Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 782

Use of Nonlinear Analysis in the Context of the ASCE 7 Seismic Load Provisions

Finley A. Charney1
1
Virginia Tech, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 200 Patton
Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia, 24061; PH (540) 231-1444; email: fcharney@vt.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the use of nonlinear analysis within the context of the
ASCE 7 seismic load provisions. The methods of analysis that are discussed include
P-Delta analysis, nonlinear static analysis, and nonlinear dynamic analysis. All
methods of analysis are discussed at the systems (entire structure) level. The use of
nonlinear static analysis to perform sub-system evaluation is also described. Also
provided in the paper is an assessment of the adequacy of the current analysis
techniques in the context of advances that have been made in computational power
and analysis capabilities over the last 40 years. Recommendations for improvements
in the ASCE 7 analysis procedures are provided at the end of the paper.

INTRODUCTION

The use of nonlinear analysis is becoming more common in structural

earthquake engineering, even though ASCE 7 (ASCE, 2010) does not require any
form of nonlinear analysis for “traditional” buildings that do not incorporate seismic
isolation or passive energy systems. Nonlinear dynamic response history analysis is
permitted for traditional systems, and requirements for performing such analysis are
provided in Chapter 16 of the ASCE 7. When used, nonlinear dynamic analysis is
performed on the system level, meaning that the entire structure is analyzed, and the
analysis forms the basis for deciding if the design is acceptable. Currently, the main
use of nonlinear dynamic analysis is to assess the performance of buildings that do
not satisfy height limits, or for which values of R, Cd, and Ωo are not provided.

ASCE 7 does not list nonlinear static pushover analysis as permitted method,
and for that reason, it does not provide any requirements for performing such
analysis. ASCE 41 (ASCE, 2007) allows pushover analysis under certain
circumstances, and provides requirements for performing such analysis. Presumably,
these procedures, where applicable, could be used in association with ASCE 7 if
approved by the local building official, and if independently reviewed by a panel of
experts.

While ASCE 7 does not permit nonlinear static analysis as the basis of system
design and evaluation, there are cases where limited forms of such analysis would be
useful. Examples of such analysis include assessment of weak story irregularities,
computing story β factors in P-Delta analysis, and computation of story strength after
removal of components as required for redundancy factor (ρ) evaluation. These uses
for nonlinear static analysis are described later in this paper.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 783

It is essential that P-Delta effects (a nonlinear effect in itself) be included in

all seismic analysis. Currently, ASCE 7 is set up such that linear analysis should not
directly include P-Delta effects. Instead, such effects are evaluated through the use of
displacement and force magnifiers that are computed on the basis of the results of
first order static analysis. This method is seriously flawed because it does not
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

capture the effects of residual inelastic deformations, and it is these deformations that
lead to dynamic instability and collapse of some structures.

In the remainder of this paper the above issues are addressed in some detail,
starting with P-Delta analysis, moving next to nonlinear static analysis, and finally,
nonlinear dynamic analysis.

P-DELTA ANALYSIS

Section 12.7.3 of ASCE 7 requires that P-Delta effects be included in

structural modeling, but this is inconsistent with Eqn. 12.8-16 because the stability
ratio, θ, determined from this equation should be based on displacements that do not
include P-Delta effects. Eqn. 12.8-16 is as follows:

Px ΔIe
θ=
Vx hsx Cd

It is important to recognize that the stability ratio θ is simply the ratio of the
“Geometric Stiffness” of the story (Px/hsx) to the “Elastic Stiffness” of the story
(Vx Cd /ΔIe ) , and that when properly computed, θ is independent of the value of Cd
and Ie.

If P-Delta effects are included in the analysis, it is permitted to divide the

value of θ determined from equation 12.8-16 by the quantity (1- θ). This avoids the
potential problem of including P-Delta effects twice in the same analysis. A more
rational approach would be to run the analysis twice, once without P-Delta effects and
once with P-Delta, and compute the stability ratio for each story as follows:

Δo
θ =1−
Δf

where Δ o is the story drift computed without P-Delta, and Δ f is the drift from the
analysis which includes P-Delta effects. Where P-Delta effects are included in the
analysis, member forces and displacements need not be multiplied by the quantity
1/(1- θ) because this effect is already included.

The stability ratio θ is not permitted to exceed 0.5/βCd, where β is “the ratio
of shear demand to the shear capacity” of the story under consideration. Thus, β is
the inverse of the over-strength of the story. Taking β as 1.0 is usually conservative,

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 784

but doing so may lead to situations where the limit on θ is exceeded. Unfortunately,
the determination of β is not straightforward, even for simple systems such as
moment resisting frames.

Consider, for example, the frame shown in Figure 1. If the columns are
stronger than the girders, the story mechanism and the computed story strength shown
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in Part (a) of the figure may be used. For weak column - strong beam systems, the
mechanism and computed strength indicated in part (b) of the figure is applicable.
Both of the equations shown in Figure 1 come from the commentary of the AISC
Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2005). Mechanism (a) is reasonable for special moment
frames, but may not be applicable to ordinary or intermediate moment frames where
the columns might be weaker than the beams. Some might argue that mechanism (a)
is not viable because it cannot occur unless hinges form at mid-height of the columns
above and below the level where the girder hinges form. This hinge formation is not
possible for strong column systems. The use of nonlinear static analysis to determine
story strength and the story β factor is discussed later in this paper.

Figure 1. Computing Story Capacity for P-Delta Effects

The stability ratio computed by Eqn. 12.8-16 is a reasonable measure of the

sensitivity of elastic structures to P-Delta effects. However, modification of member
forces and displacements by the quantity 1/(1- θ) is not reasonable, particularly when
θ exceeds 0.1. This is because inelastic dynamic response of systems with larger
values of θ tend to have large residual deformations, and these deformations, which
are not included in linear analysis, may eventually result in dynamic instability and
collapse.

This problem is well known (e.g Gupta and Krawinkler, 2000), and several
attempts have been made to modify ASCE 7 to provide more rational methods to
assess the significance of P-Delta effects. One approach which was not approved for
ASCE 7-10 is described in Part 1 of the 2009 NEHRP Recommended Seismic
Provisions (FEMA, 2010). This procedure establishes the upper limit on θ as 0.1,
unless a nonlinear pushover analysis indicates that the post-yield slope of the

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 785

pushover curve is continuously positive up to the Target Displacement as defined by

ASCE 41 (ASCE, 2007). The pushover analysis should include P-Delta effects, and
must include degradation of strength. Alternatively, values of θ in excess of 0.1 may
be allowed if it is demonstrated that the system complies with the requirements of
nonlinear dynamic analysis as stipulated in Chapter 16 of ASCE 7. Peer review is
required for either method of analysis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

Nonlinear static analysis is not a “permitted” method of analysis in Table

12.6-1 of ASCE 7, and therefore cannot be used as the basis for designing the entire
structural system. However, there are cases where nonlinear static analysis would be
useful within the context of an ASCE 7 analysis and design:

1. Determination of the presence of Lateral Strength-Weak Story or Lateral

Strength– Extreme Weak Story irregularities. Such irregularities are
evaluated on the basis of the ratio of the lateral strength of two adjacent
stories. If the strength of the lower story is less than 80 percent of the strength
of the upper story the Weak Story irregularity exists, and if the strength of the
lower story is less than 65% of the strength of the upper story, an Extreme
Weak Story irregularity exists.

2. Determination of the redundancy factor, ρ. For certain situations this factor is

evaluated by determining if the story strength is reduced by more than 33%
when a key component of that story (e.g. a brace) is removed from the system.
This approach is demonstrated in a redundancy factor example prepared by
Charney (2010).

3. Computation of the factor β which is used to determine the upper limit on the
computed story stability ratios, θ associated with P-Delta analysis. The β
factor is the ratio of the factored seismic demand to the story capacity.

4. Determination of the horizontal seismic load effect with overstrength, Emh.

Generally, this factor is taken as ΩoQe, but an exception states that Emh need
not be taken as greater than the maximum force that can develop in the
element as determined from a rational plastic mechanism analysis or nonlinear
analysis utilizing realistic expected values of material strengths.

For items 1 and 3 above, analysis could be as simple as that shown in Figure
2, where a limited pushover analysis is used to determine the strength of a story of a
moment frame. For item 2 a full three dimensional nonlinear static analysis analysis
would be required. It might be possible to establish substructure models for item 4,
but the larger models developed for items 1 through 3 could be utilized. Relatively
simple force-deformation relationships (not including strength degradation) could be
used for each of the situations because all that is required from the analysis is the
computation of story strength.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 786
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. Using Pushover Analysis to Determine Story Strength

While not a required part of an ASCE 7 evaluation, several other aspects of

the system performance could be developed using nonlinear static analysis. These
include the following:

1. More realistic assessment of the potential for dynamic instability by using a

nonlinear static pushover analysis to determine if the post-yield slope of the
pushover curve is positive up to the target displacement.

2. Assessing the system compliance with strong column – weak beam

requirements of ACI 318 and ANSI/AISC 341.

3. Visualization of the sequence of yielding, assessment of system over strength,

and assessment of overall system ductility.

The above three points would require a more detailed model than required for
the code compliance assessments listed earlier.

NONLINEAR DYNAMIC RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS

Nonlinear Response History Analysis is generally used when the structure

being designed does not adhere to the system limitation requirements of Table 12.2-1
of ASCE 7, or when the system is not listed in the table. The authority to circumvent
Table 12.2-1 is provided in Section 12.2.1. The most common use of NHRA is in
association with the design of tall buildings, wherein the structural system exceeds
the height limitations of Table 12.2-1, or where a hybrid system, such as an
outriggered core-wall is used. The Chapter 16 guidelines for performing the analysis
define the basic requirements in terms of selecting and scaling of ground motions,
modeling criteria, determination of design values for member forces and
deformations, and acceptance criteria. However, these requirements are lacking in
detail, and should be supplemented with a variety of guidelines that have been
published, including those produced by the Structural Engineers Association of
Northern California (SEAONC, 2007), the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Council
(LATBC, 2008), the Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTUBH, 2008),

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 787

FEMA (2009), the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER, 2010),
and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST, 2010).

While nonlinear dynamic analysis is generally regarded as the best method of

analysis available, there are a number of barriers to a broad acceptance in the design
community. These barriers include the lack of a comprehensive design basis that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

makes direct use of the analysis, concerns (real or perceived) about the complexity of
the analysis, a general lack of training in dynamic response history analysis and in
nonlinear analysis, and the necessity to select and scale aground motions for the
analysis.

The placement of the linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis procedures in a

separate chapter (Chapter 16) is also a barrier to acceptance. In the author’s opinion
the ground motion selection and scaling aspects of Chapter 16 should be moved into
Chapter 11, and the analysis procedures should be moved into Chapter 12. This
would generate the impression that linear dynamic and nonlinear dynamic analyses
are simply two tiers of a hierarchy of increasingly sophisticated (and presumably
increasingly accurate) methods of analysis.

While it would be effective, the above recommendation retains the rest of

Chapter 12, which is seriously outdated. A better approach would be to completely
rewrite Chapter 12 in terms of a comprehensive approach that utilizes both linear and
nonlinear analysis in rational ways. The next section of this paper provides an outline
for such an approach.

NONLINEAR ANALYSIS IN FUTURE EDITIONS OF ASCE 7

The current edition of ASCE 7 [ASCE 7-10] has evolved primarily from the
ATC 3-06 Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for
Buildings (ATC, 1976). This document was published in 1978, before personal
computers were generally available, and before nonlinear static or dynamic analysis
was practical outside of a research environment. With the exception of the nonlinear
dynamic analysis procedures that are provided in Chapter 16 of ASCE 7-10, code
provisions for performing analysis for new buildings have remained relatively
stagnant since 1978. Given that ASCE 7 will not be updated until 2016 and adopted
until 2018, forty years could pass without any significant changes to the required
analysis procedures in ASCE 7.

In the same 40 years, very significant advances will have been made in
computer capacity and availability, and nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic
response history analysis will be available through number of commercially available
programs. While not entirely automatic, the programs simplify some of the more
tedious tasks associated with nonlinear modeling, even going so far as to provide
“standard” force-deformations relationships that comply with ASCE 41. As
mentioned earlier, there are several detailed sets of recommendations for performing
nonlinear dynamic analysis, including those provided by Chapter 16 of ASCE 7-10.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 788

Given all the advances over the past 40 years, one can wonder why the
seismic provisions have not caught up. In the Author’s opinion, part of the problem
is that advanced analysis procedures are basically incompatible with the current
analysis philosophy, which is based on two-dimensional linear procedures and a
variety of ad-hoc corrections to account inelastic behavior, three-dimensional
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

behavior, and dynamic response. Thus, the only way to remedy the situation is to
start with a clean slate, and develop an analysis procedure that is consistent with
modern technology, and with the principles of performance based design. The basic
tenants of the new analysis method should be as follows:

1. The Equivalent Lateral Force method would be used only for preliminary
analysis.

2. All analysis should be performed in three dimensions.

3. Diaphragms should be modeled as semi rigid.

4. All final analysis should directly incorporate P-Delta effects, and the
sensitivity to such effects should be based on a comparison of results with and
without P-Delta effects included.

5. The analytical model should be developed such that, at the minimum, a

nonlinear static pushover analysis can be performed. The pushover model
would be used to evaluate weak story irregularities, determine system
redundancy factors, establish system and component overstrength
requirements, assess the compliance with strong column - weak beam
requirements, assess the likelihood of dynamic instability associated with P-
Delta effects, and determine (in association with other factors) the required
final level of analysis.

6. Based on the results of (5) above, the final analysis should be either a linear or
nonlinear dynamic response history analysis. Analysis would be based on
standardized suites of ground motions, scaled appropriately.

7. Accidental torsion should be included by adjustment of the center of mass of

the floor diaphragms.

8. All analysis should include simultaneous application of the ground motions in

two orthogonal directions.

9. Acceptance criteria for deformation should be based on shear-strain based

damage measures, wherein such strains are monitored at the corners of the
building. Acceptance would be based on mean response for both linear and
non linear analysis, but nonlinear analysis results would be studied in
sufficient detail to determine if outliers pose a significant risk.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 789

A key aspect of the requirements would come in point (5) above where the
decision is made whether or not to perform a nonlinear dynamic analysis. This
decision could be based on a number of factors, including occupancy category,
sensitivity to P-Delta effects, sensitivity to torsional response, type of hysteretic
behavior, and use of seismic isolation or passive energy systems. Linear dynamic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

analysis would most likely be used for the majority of structures. Tola (2010) has
shown that linear response history analysis is a very effective replacement for the
equivalent lateral force method and the modal response spectrum methods of analysis.

There are numerous advantages to the above approach, and among the most
significant is that inelastic behavior is explicitly investigated for all structures. The
use of linear response history analysis as the “basic” method would be beneficial
because analysts would use such procedures to develop expertise in performing
response history analysis, and this would be very useful preparation for those
circumstances where nonlinear dynamic analysis would be required. The required
inelastic modeling of all structures would also provide useful experience in those
cases that nonlinear dynamic analysis is ultimately required. An additional benefit of
the above approach would be the direct incorporation of performance based design
principles, and unification with the methods of analysis that are used to assess the
performance of existing buildings.

REFERENCES

AISC (2005). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/ASCE

341-05), American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.

ASCE (2007). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE 41-06),

American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

ASCE (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE 7-10), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

ATC (1976). Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations

for Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.

Charney, F.A. (2010). Seismic Loads: Guide to the Seismic Load Provisions
of ASCE 7-10, ASCE Press, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston Virginia.

CTUBH (2008). Recommendations for the Seismic Design of Tall Buildings,

Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Chicago, Illinois.

Deierlein, Gregory G., Reinhorn, Andrei M., and Willford, Michael R. (2010).
“Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design,” NEHRP Seismic Design Technical
Brief No. 4, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,
NIST GCR 10-917-5.

Structures Congress 2011