) Storey Drift Ratio (%) Storey Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 11. Peak values of storey drifts along the elevation at the left (stiff) and right (flexible) edges of torsionally-flexible systems: (a) 9-storey building; and (b) 18-storey
building.

The eccentricity between the CM and CS was considered to be along
the X-axis and to be equal to 10% of the plan dimension. By modifying
the ratio of the floor moment of inertia (I oj ) to the floor mass (mj ),
three different unsymmetric-plan systems with different degrees of
coupling between lateral and torsional motions including torsionally-
stiff (TS), torsionally-similarly-stiff (TSS) and torsionally-flexible (TF)
buildings were created corresponding to each symmetric-plan build-
ing [8,21]. The above-mentioned ratios between the unsymmetric-
plan buildings and corresponding symmetric-plan building as well as
the first four periods derived from the elastic modal analysis and the
heights of all the buildings are presented in Table 1.
6. Description of analyses
The MUB method, which is a modification of the UB pushover
analysis for symmetric-plan tall buildings, and the EUB method,
which is an extension of the UB to one-way unsymmetric-plan tall
buildings, were fulfilled for the 9- and 18-storey buildings. In
addition, nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA) was per-
formed as a benchmark solution. Also, the modal pushover analysis
(MPA) method was performed for the sake of comparison. In the
MPA procedure, the seismic demands were computed for all the
symmetric-plan and unsymmetric-plan buildings including three
and six modes, respectively. It should be noted that the dominant
translational modes in X-direction were excluded in the EUB and
MPA methods. The NL-RHA was performed by using the numerical
implicit Newmark integration scheme with a time step of 0.02 s.
Rayleigh damping was used with 5% damping for the first and third
modes of vibration in the Y-direction. Seven ground motion records
including the Imperial valley (1979), Victoria (1980), Whittier
Narrows (1987), Landers (1992), Northridge (1994), Kocaeli (1999)
and Duzce (1999) were used in the NL-RHA. More details of the
records are listed in Table 2. The elastic pseudo-acceleration and
displacement spectra for a 5% damping ratio are shown in Fig. 3. To
ensure that the structures enter into the inelastic range well, the
records were scaled up to 1 g. P–Δ effects were included within all
the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. The seismic responses
estimated by the MUB, EUB and MPA methods were compared
with those derived from the NL-RHA. The results of NL-RHA were
determined as the mean values of the maximum seismic responses
derived from nonlinear response history analyses (NL-RHAs) by
using the ground motion records described above. In this research,
the target displacements (at the CM of the roof) for the MUB and
EUB methods in the Y-direction were set equal to the mean values of
the maximum top floor displacements obtained by the NL-RHAs. It
is noted that this paper deals with the capability of the EUB method
in estimating the seismic demands of unsymmetric-plan tall build-
ings considering the effects of higher-modes and torsion. Then, to
examine the accuracy of the EUB method in taking these effects into
account, the target displacement was accurately derived from the
NL-RHA. It is worthwhile noting that the target displacement can be
 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127 123

Floor 6

3 NL-RHA
NL-RHA±STD
MPA
EUB
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

18

15

12
Floor

0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Hinge Plastic Rotations (Rad) Hinge Plastic Rotations (Rad)
Fig. 12. Peak values of plastic hinge rotations along the elevation at the left (stiff) and right (flexible) edges of torsionally-stiff systems: (a) 9-storey building; and (b) 18-
storey building.

determined by using approximate methods described earlier. The
use of the methods may result in some errors.
All the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were carried out
by using the nonlinear version of computer program SAP2000
(Computers and Structures 2004). It should be noted that the
nonlinear behavior for the beams and columns in the nonlinear
static and dynamic analyses was provided with rigid-plastic hinges
that were defined at the ends of the members. Modeling para-
meters of plastic hinges were defined in accordance with the
FEMA-356 ([5]) (see Fig. 4). Meanwhile, the hysteretic behavior of
hinges is bilinear with 3% post-yield stiffness.
7. Results and discussions
First, the seismic demands obtained by the modified upper-bound
(MUB) pushover analysis for the symmetric-plan tall buildings are
presented in this section. Second, the results derived from the extended
upper-bound (EUB) pushover analysis for the unsymmetric-plan tall
buildings are discussed. The seismic demands include floor displace-
ments, storey drift ratios and plastic hinge rotations.
7.1. Evaluation of the MUB method for symmetric-plan tall buildings
Shown in Fig. 5 are the floor displacements and storey drift
ratios obtained by the MPA, MUB and UB pushover analysis
methods, together with the NL-RHA, for the 9- and 18-storey
symmetric-plan buildings in the Y-direction. The peak values of
plastic hinge rotations resulting from the above-mentioned ana-
lyses are shown in Fig. 6 for the interior beam of the interior frame
(in the Y-direction) of the buildings. As seen in the figures, the
upper-bound (UB) pushover analysis controls the seismic demands
at the upper storeys, whereas the method considerably under-
estimates the responses at the lower storeys. This is because the
lateral forces, related to the first and second modes on the right
side of Eq. (2), are in opposite directions at the lower storeys,
while they are in the same direction at the upper storeys. There-
fore, the lateral force distribution resulting from Eq. (2) has larger
values at the upper storeys than at the lower ones. As a result, the
seismic responses are underestimated at the lower storeys, while
they are overestimated at the upper ones. Fig. 5 illustrates that the
MPA and MUB methods provide acceptable estimates of floor
displacements and storey drifts. In some cases (the 18-storey
building), the estimates of storey drifts derived from the MPA
method may be better than those from the MUB method, parti-
cularly at the upper storeys. Fig. 6 shows that the MPA method is
unable to accurately predict plastic hinge rotations at the upper
storeys of the 9- and 18-storey buildings, whereas the MUB
method provides reasonable estimates of plastic rotations. Thus,
the plastic hinge rotations derived by the MUB method are
generally more accurate than those derived from the MPA method,
particularly at the upper storeys of symmetric-plan tall buildings.
124 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127

Also, the MUB method overestimates the seismic demands at the
upper storeys of the 18-storey building. As a result, the MUB
provides better estimates of the seismic demands than the upper-
bound (UB) pushover analysis at the lower storeys.
7.2. Evaluation of the EUB method for unsymmetric-plan tall
buildings
The normalized roof displacements, u/uCM, are shown in Fig. 7.
They are floor displacements from the NL-RHA at a location, in the
horizontal plane, divided by displacement at the center of mass. As
shown in Fig. 7(a), the displacements obtained by NL-RHA, i.e. the
benchmark solution, increase at the flexible (right) edge and
decrease at the stiff (left) edge of torsionally-stiff (TS) systems.
Fig. 7(c) shows a decrease of displacements at the flexible edge and
an increase of displacements at the stiff edge of torsionally-flexible
(TF) buildings. In the case of torsionally-similarly-stiff buildings, the
displacements increase at both flexible and stiff edges [see Fig. 7(b)].
This arises from a strong coupling of translational displacements
and torsional rotations. The figures clearly demonstrate that the EUB
and the MPA methods are able to accurately consider the amplifica-
tion as well as de-amplification of displacements due to torsion at
both the flexible and stiff edges of unsymmetric-plan tall buildings
except at the stiff edge of torsionally-similarly-stiff (TSS) systems. In
the case of TSS systems, the predictions may sometimes get worse
because of a strong coupling of lateral and torsional motions so that
the EUB underestimates and the MPA overestimates the amplifica-
tion of displacements at the stiff edge. In the case of TSS systems,
the line is slightly more curved than that for the other systems. An
increase in the curvature demonstrates that more modes are needed
to be taken into account in the EUB method for the TSS systems
than the other systems.
Now, the height-wise variation of seismic demands obtained by
the aforementioned analyses is presented. The mean values of
maximum seismic responses derived from NL-RHA and mean plus
and minus one standard deviation (STD) values are shown. Fig. 8
shows the peak floor displacements for the 18-storey unsym-
metric-plan tall buildings at the center of mass (CM) and at both
right (flexible) and left (stiff) edges. The figure illustrates that the
displacements obtained by the MPA and EUB methods are close to
those produced by NL-RHA at the CM as well as at the flexible and
stiff edges of TS and TF systems. As can be seen in Fig. 8(b), the
floor displacements obtained by the MPA and EUB methods, at the
stiff edge, get worse in the case of the TSS system. The MPA
method has a tendency to overestimate the displacements at the
stiff edge, while the EUB method has the opposite tendency and
underestimates the displacements at the stiff edge. The deteriora-
tion of estimates can be caused by a strong coupling between the

6
Floor

0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

18

15

12
Floor

6 NL-RHA
NL-RHA±STD
3 MPA
EUB
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Hinge Plastic Rotations (Rad) Hinge Plastic Rotations (Rad)
Fig. 13. Peak values of plastic hinge rotations along the elevation at the left (stiff) and right (flexible) edges of torsionally-similarly-stiff systems: (a) 9-storey building; and
(b) 18-storey building.
 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127
lateral and rotational motions in each mode of vibration for TSS
systems [8]. It is noted that the accuracy of the above-mentioned
pushover analysis methods in estimating the floor displacements
of the 9-storey unsymmetric-plan buildings is similar to that of the
18-storey buildings; therefore the floor displacements obtained for
the 9-storey buildings are not shown for brevity.
The storey drifts for different types of unsymmetric-plan systems
at the CM and at both flexible and stiff edges are displayed in
Figs. 9–11. The figures provide evidence that the MPA and EUB
methods are accurate enough in estimating the storey drifts of TS
and TF buildings. As seen in the figures, in some cases, the estimates
of storey drifts obtained by the EUB are more conservative than
those predicted by the MPA, especially at the upper storeys. The
overestimation of seismic demands in the EUB method arises from
an inherent assumption in Eq. (4) that the modal amplitudes reach
their values concurrently, which is not the case in reality. In some
cases, the MPA provides better estimates of story drifts in compar-
ison with the EUB, and vice versa. The MPA slightly underestimates
the storey drifts at the upper storeys of the 9-storey buildings. The
EUB method overestimates the responses at the upper storeys of the
18-storey TS and TF systems. As seen in Fig. 10, the storey drifts
estimated by the MPA and EUB methods may deteriorate in the case
of TSS systems, especially at the stiff edge. The storey drifts are
6
Floor
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
18
15
12
Floor
6 NL-RHA
NL-RHA±STD
3 MPA
EUB
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Hinge Plastic Rotations (Rad)
Fig. 14. Peak values of plastic hinge rotations along the elevation at the left (stiff) and right (flexible) edges of torsionally- flexible systems: (a) 9-storey building; and (b) 18-
storey building.
125
underestimated by the EUB and overestimated by the MPA at the
stiff edge of the 9- and 18-storey TSS buildings.
Figs. 12–14 display the peak values of plastic hinge rotations
along the elevation for the interior beam of the frames at the right
and left sides of the unsymmetric-plan systems. The figures
illustrate that the plastic hinge rotations predicted by the EUB
method are close to those resulting from NL-RHA at both flexible
and stiff sides of unsymmetric-plan systems except at the stiff side
of TSS systems. The EUB method underestimates the plastic rota-
tions at the stiff side of TSS systems [see Fig. 13(a1) and (b1)]. In this
case, the plastic rotations obtained by MPA method are more
accurate than those from the EUB method. The MPA method is
not able to accurately predict plastic rotations for all the other cases.
The MPA significantly underestimates the plastic rotations, espe-
cially at the upper storeys. Figs. 12(b) and 14(b) illustrate that the
plastic hinge rotations estimated by the EUB method are over-
estimated at the upper storeys at both stiff and flexible sides of the
18-storey TS and TF buildings. In these cases, the responses obtained
by the MPA method are in the range between the mean values of
maximum plastic rotations derived from the NL-RHA and mean plus
standard deviation values. Fig. 14(b2) demonstrates that the EUB
method slightly underestimates the plastic rotations at the lower
storeys at the flexible side of the 18-storey TF building. As a result,
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Hinge Plastic Rotations (Rad)
126 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127

the EUB method represents a remarkable improvement in estimat-
ing the plastic hinge rotations at both flexible and stiff sides in
comparison with the MPA method. The improvement is achieved
by applying the upper-bound lateral forces in the upper-bound
pushover analysis which controls the plastic rotations at the upper
storeys of unsymmetric-plan tall buildings.
Appendix A. Details of the members for the 9-storey building
The beams and columns sections for the 9-storey building are
shown in Fig. A1. Detailed descriptions of the sections of members
for the 9-storey building are presented in Tables A1–A4. Axes A–D
and 1–4 are shown in Fig. 1(a).

8. Conclusions

In this paper, the upper-bound (UB) pushover analysis method was

modified to compute the seismic demands of symmetric-plan tall
buildings at the lower storeys with acceptable accuracy. In the MUB,
the seismic demands were determined by enveloping the peak
responses resulting from the upper-bound pushover and conventional
pushover analyses. Thereafter, the upper bound pushover analysis was
extended to one-way unsymmetric-plan tall buildings to take torsional
and higher modes effects into account. Finally, the following conclu-
sions were drawn for symmetric-plan and for three types of
unsymmetric-plan buildings:

1. An important improvement is produced in estimating the

seismic demands through the MUB method in comparison Fig. A1. The sections of beams and columns. a) Beam section and b) Column
with the upper-bound (UB) pushover analysis at the lower section.

storeys of symmetric-plan tall buildings. The improvement in

the MUB method results from the combination of maximum
seismic responses obtained by the upper-bound pushover and Table A1
conventional pushover analyses. Details of the sections of columns.
2. Displacements and storey drifts can be predicated with reason-
Section d (cm) t (cm)
able accuracy using the MUB method. A noteworthy improve-
ment has been attained by the MUB method in predicating the SC1 25 1.5
plastic hinge rotations. Plastic rotations estimated by the MUB SC2 30 2
method are significantly better than those derived from the SC3 35 2.5
SC4 40 2.5
MPA method, particularly at the upper storeys. SC5 45 3
3. The EUB method can accurately consider the amplification as well SC6 50 3
as de-amplification of displacements at both flexible and stiff edges
of unsymmetric-plan tall buildings except at the stiff edge of TSS
systems. In the case of TSS systems, the estimates may deteriorate
because of a strong coupling of the lateral and torsional motions.
4. The EUB method, generally, provides accurate predictions of Table A2
displacements and storey drifts at the CM and at both flexible Details of the sections of beams.

and stiff edges of TS and TF systems, as well as at the flexible edge Section ht (cm) tw (cm) bf (cm) tf (cm)
of TSS systems. The extended method underestimates the floor
displacements and storey drifts at the stiff edge of TSS systems. SB1 25 0.6 17.5 1.5
5. There is not a large difference between the floor displacements SB2 30 0.8 20 1.5
SB3 35 0.8 22.5 2
obtained by the EUB and MPA methods. The MPA and EUB
SB4 40 1 22.5 2
methods give, in general, accurate estimates of story drifts for
unsymmetric-plan tall buildings. The storey drifts resulting
from the EUB method may be occasionally more conservative
than those from the MPA method, especially at the upper
Table A3
storeys. In some cases, the MPA provides better estimates of The sections of columns for the 9-storey building.
storey drifts than the EUB, and vice versa. The storey drifts
obtained by the MPA and EUB methods may deteriorate at the Position Storey Section
stiff edge of TSS systems.
A1, A4, D1, D4 1-5 SC3
6. The extended method represents a significant improvement in 6-7 SC2
estimating plastic hinge rotations at both flexible and stiff sides 8-9 SC1
of unsymmetric-plan tall buildings in comparison with the B1, B4, C1, C4 1-2 SC5
MPA method. The improvement is achieved by applying the 3-5 SC4
6-7 SC3
upper-bound lateral forces in the upper-bound pushover ana-
8-9 SC2
lysis. Plastic rotations estimated by the EUB method may be A2, A3, D2, D3 1-5 SC4
sometimes conservative at the upper storeys at both stiff and 6-7 SC3
flexible sides of unsymmetric-plan tall buildings. 8-9 SC2
B2, B3, C2, C3 1-2 SC6
It should be noted that the accuracy of the extended method 3-5 SC5
6-7 SC4
(EUB) needs to be studied for the other lateral-resisting systems 8-9 SC3
and different types of irregular buildings.
 M. Poursha, E.T. Samarin / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 71 (2015) 114–127 127

[13] Jianmeng M, Changhai Z, Lili X. An improved modal pushover analysis

Table A4 procedure for estimating seismic demands of structures. J Earthq Eng Eng
The sections of beams for the 9-storey building. Vib 2008;7(1):25–31.
[14] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear
Axis Floor Section static analysis of building structures. ASCE, J Struct Eng 2006;132(11):1721–31.
[15] Kaatsız Kaan, Sucuoğlu Halûk. Generalized force vectors for multi-mode
1, 4 1-7 SB2 pushover analysis of torsionally coupled systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
8-9 SB1 2014;43(13):2015–33.
2, 3 1-5 SB3 [16] Kreslin M, Fajfar P. The extended N2 method taking into account higher mode
6-7 SB2 effects in elevation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40(14):1571–89.
8-9 SB1 [17] Kreslin M, Fajfar P. The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects
in both plan and elevation. Bull Earthq Eng 2012;10(2):695–715.
A, D 1-9 SB2
[18] Moghadam AS. A pushover procedure for tall buildings, In: Proceedings of the
B, C 1-7 SB4
12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London, United King-
8-9 SB3 dom, paper 395. Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2002.
[19] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic analysis of R/C
buildings. Eng Struct 2001;23:407–24.
References [20] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. A consecutive modal pushover
procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings. Eng. Struct.
2009;31:591–9.
[1] AISC-ASD. Manual of steel construction, allowable stress design. Chicago, IL: [21] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. A consecutive modal pushover
American Institute of Steel Construction; 1989. procedure for nonlinear static analysis of one-way unsymmetric-plan tall
[2] Alıcı F Soner, Sucuoğlu Halûk. Practical implementation of generalized force building structures. J Eng Struct 2011;33(9):2417–34.
vectors for the multi-mode pushover analysis of building structures. J Earthq [22] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. The extended consecutive modal
Spectra 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/102412EQS316M. pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of two-way unsym-
[3] ATC-40. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Applied metric-plan tall buildings under influence of two horizontal components of
Technology Council, Vol. 1-2. California: Redwood City; 1996. ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;63:162–73.
[4] Aydinoglu MN. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure on [23] Reyes JC, Chopra A. Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings
inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evalua- subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for
tion. Bull Earthq Eng 2003;1:3–36. tall buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40:789–806.
[5] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). Pre-standard and commentary for the [24] Reyes JC, Chopra A. Evaluation of three-dimensional modal pushover analysis
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356. Washington (DC): Federal for unsymmetric-plan buildings subjected to two components of ground
Emergency Management Agency; 2000. motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40(13):1475–94.
[6] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedures for estimating [25] Sasaki KK, Freeman SA Paret TF. Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP) – a
seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:561–82. method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. In:
[7] Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanapakdee C. Evaluation of a modified MPA Proceedings of the 6th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering,
procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands. Seattle, Washington; 1998.
Earthq Spectra 2004;20(3):757–78. [26] Shakeri K, Shayanfar MA, Kabeyasawa T. A story shear-based adaptive push-
[8] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal Pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic over procedure for estimating seismic demands of buildings. Eng Struct
demand for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:903–27. 2010;32(2010):174–83.
[9] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq [27] Shakeri K, Tarbali K, Mohebbi M. An adaptive modal pushover procedure for
Eng Struct Dyn 1999;28:979–93. asymmetric-plan buildings. Eng Struct 2012;36:160–72.
[10] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. [28] Sucuoglu H, Günay MS. Generalized force vectors for multi-mode pushover
Earthq Spectra 2000;16(3):573–92. analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40(1):55–74.
[11] Fajfar P, Marusic D, Perus I. Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic [29] Standard No. 2800-05. Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of
analysis of buildings. J Earthq Eng 2005;9(6):831–54. buildings. 3rd edition. Iran: Building and Housing Research Centre; 2005.
[12] Jan TS, Liu MW, Kao YC. An upper-bound pushover analysis procedure for [30] Tso WK, Moghadam AS. Pushover procedure for seismic analysis of buildings.
estimating the seismic demands of high-rise buildings. Eng Struct 2004;26:117–28. Prog Struct Eng Mater 1998;1(3):337–44.