Applicability of Nonlinear Static Procedures To RC Moment-Resisting Frames
Applicability of Nonlinear Static Procedures To RC Moment-Resisting Frames
Applicability of Nonlinear Static Procedures To RC Moment-Resisting Frames
net/publication/269083206
CITATIONS READS
2 144
3 authors:
Mark Aschheim
Santa Clara University
114 PUBLICATIONS 1,099 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
iDesign - Enabling seismic design decision making under uncertainty View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Michalis Fragiadakis on 18 December 2014.
INTRODUCTION
Nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) are popular for the evaluation of buildings subjected to
earthquake loading, and are being considered for use in the design of new buildings in
the proposed updates to ASCE 31 and ASCE 41. However, nonlinear response history analysis
(NRHA) is generally recognized as the most rigorous analysis method available. The attrac-
tiveness of NSPs is attributed to the greater computing cost of NRHA, the difficulty of select-
ing appropriate ground motions and scale factors, and the fact that NSP is closer to the simpler
elastic-static methods traditionally used for seismic design in building codes worldwide.
For a single-story, lightly damped, single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structure, the dif-
ference in the results of a NSP and NRHA is expected to be small. However, as the number of
stories—and thus the number of the natural modes of vibration—increase, the prominence of
the first mode of response generally diminishes. Dispersion in response quantities results due
to the varying frequency content of ground motion excitations and the timing of interacting
modal responses. Additionally, the sensitivity of response quantities to higher-mode content
a)
School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece, [email protected]
b)
School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece, [email protected]
c)
Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University, CA, [email protected]
767
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 30, No. 2, pages 767–794, May 2014; © 2014, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
768 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
varies with the response quantity and location within the structure. The notion of a “mode”
can be applied to structures undergoing nonlinear response (e.g., Aschheim et al. 2002) and
accommodates the influence of material inelasticity on the instantaneous mode shape and
frequency.
Questions about the accuracy and utility of nonlinear static methods have been raised in
recent years. For example, limitations of nonlinear static procedures were identified in the
ATC-55 project (FEMA 440 2005), but the multistory building models considered were too
few in number to allow the domain of applicability of these procedures to be accurately
characterized. Thus, one objective of this study, conducted under the auspices of the
ATC 76-6 project (NIST 2010) is to evaluate error, relative to nonlinear dynamic analysis
results, in order to better identify the domain of applicability of single and multi-mode push-
over procedures. The procedures include common NSPs, such as those identified in the
ASCE/SEI 41-06 (2007) guidelines and also more elaborate NSPs that attempt to enhance
the capability of the typical NSP in order to provide results closer to those of NRHA. Given
the inherent inability of simple nonlinear static methods of analysis to reflect the diversity of
response apparent in NRHA, the accuracy of the NSP methods is evaluated relative to the
central tendency (mean or median) of the chosen response parameters.
Kunnath and Erduran (2008) have shown that not only are the results of NRHA affected
by modeling choices, but the evaluation of adequacy of an approximate method is a function
of these modeling choices. Divergence in the story drifts determined by different analysis
methods were observed depending on whether P-Δ effects were modeled or not. Similarly,
record-to-record variability was shown to affect story drift demands determined by NRHA
differently from those determined by pushover analysis. One explanation for these observa-
tions might be that these modeling and ground motion choices affected the inelastic mechan-
ism that developed during response. Clearly, an evaluation of the accuracy of pushover
methods relative to results obtained by NRHA is conditioned on assumptions made in
modeling.
Nonlinear dynamic response of structures involves fairly complex interactions among the
evolving modes of the structure (Aschheim et al. 2002, Haselton and Deierlein 2007). The
development of different inelastic mechanisms will increase dispersion in the values of at
least some EDPs of interest. Nonlinear static methods generally are incapable of representing
the development of alternative inelastic mechanisms and the variety of modal interactions
and timing that produce maxima in the NRHAs. There are cases where nonlinear static meth-
ods may tend to exaggerate deformation demands at locations where mechanisms are deter-
mined to occur, while underestimating deformation demands that occur at other locations in
nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Önem (2008) considered various single and multiple-mode pushover methods as applied
to moment frames and dual systems. Of note are some procedures that combine multi-modal
effects at each step in the pushover analysis, such as incremental response spectrum analysis
(IRSA; Aydinoglou 2003) and displacement adaptive pushover (DAP; Antoniou and Pinho
2004). Önem (2008) confirms that first mode pushover analysis produced accurate estimates
of peak floor displacements for low- and mid-rise structures, but tends to overestimate peak
displacements for taller structures. More complex methods sometimes provided better esti-
mates relative to the estimates obtained using the simpler pushover procedures, but no
method was identified that could provide consistently reliable estimates for every EDP
and building considered.
Diotallevi et al. (2008) applied various single-load vectors (first mode, triangular, and
SRSS), adaptive pushover methods, and MPA to reinforced concrete (RC) frames. MPA
resulted in the least average error of all methods considered for estimates of story shears
for nearly every building (regular and irregular) examined. However, the best method to
use for story drifts was less clear, as some methods were better than others for particular
buildings. Kalkan and Kunnath (2007) considered RC moment frames and report that the
FEMA 356 procedure underestimates interstory drifts in the upper stories and overestimates
story drifts in the lower stories, while the MMPA method may underestimate or overestimate
interstory drifts in the upper stories. They also report that the MMPA was inconsistent in its
ability to identify yielding in potential plastic hinges.
The preceding studies leave a mixed impression as to the ability of the MPA and MMPA
procedures to provide accurate estimates of peak floor displacements, story drifts, plastic
hinge rotations, and story shears. Results reported in FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005) illustrate
that the accuracy of the MMPA procedure varies with structural system/configuration
and drift level (or intensity of inelastic response). The accuracy of the MMPA estimates
of story shears and floor overturning moments degraded significantly as the three-story
steel moment frame was driven to higher drifts and was poor at a peak roof drift of 4%.
The introduction of a weak story into a nine-story steel moment frame caused the accuracy
of the MMPA estimates of story shears to degrade substantially. Goel (2005) reports that the
MPA procedure does not lead to a reasonable estimate of the response where a soft first story
exists.
A complete literature review on NSP methods can be found in Appendix H of NIST
(2010). Of particular interest are the classic paper by Krawinkler and Seneviratna (1998)
and the papers on bridges by Pinho et al. (2007, 2009). Moreover, an interesting contribu-
tion comes from Kunnath (2007) who investigates the evolution of force patterns during
nonlinear response history analysis in order to identify appropriate modal lateral load pat-
terns. The applicability and the accuracy of different pushover methods are also discussed
and compared in Kalkan and Kunnath (2007), Isaković and Fischinger (2011), Causevic
and Mitrovic (2011), and Lagaros and Fragiadakis (2011). Finally, the topic of plan-
irregular structures has been looked at by Bhatt and Bento (2012). Despite this abundance
of studies on the validity of the NSP, a consensus has not yet been reached regarding its
range of applicability. This was the driving force behind the ATC-76-6 project (NIST
2010), the most significant results of which pertaining to reinforced concrete buildings
are presented in the following.
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 771
analysis must be performed using modes that achieve at least 90% modal participation, or, in
other words, as many modes should be included as required so that the sum of their modal
contribution factors is equal to or greater than 90%. This criterion is intended to capture situa-
tions in which higher modes are significant. However, FEMA 440 identified cases where the
first mode achieved greater than 90% modal participation but NSP results were poor.
T 2e
d t ¼ C 0 C 1 C 2 C 3 Sa ðT e Þ g (1)
4π 2
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;41;341
system to the capacity diagram of an equivalent SDOF system and approximate the capacity
curve with an idealized elastic-perfectly plastic relationship to determine the period T e of the
equivalent SDOF system, (iii) estimate the displacement of the MDOF system simply as
d t ¼ C 0 d t , where d t is the target displacement of the corresponding inelastic SDOF system.
Only a first-mode lateral load pattern has been considered. Different expressions are suggested
for short and for medium-to-long period ranges; for the latter case, d t is equal to the displace-
ment of the corresponding elastic SDOF system, calculated as:
2
T
d t ¼ Sa ðT e Þ e
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e2;62;554 (2)
2π
take place when the peak displacement response is realized dynamically. The first stage of the
pushover analysis uses a quasi–first mode load pattern, consisting of an inverted triangular
load pattern for medium-rise buildings and a uniform load pattern for high-rise buildings. The
second stage consists of a sequence of quasi–first and second mode forces. The quasi–first
mode forces are applied until the roof displacement equals a1 δt , where a1 is the modal con-
tribution factor of the first mode, and δt is the target displacement determined for the first
mode. Upon reaching a1 δt , incremental forces are applied that follow a second mode pattern.
The incremental displacement used for this analysis stage is ð1-a1 Þδt . The third stage,
required only for buildings with fundamental periods of 2.2 seconds or higher, consists
of a sequence of quasi–first, second, and third mode forces. As before, the quasi–first
mode forces are applied until the roof displacement equals a1 δt . Upon reaching a1 δt , incre-
mental forces are applied that follow a second-mode pattern until the roof displacement
increases by a2 δt . At this point, incremental forces that follow a third-mode pattern are
applied until the roof displacement increases by ð1-a1 -a2 Þδt . After the last step of each sepa-
rate stage is completed, the peak value of any EDP of interest is retained, and the final EDP
estimate is obtained from the maximum value of the three stages.
BUILDING MODELS
The structural systems considered are a two-story, a four-story, and an eight-story
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame (RCMRF) building, originally designed as
“archetype” buildings in FEMA P695 (2009a). All three buildings have three bays and
are completely regular and symmetric. A generic description of the three buildings is
shown in Figure 1. All buildings have bay width 9.1 m (30 ft) and story heights 4.6 m
(15 ft) for the first story and 4.0 m (13 ft) for the stories above. The three buildings
form a simple basic test for the static pushover methods. For such low- and mid-rise struc-
tures, NSPs are expected to perform well, especially in the near post-nominal-yield region.
The buildings were designed as special RC moment frames following the provisions of
the 2003 IBC (IBC 2002). Beam sizes were determined by minimum size requirements. Col-
umn strengths were determined to follow strong-column-weak-beam requirements, reflected
in required column-to-beam flexural strength ratios and joint shear requirements. The selec-
tion of the beam stirrups was controlled by shear capacity design, while the column trans-
verse reinforcement was based on confinement requirements. The design of the frames is
described in FEMA P695 (2009a).
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 775
Figure 1. Generic description of the three RC moment resisting frame buildings (reproduced
from Haselton and Deierlein 2007).
Models of the buildings were created for structural analysis. Planar two-dimensional
(2-D) models were used, incorporating one-dimensional line-type elements, as discussed
in FEMA P695. Component models simulated the nonlinear degrading response of
beams, columns and joints. The hysteretic model used for modeling the cyclic behavior
in NRHA is the “bilin” material available in the OpenSees software platform (McKenna
and Fenves 2001). This is a peak-oriented model with a piecewise linear envelope that is
able to incorporate stiffness and strength degradation. According to Haselton and Deierlein
(2007) and Haselton et al. (2011), the model consists of three branches: an initial elastic
branch, a strain hardening branch, and a descending branch that terminates at an ultimate
chord rotation equal to 0.1 radians. This ultimate rotation value is considered to be conser-
vative given the paucity of test data (Haselton et al. 2011). The load combination used to
represent gravity loads was 1.05ðDeadÞ þ 0.25ðLiveÞ; the gravity load was considered to
remain constant throughout the loading history. The flexural strengths of the members
were based on calibration with test data from columns and beams with low-to-moderate
axial load and ductile detailing. The analytical models do not have the capability to represent
shear strength; thus shear failure modes are not represented in the structural models. More
details about the models can be found in FEMA P-695, Haselton et al. (2011) and Lignos and
Krawinkler (2009). No post-simulation evaluation of potential shear failure modes was made.
This mode of failure is not expected for such well-behaved capacity-designed buildings, and
probably is not expected even close to collapse (Haselton and Deierlein 2007).
Tributary gravity loads act on seismic framing. In addition, a “leaning column” is used to
capture P-Δ effects caused by the gravity load acting on the internal gravity frames. Rayleigh
damping in the first and third mode of vibration was set equal to approximately 5% of critical
damping. The resulting first-mode periods of the two-, four-, and eight-story frames were
0.625, 0.855, and 1.80 sec, respectively.
GROUND MOTIONS
Nonlinear response history analysis was performed using the suite of 22 pairs of ortho-
gonal horizontal ground components (for a total of 44 records) that comprise the FEMA P695
(FEMA 2009a) far-field data set. The mean and median response spectra of the ground
motion records are shown in Figure 2. A fairly elaborate scheme was devised in FEMA
776 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
Figure 2. Mean and median response spectra of the ground motion set considered.
P695 (FEMA 2009a) to ensure the suite of records contains a realistic level of record-to-
record dispersion. In short, the orthogonal ground motions are normalized according to
PGVPEER , as discussed in FEMA P695. PGVPEER is the geometric mean (square root of
the product) peak ground velocity (PGV) of two orthogonal components considering differ-
ent record orientations. The PGVPEER values adopted were taken directly from the PEER
NGA database. All ground motions are far-field recordings and they are applied in their
recorded orientations. The 22 pairs of ground motions are first scaled so that their
PGVPEER values match the median PGVPEER value of the whole set of unscaled records.
The records were further scaled using scale factors (SFs) equal to 0.5, 1, and 2. These
scale factors result in median elastic response spectra that correspond to ground motion
at a Los Angeles, California site with mean recurrence intervals of approximately 100,
400, and 2,475 years, respectively. Each record of the scaled pair is applied independently
in a planar analysis.
NUMERICAL RESULTS
A series of numerical results comparing the performance of the different NSP methods
follows. The comparison is performed with respect to the peak values of different engineering
demand parameters (EDPs). The term “peak” denotes the maximum absolute value of the
EDP over the entire response history. The EDPs considered include both displacement
and force-based quantities; intermediate-level EDPs (e.g., drifts) are emphasized over
component-level quantities (e.g., chord rotations). This is done because intermediate-level
EDPs correlate well to component-level quantities, but are less sensitive to the fine details
of the component models, and thus may serve as global damage indicators. The relationship
between intermediate and component-level EDPs is examined further in the ATC-76-6 report
(Appendix B) (NIST 2010). Therefore, the EDPs presented here are peak values of story
displacement, story drift ratio, story shear force, and story overturning moment. The peak
story drift ratio is defined as the maximum of the absolute value of the difference of the hor-
izontal displacement of adjacent stories over time, normalized by the height of the story.
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 777
SF=0.50 SF=0.50
SF=1.00 SF=1.00
SF=2.00 8 SF=2.00
4 4 7
6
Floor
Floor
Floor
3 3 5
2 2 3
SF=0.50 2
SF=1.00
SF=2.00
1 1 1
0 10 20 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.02
Peak Story Displacement (cm) Peak Story Drift Ratio Peak Story Drift Ratio
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3. NRHA profiles of: (a) peak story displacement (four-story), (b) peak story drift
(four-story), and (c) peak story drift (eight-story).
778 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
4 7 7
6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
3 5 5
4 4
2 3 3
2 2
1 1 1
0 2000 4000 0 500 1000 1500 0 5 10
Peak Story Shear (kN) Peak Story Shear (kN) Peak Overturningx 104
Moment (kNm)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4. NRHA profiles of: (a) peak story shear (four-story), (b) peak story shear (eight-story),
and (c) peak overturning moment (eight-story).
pushover analysis, and median peak story shears, which deviate significantly from readily
obtainable patterns. Moreover, higher modes appear to have an appreciable effect on story
drift and story shears, but not on floor displacements or overturning moments, as discussed in
Aschheim et al. (2007). Figures 3 and 4 display curviness in the drift and the shear profiles in
the mid-height stories, showing apparent departure from a first mode–dominated response
even for these regular frames.
Since this is a practice-oriented study, we choose not to provide exact height-wise dis-
persion values. However, average dispersion values are 0.3–0.4 for peak story displacements,
0.25–0.45 for peak story drift ratio, 0.05–0.30 for peak story shears, and 0.10–0.25 for peak
overturning moments. As dispersion, we define the standard deviation of the natural loga-
rithms of the height-wise EDP values.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 5. Static pushover curves and target displacement estimates for the two-, four-, and eight-
story RCMRFs, for ground motion scale factors of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. ASCE-41 and N2/EC8 meth-
ods produce nearly coincident target displacement estimates.
those for a scale factor of 2.0 cause moderate inelastic response, developing system ductilities
of 2–3, when viewed from a first-mode pushover perspective. Target displacement estimation
may introduce additional error on the results of NSPs. In our case, the nearly perfect bilinear
shape of the first-mode capacity curves (Figure 5) resulted in insignificant mean errors
(Appendix E, NIST 2010).
Figures 6 and 7 show the ratios of estimates from the pushover analyses and the medians
from NRHA over the height of each frame for scale factors of 0.5 and 2.0, respectively. The
estimates are reasonably accurate for all three EDPs for the two-story RCMRF, for which the
error is less than 20% (relative to the NRHA median). For the four-story frame, the accuracy
of estimates of story drifts, story shears and overturning moments degraded as the scale factor
increased from 0.5 to 2.0. This is attributed to the tendency of equivalent SDOF systems to
overestimate peak displacements of MDOF systems with increasing severity of nonlinear
response, as has been recognized previously. This tendency for ASCE-41 target
780 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SDRNSP/SDRMedian NRHA SHEARNSP/SHEARMedian NRHA OTMNSP/OTMMedian NRHA
Figure 6. All buildings: ratios of ASCE-41 NSP and NRHA. (a) Peak story drifts (SF ¼ 0.5),
(b) peak story shears (SF ¼ 0.5), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 0.5).
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SDRNSP/SDRMedian NRHA SHEARNSP/SHEARMedian NRHA OTMNSP/OTMMedian NRHA
Figure 7. All buildings: ratios of ASCE-41 NSP and NRHA. (a) Peak story drifts (SF ¼ 2.0),
(b) peak story shears (SF ¼ 2.0), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 2.0).
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 781
Floor
2 2
1 1
0 0.02 0.04 400 600 800 1000
Peak Story Drift Ratio Peak Story Shear (kN)
Figure 8. Two-story RCMRF: Profiles of (a) peak story drift (SF ¼ 2), (b) of peak story shears
(SF ¼ 2), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 2).
782 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
SF=0.5 SF=2
4 4
Floor
Floor
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 750 1500 2250 3000 1000 1750 2500 3250 4000
Peak Story Shear (kN) Peak Story Shear (kN)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 9. Four-story: Profiles of (a) peak story drift (SF ¼ 2), (b) peak story drift (SF ¼ 0.5),
(c) peak story shears (SF ¼ 2).
SF=2 SF=2
8 8
7 7
6 6
Floor
Floor
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 375 750 1125 1500
Peak Story Drift Ratio Peak Story Shear (kN)
Figure 10. Eight-story, profiles of (a) peak story drift (SF ¼ 2.0), (b) peak story shears (SF ¼ 2),
and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 2).
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 783
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SDRNSP/SDRMedian NRHA SHEARNSP/SHEARMedian NRHA OTMNSP/OTMMedian NRHA
Figure 11. All buildings: Ratio of MPA and NRHA. (a) peak story drifts (SF ¼ 0.5), (b) peak
story shears (SF ¼ 0.5), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 0.5).
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SDR /SDR SHEARNSP/SHEARMedian NRHA OTMNSP/OTMMedian NRHA
NSP Median NRHA
Figure 12. All buildings: Ratio of MPA results and NRHA. (a) Peak story drifts (SF ¼ 2.0),
(b) peak story shears (SF ¼ 2.0), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 2.0).
784 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
For the two-story frame, second-mode contributions to story drifts and overturning
moments were negligible, and reasonably accurate estimates of these quantities were
obtained with the first-mode estimates (Figure 8). While story shears were estimated accu-
rately for a scale factor of 0.5 (Figure 6a, Figure 8a), the inclusion of second-mode contribu-
tions in the MPA procedure did not sufficiently increase the story shears to result in an
accurate estimate at a scale factor of 2.0 (Figure 8b). This suggests a relatively severe con-
straint on the reliable application of both single-mode and simple multimodal pushover
methods.
For the eight-story frame, second-mode contributions to story drift were not negligible
and improved the story drift estimates, but accuracy varied with location and scale factor
(Figure 10). Moreover, as shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, the accuracy of story drift
estimates improved with an increase in scale factor at the upper stories, while story drift
estimates became less accurate as the scale factor increased at the lower stories. The over-
estimation observed at the lower stories is attributed to the constant shape of the lateral load
pattern. As for story drifts, the accuracy of story shear estimates varied with location and
scale factor. Both second- and third-mode contributions to story shears were appreciable.
At the lower stories, story shear estimates were most accurate at a scale factor of 0.5
(Figure 11); an increase in scale factor led to significant overestimates (Figure 12). In con-
trast, at the upper stories, the story shears were underestimated at a scale factor of 0.5, were
estimated with reasonable accuracy at a scale factor of 1.0 (not shown), and were signifi-
cantly overestimated at a scale factor of 2.0. Second-mode contributions to overturning
moments were not negligible and improved the estimates; overturning moments tended
to be underestimated at a scale factor of 0.5, and were overestimated at a scale factor of 2.0.
SF=2 SF=2
4 7
Floor
Floor
3 5
2 3
1 1
1000 1750 2500 3250 4000 0 375 750 1125 1500
Peak Story Shear (kN) Peak Story Shear (kN)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 13. Peak story shears obtained with the consecutive modal pushover method: (a) Two-
story (SF ¼ 2), (b) four-story (SF ¼ 2), (c) eight-story (SF ¼ 2).
SF=2 SF=2
4
Floor
Floor
2 3
1 1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Peak Story Drift Ratio Peak Story Drift Ratio
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 14. Peak drift profiles obtained with the consecutive modal pushover method: (a) Two-
story RCMRF (SF ¼ 2), (b) four-story RCMRF (SF ¼ 2), (c) eight-story RCMRF (SF ¼ 2).
786 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SDRNSP/SDRMedian NRHA SHEARNSP/SHEARMedian NRHA OTMNSP/OTMMedian NRHA
Figure 15. All buildings: Ratio of CMP and NRHA. (a) peak story drifts (SF ¼ 0.5), (b) peak
story shears (SF ¼ 0.5), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 0.5).
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SDRNSP/SDRMedian NRHA SHEARNSP/SHEARMedian NRHA OTMNSP/OTMMedian NRHA
Figure 16. All buildings: Ratio of CMP and NRHA. (a) Peak story drifts (SF ¼ 2.0), (b) peak
story shears (SF ¼ 2.0), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 2.0).
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 787
especially promising, the authors speculate that a revised version of the CMP might be devel-
oped in which loading is applied using sequential modes, considering permutations in the
signs of the modes and possibly considering adaptive load vectors.
4 7
6
Floor
Floor
3 5
2 3
1 1
0 750 1500 2250 3000 0 300 600 900 1200
Peak Story Shear (kN) Peak Story Shear (kN)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 17. Selected results for the modal response spectrum analysis method: (a) Eight-story
peak story drift (SF ¼ 0.5), (b) four-story peak story shear (SF ¼ 0.5), and (c) eight-story
peak story shear (SF ¼ 0.5).
788 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SDRNSP/SDRMedian NRHA SHEARNSP/SHEARMedian NRHA OTMNSP/OTMMedian NRHA
Figure 18. Ratio of elastic MRSA results and NRHA for the eight-story: (a) Peak story drifts
(SF ¼ 0.5), (b) peak story shears (SF ¼ 0.5), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 0.5).
SF=2 SF=2
4 7
6
Floor
Floor
3 5
2 3
1 1
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 0 750 1500 2250 3000
Peak Story Shear (kN) Peak Story Shear (kN)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 19. Selected results for the modal response spectrum analysis method: (a) Eight-story
peak story drift (SF ¼ 2.0), (b) four-story peak story shear (SF ¼ 2.0) and (c) eight-story
peak story shear (SF ¼ 2.0).
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 789
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Floor
Floor
Floor
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SDRNSP/SDRMedian NRHA SHEARNSP/SHEARMedian NRHA OTMNSP/OTMMedian NRHA
Figure 20. Ratio of elastic MRSA and NRHA for the eight-story: (a) Peak story drifts
(SF ¼ 2.0), (b) peak story shears (SF ¼ 2.0), and (c) peak overturning moments (SF ¼ 2.0).
response and inelastic response where the equal displacement rule applies (C 1 ¼ 1.0), elastic
modal response spectrum analysis and multiple mode pushover analysis provide identical
estimates of peak displacements and drifts. For the four-story frame, accurate estimates
of floor displacements and story drifts were obtained at all scale factors. Story shears
were underestimated at the upper stories at a scale factor of 0.5 and were overestimated
at scale factors of 1.0 and 2.0. Overturning moments were slightly underestimated at the
lower floors at a scale factor of 0.5 and are grossly overestimated at scale factors of 1.0
and 2.0. For the eight-story frame, story drifts were underestimated at a scale factor of
0.5, estimated reasonably accurately at a scale factor of 1.0, and overestimated at the
upper stories at a scale factor of 2.0. Story shears and overturning moments were generally
underestimated by modal response spectrum analysis at a scale factor of 0.5, and generally
are overestimated at scale factors of 1.0 and 2.0.
These results suggest the possibility of a more efficient application of multimodal push-
over analysis for regular frames that have relatively uniform story drift demands. Therein,
drift profiles are determined using elastic modal response spectrum analysis based on extra-
polations to spectral amplitudes large enough to cause yielding in a nonlinear static pushover
analysis, and these drift profiles are applied in a pushover analysis to estimate forces and
moments, as suggested in Goel and Chopra (2005).
response quantity may initially seem excessive, but becomes perfectly adequate if the cor-
responding NRHA results show a 40% dispersion. To facilitate a fair comparison for all
cases, we turn to the concept of confidence intervals (Benjamin and Cornell 1970). For
each EDP, the minimum number of records (i.e., sample size) is determined that establishes
a 90% confidence interval that contains the NSP result, centered on the NRHA median.
Formally, each interval is estimated as:
pffiffiffiffi
E DP50 expð∓t0.95;43 · βEDP ∕ N Þ;
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e3;41;566 where N ¼ 1; : : : ; 44 (3)
EDP50 is the median value of the 44 values of EDP response and βEDP is the corresponding
standard deviation of the log of the data. The quantity t 0.95;43 ≈ 1.6811 is the 95% variate
(i.e., the inverse of the cumulative distribution function) of the Student’s-t distribution with
44-1 degrees of freedom. In each case, the maximum equivalent number of records N is
sought such that the NSP response remains within the above limits.
The results, expressed as the median number of records over all stories and SF ¼ 1, 2 are
shown for each EDP type in Figure 21. Values less than or equal to 7, the minimum require-
ment of modern seismic codes, are judged to be of low quality. Mediocre accuracy is
achieved up to 16 records, while good predictions correspond to higher numbers. Anything
above 30 records is considered to be near-perfect. For the two-story, the results are good, as
expected, for all NSPs. Regarding the four-story, while locally some responses may not be
perfectly captured, all methods achieve good performance for displacements and story drifts.
However, results are worse for story shears and overturning moments; MPA and CMA at
least provide mediocre performance. When moving to the eight-story, only displacements are
consistently estimated at a mediocre or better level; drifts, shears, and moments are estimated
relatively poorly, with the MPA performing best for shears and overturning moments.
(a) (b)
Figure 21. The accuracy in the NSP predictions expressed in terms of the equivalent number
of records needed for NRHA to achieve the same accuracy. For each building and EDP type
the median number of records is calculated over all stories and SF ¼ 1, 2. (a) Four-story,
(b) eight-story.
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 791
CONCLUSIONS
A comparison between results obtained using various NSP methods and nonlinear
response history analysis has been presented. It is shown that the accuracy of NSP methods
depends on the properties of the building, the EDP of interest, and the level of inelastic
demand. Standard, first mode–based, and more elaborate NSPs were included in the com-
parison. The buildings considered form a simple basic test for the static pushover methods.
For such low- and mid-rise structures, all NSPs were expected to perform well, especially in
the near post-nominal-yield region. However, it is concluded that no simple method exists
that is consistently reliable and generally applicable to multistory buildings; therefore,
NRHA remains the most viable approach for detailed seismic performance evaluation.
792 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
NSPs can be used to provide insight into a building’s characteristics and potential vulner-
abilities, helping the engineer to understand how the system will respond from a global
perspective, and remain useful for preliminary design to limit displacement demands in
performance-based earthquake engineering. Moreover, engineers must always have in
mind that any analysis results may vary from the “exact” due to the large uncertainty inherent
in the problem and the limitations of their numerical models and software. All in all, while
important conclusions can be derived from NSP results, appropriate care is advised in all
applications of NSP methods when used for the quantitative, rather than the qualitative, esti-
mation of a structure’s seismic performance. Such application is being considered for the
2013 updates to ASCE 31 and 41.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper relies, in part, on results obtained under Task Order 6 of the NEHRP Con-
sultants Joint Venture (a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and Consortium of
Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering), under Contract SB134107CQ0019,
Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research, issued by the National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the orga-
nizations represented above. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Dr. Curt Haselton for
providing the OpenSees input files of the RC moment frames.
REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2003. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,
ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 31-03, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineer-
ing Institute, Reston, VA.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2007. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
Antoniou, S., and Pinho, R., 2004. Development and verification of a displacement-based adap-
tive pushover procedure, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8, 643–661.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Build-
ings, ATC 40 Report, Volumes 1 and 2, Redwood City, CA.
Aschheim, M., Tjhin, T., Comartin, C., Hamburger, R., and Inel, M. 2007. The scaled nonlinear
dynamic response, Engineering Structures 29, 1422–1441.
Aschheim, M. A., Black, E. F., and Cuesta, I., 2002. Theory of principal components analysis and
applications to multistory frame buildings responding to seismic excitation, Engineering
Structures 24, 1091–1103.
Aydınoglu, M. N., 2003. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic
spectral displacements for multi-mode performance evaluation, Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 1, 3–36.
Benjamin, J., and Cornell, C. A., 1970. Probability, Statistics, and Decisions for Civil Engineers,
McGraw Hill, New York, 640 pp.
APPLICATION OF NSPs FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RCMF BUILDINGS 793
Bhatt, C., and Bento, R., 2012. Comparison of nonlinear static methods for the seismic assess-
ment of plan irregular frame buildings with non seismic details, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 16, 15–39.
Causevic, M., and Mitrovic, S., 2011. Comparison between non-linear dynamic and static seismic
analysis of structures according to European and U.S. provision, Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 9, 467–489.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seis-
mic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31, 561–582.
Diotallevi, P. P., Landis, L., and Pollio, B., 2008. Evaluation of conventional and advanced push-
over procedures for regular and irregular RC frames, Proceeding of the 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering Innovation Practice and Safety, Beijing, China.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings,
Brussels, Belgium.
Fajfar, P., 1999. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28, 979–993.
Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M., 1988. N2—A method for non-linear seismic analysis of
regular buildings, Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
5, 111–116.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2005. Improvement of Nonlinear Static
Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA 440 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Coun-
cil for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009a. Quantification of Seismic Perfor-
mance Factors, FEMA P-695 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for
the Federal emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009b. NEHRP Recommended Seismic
Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-750, Building Seismic Safety
Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Fragiadakis, M., Ioannidou, D., and Papadrakakis, M., 2007. Assessment of nonlinear static ana-
lysis procedures in the framework of performance-based design, in 8th National Congress on
Mechanics (HSTAM2007), 12–17 June 2007, Patras, Greece.
Goel, R. K, and Chopra, A. K., 2005. Extension of modal pushover analysis to compute member
forces, Earthquake Spectra 21, 125–139.
Goel, R. K., 2005. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover procedures using strong-motion
records of buildings, Earthquake Spectra 21, 653–684.
Haselton, C., and Deierlein, G., 2007. Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced
Concrete Moment Frame Buildings, Report No. 156, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.
Haselton, C. B., Liel, A. B., Deierlein, G. G., Dean, B. S., and Chou, J. H., 2011. Seismic collapse
safety of reinforced concrete buildings: I. Assessment of ductile moment frames, Journal of
Structural Engineering 137, 481–492.
Hernández-Montes, E., Kwon, O-.S., and Aschheim, M., 2004. An energy-based formulation for
first- and multiple-mode nonlinear static (pushover) analyses, Journal of Earthquake Engi-
neering 8, 69–88.
International Code Council, 2002. 2003 International Building Code (IBC), International Code
Council, Country Club Hills, IL.
794 FRAGIADAKIS ET AL.
Isaković, T., and Fischinger, M. 2011. Applicability of pushover methods to the seismic analyses
of an rc bridge, experimentally tested on three shake tables, Journal of Earthquake Engineer-
ing 15, 303–320.
Kalkan, E., and Kunnath, S. K., 2007. Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seis-
mic evaluation of buildings, Engineering Structures 29, 305–316.
Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of
seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures 20, 452–464.
Kreslin, M., and Fajfar, P., 2011. The extended N2 method taking into account higher-mode
effects in elevation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 40, 1571–1589.
Kunnath, S. K., and Erduran, E., 2008. Pushover procedures for seismic assessment of buildings:
Issues, limitations and future needs, nonlinear static methods for design/assessment of 3-D
structures, R. Bento and R. Pinho (Eds.), 5-6 May 2008, Lisbon, Portugal.
Kunnath, S. K., 2004. Identification of modal combinations for nonlinear static analysis of build-
ing structures, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 19, 246–259.
Lagaros, N. D., and Fragiadakis, M., 2011. Evaluation of static pushover methods for perfor-
mance based seismic design, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31, 77–90.
Lignos, D. G., and Krawinkler, H., 2009. Sideways Collapse of Deteriorating Structural Systems
under Seismic Excitations, Rept. No. TR 172, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Stanford University.
McKenna, F., and Fenves, G. L., 2001. The OpenSees Command Language Manual (1.2. edn).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2010. ATC-76-6: Applicability of Non-
linear Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Modeling for Design, Report No. NIST GCR 10-917-9,
prepared for the National Institute of Standards and Technology by the NEHRP Consultants
Joint Venture, Gaithersburg, MD.
Önem, G., 2008. Evaluation of Practice-Oriented Nonlinear Analysis Methods for Seismic
Performance Assessment, Ph.D. Thesis, Bogazici University, Instanbul, Turkey.
Pinho, R., Casarotti, C., and Antoniou, S., 2007. A comparison of single-run pushover analysis
techniques for seismic assessment of bridges, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 36, 1347–1362.
Pinho, R., Monteiro, R., Casarotti, C., and Delgado, R., 2009. Assessment of continuous span
bridges through nonlinear static procedures, Earthquake Spectra 25, 143–159.
Poursha, M., Khoshnoudian, F., and Moghadam, A. S., 2009. A consecutive modal pushover
procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings, Engineering Structures 31,
591–599.
(Received 15 November 2011; accepted 7 November 2012)