511 FTP PDF

ON THE APPLICABILITY OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF MEDIUM- AND

HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS
KAI HUANG AND J. S. KUANG*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
SUMMARY
The assumption that the dynamic performance of structures is mainly determined from the corresponding single-
degree-of-freedom system in pushover analysis is generally valid for low-rise structures, where the structural
behaviour is dominated by the rst vibration mode. However, higher modes of medium- and high-rise structures
will have signicant effect on the dynamic characteristics. In this paper, the applicability of pushover analysis
for seismic evaluation of medium-to-high-rise shear-wall structures is investigated. The displacements and inter-
nal forces of shear wall structures with different heights are determined by nonlinear response history analysis,
where the shear walls are considered as multi-degree-of-freedom systems and modelled by bre elements. The
results of the analysis are compared with those from the pushover procedure. It is shown that pushover analysis
generally underestimates inter-storey drifts and rotations, in particular those at upper storeys of buildings, and
overestimates the peak roof displacement at inelastic deformation stage. It is shown that neglecting higher mode
effects in the analysis will signicantly underestimate the shear force and overturning moment. It is suggested
that pushover analysis may not be suitable for analysing high-rise shear-wall or wall-frame structures. New
procedures of seismic evaluation for shear-wall and wall-frame structures based on nonlinear response history
analysis should be developed. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the recent 79 M
w
-magnitude earthquake in Sichuan, China, many public buildings, including
schools and hospitals, collapsed and were seriously damaged. How to evaluate and retrot these build-
ings, in particular medium-rise and high-rise buildings, so that they can resist possible earthquake
attacks in the future, is an urgent need in the 512 Sichuan earthquake-stricken regions. Several inelas-
tic analysis procedures have been developed, where the most common one is pushover analysis, which
has been introduced to the framework of the performance-based seismic engineering and implemented
into both Applied Technology Council-40 (ATC, 1996) and Federal Emergency Management Agency-
356 (FEMA, 2000) in the USA for seismic evaluation of concrete buildings. One of the assumptions
in pushover analysis is that the performance of structures is mainly determined from the correspond-
ing single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system. This assumption is generally valid for low-rise struc-
tures, where the structural behaviour is mainly dominated by the rst vibration mode. However, higher
vibration modes of a medium- or high-rise structure will have signicant effect on the dynamic
characteristics.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
* Correspondence to: J. S. Kuang, Department of Civil Engineering, HKUST, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail:
cejkuang@ust.hk
THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 573588 (2010)
Published online 2 April 2009 in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.511
574 K. HUANG AND J. S. KUANG
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 573588 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
The applicability of pushover analysis for seismic evaluation of medium- to high-rise shear-wall
buildings is investigated. In this study, the displacements and internal forces of shear-wall structures
with different structural heights are rst determined by nonlinear response history analysis (RHA),
where the shear walls are considered as multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems and modelled by
bre elements. The results of RHA are then compared with those from the pushover procedure. The
comparisons include two parts. In the rst part, the response quantities of the structures predicted by
the two methods are compared under the condition that the designate peak roof drift is equal to the
same predetermined drifts obtained from RHA and pushover analysis, while in the second part,
the peak roof drifts determined based on an MDOF system and the equivalent SDOF system are
compared.
2. STRUCTURES AND GROUND MOTIONS
Three shear-wall structures adopted in this investigation are 12-, 16- and 20-storey buildings, which
are all modied from the eight-storey shear-wall building used in the document FEMA-440/ATC-55
(FEMA, 2005). The original structure is modied in the following ways: (a) Node mass is changed
so that the fundamental periods of the modied structures are equal to those predicted by the empiri-
cal formula in Structural Engineers Association of California-96 (SEAOC, 1996)
T A H
c
( ) 0 1
1 2 3 4
(1)
where H is the building height in feet; A
c
is the combined effective area of the shear walls,
A A D H
c i i
i
NW
+( )
1
]
0 2
2
1
(2)
in which A
i
is the horizontal cross-sectional area of the ith shear wall; D
i
is the dimension in the
direction under consideration of the ith shear wall at the rst storey of the structure; and NW is
the total number of shear walls. (b) The gravity loads applied to the original structure are kept
the same to the new structures. Gravity loading induces compression in the concrete and steel
bbers of the model, causing the wall to have an initial stiffness approximately equal to the gross
section stiffness.
The shear walls are modelled using bre elements in the FEM software OpenSees (Mazzoni et al.,
2006). Figure 1 shows the OpenSees modelling of the 20-storey shear-wall structure, in which the
inelastic material properties of concrete and steel have been modelled. It is assumed that the walls
would have sufcient shear strength and that only elastic shear deformations are needed to be
represented.
From a preliminary pushover analysis of the three shear-wall structures, it is seen from their
capacity curves shown in Figure 2 that the yielding of all the structures will occur when the roof-drift
ratio, which is dened as a ratio of the top drift to the total height of the structure,
top
/H, reaches
about 05%. In the studies, three top drift levels for the structures with the roof-drift ratios of
02%, 1% and 2% are considered; thus, both elastic and inelastic performances of the structures
can be shown in the analysis. Whereas the roof-drift ratios equal to 1% and 2% can be considered
as the drift levels corresponding to the nominal life safety and collapse prevention performance
limits (FEMA, 2005).
In the analyses, 10 ground motions are selected from Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research
(PEER) Center strong motion database (PEER Center, 2000). The peak ground accelerations range
APPLICABILITY OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS 575
DOI: 10.1002/tal
from 028 g to 041 g, and the peak ground displacements range from 10 cm to 145 cm. The detailed
information of the 10 ground motions is given in Table 1.
The selected ground motions are scaled so that the peak roof drifts are to be equal to the predeter-
mined target values. There are a total of nine sets of scaled factors for these three structures with
different drift levels. The scaled ground motions are used in the investigations on the MDOF effects
and the estimate of roof drift by the SDOF system.
2nd
Basement
1st
22
2
1
1
1
2
Concrete and Steel Fibers
Roof
20th
19th
21
20
19
1
9
1
8
2
0
1
1
Node Number
Element Number
Node
Element
Figure 1. OpenSees modelling of RC shear walls
DOI: 10.1002/tal
0 20 40 60 80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
(
k
i
p
)
Yield drift =5.25 inch
( Drift ratio = 0.401% )
Top storey drift (inch)
(a)
0 20 40 60 80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
(
k
i
p
)
(b)
0 20 40 60 80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
(
k
i
p
)
(c)
Figure 2. Capacity curves of the shear-wall structures: (a) 12-storey shear-wall structure; (b) 16-storey shear-
wall structure; (c) 20-storey shear-wall structure
DOI: 10.1002/tal
3. STRUCTURAL RESPONSES
The structural responses determined from the nonlinear RHA may be considered as exact responses
for comparison purposes. The exact responses have in fact reected the contribution from MDOF
effects, while the pushover analysis is based on a SDOF system. Thus, when the roof displacements
obtained from RHA and pushover analysis are equal to the predetermined drift, the difference between
the response quantities obtained from the two methods is primarily attributable to the presence of
MDOF effects.
3.1 Storey displacement and internal forces
When conducting the pushover procedure that is presented in ATC-40, the recommended lateral force
pattern, which is proportional to the product of elastic rst mode amplitude and oor mass, is applied
to the structures. The shear-wall structures are all pushed to a predetermined roof-drift level, and the
obtained storey displacements and internal forces are compared with the results from the nonlinear
time-history analysis. The exact responses of the structures under ground motion is determined by
nonlinear RHA using the computer program OpenSees, where a Rayleigh damping ratio of 2% is
applied to the rst- and second-mode periods corresponding to the gross-section stiffness.
The response quantities determined by pushover analysis and RHA, which include the maximum,
minimum, mean and the mean plus and minus one standard deviation values of the dynamic response
quantities at each storey, are plotted in Figures 35. By comparing two sets of results from pushover
procedure and RHA, the ndings can be summarized as follows.
(1) Pushover analysis provides reliable estimates of the maximum oor displacement and inter-storey
drift in the elastic range. However, the estimate becomes inaccurate when the structures have
inelastic performance. Pushover analysis underestimates the inter-storey drift, particularly at the
upper storeys of the buildings. This is mainly due to the yielding of some cross sections at
the upper storeys under the intensive ground motion, while this yielding behaviour cannot be
identied by pushover analysis as the higher mode contribution has been neglected.
(2) For the 12-storey shear-wall structure, pushover analysis can predict overturning moments well
in the lower part of the structure, and slightly underestimates those in the upper part. As the higher
model effect becomes signicant with the increase in the height of a structure, it is shown that
Table 1. Ground motions
No. Earthquake Date Station location (number) PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)
1 Northridge 1994/01/17 Canyon CountryW Lost Cany
(90057)
041 43 1175
2 Northridge 1994/01/17 PardeeSCE 0406 436 1209
3 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20 TCU079 0393 488 1378
4 Westmorland 1981/04/26 Westmorland Fire Station (5169) 0368 487 1061
5 Imperial Valley 1979/10/15 Aeropuerto Mexicali (6616) 0327 428 101
6 Loma Prieta 1989/10/18 GilroyHistoric Bldg. (57476) 0284 42 111
7 Landers 1992/06/28 Joshua Tree (22170) 0284 432 1451
8 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20 CHY035 0252 456 1203
9 Imperial Valley 1979/10/15 Agrarias (6618) 0221 424 117
10 Loma Prieta 1989/10/18 Alameda Naval Air Stn Hanger 23 0209 425 1407
PGA, peak ground acceleration; PGV, peak ground velocity; PGD, peak ground displacement.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Floor displacement (inch)
(a) (b) (c)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Floor displacement (inch)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Inter-storey drift (inch)
s
t
o
r
e
y

Min
SD SD
Mean
Max Pushover Analysis RHA
Figure 3. Comparison of oor displacements and inter-storey drifts of the 20-storey shear-wall structure
determined by pushover analysis and RHA. (a) at 1% drift level; (b) at 2% drift level; (c) at 2% drift level
for the 16- and 20-storey buildings, pushover analysis underestimates the overturning moments
with either elastic or inelastic deformations.
(3) Pushover analysis is relatively poor for predicting shear forces at both elastic and inelastic per-
formance stages. The contribution of higher vibration modes has signicant effect on the shear
forces. Neglecting the higher mode effect in the evaluation procedure may lead to signicant
underestimation of shear forces of the structure.
3.2 Peak roof displacement
The preceding analysis focuses on the investigation of the accuracy of pushover analysis due to MDOF
effects when the structures are subjected to a predetermined drift level. The underlying assumption in
the previous analysis is that accurate estimate of the peak roof displacement can be obtained using a
model of an equivalent SDOF system. However, this assumption may not always be correct. It is
shown (Chopra et al., 2003) that the equivalent SDOF models is to potentially overestimate the peak
roof displacements of generic frame structures subjected to large ductility demand, but underestimate
for those with small ductility demand.
Based on the capacity curves shown in Figure 2, the structure can be simplied to an equivalent
SDOF system, and seismic performance can then be estimated. According to ATC-40, the spectral
displacement at yielding of the equivalent SDOF system is determined by
S
d y
y roof
roof
,
,
1 1
(3)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
where
y,roof
is the roof displacement at yield,
1
is the rst-mode participation factor and f
1
roof
is
amplitude of the rst mode at the roof. The spectral acceleration at yielding of the equivalent SDOF
system is given by
S
V
W
g
a y
y base
,
,
1
(4)
where

1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
( )
1
]
1
1
]
1
( )
1
]
1

w g
w g w g
i i
i
N
i
i
N
i i
i
N
(5)
where V
y,base
is the base shear at yield, g is the gravity acceleration, W is the weight of the MDOF
system, a
1
is the modal mass coefcient, w
i
/g is mass assigned to level i, f
i1
is the amplitude of the
rst mode at level i and N is the uppermost level in the main portion of the structure. Based on the
spectral displacement and spectral acceleration at yield, an equivalent SDOF system representing
the shear-wall structure is developed using a bilinear hysteretic model.
Both the equivalent SDOF systems and the detailed MDOF systems of the structures are subjected
to the scaled ground motions. Nonlinear RHAs are then conducted. The ratio of the peak roof displace-
0 2 4
2
(a) (b) (c)
4
6
8
10
12
S
t
o
r
e
y
Moment (in-kip)
0 1 2 3
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
S
t
o
r
e
y
Moment (in-kip)
0 2 4
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
S
t
o
r
e
y
Moment (in-kip)
Min
SD SD
Mean
Max Pushover Analysis RHA
Figure 4. Comparison of overturning moments at 2% drift level determined by pushover analysis and RHA.
(a) 12-storey structure; (b) 16-storey structure; (c) 20-storey structure
DOI: 10.1002/tal
ment estimated by the equivalent SDOF system to that obtained from the nonlinear RHA of the MDOF
system is calculated for each ground motion record. Statistical analysis results of this ratio are pre-
sented in Figure 6.
For a roof-drift level of 02%, the mean displacement ratios are between 080 and 085 for all three
structures. The underestimation of the roof drift in equivalent SDOF systems is due to the neglect of
higher vibration modes. However, the equivalent SDOF systems slightly overestimate the peak roof
displacement in the roof drift by 2%. By comparing with the results of the nine-storey steel-frame
structures given in FEMA-440 (FEMA. 2005), it can be seen that the equivalent SDOF system may
provide better estimate of the roof displacement of shear-wall structures than that of frame structures
with inelastic deformation. The reason is mainly due to the different deformation shapes of shear-wall
structures and frame structures.
4. CONTINUUM MODEL
4.1 Elastic continuum model
To understand the effect of higher vibration modes on the seismic behaviour of shear-wall structures,
the continuum model is used on the analysis. In general, the shear-wall structure can be simplied as
a exural cantilever, where the shear deformation is neglected. The governing equation of exural
cantilever with a xed base subjected to horizontal ground excitation is given by
Shear force (kip)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Shear force (kip)
S
t
o
r
e
y

Min
SD SD
Mean
Max Pushover Analysis
(a) (b)
RHA
Figure 5. Comparison of shear forces determined by pushover analysis and RHA for the 20-storey shear-wall
structure. (a) at 02% drift level; (b) at 2% drift level
DOI: 10.1002/tal

m x
u x t
t
c x
u x t
t H x
EI x
u
x
m ( )
( )
+ ( )
( )
( )

1
]
1

2
2 4
2
2
2
2
1 , ,
xx
u t
t
g
( )
( )
2
2
(6)
where m(x) is the mass per unit length, u(x,t) is the relative displacement of cantilever at the height
ratio x, which is a ratio of the structural height z to the total height of the building H, z/H, at time t,
H is the total height of the building, c(x) is the damping coefcient per unit length, u
g
(t) is the ground
displacement, and EI(x) is exural rigidity along the structural height.
Elastic response of the structure can be computed from modal analysis. For a continuous exural
cantilever, the displacement u(x,t) can be calculated as a linear combination of modal responses
u x t u x t
i
i
, , ( ) ( )
1
(7)
where u
i
(x,t) is the contribution of the ith mode to the response. When classical damping is assumed
u x t x D t
i i i i
, ( ) ( ) ( ) (8)
where
i
is the modal participation factor of the ith mode of vibration, f
i
(x) is the amplitude of the
ith mode shape of vibration and D
i
(t) is the deformation response of a SDOF system corresponding
to the ith model to the ground motion, whose response is computed with the following equation of
motion (Miranda and Taghavi, 2005)

d D t
dt
dD t
dt
D t
d u t
dt
i
i i
i
i i
g
2
2
2
2
2
2
( )
+
( )
+ ( )
( )

(9)
For a exural cantilever with uniformly distributed mass, the modal participation factor of the ith
mode of vibration is given by
Drift level
(a) (b) (c)
D
E
S
D
O
F
/
D
M
D
O
F
Drift level
Drift level
Min
SD SD
Mean
Max
Figure 6. Statistical distribution of roof-displacement ratios. (a) 12-storey structure; (b) 16-storey structure;
(c) 20-storey structure
DOI: 10.1002/tal

i
i
i
x
x
( )
( )
dx
dx
0
1
2
0
1
(10)
Since the response of the SDOF system can be obtained from spectrum analyses, the maximum
contribution of the ith mode can be computed by
u x x S T
i i i d i
( ) ( ) ( )
,max
(11)
where S
d
(T
i
) is the value of the displacement response spectrum corresponding to the ith mode of
vibration. The overall displacement can then be computed by the square-root-of-sum-of-squares
u x u x
i
i
N
max ,max
( ) ( )
1
]
1
2
1
1 2
(12)
Similarly, the seismic-equivalent static force associated with the ith mode is given by
F x m x S T
i i i a i
( ) ( ) ( ) (13)
where S
a
(T
i
) is the value of the displacement response spectrum corresponding to the ith mode of
vibration. Therefore, the shear force in the non-dimensional height ratio x can be determined by
V x V x
i
i
N
( ) ( )
1
]
1
2
1
1 2
(14)
where

V x F x
i i
x
( ) ( )
dx
1
(15)
The bending moment of the shear wall along the structural height is determined by
M x M x
i
i
N
( ) ( )
1
]
1
2
1
1 2
(16)
M x H F x x
i i
x
( ) ( ) ( )
1
1
dx (17)
4.2 Equivalent linearization technique
For structures with nonlinear behaviour in the intensive ground motion, the modal analysis method
for elastic structures is no longer valid. To understand the nonlinear behaviour of a shear wall where
a plastic hinge is formed at the bottom of the wall, the equivalent linearization techniques is used. As
shown in Figure 7(a), the basic assumption for equivalent linearization techniques is that the maximum
inelastic deformation of a nonlinear structure member can be approximated from the maximum defor-
mation of a linear elastic substitute member that has a stiffness given by (Shibata and Sozen, 1976)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
EI
EI
eq
a
( )
( )
(18)
where (EI)
eq
is the equivalent exural stiffness for the substitute member, (EI)
a
is the cracked-section
exural stiffness and m is the damage ratio, which is comparable to but not exactly the same as duc-
tility based on the ratio of maximum to yield rotation. Quantitatively, damage and ductility ratios are
identical only for elastoplastic response. It is assumed that the plastic zone is formed from the bottom
to the height of lH under the horizontal ground motion, and the equivalent exural stiffness is uniform
in the plastic zone. Therefore, as shown in Figure 7(b), the exural stiffness along the height of the
exural cantilever is given by
EI x
EI
x
EI x
a
a
( )

<

1
(19)
where l is the relative plastic zone height. Moreover, the damping ratio for the equivalent linearization
element is given by (Shibata and Sozen, 1976)

eff

_
,
1
]
1
+ 0 2 1
1
0 02
1 2
(20)
Because the lateral stiffness along the height of the cantilever has two different values, a closed-
form solution for mode shape is difcult to be derived. Therefore, in order to study the inuence of
Curvatur
(a) (b)
e
M
c
y
c
target
M
y
( )
( )
a
eq
EI
EI
u
: cracked section
a
EI
x
( )
g
u t
:
H
H
(
1
-
)
H
E
I
e
q
E
I
a
Figure 7. Flexural cantilever model for shear-wall structures. (a) equivalent exural stiffness for plastic zone;
(b) stiffness distribution
DOI: 10.1002/tal
plastic zone to the dynamic characteristic of the exural cantilever, mode shapes, periods and modal
participation factors are calculated using nite element analysis. For this purpose, the model was
discretized into 100 equal-length elements. For the mass matrix, a uniformly distributed lumped-mass
approximation is used.
It is assumed that the length of plastic zone is 20% of the total structure height. The product of the
modal participation factor and model shape for the rst three vibration modes are shown in Figure 8,
where the damage ratios are 2, 4 and 8. It is seen that the plastic zone existing in the bottom of the
shear wall has a negligible effect on the product of the modal participation factor and model shape.
Considering Equation (10), it can be thought that the difference between the ith modal deformation
contribution of shear wall with and without yielding is mainly determined by the value of spectral
displacement.
The periods of vibration modes will shift when the bottom of the shear wall yields. The period
ratios are dened as the ratio of vibration mode period of the structure with plastic zone to the cor-
responding period of elastic structure without plastic zone. The relation between period ratios and
damage ratios for the rst three vibration modes are shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that the period
-1 0 1 -1 0 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
1
f
1

2
f
2

3
f
3
x
Elastic
=2
=4
=8
=0.2
Figure 8. Effect of damage ratio on product of mode shape and modal participation factor of exural
cantilever ( 02)
0
1
2
1 3 5 7
Damage ratio
P
e
r
i
o
d

r
a
t
i
o
T1
T2
T3
Figure 9. Effect of damage ratio on period ratio of vibration mode ( 02)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
ratio of the rst mode is increasing, apparently with the increase in the damage ratio, whereas the
period ratios for the second and third modes do not increase signicantly.
4.3 MDOF effect
To understand the MDOF effect on the nonlinear behaviour of shear-wall structures, the deformation
and internal force are calculated by only the rst mode and by the rst three modes, respectively,
according to the modal analysis method. The design spectrum of Uniform Building Code (International
Conference of Building Ofcials, 1997) shown in Figure 10, where the seismic zone is chosen to be
2A and the soil prole type is chosen to be S
c
. The reduced acceleration spectrum with damping ratio
of 13% is also computed according to ATC-40, which is used for the response calculation of the
equivalent linearization system. For a exural cantilever with a fundamental period of 23 s, the defor-
mation, shear force and overturning moment are computed by the rst mode and the rst three modes,
respectively, and the results are compared in Figures 1113.
Figure 11 shows the deformation shapes of the exural cantilever when the cantilever remains elastic
and that the damage ratio m is equal to 8. It can be seen that the deformation shapes computed only
by the rst mode agree well with that computed by the rst three modes, showing that the higher
vibration modes have a negligible effect on the exural cantilevers deformation. Therefore, although
pushover analysis is based on an equivalent SDOF system, it can generally predict the storey displace-
ment well, as shown in Figure 3(a).
By comparing the magnitudes of deformation, it is seen that the cantilever with the plastic zone at
the bottom has a much larger deformation than the cantilever that remains elastic. The main reason is
that the fundamental period of the cantilever becomes much longer with the formation of plastic zone,
as shown in Figure 9.
Considering Equation (10) and the little change in product of the participation factor and mode
shape, it can be thought that the deformation of the cantilever will increase with the increase in the
spectral displacement corresponding to the fundamental period. However, because the period for the
second and third vibration modes do not increase signicantly as shown in Figure 9, their contribution
to the cantilevers deformation will be insignicant. Moreover, by comparing with the contribution
increment of the rst model, it is seen that the MDOF effect on the deection of the cantilever is
reduced when the bottom of the structure yields.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (Sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
=5%
=13%
Figure 10. UBC-97 acceleration design spectrum for zone 2A
DOI: 10.1002/tal
0
(a) (b)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4
u(m)
x
elastic
3 modes
1st mode
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.4 0.8
u(m)
x
3 modes
1st mode
m=8
Figure 11. Deformation shape of exural cantilever. (a) elastic deformation; (b) plastic deformation (m 8)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200
(a) (b)
F/m (m/s
2
)
x
elastic
3 modes
1st mode
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200
F/m (m/s
2
)
x
3 modes
1st mode
=8
Figure 12. Shear force of exural cantilever. (a) cantilever is elastic; (b) cantilever is plastic (m 8)
0
0.2
(a) (b)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 30 60
M/(mH) (m/s
2
)
x
elastic
3 modes
1st mode
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 30 60
M/(mH) (m/s
2
)
x
m=8
3 modes
1st mode
Figure 13. Normalized overturning moment of exural cantilever. (a) cantilever is elastic; (b) cantilever is
plastic (m 8)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 12 shows the normalized shear force of the exural cantilever when the cantilever remains
elastic and the damage ratio m is equal to 8. It can be seen that the shear force computed only by
the rst mode is greatly underestimated. The spectral acceleration corresponding to the second
and third modes is relatively large, comparing with that corresponding to the rst mode. By consider-
ing Equation (13), it is shown that the contribution of the second and third vibration modes to the
seismic-equivalent static force is in the same magnitude order as that of the rst mode. Therefore,
the MDOF effect cannot be neglected in the shear force calculation, as shown in Figure 5. It
is also seen from Figure 12, by comparing the shear force when the cantilever remains elastic with
that when the cantilever has a plastic zone, that the shear force decreases signicantly when the
plastic zone is formed at the bottom of exural cantilever. This is mainly due to the fact that the
spectral acceleration corresponding to the rst mode is greatly reduced as the fundamental period
becomes longer.
Figure 13 shows the normalized overturning moment of the exural cantilever when the cantilever
remains elastic and that the damage factor m is equal to 8. It can be seen that the overturning
moment computed only by the rst mode agrees well with that computed by three modes at the lower
part of the cantilever, while the overturning moments are underestimated at the middle and upper
parts of the cantilever if it is computed only by the rst mode, especially when the plastic zone
is formed at the bottom of the exural cantilever. This may explain the reason why the
pushover analysis underestimates the overturning moment at the upper part of the structure, as shown
in Figure 4.
5. CONCLUSION
Based on the investigation of pushover analysis applied to seismic assessment of medium- and high-
rise shear-wall structures, the following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) Pushover analysis provides reliable estimates of the maximum oor displacement and inter-storey
drift in an elastic range, but underestimates the oor displacement and inter-storey drift in an
inelastic range, particularly at upper storeys of the buildings.
(2) Pushover analysis can generally predict overturning moments well for low-rise shear-wall struc-
tures, but underestimate these moments for medium- and high-rise buildings with elastic or
inelastic deformations.
(3) Pushover analysis is poor for predicting shear forces.
(4) The equivalent SDOF model underestimates the peak roof displacement at the elastic stage
and may overestimate the peak roof displacement at the inelastic stage for shear-wall
structures.
(5) This investigation suggests that pushover analysis may not be suitable for the use of analysing
medium- and high-rise shear-wall structures, as the contributions from the higher vibration modes
to the structural responses cannot be ignored in seismic evaluation procedures. Since the param-
eters of vibration modes of a structure are varied with time in the nonlinear behaviour, the modal
analysis method for the elastic system cannot be applied. Methods based on nonlinear response
history analysis should be developed to facilitate the preliminary seismic evaluation of the
structures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The support of the Hong Kong Research Grant Council under grant No. 614308 is gratefully
acknowledged.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
REFERENCES
ATC. 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings, ATC-40. Applied Technology Council:
Redwood City, CA.
Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanapakdee C. 2003. Statistics of single-degree-of-freedom estimate of displacement
for pushover analysis of buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 129(4): 459469.
FEMA. 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356. Federal
Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC.
FEMA. 2005. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA 440/ATC-55. Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency: Washington, DC.
International Conference of Building Ofcials. 1997. Uniform Building Code, Vol. 2. International Code Council:
Whittier, CA.
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL, et al. 2006. OpenSees Comand Language manual, http://
opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/usermanual [27/02/09].
Miranda E, Taghavi S. 2005. Approximate oor acceleration demands in multistory buildings. I: Formulation.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 131(2): 203211.
PEER Center. 2000. PEER strong motion database, http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/ [27/02/09].
Shibata A, Sozen MA. 1976. Substitute-structure method for seismic design in RC. Journal of Structural Division,
ASCE 102: 118.
SEAOC. 1996. Recommended Lateral Force Requirement and Commentary SEAOC-96. Seismological Commit-
tee, SEAOC: San Francisco.

511 FTP PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

511 FTP PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ON THE APPLICABILITY OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF MEDIUM- AND

You might also like