Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Modal Pushover Analysis of SAC Buildings
Modal Pushover Analysis of SAC Buildings
Introduction
The nonlinear static procedure (NSP) or pushover
analysis in FEMA-273 [FEMA, 1997] has become a
standard procedure in current structural engineering
practice. Seismic demands are computed by nonlinear
static analysis of the structure, which is subjected to
monotonically increasing lateral forces with an invariant
height-wise distribution until a target displacement is
reached. None of the current invariant force distributions
can account for the contribution of higher modes
higher than the fundamental modeto the response or
for redistribution of inertial forces because of structural
yielding. To overcome these limitations several
researchers have proposed adaptive force distributions
that follow more closely the time-variant distributions of
inertia forces (Fajfar and Fischinger, 1988; Bracci et al.,
1997; Gupta and Kunnath, 2000). Others have tried to
address this issue by considering more than the
fundamental vibration mode in standard pushover
analysis (Paret et al., 1996; Sasaki et al, 1998, Gupta and
Kunnath, 2000; Kunnath and Gupta, 2000; Matsumori et
al., 2000).
curves for the first two modes in Fig. 3. For the first
mode, gravity loads, including those present on the
interior (gravity) frames, were applied prior to the
pushover analysis. The resulting P-delta effects lead
to negative post-yielding stiffness of the pushover
curve (Fig. 3a). The gravity loads were not included
in the higher mode pushover curves, which generally
do not exhibit negative post-yielding stiffness (Fig.
3b).
3. Idealize the pushover curve as a bilinear curve (Fig.
4). If the pushover curve exhibits negative postyielding stiffness, idealize the pushover curve as
elastic-perfectly-plastic.
4. Convert the idealized pushover curve to the forcedisplacement, Fsn Ln - Dn , relation (Fig. 4b) for
the nth -mode inelastic SDF system by utilizing
Fsny
Ln
Vbny
M n*
Dny =
urny
nf rn
9
T = 0.49 sec
3
Floor
6
T = 2.27 sec
2.61
1.51
2.33
2.04
1.75
1.44
1.12
0.796
3.05
0.39
0.0272 2.72
1.13
2.93
1.8
1.38
2.1
0.728
2.03
2.37
1.67
0.487
2.94
1.1
s*
2.31
s*
s*
3
2
urn = Gnf rn Dn
1
Ground
1.5
3.05
T = 0.85 sec
2
3.05
0.5
0
0.5
Mode Shape Component
1.5
bn
1/ 2
F
I
2
r G rn J
Hn K
Idealized
V
bny
nkn
1
Actual
kn
1
(a) "Mode" 1 Pushover Curve
8000
u
rn
rny
6000
F
sn
/L
(b) F
sn
/ L D Relationship
n
4000
*
Vbny / Mn
2000
2
n n
0
0
50
100
150
Roof Displacement (cm)
200
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
Roof Displacement (cm)
25
Fig. 3: Modal pushover curves for the 9story SAC-Los Angeles Building
dependent
on
the
Floor
LA
SE
BO
6
5
4
3
2
1
Ground
0
2
3
Story Drift (%)
16
LA
SE
BO
12
Floor
structural
Ground
0
2
3
Story Drifts (%)
2. Equivalent
lateral
force
(ELF)
distribution:
Acknowledgments
This research investigation is funded by the National
Science Foundation under Grant CMS-9812531, a part
of the U.S. Japan Cooperative Research in Urban
Earthquake Disaster Mitigation. This financial support is
gratefully acknowledged. Our research has benefited
from discussions with Helmut Krawinkler of Stanford
University, and Chris Poland, Jon Heintz, and Kent Yu
of Degenkolb Engineers, Inc.
References
BOCA, 1993, National Building Code, 12th Edition,
Building
Officials
and
Code
Administration
International Inc., Country Club Hills, Illinois.
9
8
16
7
NLRHA
MPA
1 "Mode"
2 "Modes"
3 "Modes"
4
3
2
12
NLRHA
MPA
1 "Mode"
3 "Modes"
5 "Modes"
Floor
Floor
1
Ground
0
0.5
1
1.5
Story Drift (%)
(c) Seattle 9Story Building
Ground
0
0.5
1
1.5
Story Drifts (%)
(d) Seattle 20Story Building
20
9
8
16
12
NLRHA
NLRHA
MPA
1 "Mode"
2 "Modes"
3 "Modes"
MPA
1 "Mode"
3 "Modes"
5 "Modes"
Floor
Floor
4
3
2
1
Ground
0
2
3
Story Drift (%)
Ground
0
2
3
Story Drifts (%)
9
8
7
16
NLRHA
12
MPA
1 "Mode"
3 "Modes"
5 "Modes"
5
NLRHA
MPA
1 "Mode"
2 "Modes"
3 "Modes"
3
2
1
Ground
0
Floor
Floor
2
3
Story Drift (%)
Ground
0
2
3
Story Drifts (%)
20
8
6
5
Floor
Floor
16
LERSA
MPA 3 "Modes"
4
3
2
LERSA
MPA 5 "Modes"
12
8
4
1
Ground
0
0.25
100 75
0.5 0.75
1
1.25 1.5 1.75
Ratio of MPA or RSA to RHA
50
25
0
25
Error (%)
50
75
Ground
0
100
100 75
0.25
0.5 0.75
1
1.25 1.5 1.75
Ratio of MPA or RSA to RHA
50
25
0
25
Error (%)
50
75
2
100
20
8
6
5
Floor
Floor
16
LERSA
MPA 3 "Modes"
4
3
2
LERSA
MPA 5 "Modes"
12
8
4
1
Ground
0
0.25
100 75
0.5 0.75
1
1.25 1.5 1.75
Ratio of MPA or RSA to RHA
50
25
0
25
Error (%)
50
75
Ground
0
100
100 75
0.25
0.5 0.75
1
1.25 1.5 1.75
Ratio of MPA or RSA to RHA
50
25
0
25
Error (%)
50
75
2
100
20
8
6
5
Floor
Floor
16
LERSA
MPA 3 "Modes"
4
3
2
12
LERSA
MPA 5 "Modes"
8
4
1
Ground
0
0.25
100 75
0.5 0.75
1
1.25 1.5 1.75
Ratio of MPA or RSA to RHA
50
25
0
25
Error (%)
50
75
2
100
Ground
0
0.25
100 75
0.5 0.75
1
1.25 1.5 1.75
Ratio of MPA or RSA to RHA
50
25
0
25
Error (%)
50
75
2
100
Fig. 7: Errors in the median story drift demands estimated by (1) MPA procedure
for inelastic systems, and (2) RSA procedure for elastic systems
9
8
16
7
NLRHA
MPA, 3 "Modes"
FEMA
Uniform
ELF
SRSS
4
3
2
NLRHA
MPA, 5 "Modes"
12
Floor
Floor
FEMA
Uniform
ELF
SRSS
1
Ground
0
0.5
1
Story Drift (%)
1.5
Ground
0
0.5
1
Story Drift (%)
1.5
9
8
16
7
NLRHA
MPA, 3 "Modes"
FEMA
Uniform
ELF
SRSS
4
3
2
NLRHA
MPA, 5 "Modes"
12
Floor
Floor
FEMA
Uniform
ELF
SRSS
1
Ground
0
3
4
Story Drift (%)
Ground
0
3
4
Story Drift (%)
9
8
NLRHA
MPA, 3 "Modes"
FEMA
Uniform
ELF
SRSS
12
Floor
NLRHA
MPA, 5 "Modes"
16
FEMA
Uniform
ELF
SRSS
Floor
3
2
1
Ground
0
4
Story Drift (%)
Ground
0
4
Story Drift (%)