ISET GOLDEN JUBILEE SYMPOSIUM

Indian Society of Earthquake Technology

Department of Earthquake Engineering Building
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee

October 20-21, 2012

Paper No. D002

APPLICATION OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS METHODS

FOR BUILDING STRUCTURES
A. Kiran1, G. Ghosh2 and Y. K.Gupta3
1
M. Tech. Student, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad,U.P., India, asha.mmmec@gmail.com

2
Assistant Professor, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, U.P., India, gghoshjm@gmail.com

3
Associate Professor, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, U.P., India, gupta.yku@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

To have a reliable estimate of the performance of a structure, sophisticated analytical tools are necessary. Nonlinear
dynamic analysis is the most accurate method available for the analysis of structures subjected to earthquake
excitation. Nonlinear static (Pushover) Analysis is also an attractive choice because of its simplicity and ability to
identify component and system-level deformation demands with accuracy comparable to dynamic analysis. Many
methods have evolved, over the years, for pushover analysis of structures. People have a lot of doubt about which
one of those will be the most preferred pushover method for the analysis of structures. To fulfill that objective, in the
present study, a comparison has been made between the results of the pushover analysis with the dynamic time-
history analysis, with a view to find out the most preferred pushover method. The existing pushover analysis
methods as per the literatures and codes have been considered in the study. For the analysis purpose, two types of
building structures have been considered. It has been observed that in most of the cases, pushover analysis results
are conservative as compared to the time history results. It has been observed that in most of the cases ELM method
of FEMA 440 gives good result in comprasion to time history analysis.

Keywords: Pushover, Building, time history analysis

INTRODUCTION

To make a decision on the safety, adequacy or to asses the real behavior of the structures, sophisticated analytical
methods are needed. Non linear Static (Pushover) Analysis has become a popular method during the last few
decades for the seismic assessment of structure. Never the less, the main advantage of the same is to make the
computational cost lower as compared to nonlinear dynamic time history analysis.
Simplified Nonlinear Static (Pushover) procedures for buildings have been presented in the ATC-40 and FEMA-
273, 356, 440 to determine the displacement demand imposed on a building expected to deform inelastically. The
Pushover procedures presented in these documents are based on the methodology developed by Freeman et al.
(1975) and Freeman (1978). Capacity Spectrum Method of ATC-40 has been modified in FEMA-440 and stated as
Equivalent Linearization Method (ELM). Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM) of FEMA-273 has also been
enhanced to Displacement Modification Method (DMM) in FEMA-440.
Many methods of pushover analaysis are available, over the years. However, there exists a conflict of ideas about
which one of those will be the most preferred method for the nonlinear static analysis of structures. To fulfill that
purpose, the present studies are focoused on following objectives:
 To develop a complete comprehensive model of the Symmetric and Asymmetric Building Structures
 To design the buildings as per IS codal provisions
 To determine the response of the symmetrical and asymmetrical building structures by nonlinear (static)
pushover analysis for five different earthquake ground motions
 To compare the results of Pushover Analysis with the Nonlinear Dynamic Time History Analysis
 To determine the most effective pushover methods for the building structures

BUILDINGS CONSIDERED FOR THE STUDY

For the study purpose, two building structures have been considered. First one is a symmetrical building which is
having 5 bays (with each bay of 4 m) in longitudinal as well as transverse directions. The height of the building (5
story) is 17.5 m with each storey height of 3.5m. The second one is a asymmetrical building (Fig.1) structure which
can be divided into two parts. In one part, the building is having 2 bays in the shorter direction and 3 bay in the
longer direction upto 3 stroey height. In another part, the building is having 2 bays in the shorter direction and 5
bays in the longer direction upto 5 storey height. The length of bay is 4 m in the shorter direction and 5 m in the
longer direction. The height of each storey is 3.5 m. The site of the building is considered to be within Seismic Zone
IV of Indian Seismic Zoning (IS: 1893-2002, Part 1).

z
x
y

Fig. 1 Asymmetrical Building

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

Nonlinearity has been considered in all the elements of the building. Plastic hinges at bottom and top of each
element have been assigned to model the nonlinear properties. For the analysis purpose, both the Nonlinear
Dynamic (NLTHA) and Static (Pushover) Analysis have been performed and results have been compared. In case of
pushover analysis, Equivalent Linearization Method (ELM) and Displacement Modification Method (DMM) as per
FEMA 440 have been considered. Also, five different lateral load distributions have been considered in the
Pushover Analysis.

SEISMIC LOADING CONSIDERED

Site specific response spectra (Fig. 2) for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) have been considered for the
study. Five ground acceleration time histories (Fig. 3), recorded for different earthquakes, world over, for different
source and site conditions have been scaled in frequency domain, preserving their phase information (Kumar 2004),
to make them compatible with the design response spectra for MCE loading condition.
 0.9

0.8
MCE
0.7
DBE
0.6

0.5
Sa/g 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Time Period (sec)

Fig. 2 Site specific design response spectra for 5% damping

0.35 0.6
Kobe

Accl. (g)
Elcentro 0.3
Accl. (g)

0.21
0.07 0
-0.07 -0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.21 0 10 20 30 40 -0.6
-0.35 -0.9
Time (sec) Tim e (sec)
0.6 0.7
Accl. (g)

Northridge
Accl. (g)

0.4 0.45 Lom a Prieta

0.2 0.2
0 -0.05
-0.2 -0.3
-0.4 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
-0.55
Tim e (sec) Tim e (sec)

0.35
San Fernando
Accl. (g)

0.24
0.13
0.02
-0.09
-0.2 0 10 20 30
Tim e (sec)

Fig. 3 Ground motion time histories considered for the study

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Two buildings (one symmetrical and the other one asymmetrical) have been designed as according to the Indian
Standard Code (IS: 1893 (2002) Part 1). Both the pushover as well as time history analyses have been performed for
the buildings and the results are compared. Two types of pushover analyses viz. ELM and DMM, as per FEMA 440,
are considered. In case of pushover analysis, five different pattern of lateral load distributions are considered viz.
uniform load, modal load, uniform acceleration, parabolic load and triangular load.

Dynamic Characteristics

Table 1 shows the dynamic characteristics of the symmetrical building. The modal participating mass ratio for the
first mode is in the range of 80% - 85%. So it is expected that initial modes will contribute more to the response and
effect of torsion will be negligible.

Table 1 Dynamic characteristics of the symmetrical building

Longitudinal Direction Transverse Direction
Fundamental time Modal Fundamental Modal
period mass time period mass ratio
ratio
(sec) (%) (sec) (%)
0.66 83 0.65 82
Table 2 shows the dynamic characteristics of the aymmetrical building. Since the mass participating factor in
asymmetrical building is not more than 80% and also participation exists for both long. X/Trans. Y as well as
Rotation about Z directions i.e. torsion exists. So, it can not be predicted that which mode will contribute to the
response. But the effect of torsion will be there on the response of building.

Table 2 Dynamic characteristics of the asymmetrical building

Mode Period Modal mass ratio
(sec)
Longitudinal Transverse Vertical Rotation Rotation Rotation
X Y Z about X about Y about Z

1 0.582336 0.00502 0.70855 5.365E-10 0.54989 0.00341 0.58428

2 0.509616 0.48915 0.03593 7.13E-08 0.02365 0.30752 0.00011

3 0.450189 0.29107 0.0209 2.246E-07 0.0113 0.16375 0.22234

Parametric Study

The responses of the building have been determined for both the DBE and MCE loading conditions and compared
with pushover analysis results. Two parameters are considered for the study viz. maxm. displcement and maxm.
base shear.
Tables 3 and 4 show the responses of the symmetrical building for DBE and MCE loading conditions. It has been
observed that in case of DBE and MCE loading, the maximum displacement and maximum base shear of the
structure by Equivalent Linearization Method (ELM) with modal pattern of loads is closer with the time history
results.

Table 3 Response of the symmetrical building structure in DBE loading condition

Load Pattern Modal Uniform Load Triangular Parabolic Uniform Accl. Time
Pushover ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM History
Methods
Maxm. 0.028 0.018 0.013 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.017 0.012 0.024 0.016 0.027
Displ. (m)
Maxm. Base 712 510 1226 844 1224 801 1075 821 833 601 750
Shear (kN)

Table 4 Response of the symmetrical building structure in MCE loading condition

Load Pattern Modal Uniform Load Triangular Parabolic Uniform Accl. Time
Pushover ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM History
Methods
Maxm. 0.058 0.038 0.026 0.018 0.021 0.014 0.035 0.023 0.050 0.034 0.050
Displ. (m)
Maxm. Base 1424 950 2370 1720 2449 1663 1910 1429 1600 1053 1450
Shear (kN)

Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 show the responses of the asymmetrical building for DBE and MCE loading conditions.

In Longitudinal Direction
In case of DBE and MCE loadings, the maximum. Displacement of the structure by Equivalent Linearization
Method (ELM) with modal, parabolic and uniform pattern of loads is 83% closer with the time history results. The
maximum Base shear of the structure by ELM with modal pattern is 23% lower than the time history results. With
the other pattern of loads, the values are 40% to 45 % higher than the time history results. Whereas, by using DMM
method with all the load pattern other than modal pattern, the maximum Base shear of the structure are closer with
the time history results.

In Transverse Direction
In case of DBE and MCE loadings, the maximum. Displacement of the structure by ELM and DMM with uniform
and parabolic pattern of loads is closer with the time history results whereas by using other pattern of loads the
values are on the conservative side. The maximum Base shear of the structure is 47% higher than the time history
results, for all the methods with various distributions of loads.
Table 5 Response of the unsymmetrical building structure for DBE loading in longitudinal direction
Load Pattern Modal Uniform Load Triangular Parabolic Uniform Accl. Time
Pushover ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM History
Methods
Maxm. 0.020 0.012 0.015 0.007 0.012 0.005 0.020 0.010 0.023 0.014 0.026
Displ. (m)
Maxm. Base 415 482 1031 514 1008 468 933 471 878 521 542
Shear (kN)

Table 6 Response of the unsymmetrical building structure for MCE loading in longitudinal direction
Load Pattern Modal Uniform Load Triangular Parabolic Uniform Accl. Time
Pushover ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM History
Methods
Maxm. 0.039 0.023 0.030 0.015 0.023 0.012 0.04 0.02 0.046 0.027 0.046
Displ. (m)
Maxm. Base 1005 1100 2062 1069 2016 998 1866 953 1703 1024 1124
Shear (kN)

Table 7 Response of the unsymmetrical building structure for DBE loading in transverse direction
Load Pattern Modal Uniform Load Triangular Parabolic Uniform Accl. Time
Pushover ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM History
Methods
Maxm. 0.015 0.020 0.010 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.014 0.009 0.014 0.016 0.013
Displ. (m)
Maxm. Base 470 396 450 670 1060 556 1025 622 723 507 390
Shear (kN)

Table 8 Response of the unsymmetrical building structure for MCE loading in transverse direction
Load Pattern Modal Uniform Load Triangular Parabolic Uniform Accl. Time
Pushover ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM ELM DMM History
Methods
Maxm. 0.030 0.039 0.020 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.028 0.017 0.029 0.031 0.028
Displ. (m)
Maxm. Base 915 754 960 1396 2120 1170 2050 1268 1318 1007 805
Shear (kN)

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, the response of the symmetrical and asymmetrical building structures has been determined by
the Nonlinear static (Pushover) analysis and Nonlinear dynamic time history analysis and the results from both the
methods have been compared. Five different types of ground motions compatible to the MCE and DBE response
spectrums have been considered. The main conclusions of the study are as follows:
 A carefully performed pushover analysis can provide insight into structural aspects that control the
performance of the structure during a severe earthquake. In most of the cases, the results of the pushover
analysis are on the conservative side, as compared with the time history results.
 In case of symmetrical building, the ELM method with modal pattern of loads is quite better as compared
with the other pattern of loads. DMM can also be used but ELM is quite accurate.
 In case of asymmetrical building, both ELM as well as DMM gives good results for few cases, but in most
of the cases, the pushover results are quite higher than the time history results.

REFERENCES

1. Applied Technology Council (1996). ‘Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings’, ATC-40,
Redwood City, Calif.
2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997). ‘Nehrp Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings’, FEMA-273, Washington, D.C.
3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). ‘Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings’, FEMA-356, Washington, D.C.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2005). ‘Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
Procedures’, FEMA-440, Washington, D.C.
5. Freeman, S. A., Nicoletti, J. P., and Tyrell, J. V. (1975). ‘Evaluation of Existing Buildings for Seismic Risk: A
Case Study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton,Washington’, Proceedings of US National Conference
on Earthquake Engineers, EERI, Berkeley, California.
6. Freeman, S. A. (1978). ‘Prediction of Response of Concrete Buildings to Severe Earthquake Motion’, Douglas
McHenry International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures, SP-55, ACI, 589-605.
7. IS: 1893-Part 1 (2002). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures-General provisions and buildings.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
8. Kumar, A. (2004). ‘Software for Generation of Spectrum Compatible Time History’, Proceedings of 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August, paper no. 2096.