See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277580039

Practical Modal Pushover Design of one-way asymmetric-plan reinforced

concrete wall buildings for unidirectional ground motion

Article in Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering · March 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s10518-015-9745-y

CITATIONS READS

11 1,107

2 authors:

Philip J. Wilkinson Oren Lavan

Stratagroup Consulting Engineers Ltd Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
6 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 2,190 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip J. Wilkinson on 04 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Practical Modal Pushover Design of one-
way asymmetric-plan reinforced concrete
wall buildings for unidirectional ground
motion

Philip J. Wilkinson & Oren Lavan

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Official Publication of the European
Association for Earthquake Engineering

ISSN 1570-761X

Bull Earthquake Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10518-015-9745-y

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10518-015-9745-y

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Practical Modal Pushover Design of one-way

asymmetric-plan reinforced concrete wall buildings
for unidirectional ground motion

Philip J. Wilkinson1 • Oren Lavan1

Received: 4 July 2014 / Accepted: 9 March 2015

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract This paper presents a new displacement based seismic design method called
Practical Modal Pushover Design (PMPD). The method is applied to multistory one-way
asymmetric-plan RC wall structures. PMPD combines concepts from Direct Displace-
ment-Based Design with an inverse version (formulated herein) of Practical Modal
Pushover Analysis (PMPA). PMPD generates designs which achieve peak deformations
exactly equal to the governing deformation limits when analyzed with PMPA. An al-
ternative method, Modal Pushover Design (MPD), which is, to some extent, an inverse
version of Modal Pushover Analysis, is also discussed. MPD is computationally more
demanding than PMPD, but has improved performance in cases where yielding may
occur due to ‘higher mode’ response. Advantages of PMPD include explicit consid-
eration of nonlinear, torsional and ‘higher mode’ effects. Iteration is limited to the
response spectrum level, so multiple analyses of Multi-Degree of Freedom systems are
not required. Capacity design principles are implemented directly from the start of the
design process. A significant advantage of PMPD is that the engineer can have the same
confidence in the structure’s seismic performance as he has in PMPA’s ability to predict
the structure’s peak seismic responses. Therefore PMPD can be used for the seismic
design of any structure for which PMPA is expected to provide acceptably accurate
predictions of peak seismic responses. The effort required to carry out PMPD is similar to
that required for PMPA. The only additional work consists of specifying a relative
flexural strength distribution and executing a small number of iterations at the Single
Degree of Freedom level.

& Oren Lavan

lavan@cv.technion.ac.il
Philip J. Wilkinson
phil@campus.technion.ac.il
1
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa,
Israel

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Keywords Displacement based seismic design  Irregular wall structures  Modal push
over analysis

Abbreviations
PMPD Practical Modal Pushover Design
DDBD Direct Displacement-Based Design
PMPA Practical Modal Pushover Analysis
MDOF Multi-Degree of Freedom
SDOF Single Degree of Freedom
NRHA Nonlinear Response History Analysis
RC Reinforced concrete
RSA Response spectrum analysis
PI Performance Index

1 Introduction

Earthquakes cause severe damage to societies located in seismic regions, both in terms of
loss of life and destruction of infrastructure and building stock. With growing populations
living in cities and working in central business districts, the importance of seismic hazard
mitigation is increasing. The goal of seismic design is to enable buildings to withstand
earthquakes of given magnitudes, while limiting the damage sustained to specific levels
and minimizing cost of construction.
Traditional force based seismic design methods specify design lateral loads with the
intention of ensuring that the structure’s ductility capacity is not exceeded. Several
problems with force-based design are discussed thoroughly in Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures (Priestley et al. 2007). For example, in force-based design section
stiffnesses are usually estimated using empirical formulae, i.e. stiffness is assumed to be
independent of strength, which is unrealistic for many common structural systems. Peak
forces and inelastic displacements are estimated inaccurately using the equal displacement
approximation and the same force reduction factor for all elements and modes. Lateral
loads are typically distributed to elements in proportion to their estimated elastic stiffness.
This tends to concentrate shear force and deformation demands in elements possessing the
smallest ductility capacities, and hence can lead to brittle shear failure mechanisms
forming during design basis earthquakes.
Practical and reliable design methods, such as Direct Displacement Based Design
(DDBD) (Priestley et al. 2007), were first proposed for regular ductile buildings. DDBD is
a performance based seismic design method which aims at determining the strength re-
quired to achieve the displacement limits. It is a simple but powerful procedure which
utilizes an equivalent Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) system intended to represent
structural response in the first ’inelastic mode’. The DDBD procedure establishes design
moment capacities of intended plastic hinge regions. Capacity design is carried out sub-
sequently to determine design shear forces for all sections and design moments for sections
intended to respond elastically. DDBD has been applied to a wide range of structural
systems including frame, wall and dual structures, and bridges, wharves and piers, and a
wide range of structural materials including steel, reinforced concrete, masonry and timber.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Historically, regular symmetric structures have suffered less earthquake damage than
irregular buildings. Irregular buildings have asymmetric plan layouts and/or abrupt height-
wise changes in building plan. The dynamic response of such structures is harder to
predict, especially with simplified analyses which do not consider nonlinear and dynamic
(MDOF) effects directly. Deformation demands are often concentrated at irregularities as
opposed to being spread out evenly over the building. Therefore, not only is the response
harder to predict, but inaccuracy can prove to be more critical in the design of irregular
structures. Nonlinear, torsional and ’higher mode’ effects significantly affect the seismic
response of irregular ductile buildings. The state of the art of designing and analyzing
irregular structures has been reviewed by Rutenberg (2002) and Anagnostopoulos et al.
(2015). Additional material on the seismic behavior and design of irregular and complex
civil structures can be found in Lavan and De Stefano (2013).
Numerous analysis methods for irregular ductile structures have been proposed. They
attempt to account for ductility, torsional and ’higher mode’ effects, without requiring
Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NRHA) of Multi-Degree of Freedom (MDOF)
models. MPA (Chopra and Goel 2002) involves multiple pushover analyses of the MDOF
model and multiple NRHAs of SDOF systems. Standard modal combination rules are used
to estimate peak responses. In general, yielding leads to coupling between modal coor-
dinates. However, this coupling was shown to be weak in many practical cases (Chopra
and Goel 2004). A simplified version, PMPA, which assumes elastic higher mode response
and uses Response Spectra instead of NRHA, was also developed (Reyes and Chopra
2011). The PMPD design procedure proposed in this paper is based on PMPA. Another
method, called the N2 method, was originally proposed for regular ductile buildings (Fajfar
2000). It has since been extended to generally irregular ductile structures (Kreslin and
Fajfar 2012). N2 applies correction factors to the results of pushover analyses to estimate
peak displacements. The correction factors are determined by elastic RSA. Thus, N2 is a
relatively simple procedure to carry out.
In terms of design, DDBD has been extended to a limited range of irregular structures.
These include some asymmetric plan RC wall buildings (Priestley et al. 2007), asymmetric
plan RC frame buildings having designs governed by flexible edge frame drifts (Paparo
et al. 2012), and 2D setback dual wall-frame structures (Salawdeh 2009). Kappos et al.
(2012) proposed a method called Modal DDBD focused on considering higher mode
effects in RC bridge design. Ayala et al. (2012) presented a novel design method for
vertically irregular RC frames. In that approach, some aspects of an adaptive pushover
analysis are simulated using two modal spectral analyses for two stiffness states corre-
sponding to two levels of damage.
Some of these methods are semi-empirical and are based on results of parametric studies
(Priestley et al. 2007), or case studies (Salawdeh 2009). The extension in Priestley et al.
(2007) was found to generate designs performing very well within the scope of plan
asymmetry specified. This scope was limited to strength eccentricities B15 % of the
building length perpendicular to the ground motion. Salawdeh (2009) applied standard
DDBD to two types of vertically irregular dual frame/wall RC structures for design in the
direction parallel to the irregularity. The problems were therefore irregular 2D problems.
The first type had full height walls with set back frames. The second type had partial height
walls with regular frames. The proposed trial and error method worked well for the first
type. A new design displacement profile was proposed for the second type and sensitivity
of the method’s performance to roof beam strength was noted. The other methods required
iteration at the element stiffness level or iterative analysis of MDOF models (Paparo et al.
2012; Kappos et al. 2012; Ayala et al. 2012). However, there appears to be a lack of

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

general design methodologies which are free from such limitations, yet which are still
’practical enough’ to be employed in design offices. This remains as an ongoing challenge
for the earthquake engineering community, and provides the general motivation for the
research which PMPD is based on.
Design methods for irregular ductile buildings ideally would consider both nonlinear
and dynamic effects explicitly. A methodology attempting to fulfill these criteria, called
Modal Displacement Based Design, has been proposed and applied to single (Wilkinson
et al. 2012) and multistory (Wilkinson and Lavan 2013) one-way asymmetric-plan wall
structures subjected to unidirectional ground motion. In this paper the authors aim to
present a simplified Modal Displacement Based Design method, called Practical Modal
Pushover Design (PMPD). The application of PMPD to seismic design of one-way
asymmetric plan RC wall buildings (including optional consideration of gravity frames) for
unidirectional ground motion is demonstrated. Also, one approach for applying PMPD to
dual wall-frame structures, where frames are designed as part of the lateral load resisting
system, will also be indicated.
PMPD involves specifying a distribution of relative (proportional) flexural strength
throughout the structure, and using RSA to back-calculate the minimum strength (con-
sidering nonlinear ‘‘1st mode’’ response) required to limit the critical deformation to the
maximum allowable value. Specifying the relative strength distribution at the start of the
procedure and formulating stiffness in terms of strength allows the simplification of the
seismic design procedure to a single variable problem. PMPD is iterative at the response
spectrum level and, when verified using Practical Modal Pushover Analysis (PMPA),
achieves the target performance level exactly.
A related design procedure, Modal Pushover Design (MPD), is also discussed.
MPD requires a pushover analysis for each mode considered. Its designs achieve the
target performance levels for the governing limit state exactly when evaluated using
MPA.
Motivation for developing the PMPD method stems from the need for robust seismic
design solutions for irregular structures which:
1. are designed to respond inelastically and;
(a) have centers of strength (cV ) which cannot be located at the centers of mass (cM )
or where;
(b) cM is clearly not the optimal location for cV in terms of minimizing the total
amount of reinforcing steel used in the design;
2. are designed to respond elastically, or with low ductility (e.g. l\2) having response
significantly influenced by torsional and higher mode effects even when cV is located
at cM . For example, tall buildings whose ductility demands are expected to be small
Priestley et al. (2007).
This paper is laid out as follows; the problem is described and stated succinctly. The
rationale behind PMPD is presented and the proposed procedure is summarized in flow-
chart form. Each step is then discussed and the results of three parametric studies verifying
the method’s utility are reviewed. A worked example is provided and a fully detailed step
by step procedure outline is included in the ‘‘Appendix’’. The key idea of PMPD is
reducing the seismic design of an asymmetric plan wall structure to a single variable
problem. This is discussed in Sect. 3.1.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

2 Problem statement

The performance based seismic design philosophy aims at ensuring that selected seismic
responses of a structure do not exceed certain limits under specified seismic intensities. The
problem was framed within the context of a typical performance based seismic design job.
A situation commonly encountered in practice was selected as the starting point for the
proposed design procedure. As for DDBD, it was assumed that the engineer has archi-
tectural building plans which indicate agreed dimensions and locations of walls. Only the
reinforcing steel remains to be determined. Figure 1 shows a simplified example of a one-
way asymmetric-plan RC wall building (gravity frames and stairwell etc. not shown). The
structural geometry is therefore taken as predetermined.
For each limit state the design code specifies the seismic demand for the site and target
performance levels. These usually take the form of response spectra and limits on certain
responses, respectively. The responses typically include peak interstory drifts and material
strains or curvature ductilities for various levels of confinement detailing. As the structural
geometry, seismic intensity and target performance levels for each limit state are known,
the only parameter a design engineer can change is the distribution of longitudinal steel
reinforcement among the walls.
The engineer’s limited scope of influence can also be seen from Eq. 1, which governs
the nonlinear dynamic response of a RC wall building to unidirectional ground motion.
€ þ CuðtÞ
MuðtÞ _ þ FðuðtÞ; uðtÞÞ
_ ug ðtÞ
¼ Ml€ ð1Þ

Here M and C are the mass and damping matrices respectively, uðtÞ is the relative
displacement vector in global coordinates, the overdots denote the order of the time
derivatives, l is an influence vector describing rigid body displacements corresponding to a

w4
7.0

7.75
w1

w2

x
X = 20.0m

üg cR cV θ
6.0

4.5
w3

cM z
eV
eR
7.75
7.0

w5
6.0 5.6 6.8 11.6
Z = 30.0m

Fig. 1 Plan showing typical information available at start of seismic design

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

unit ground displacement in the direction of the excitation and u€g ðtÞ is the ground accel-
_
eration defining the ground motion. FðuðtÞ; uðtÞÞ represents the forces generated by the
Lateral Load Resisting Elements due to deformation. The resisting forces depend on the
hysteretic behavior of the walls (and the gravity frames, if their seismic resistance is
considered). Hysteretic behavior is defined in terms of the structural geometry, material
properties and steel reinforcement.
Examining the terms in Eq. 1 shows how the seismic engineer can influence the seismic
response of a structure. M is essentially fixed by the predetermined building geometry and
the selected construction materials. u€g ðtÞ represents the seismicity specified by the code
and C is typically taken as a function of M and the structure’s initial elastic stiffness K. For
each limit state the code usually specifies limits on responses related to u. Only the
_
contribution of the walls to FðuðtÞ; uðtÞÞ remains to be engineered.
The design problem may then be stated as follows: Given the geometry of a multistory
RC wall building and the design seismic intensity and target performance levels for each
limit state, determine acceptable flexural strengths for all walls (plan-wise and height-wise)
which enables the structure to achieve, as near as possible, the target performance levels
for the governing limit state. In dual wall-frame systems, the frame strengths are also to be
determined.

3 Practical Modal Pushover Design of asymmetric plan wall structures

for unidirectional ground motion

3.1 Reduction of seismic design to a single variable problem

The seismic design of an irregular RC wall structure can be reduced to a single variable
problem. This is achieved here in two steps. Firstly, stiffness is defined as a function of
strength at the cross section level (Priestley et al. 2007; Priestley 1998; Paulay 2001).
Secondly, a rational (height-wise and plan-wise) distribution of relative flexural strength is
specified at the start of the design process. These steps are expanded upon below.
The first step is depicted in Fig. 2 that shows an RC wall cross section and its moment-
curvature relation. A bi-linear idealization of this relation, as proposed in Priestley (1998),
Paulay (2001), is also presented. Estimates of nominal wall yield curvature uy typically

Fig. 2 Section level

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

depend only on the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcing steel and the element
geometry. Therefore, the nominal yield moment, My , is the sole variable defining the
monotonic force deformation response of the section.
The second step is specifying plan-wise and height-wise distributions of relative flexural
strength. The vertical distribution should aim at restricting yielding to the intended plastic
hinge regions, typically at wall bases, using Capacity Design principles. Capacity Design
employs the concept of a hierarchy of strength based on the principle of sacrificial fuses to
ensure that safe ductile failure mechanisms develop under design level seismic loading.
Flexural yielding is restricted to designated ’plastic hinge’ regions by setting moment
capacities of other regions higher than the plastic hinge over-strengths. Also, shear
strengths are set higher than maximum expected shear demands corresponding to full
development of the intended flexural collapse mechanism. In wall structures, codes usually
adopt a mechanism having plastic hinges at wall bases. The achievement of such a
mechanism depends on the estimation accuracy of moment demands in regions intended to
respond elastically and shear demands. These demands are affected by over-strength
moment capacity of plastic hinges and higher mode contributions.
Figure 3 shows a generic vertical distribution similar to those proposed in Priestley
et al. (2007). H is the wall height, fMy is the relative moment capacity at a height of
ðj þ 0:5ÞH above the base. jH is the height that the moment capacity diagram is shifted
upwards due to tension shift effects. A jH value of approximately half of the longest wall
length was used in the research presented in this paper. gMy is the relative moment
capacity at the top of the wall. The nominal moment capacity at the base, My , is therefore
the sole variable defining the monotonic force deformation response of the wall.
Figure 4 shows a plan-wise distribution of relative flexural strength among the walls
where ki reflects the chosen distribution and RMy is the total base moment capacity in the x
direction. The distribution of relative flexural strength between walls is a design decision
which should be made considering economy of steel reinforcement material and ease of
construction. One option is to specify relative flexural strengths with the intention of
achieving a desired rational/practical steel reinforcement distribution. Alternatively, the
lateral distribution of relative flexural strength could be based on a target strength

Fig. 3 Wall level

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 4 Structure level: horizontal w4

relative flexural strength
distribution
λ4ΣMy

w1

w2

w3
λ2ΣMy λ5ΣMy λ3ΣMy

λ1ΣMy λ1 + λ2 + λ3 = 1
w5 λ4 +λ5= 1
x
z

eccentricity eV . This could be intended to minimize torsional response or optimize the

seismic design by minimizing the total reinforcing steel weight. In any case, until a simple
reliable method of determining an optimal distribution is developed, the relative flexural
strength distribution will remain a design decision. Priestley et al. (2007) suggested that
minimizing strength eccentricity often produces a relatively economical design. However,
this may not always be possible due to geometrical constraints and/or design code rein-
forcing steel ratio limits.
Specifying the horizontal and vertical distribution of relative flexural strength leaves the
total nominal moment capacity at the base, RMy , as the single variable defining the
monotonic force deformation response of the whole building. These steps reduce the
seismic design of a multistory one-way asymmetric-plan RC wall structure to a single
variable problem. A similar rational could be adopted for the design of dual wall-frame
structures. In this case, the relative flexural strength distribution throughout the seismic
frame members must also be specified.
Design for combined seismic action in two directions can be executed by first designing
the principle walls in the asymmetric direction. No additional demands are incurred upon
these walls by seismic action in the orthogonal (symmetric) direction. The walls in the
symmetric direction can then be designed considering the known demands incurred from
seismic action in the asymmetric direction.

3.2 Inverse PMPA procedure

Inverse MPA and PMPA procedures could be executed iteratively at the MDOF level.
However, this would require modal analysis in every iteration. It would also require
multiple pushover analyses for an inverse MPA (or a single pushover analysis for an
inverse PMPA) in every iteration. This is avoided here by virtue of the observations listed
below, which allow iteration only at the SDOF response spectrum level. These observa-
tions were made by virtue of the approximation of force - deformation response and the
specification of relative flexural strength made in Sect. 3.1:
1. The elastic mode shapes can be determined exactly as they depend only on the
preselected relative strength distribution (defined by ki , g, f and j). They are
independent of RMy . The effect of gravity frames on the mode shapes would be minor
for low to medium rise buildings. In any case, a reasonable order of magnitude is
assumed for the wall strengths in the pushover analysis, as will be discussed

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

subsequently. Hence, the variation of wall strength from this assumed value will have
a very small effect on the mode shapes.
2. The pushover base shear depends linearly on RMy while the pushover displacements
are independent of RMy .
3. All natural periods are inversely proportional to the square root of RMy (plus the
gravity frame contribution if considered). However, the ratios between periods are
independent of RMy .

Step 1. Specify relative flexural strength distribution (see Figs. 3-4)

Compute relative stiffnesses and modal properties including

Step 2.
mode shapes & period ratios

MDF
Analysis Conduct 1st mode pushover analysis using the specified
strengths and stiffnesses. Define 1st mode nonlinear SDF
Step 3. system from the pushover curve. The pushover base shear
scales linearly with the design variable ΣMy. However, the
pushover displacements are independent of ΣMy.

a. Define design RS for all limit states

b. Guess D1 and extract T1 from RS. Compute T2:Nm

Modify SDF for PΔ if necessary

Guess μ1 then extract D1 from RS

inner iteration loop
no
D1/Dy = μ1? μ1 = D1/Dy
Step 4. c. yes
outer iteration loop

Extract D2:Nm from elastic RS

Iterative
SDF RS
Analysis Extract r1 from PO results & compute r2:Nm

Combine r1:Nm to estimate r

no
(r/rlim)max ≈ 1? T1 = T1(rlim/r)Pmax
yes
Section
Design Steps 5-6. Compute design moment & shear actions

Fig. 5 PMPD flowchart

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Based on the first two observations, it is proposed that once a single modal analysis and a
single pushover analysis have been performed for a given relative flexural strength dis-
tribution, the transformation of the MDOF system into modal SDOF systems is known.
This transformation is independent of the absolute value of RMy . This holds both for the
inverse MPA and the inverse PMPA procedures. Based on observation 3 it is proposed that
a single modal analysis at the beginning of the process provides all the information nec-
essary for computing the higher mode periods for any value of RMy . To summarize; for
any particular relative flexural strength distribution, a single modal analysis and a single
pushover analysis are sufficient for determining the transformation of the MDOF system
into several SDOF systems. Hence, iterations may be performed using response spectra
alone, without additional MDOF analyses.
For RC wall structures, the seismic resistance of gravity frames is usually insignificant,
and is often ignored (conservatively). However, should the designer wish to account for the
gravity frame contribution to seismic resistance, a relatively simple approach is suggested
here. The reduction of interstory drift response of RC wall structures due to gravity frames
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
can be estimated using a parameter aH ¼ EIw =GAt (Stafford Smith and Coull 1991). The
strengths and stiffnesses of walls designed ignoring gravity frames can be reduced using aH.
This approach was checked for the example structure and commented on in Sect. 5.2.

3.3 PMPD procedure

A flow chart outlining the PMPD procedure is shown in Fig. 5. T stands for natural period
of free vibration. D stands for spectral displacement demand. l stands for ductility and r
stands for a peak response. In this research drift responses and curvature ductility responses
were considered. However, plastic hinge rotations or chord rotations could also be used. rn
denotes the nth mode’s contribution to the total response r. rlim is the maximum allowable
value of r for the limit state under consideration. PD stands for geometrical nonlinearity
effects consisting of additional force demands generated by laterally displaced gravity
loads. P is a parameter between zero and one that controls convergence.
The steps are discussed here, and a detailed step by step procedure is included in the
‘‘Appendix’’.
The structure’s geometry and material properties must be known. It is assumed that wall
locations and sizes are available, for example, from architectural plans. The steps are as
follows:
1. Define a rational distribution of relative flexural strength.
Some design codes prescribe the shape of individual wall moment capacity envelopes.
This may govern the vertical distribution of relative flexural strength. Unnecessary
vertical irregularity should be avoided. The horizontal distribution of relative flexural
strength could target a specific strength eccentricity or a rational reinforcing steel
distribution. Specifying a relative flexural strength distribution leaves RMy as the sole
design variable.
2. Compute relative elastic wall flexural stiffnesses and modal characteristics.
Relative flexural stiffnesses are computed using the relative flexural strengths from
step 1 and the wall yield curvatures. The structural system is thereby fully
characterized for the purpose of determining relative modal properties. The exact
mode shapes can be computed as can the exact ratios between natural periods. As
stiffness is proportional to strength, the stiffness matrix is directly proportional to RMy .

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

 0:5
Hence the periods are directly proportional to RMy . Either T1 or RMy could be
used as the sole design variable.
The main properties of the modal substitute SDOF systems were defined following
Chopra (2007) as follows:
/n is the nth mode shape normalized by the roof cM translation term.
mn is the effective mass of the nth mode SDOF system; mn ¼ C2n Mn where Cn ¼
Ln =Mn where Ln ¼ /n T Ml and Mn ¼ /n T M/n .
kn is the effective stiffness of the nth mode SDOF system; kn ¼ x2n mn where
ðxn ¼ 2p=Tn Þ.
hn is the effective height of the nth mode SDOF system; hn ¼ Lhn =Ln where Lhn ¼
hM/n where h is a row vector of order 2Ns (Ns is the number of stories) containing
the floor heights in ascending order in the first Ns entries and zeros elsewhere.

In addition to these modal properties, a stability index for consideration of PD effects

was defined as hPD ¼ P=ðk1 h1 Þ where P is the total seismic gravity load of the
structure Priestley et al. (2007).
3. Conduct pushover analysis for 1st mode response and define bilinear SDOF system.
The nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is monotonic (not cyclic) and uses an
invariant (not adaptive) load distribution. Geometrical nonlinearity (PD) effects need
not be considered in the pushover analysis as they are accounted for in step 4. The
pushover base shear scales linearly with RMy (and with ðT1 Þ0:5 ). The pushover
displacements are independent of RMy . The period of the bilinear SDOF system, T1 , is
the variable solved for in step 4.
4. Determine the T1 corresponding to the critical location achieving its limit deformation.
Constant ductility response spectra were used here in step (4). Using NRHA instead of
response spectra would eliminate the inner iteration loop in step (4)(c), but would
require selection and scaling of appropriate sets of ground motion records for each
limit state. For each applicable limit state:
(a) Define the design response spectrum.
Typically design codes provide 5 % damped elastic pseudo acceleration
response spectra. A constant ductility displacement response spectra may be
computed from an elastic pseudo acceleration response spectrum, such as
commonly provided in design codes, using equations such as proposed in
Krawinkler and Nassar (1992) recast in Chopra and Chintanapakdee (2004).
(b) Guess the 1st mode spectral displacement demand D1 to determine T1 for the
first iteration. For any T1 , higher mode periods can be computed from the
known period ratios. How to guess T1 is suggested in the ‘‘Appendix’’.
(c) Outer iteration loop:
Using the estimated T1 , D1 can be computed iteratively using inelastic response
spectra. Higher mode spectral displacement demands are read directly from the
elastic response spectrum.
The 1st ‘mode’ contributions to selected structural responses are extracted from
the pushover results and higher ‘mode’ response contributions are computed
using standard RSA. No MDOF analyses are required for this step as the mode
shapes and modal participation factors do not change. The updated spectral
displacements are simply plugged into the response equation with the same

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

mode shapes and modal contribution factors as before. Total responses are then
estimated using an appropriate modal combination rule and compared to the
limit values. If the maximum demand to limit ratio is not acceptably close to
one, then T1 is adjusted and step (c) is repeated until this ratio is acceptably
close to one.
Unless PD effects are clearly insignificant, the characteristics of the bilinear
SDOF system are modified to account for PD effects before D1 is computed at
the start of step c. This modification involves computing a stability coefficient,
hPD , using the total seismic weight of the structure (Priestley et al. 2007) (page
298) and the 1st mode stiffness and height (MacRae 1994). hPD is an
approximation of the total seismic gravity load to 1st ‘mode’ buckling load
ratio. If constant l response spectra are used, then only T1 and a (the ratio of
post to pre-yield stiffnesses) need to be modified. Figure 6 indicates how the
modifications affect the SDOF system characteristics. For high stability
coefficients this can result in negative slopes in the post yield branch of the
bilinear SDOF system. This is a simplified consideration of collapse conditions.
lhPD is therefore also limited to  0:3 in step 5 as recommended in Priestley
et al. (2007). This method assumes that constant l response spectra for negative
post yield stiffness values are available.
5. Compute design moment actions.
The nominal yield moments used in the modal and pushover analyses are scaled to match
the final design fundamental period of the governing limit state. If gravity frame
contribution to seismic resistance is considered, their effect on the relation between the
fundamental period and the nominal yield moments of the walls should be accounted for.
If necessary, flexural strengths are scaled up to reduce lhPD to 0.3. This determines the
seismic design moment actions for all sections. Flexural steel reinforcement can then be
designed and detailed using the applicable standard section/member analysis method
considering the design moments and other actions. Design code steel reinforcement ratio
limits may govern some sections. In this case, changing the wall thickness without
changing the total reinforcing steel area, will often enable the required strength to be
achieved within the reinforcing steel ratio limits. Usually this will not affect the wall
stiffnesses and strengths significantly. Thus, the PMPD procedure will not need to be
repeated. If equal reinforcement ratios are used in all walls and the code reinforcement
ratio limits are not satisfied, two scenarios are possible; If all reinforcement ratios are

Fig. 6 Modification of SDOF for

PD

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

lower than the minimum requirement, either the minimum requirement could be
adopted, or the total wall cross-sectional area could be reduced. If all reinforcement
ratios are larger than the maximum allowed, the wall geometry should probably be
adjusted by increasing some wall dimensions or adding walls.
6. Compute design shear actions.
It is important to extract the peak wall story shears occurring during the pushover
analysis between zero displacement and the reference node displacement correspond-
ing to the final design 1st ‘mode’ spectral displacement. This is because for some wall
layouts, as a result of force redistribution due to yielding, the wall shear responses do
not increase monotonically throughout the pushover analysis. This means that the peak
shear demands may occur before the pushover reference node displacement
corresponding to the design 1st ‘mode’ spectral displacement.
As with the drift and curvature responses, 1st mode contributions to story shears are
extracted from the pushover results whereas higher contributions are computed
directly from the elastic spectral displacements.
The total story shears are scaled to correspond to the design fundamental period
 ofthe
PD
governing limit state. These scaled shears are then multiplied by max 1; lh0:3 to
PD
ensure that lh  0:3, and adjusted to ensure that wall shear capacities decrease
monotonically with height. The resulting shear actions are the final outputs from the
PMPD procedure and are called the ‘unfactored shear actions’. These should be
factored up by the flexural reinforcing steel overstrength factor to determine the design
shear actions. Alternatively, the overstrength factor could be applied only to 1st
’mode’ (pushover) shear demands.
Shear steel reinforcement can then be designed and detailed using the applicable
standard section/member analysis method considering the design shears and other
actions. These design capacities for intended plastic hinge and elastic regions include
consideration of capacity design principles for nonlinear and dynamic higher mode
effects. Note that in the generation of the unfactored shear actions no empirical factors
were required to account for ductility and dynamic amplification. If desired, the design
base shear in the direction designed for, may be computed by summing the design wall
base shear actions.

4 Parametric studies on multistory one-way asymmetric-plan RC wall

structures

Three parametric studies were carried out to evaluate the utility of PMPD. Structures were
designed using PMPD and verified using NRHA.

4.1 Structures and parameter ranges

The basic structural layout was a rectangular floor plan with two walls in each direction.
The first study applied PMPD to torsionally restrained (Paulay 2001) multistory RC wall
structures covering a wide range of plan asymmetry in one direction. The second study
considered the same range of plan asymmetry but the edge walls in the orthogonal di-
rection were moved to the center of mass. These structures were therefore completely
torsionally unrestrained and, arguably, not very realistic. In the third study, the orthogonal

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

walls were located 10 % of the building length in the x direction either side of the center of
mass. Only the results for the torsionally restrained set are presented here. However, the
results of the other two studies are noted where relevant.
Five building heights were considered (3, 6, 10, 15 and 20 stories) in each study. Wall
lengths ranged approximately from 1m to 11.8m while wall aspects ratios (roof height/wall
length) ranged approximately from 2 to 20. b was defined as the long wall length divided
by the short wall length and is correlated to plan asymmetry and stiffness eccentricity. For
the symmetric cases (i.e. b ¼ 1) the wall lengths were 3, 4.5, 6, 7.5 and 8.6 m for the five
building heights respectively. This resulted in wall aspect ratios of 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 for
b ¼ 1 for each height group respectively. These were selected to represent typical values
for each height group. The SRSS of the lengths of the walls in each direction was kept
constant within each height group. This made the total base moment capacity for each
height group somewhat independent of the level of plan asymmetry as b and eV varied.
Wall configurations resulting in uncoupled torsional to translational first mode fre-
quency ratios between 0.8 and 1.2 were labeled ’torsionally similarly stiff’. Those having
ratios  1.2 were classed as ’torsionally stiff’ and those having ratios  0.8 as ’torsionally
flexible’ (see Chopra and Goel 2004). In the study of torsionally restrained wall layouts,
each building height group included the same 30 torsionally stiff wall layouts and 12
torsionally similarly stiff wall layouts. In the study of completely torsionally unrestrained
configurations, the same 17 torsionally stiff wall layouts, 17 torsionally similarly stiff wall
layouts and eight torsionally flexible wall layouts were considered for each height group.
The third study had essentially the same numbers of layouts in each torsional stiffness
category as the second study.
The study was performed for seven strength eccentricities (0.1Z, 0.05Z, 0, 0.05Z,
0.1Z, 0.15Z and 0.2Z) for each of the six values of b considered (1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 3 and
4). Z is the building length orthogonal to the direction the ground motion was applied in.

4.2 Verification using Nonlinear Response History Analysis

Twenty ground motions from the LA10/50 ensemble were modified to match their re-
sponse spectra to the target elastic design spectrum shown in Fig. 7. The modification was

Fig. 7 Design (DES) and mean matched (MM) acceleration and displacement constant l response spectra
(n ¼ 5 %)

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

performed using the SeismoMatch program (Seismosoft 2010). These modified ground
motions were then used to generate the response spectra used in the PMPD procedure.
Constant ductility (l) inelastic response spectra were generated for displacement ductilities
ranging from 1 to 20. The mean matched elastic response spectrum, and selected constant l
mean response spectra covering common design values, are compared to the elastic design
spectrum in Fig. 7. This eliminated discrepancy between the ground motions’ response
spectra and the response spectra used in the PMPD procedure. The same ground motions
were then used for the verification analyses of the PMPD designs.
The same model assumptions were used for both the PMPD pushover analyses and
verification NRHAs. Lumped mass models consisting of a beam line element for each story
of each wall were adopted. Each element had a potential plastic hinge at each end. The
plastic hinges were assigned a bilinear hysteresis rule having a post-yield to elastic stiff-
ness ratio a ¼ 0:01. Section flexural strengths were computed considering axial loads.
Corresponding flexural stiffnesses were based on the strengths and the estimated yield
curvatures (see Sect. 7). Rigid floor diaphragms were assumed and seismic story masses
were concentrated at the centers of mass with appropriate moments of inertia.
PD effects were modeled by assigning the walls axial loads from realistic tributary floor
areas. The distribution of axial forces from gravity loads can significantly affect the tor-
sional PD displacements. To model this effect, rG was computed assuming gravity columns
were distributed on a 5 m by 5 m grid. rG was defined as the radius of gyration of the
gravity column axial forces about cM Rutenberg (1982). Twin PD pin ended gravity
columns were located a distance rG ¼ 10:85m in the z direction either side of cM . Each PD
pin ended gravity column carried half of the portion of floor weight not carried directly by
the walls. This accounted for the distribution of axial loads in the gravity system.
NRHA was performed with the RUAUMOKO3D program (Carr 2006). Although the
PMPD procedure accounts for geometric nonlinearity in an approximate manner, design
verification was performed using the more rigorous large displacement formulation. In this
formulation, the stiffness matrices are reformulated at each time step using the displaced
coordinates of the nodes. This allows consideration of the effects of both global node
displacements and local member deformations on responses in both the compatibility and
equilibrium equations. This approach is conservative in terms of evaluating the effec-
tiveness of PMPD as a performance-based seismic design method. The Newmark average
acceleration numerical solution scheme option was selected for the NRHA.

4.3 Results and discussion

The PMPD designs are evaluated based on the Performance Index (PI). PI is the percent
difference between the critical mean peak deformation from the verification analysis and
the corresponding limit deformation:
PI ¼ 100 maxðDPI; CPIÞ ð2Þ

where DPI ¼ maxji ðdPIj;i Þ where dPIj;i ¼ ðhj;i =hlim Þ  1. hj;i is the mean peak drift of the
jth story of the ith wall and hlim is the drift limit for the governing limit state. Similarly,
CPI ¼ maxi ðcPIi Þ where cPIi ¼ ðui =ulsi Þ  1. ui is the mean peak curvature of the ith
wall base plastic hinge and ulsi is the curvature limit for the ith wall for the governing limit
state.
In the presented studies, PMPD was used to control mean peak responses. Therefore, the
deviation of the critical mean peak NRHA responses from the target response limits best

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

represents the effectiveness of the PMPD method. If the designer was concerned about the
scatter of peak responses to individual records, the ’mean plus standard deviation’ response
spectra could be used in the design procedure. In this case, the authors believe that a PI
computed using the ’mean plus standard deviation’ of NRHA peak responses would show
similar values to those of the PI based on mean peak responses in the parametric study
presented here.
Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the results of the torsionally restrained study. Figure 8 shows
the number of cases falling within various PI ranges (0–5, 5–10 % etc.), and the percentage
of cases having PI within 10, 15 and 20 % are noted. Figure 9 shows the 5th, 10th,
90th and 95th percentile PI values (e.g. the 5th percentile PI is that PI which 5 % of cases
have PI values less than), as well as the envelope PI values of all 210 cases investigated
verses b. The mean PI value of all 35 cases investigated for each b value is also shown.
Figure 10 shows each of the 210 cases individually by number of stories (N), b and eV
values. In Fig. 10 black dots indicate cases governed by strain. However, drift governed
over 80 % of the cases investigated. Figures 8, 9 and 10 show that for over 90 % of the
torsionally restrained cases, PMPD generated designs which achieved mean peak defor-
mations within 10 % of the target limit deformations at the critical locations.
The designs for the torsionally unrestrained and partially restrained set (not shown)
were generally conservative. This was expected as the pushover analyses used invariant
load vectors. The pushover analyses therefore overestimated floor rotations due to not
being able to capture the post yield increase in the relative influence of floor rotational
inertia. This is particularly significant in the range 1:25  b  1:5. In this range PMPD
generated designs for the completely unrestrained set which generally achieved PIs ranging
from 40 to 0 %. In the third study, results for the same values of b ranged from 5 %
above to 30 % below the limit deformations. It is expected that this performance could be
improved by using adaptive pushover analysis. To realize this performance improvement,
two pushover analyses may be required. One for the largest period mode dominated by
translation and one for the largest period mode dominated by torsion.
Note that when verified using PMPA, PMPD designs achieve the target performance
levels exactly. PMPA has been shown to be less accurate for torsionally similarly stiff
structures as their modal responses are strongly coupled (Chopra and Goel 2002). This is
the case for the point in Fig. 10 for N ¼ 3; b ¼ 3; eV ¼ 0:15Z which had a maximum
peak response 20 % over the limit. That this was an ’outlier’ result is proven by the fact
that for over 98 % of the 210 torsionally restrained cases investigated, PMPD generated
designs which achieved mean peak responses within 15 % of the limit response at the
governing location.
The parametric studies covered torsionally restrained and unrestrained configurations
and included torsionally stiff, similarly stiff and flexible cases. The results of the

80 93% in +/-10%
No. of cases

60 99% in +/-15%

40 100% in +/-20%

20
0
-30 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 30

Fig. 8 Number of cases versus PI (%)

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

20

10
PI (%)
0

-10

1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0

β
th th
Envelope 10 & 90 percentiles
th th
Mean 5 & 95 percentiles

Fig. 9 Key percentile PI (%) values versus b

parametric studies showed that for over 90 % of the torsionally restrained wall structures
investigated, PMPD generated seismic designs which achieved mean peak deformation
values within 10 % of the target limit deformations at the critical locations. For the less
torsionally restrained configurations, PMPD generated more conservative seismic designs.

5 Worked example: 6 story one-way asymmetric-plan RC wall structure

The purpose of this example is to demonstrate the implementation of PMPD in brief. The
calculations presented for this example follow the procedure outline in the ‘‘Appendix’’.
A floor plan of the example 6 story one way asymmetric plan reinforced concrete wall
structure is shown in Fig. 1. The structure is torsionally stiff having a rotational to
translational first mode frequency ratio of 1.25. The walls carried about 36 % of the gravity
loads directly and the PD pinned gravity columns the remaining 64 %.

5.1 Step by step working for PMPD

The structure’s geometry in shown in Fig. 1. The material properties were fy ¼ 350MPa
and sy ¼ 0:00175. See the ‘‘Appendix’’ for the equations used.
1. A rational distribution of relative flexural strength was specified as follows:
(a) The horizontal distribution of relative flexural strength (see Fig. 4) was set
such that the walls parallel to the ground motion were allocated relative
reinforcing steel ratios inversely proportional to the relative wall lengths.
q ¼ 0:015 was selected for walls 1 and 2 and q ¼ 0:02 for wall 3. This resulted
in stiffness and strength eccentricities of 0.22Z and 0.18Z, respectively. The
relative flexural strengths of the orthogonal walls were set to ensure the same
0
total base moment capacity in both directions. Using Eq. 3 Mhi ¼
½27707 32049 18982 39369 39369 kNm. Each entry in this vector
represents the flexural base moment capacity of one of the walls.
(b) The vertical (height-wise) distribution of relative flexural strength (see Fig. 3)
0
Mvj ¼ ½1 1 0:924 0:848 0:772 0:618T was set using f ¼ 0:772 and
g ¼ 0:515. These values for f and g were obtained following the standard

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

20

PI (%) N = 3
10

-10

1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 β 3.0 4.0

20
PI (%) N = 6

10

-10

1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 β

3.0 4.0

20
PI (%) N = 10

10

-10

1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 β 3.0 4.0

20
PI (%) N = 15

10

-10

1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0

β
20
PI (%) N = 20

10

-10

1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 β 3.0 4.0

eV = 0.10Z eV = 0.05Z eV = 0.00Z

eV =-0.05Z eV =-0.10Z eV =-0.15Z
eV =-0.20Z

Fig. 10 PI torsionally restrained configuration (all seven ev s)

DDBD procedure suggested on page 366 in Priestley et al. (2007). For this
purpose, an approximate Ti equal to 0:1hr was used with an average value of l
0
weighted by the wall base moment capacities Mhi above. To limit vertical
irregularity, strength reduction from story to story was restricted to 20 % of the
lower story strength. This resulted in the top story relative moment capacity of
0.618. To simplify the modeling, moment capacities were changed at floor
heights. The story height was constant at 3.5 m.
(c) Compute relative flexural strength matrix:

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

2 3
2:7707 3:2049 1:8982 3:9369 3:9369
6 2:7707 3:2049 1:8982 3:9369 3:9369 7
6 7
6 2:5602 2:9614 1:7540 3:6378 3:6378 7
0 0 0 6 7
Myji ¼ Mvj Mhi ¼ 6 7  104 kNm
6 2:3497 2:7179 1:6098 3:3387 3:3387 7
6 7
4 2:1392 2:4744 1:4656 3:0396 3:0396 5
1:7114 1:9795 1:1725 2:4317 2:4317

2. Relative elastic wall flexural stiffnesses and modal characteristics were computed as
follows:
(a) Wall yield curvatures were estimated using Eq. 5:
uyi ¼ 2sy =Li ¼ ½0:583 0:583 0:778 0:515 0:515  103 =m
0 0
(b) Relative flexural section stiffness were computed as EIji ¼ Myji =uyi .
(c) The eigenvalue problem of the known floor masses m ¼ 367 Tonnes, and
0
rotational inertias I ¼ 39755 Tm2 , and the stiffnesses EIji was solved using
Matlab. The first N terms in the nth column of U correspond to the floor
translations in the nth mode while the second N terms in the nth column
correspond to floor rotations in the nth mode about a vertical axis through cM .
The elastic mode shapes of free vibration U ¼ ½/1 /2 /3 /4 /5  of the
first five modes were:
2 3
0:0419 0:0419 0:2776 0:2776 0:8731
6 0:1550 0:1550 0:7789 0:7789 1:5574 7
6 7
6 0:3224 0:3224 1:0657 1:0657 0:5551 7
6 7
6 0:5289 0:5289 0:8511 0:8511 1:0980 7
6 7
6 0:7591 0:7591 0:0974 0:0974 1:1544 7
6 7
6 1:0000 1:0000 1:0000 1:0000 1:0000 7
6 7
U¼6 7
6 0:0014 0:0116 0:0093 0:0769 0:0291 7
6 7
6 0:0052 0:0429 0:0260 0:2157 0:0519 7
6 7
6 0:0107 0:0893 0:0355 0:2951 0:0185 7
6 7
6 0:0176 0:1464 0:0284 0:2357 0:0366 7
6 7
4 0:0253 0:2102 0:0032 0:0270 0:0385 5
0:0333 0:2769 0:0333 0:2769 0:0333
0
Periods Tn ¼ ½0:9600 0:5032 0:1590 0:0833 0:0573 s.
0 0
Ratios between periods cTn ¼ Tn =T1 ¼ ½1 0:5242 0:1656 0:0868 0:0597:
Effective modal masses mn ¼ ½1300 157 395 47:6 140 T.
Effective modal heights hn ¼ ½16:49 16:49 4:94 4:94 3:01 m (see Chopra
2007).
(d) The effective modal masses of the first 5 modes (Nm ¼ 5) summed to 92.6 % of
the total seismic mass of the structure.
3. A pushover analysis was conducted for 1st ‘mode’ response of the structure
0
characterized by the modal quantities above and strengths Myji . A bilinear SDOF
system was defined using the resulting pushover curve.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

(a) Plastic hinge lengths were estimated using Eq. 6 from Priestley et al. (2007):
Lpi ¼ ½1:54 1:54 1:39 1:62 1:62 m
(b) The invariant pushover load distribution vector was p ¼ M/1 ¼
½ 15:4 56:9 118 194 279 367 55:6 205 427 701 1006 1325T
where the first N terms are horizontal forces applied at cM in the direction of the
ground motion and the second N terms are torques around a vertical axis also
applied at cM .
See Fig. 11 for the MDOF pushover curve.
(c) The MDOF pushover curve was approximated bilinearly. Initial elastic stiffness
0 0
kel ¼ 61199 kN/m. Yield displacement uy ¼ 0:0725 m. Yield shear Vy ¼
0
4440 kN. Post yield stiffness kin ¼ 2894 kN/m. ‘Post yield’/elastic stiffness
ratio a ¼ 0:047.
See Fig. 11 for the bilinear approximation of the MDOF pushover curve.
(d) The equivalent nonlinear SDOF system had a spectral yield displacement
Dy ¼ 0:0797 m.
4. The value of T1 corresponding to the critical story or plastic hinge achieving its limit
deformation was determined as follows (computations are only shown for the damage
control limit state for the first iteration and final values are indicated):
(a) The design response spectrum is shown in Fig. 7.
(b) Initial values T1ito ¼1 ¼ 1:235 s and Dit1 i ¼ 0:190 m.
(c) Outer iteration loop: for ito ¼ 1:
(i) The SDOF was modified to account for PD effects as follows: 1st mode
stiffness k1 ¼ 33668 kN/m. Stability index hPD ¼ 0:0389. Modified period
T1ito ¼ 1:259s. aPD ¼ 0:0087:
iti iti þ1
(ii) Inner  iteration loop: for iti ¼ 1: l ¼ 2:38, D1 ¼ 0:195 m, and
 iti þ1 
1  D1 it  ¼ 0:0262. This reduced to 1.6509e005 in three inner iterations
 i  D1

and Dit1 i þ1 ¼ 0:195 m.

5000
k’ in
V’y
4000 MDOF pushover curve
Base Shear, V’b (kN)

Bilinear approximation curve

3000

2000 k’ el

1000

0
0 0.05 ury 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Reference node displacement, ur (m)

Fig. 11 Pushover curve and bilinear approximation

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

iti þ1
(iii) From the elastic response spectrum Dn¼2:N m
¼
½0:195 0:0943 0:0132 0:0030 0:0014 m.
(iv) 1st ’mode’ drifts (of edge walls w1 and w3 in Fig. 1) from the pushover
analysis results:
 T
0:0055 0:0068 0:0077 0:0084 0:0088 0:0090
hitj;i;n¼1
o
¼
0:0076 0:0118 0:0144 0:0163 0:0174 0:0179
where the top row contains wall w1 drifts and the bottom row contains wall w3
drifts.
(v) Higher mode drifts computed using standard RSA.
(vi) Total wall drifts were estimated using the Square Root of the Sum of the
Squares (SRSS) modal response combination rule:
 T
0:0056 0:0072 0:0085 0:0095 0:0101 0:0104
hitj;io ¼
0:0076 0:0120 0:0146 0:0165 0:0178 0:0185
(vii) Interstory drift performance indices for edge walls using a 2 % drift limit:

ito hitj;io 0:2803 0:3619 0:4257 0:4725 0:5040 0:5189
T
dPIj;i ¼ ¼
hlim 0:3814 0:5985 0:7317 0:8259 0:8905 0:9240
Maximum drift PI for the current iteration: DPI ito ¼ 0:924.
(viii) 1st ’mode’ curvatures at edge wall bases: uiti;n¼1
o
¼½0:0036 0:0052T =m:
(ix) Higher mode curvatures computed using standard RSA techniques.
(x) Total base curvatures uiti¼1;3
o
¼½0:00370:0053T =m.
(xi) Concrete and steel material strain limits respectively: c;ls ¼0:018 and
s;ls ¼0:035. These allowable strains were based on stringent requirements re-
garding provision of transverse reinforcement (see Priestley et al. 2007). Limit
curvatures uDCi ¼½0:00700:00700:00930:00620:0062=m.
(xii) Curvature performance indices for edge walls: cPIiito ¼½0:5230:566T
Maximum curvature PI for the current iteration: CPI ito ¼0:566:
(xiii) Key PI for the current iteration kpiito ¼0:924. In this case, the initial guess
proposed in step 4b. was close to the final design.
(xiv) This kpiito was not acceptably close to 1.0, so T1 was adjusted:
P¼1
1
T1ito þ1 ¼ T1ito ¼ 1:336s
kpiito
After five iterations kpiito ¼5 was 0.968. This was acceptably close to 1.0, so final
values for the considered limit state were computed as T1 ¼ T1ito þ1¼6 ¼ 1:358 s,
D1 ¼ Dit1 i þ1¼6 ¼ 0:207 m and l ¼ liti ¼ 2:60
5. Design moment actions (only base moments are shown here):
 0 2
T
(a) The flexural strength scale factor FM ¼ T11 ¼ 0:50
(b) The scaled base moments were:
0
My1i ¼ FM My1;i ¼ ½ 13845 16014 9485 19672 19672  kNm

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

(c) The stability index limit was not active for this design.
(d) Indicative ground story longitudinal steel reinforcement ratios computed from
Eq. 3: q1i ¼ ½0:0062 0:0048 0:0093 0:0079 0:0079.
6. Design shear actions (only base shears are shown here):
(a) Peak 1st ’mode’ wall base shears extracted from the push over results:
0
V1;i;1 ¼ ½ 3836 2514 1149 3911 3911 kN

(b) Higher mode wall story shears computed using standard RSA techniques.
0
(c) Total wall base shears V1;i ¼ ½4885 4813 3868 4940 4940kN
(d) Scaled wall story base shears V1;i ¼ ½2441 2405 1933 2469 2469kN
unfac
Unfactored wall base shears: V1;i ¼ ½2441 2405 1933 2469 2469kN
P unfac
Vb ¼ 3i¼1 V1;i ¼ 6778kN ¼ 0:314  Wt
Orthogonal wall design actions would probably be governed by the ground motion
applied in the z direction.

5.2 Design verification: ground motions, modeling and results

The design verification was done using NRHA. The ground motions and type of modeling
used in the parametric studies were also used in the design verification for this worked
example. Mean peak interstory drifts of walls w1 and w3 are compared to the damage
control drift limit in Fig. 12. The drift at the top of flexible wall w3 governed this design.
As drift governed, the mean peak curvatures were well below values corresponding to
the strain limits. The largest demand/limit ratio was 0:5 at the bottom of wall w3 . The
smaller curvature ductility limit for higher stories shown in Fig. 12 was not computed and
was intended only to signify that allowable curvature ductility is reduced for sections not
detailed for ductility.
Figure 13 shows the design moment capacities and unfactored story shear actions verses
the mean peak demands from the verification NRHAs. The first five modes had effective
modal masses summing to more than 90 % of the total seismic mass and hence were
included in the PMPD procedure. The higher modes contributed significantly to moment
demand and even more so to shear forces.
From Fig. 13 it can be seen that the effect of higher modes on force demands have been
adequately accounted for in the upper stories. However, the mean peak shears of the right
edge short (4.5 m long) wall in the first and second stories exceeded the unfactored story
shears by approximately 10 %. The unfactored shear action of the left edge long wall in the
second story was approximately 35 % less than the mean peak shear demand predicted by
NRHA. The unfactored shear actions include consideration of the main nonlinear and
dynamics effects. However, as noted in the step by step procedure outline, it is recom-
mended that these story shear actions be factored up at least by the overstrength factor of
the longitudinal flexural reinforcing steel (typically 1.25–1.35). It is also recommended that
material strength reduction factors for shear (typically 0:75), be included in the com-
puted shear capacity of proposed section designs. With these factors applied, section
design could be carried out without the need for further capacity design measures.
Figures 12 and 13 show that PMPD generated a fairly well performing design for this
case. This structure had a strength eccentricity of 18 % and a stiffness eccentricity of over

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 12 Response limits versus mean peak demands

Fig. 13 Capacities versus mean peak demands

20 % of the over all building length in the z direction. The mean peak top story interstory
drift ratio of the critical wall was approximately 2.04 %. This is slightly over the drift limit.
aH was estimated to be 0.80 and the design wall strengths and stiffnesses were reduced
by 20 % according to the associated K2 factor for interstory drift response to an inverted
triangular static load distribution (see Appendix 2 in Stafford Smith and Coull 1991).
Verification analyses were carried out using these reduced values including beam and
column elements based on a reasonable gravity frame design. The beams and columns
were modeled using single component Giberson beam-column elements. Moment-axial
force interaction was modeled using the ’Reinforced Concrete type 1’ (IBEAM = 2) option
in RUAUMOKO3D. The modified Takeda hysteresis model was employed

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

(a ¼ 0:25; b ¼ 0:3; NF ¼ 1; KKK ¼ 1), as well as strength degradation (ILOS = 6) consid-

ering peak ductility demand and number of inelastic cycles. The resulting mean peak top
interstory drift demand of the flexible (right edge) wall was 1.93 % which is 3.5 % lower than
the 2 % limit. In this case, considering the gravity frame seismic resistance allowed plastic
hinge design moment actions to be reduced by 20 %. However, as noted earlier, it is simpler
(and usually conservative) to ignore this effect in the seismic design of the walls.

6 Conclusions

A seismic design procedure called Practical Modal Pushover Design (PMPD) was devel-
oped and discussed. The procedure was verified for a large range of multi-story one-way
asymmetric-plan RC wall structures. PMPD was found to generate designs, for the tor-
sionally restrained cases, which generally achieved mean peak critical responses within
10 % of the governing response limit. PMPD was also found to generate shear actions
which adequately accounted for the main nonlinear and higher mode dynamic effects.
Application of the method was shown in a fully worked example for a six story RC wall
structure. It was recommended that the PMPD shear actions be increased by the flexural
reinforcing steel overstrength factor, and that section shear capacities include standard
material strength reduction factors.
PMPD involves specifying a relative distribution of flexural strength throughout the
structure and using Practical Modal Pushover Analysis (PMPA) techniques to back-cal-
culate the minimum total strength (considering nonlinear ’1st mode’ response) required to
achieve the governing limit deformation. Specifying the relative strength distribution at the
start of the procedure and recognizing that stiffness is proportional to strength allows the
simplification of the seismic design to a single variable problem.
A core advantage of PMPD is its applicability to a much wider range of wall structures
than the equivalent static force method and current DDBD methods. PMPD can be used for
the seismic design any wall structure for which PMPA is expected to provide acceptably
accurate predictions of peak seismic responses. Other advantages of PMPD include im-
plementation of capacity design at the beginning of the design procedure and explicit
consideration of nonlinear, torsional and dynamic higher mode effects. Empirical dynamic
amplification factors are therefore not required for the computation of design actions.
PMPD requires only one pushover analysis and is iterative only at the Single Degree of
Freedom (SDOF) level. The effort required to carry out PMPD is only somewhat larger
than that required for PMPA. The only additional work involves specifying a relative
flexural strength distribution and executing a small number of iterations at the SDOF level.

Acknowledgments Support for this work was provided by the Ministry of Housing and Construction of
Israel through the National Building Research Institute of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the Technion. The authors gratefully acknowledge this support.

Appendix: PMPD procedure outline

Obtain the structure’s geometry (see Fig. 1) and material properties: fy and sy
1. Specify a rational distribution of relative flexural strength.
0
(a) Define a horizontal distribution of relative flexural strength Mhi , as a row vector,
where i ¼ 1: Nw and Nw is the number of walls. The tag (apostrophe) denotes

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

values characterizing the FE model used in the pushover analysis. Use the
approximately known axial load contributions to base moment capacities and
target 1st story reinforcing steel ratios in Eq. 3. See Fig. 4.
0
 0

Mhi ¼ 0:5 fy bi q1;i L2i þ Li N1;i ð3Þ
0
where bi is the ith wall’s thickness, q1;i corresponds to a target 1st story
longitudinal reinforcing steel ratio, and Nj;i is the design axial force for the jth
story of the ith wall for the selected load case. Note that Eq. 3 is not intended for
use in section design and is only used to define the horizontal distribution of
relative flexural strength.
0
(b) Define a vertical distribution of relative flexural strength Mvj , as a column
vector, where j ¼ 1: Ns and Ns is the number of stories. See Fig. 3.
(c) Compute relative flexural strength matrix:
0 0 0
Myji ¼ Mvj Mhi ð4Þ

2. Compute relative elastic wall flexural stiffnesses and modal characteristics:

(a) Estimate wall yield curvatures using, for example, Eq. 5 from Priestley et al.
(2007):
uyi ¼ 2sy =Li ð5Þ
(for RC walls with rectangular cross sections) where sy is the longitudinal
reinforcing steel yield strain and Li is the length of the ith wall.
0 0
(b) Compute relative flexural section stiffness: EIji ¼ Myji =uyi .
(c) Solve the eigenvalue problem of the known floor masses m and rotational
0
inertias I and the stiffnesses EIji to find the elastic mode shapes of free vibration
0
/n (normalize each mode by its roof cM translational term), the periods Tn and
0 0
the ratios between periods cTn ¼ Tn =T1 , the modal participation factors Cn , and
the modal effective masses mn and heights hn (Chopra 2007):
The first N global degrees of freedom can be taken as the center of mass
translations of the floors (numbered like the floor numbers). The last N global
degrees of freedom can be taken as the floor rotations about a vertical axis
through the mass centers numbered consecutively from N þ 1 to 2N. M  is
associated with the floor translational degrees of freedom 
 and I with the
 0
M
rotational ones. The mass matrix can be formulated as M ¼   where M 
0 I
and I are diagonal matrices of order Ns , having respectively m and I on the
diagonals and 0 is a null matrix of order Ns .
(d) Truncate the number of modes considered by including only the first Nm modes
having modal effective masses summing to at least 90 % of the total seismic
mass of the building.
3. Conduct pushover analysis for 1st ’mode’ response and define bilinear SDOF system.
(a) Estimate plastic hinge lengths Lpi using, for example, Eq. 6 from Priestley et al.
(2007):

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Lpi ¼ khei þ 0:1Li þ LSP ð6Þ

where k ¼ 0:2ðfu =fy  1Þ  0:08 where hei is the effective height of the ith wall
estimated, at this stage, as 0.75 of the wall’s total height. LSP is the strain
penetration length computed as LSP ¼ 0:022fy dbl where dbl is a reasonable es-
timate of the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing steel bars.
0
(b) Develop the base shear reference displacement (Vb  ur ) curve by conducting a
pushover analysis on the 3D MDOF structural model characterized by the
0
modal parameters above and the strengths Myji . Neglect geometric nonlinearity.
Apply an invariant load vector distribution p ¼ M/1 equal to the 1st mode
effective earthquake force distribution. At each load increment, record center of
mass translations and rotations (about the vertical axis) and the response
parameters to be limited (e.g. wall curvatures and story shears).
(c) Approximate the pushover curve bilinearly without changing the initial elastic
0
stiffness, kel by defining the yield displacement ury and a ’post yield’/elastic
stiffness ratio a.
(d) Define an equivalent bilinear SDOF system having the yield shear Fy ¼ k1 Dy
and ’post yield’/elastic stiffness ratio a and the spectral yield displacement
defined as
ury
Dy ¼
C1 /r1
where /r1 is the value of the 1st mode shape at the location of the pushover
reference node.
4. Determine the value of T1 corresponding to the critical story or plastic hinge achieving
its limit deformation:
For each applicable limit state:
(a) Define the design response spectrum (see for example Fig. 7).
(b) Calculate initial values T1ito ¼1 and D1iti ¼1 :
(i) For each wall compute:
urdi
D1i ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PNm 2 ð7Þ
n¼1 ðai Cn /n cTn Þ

where urdi is the ith wall’s traditional DDBD limit roof displacement, ai is the
ith wall’s roof displacement global to local coordinate transformation vector.
(ii) Take Dit1 i ¼1 as the smallest D1i .
(iii) Using l ¼ maxðDit1 i ¼1 =Dy ; 1Þ enter the design response spectrum (for a
constant ductility of l and bilinear factor of a) at D ¼ Dit1 i ¼1 to estimate T1ito ¼1
(initial elastic period) and calculate the corresponding higher mode periods
Tnito ¼1 ¼ cTn T1ito ¼1 .
(c) Outer iteration loop: for ito ¼ 1; 2. . .
(i) Modify SDOF system to account for PD effects:
2
Compute 1st mode stiffness k1 ¼ 4pitom12 .
ðT1 Þ
Compute stability index hPD ¼ Wt =ðk1 h1 Þ where Wt is the structure’s total
seismic weight.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Modify period to account for PD effects: T1ito ¼ 2p ð1hmPD 1
Þk 1
PD
Modify a to account for PD effects: aPD ¼ ah
1hPD
(ii) Inner iteration loop: for iti ¼ 1; 2::: Compute liti ¼ Dit1 i =Dy , then retrieve
Dit1 i þ1 from design
 response  spectra using T1ito ; liti and aPD . Repeat this
 Di 
it þ1
computation until 1  1 iti  is acceptably close to zero.
D1
i þ1
(iii) Extract Ditn¼2:N m
from the elastic response spectrum using Tnito ¼ cTn T1ito
where n ¼ 2 : Nm .
(iv) Extract the peak 1st mode contribution to wall interstory drifts from the
pushover analysis results occurring between ur ¼ 0 and ur ¼ C1 /r1 Dit1 i þ1 .
iti þ1
(v) Compute the higher mode contributions to interstory drifts using Dn¼2:N m
.
ito
(vi) Estimate total wall interstory drifts hj;i using an appropriate modal
combination rule.
(vii) Compute drift performance indices for each story j at each wall i:
Typical drift limits for serviceabilty and damage control limit states are 1 and
2 % respectively.
hitj;io
ito
dPIj;i ¼ ð8Þ
hlim
Compute the maximum drift PI for the current iteration.
ito
DPI ito ¼ maxji ðdPIj;i Þ ð9Þ
(viii) Extract the peak 1st mode contributions to intended plastic hinge region
(wall base) curvatures uiti;n¼1
o
from the pushover analysis results occurring be-
tween ur ¼ 0 and ur ¼ C1 /r1 Dit1 i þ1 .
i þ1
(ix) Compute the higher mode contributions to wall curvatures using Ditn¼2:N m
.
ito
(x) Estimate total base curvatures ui¼1:Nw using an appropriate modal combi-
nation rule.
(xi) Define the strain based curvature limits using, for example, Eq. 10 from
Priestley et al. (2007):
For the serviceability limit state, limits were recommended in Priestley et al.
(2007) for concrete and steel material strains of c;ls ¼ 0:004 and s;ls ¼ 0:015
respectively. For a damage control limit state the recommended limits on con-
crete and steel material strains were c;ls ¼ 0:018 and s;ls ¼ 0:6su (where su is
the steel strain at peak steel stress) respectively. These allowable strains are based
on stringent requirements regarding the transverse reinforcement provided.
1:2s;ls
ulsi ¼ ð10Þ
Li
(for RC walls having rectangular cross sections) for all intended plastic hinge
regions.
(xii) Compute curvature performance indices for the intended plastic hinge
regions at the wall bases:

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

uiti o
cPIiito ¼ ð11Þ
ulsi
Compute the maximum curvature PI for the current iteration:
CPI ito ¼ maxi ðcPIiito Þ ð12Þ
(xiii) Compute the key PI for the current iteration as
kpiito ¼ maxðDPI ito ; CPI ito Þ ð13Þ
ito
(xiv) If kpi is not acceptably close to one:
Adjust estimate of T1 according to Eq. 14:
P
1
T1ito þ1 ¼ T1ito ð14Þ
kpiito
where 0\P  1 is a parameter controlling convergence.
Increase ito by one and repeat step 4c.
If kpiito is acceptably close to one, compute final values for the considered limit
state as T1 ¼ T1ito þ1 , D1 ¼ Dit1 i þ1 and l ¼ liti :
5. Compute design moment actions:
(a) Compute the flexural strength scale factor:
0 2
T1
FM ¼ ð15Þ
T1
(b) Scale the relative flexural strengths to provide the required stiffness corre-
sponding to T1 of the governing limit state:
0
Myji ¼ FM Myji ð16Þ
 PD

(c) Compute stability index factor FPD ¼ max 1; lh0:3 . Multiply flexural strengths
by FPD .
(d) Design and detail flexural steel reinforcement using the applicable standard
section/member analysis method considering the design moments and other
actions:
6. Compute design shear actions:
0
(a) Extract peak 1st mode contributions to wall story shears Vj;i;1 from the push
over results in the range 0  ur  C1 /r1 D1 .
0
(b) Compute higher mode contributions to story shears Vj;i;n¼2:Nm .
(c) Combine modal contributions using an appropriate modal combination rule to
0
determine Vj;i .
0
(d) Scale Vj;i by FM FPD to determine Vj;i and adjust if necessary, to ensure that wall
shear capacities do not increase with height. This determines the unfactored
shear action distribution Vj;iunfac up the height of each wall.
unfac
(e) Factor Vj;i up by the flexural reinforcing steel overstrength factor to
determine the design shear actions.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

(f) Design and detail shear steel reinforcement using the applicable standard
section/member analysis method considering the design shears and other
actions.

If desired, the design base shear considering higher mode effects and ductility may be
P wd unfac
estimated as Vb ¼ Ni¼1 V1;i ¼ Cd Wt where Nwd is the number of walls in the di-
rections considered.

References
Anagnostopoulos SA, Kyrkos MT, Stathopoulos KG (2015) Earthquake induced torsion in buildings: critical
review and State of the Art. Earthq Struct 8(2):305–377
Ayala AG, Castellanos H, López S (2012) A diplacement-based seismic design method with damage control
for RC buildings. Earthq Struct 3(3–4):413–434
Carr AJ (2006) RUAUMOKO—program for inelastic dynamic analysis. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch
Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for
buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):561–582
Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C (2004) Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures:
single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems. J Struct Eng 130(9):1309–1319
Chopra AK, Goel RK (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for
unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:903–927
Chopra AK (2007) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 3rd edn.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthq spectra
16(3):573–592
Kappos AJ, Gkatzogias KI, Gidaris IG (2012) Extension of direct displacement-based design methodology
for bridges to account for higher mode effects. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(4):581–602. doi:10.1002/eqe.
2229
Krawinkler H, Nassar AA (1992) Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands and
capacities. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds) Nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced
concrete buildings. Elsevier, New York
Kreslin M, Fajfar P (2012) The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and
elevation. Bull Earthq Eng 10(2):695–715. doi:10.1007/s10518-011-9319-6
Lavan O, De Stefano M (eds) (2013) Seismic behaviour and design of irregular and complex civil structures.
Springer, Berlin
MacRae AK (1994) P-D effects on single-degree-of-freedom structures in earthquakes. Earthq Spectra
10(3):539–568
Paparo A, Landi L, Diotallevi PP (2012) Extension of direct displacement-based design to plan-asymmetric
RC frame buildings. J Civil Eng Archit 6(10):1280–1291
Paulay T (2001) Some design principles relevant to torsional phenomena in ductile buildings. J Earthq Eng
5(3):273–308
Priestley MJN (1998) Brief comments on elastic flexibility of reinforced concrete frames and significance to
seismic design. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 31(4):246–259
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based seismic of structures. IUSS Press,
Pavia
Reyes JC, Chopra AK (2011) Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two
components of ground motion, including its evaluation for tall buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
40(7):789–806
Rutenberg A (2002) EAEE Task Group (TG) 8: behaviour of irregular and complex structures, asymmetric
structuresProgress since 1998. In: Proceedings of 12th European conference on earthquake engineering
(12ECEE), 12–13 September, London, UK
Rutenberg A (1982) Simplified P-delta analyses for asymmetric buildings. J Struct Div ASCE
108(ST9):1995–2013
Salawdeh S (2009) Displacement based design of vertically irregular frame-wall structures. Masters dis-
sertation, European school for advanced studies in reduction of seismic risk (ROSE School), University
of Pavia, Italy

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Seismosoft (2010) SeismoMatch (version 1.3.0. Build 101): a computer program for spectrum matching of
accelerograms. http://www.seismosoft.com/
Stafford Smith B, Coull A (1991) Tall building structures: analysis and design. University of Texas Press,
Austin
Wilkinson PJ, Lavan O (2013) A modal displacement based approach for the seismic design of one way
asymmetric multi story buildings. In: The 2013 World Congress on advances in structural engineering
and mechanics (ASEM13), 8–12 September, Jeju Island, Korea
Wilkinson PJ, Lavan O, Rutenberg A (2012) Modal displacement based seismic design of asymmetric-plan
structures. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE), 24–28
September, Lisbon, Portugal

123
View publication stats