Seismic Assessment &

Retrofitting of Existing RC
Structures using SeismoStruct
and SeismoBuild
Module 2

Stelios Antoniou and Fanis Moschas

 Module 2
Seismic Assessment & Retrofitting of Existing RC Structures: Methods of Analyses,
Modelling of RC Structures, Checks and Acceptance Criteria

Introduction
The Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP), which is based on the nonlinear static pushover analysis, and the
Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP), which is based on the nonlinear dynamic time‐history analysis are
presented, and their advantages and disadvantages are explained.

Pushover analysis
According to ASCE 41‐17, Section 7.4.3.1, the definition of the Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) or
pushover analysis is the following:
A mathematical model directly incorporating the nonlinear load‐deformation characteristics of
individual components of the building shall be subjected to monotonically increasing lateral loads
representing inertia forces in an earthquake until a target displacement is exceeded.
As explained in Module 1, in the Nonlinear Static Procedure the structural behaviour is no longer linear,
and the analysis accounts for the geometrical and material nonlinearities, as well as the redistribution
of internal forces due to the sustained structural damage. Stresses are not proportional to strains,
forces are not proportional to displacement and bending moments are not proportional to curvatures.
In pushover analysis a structural model that consists of nonlinear members (members in which material
and geometric nonlinearity has been explicitly modelled) is loaded with a predefined lateral load profile
and a gradually increasing load factor , until a specified maximum displacement is achieved.

Obviously, the structural and member stiffness is no longer constant, but rather it is updated at every
step and the structure gradually softens as plastic hinges develop at the locations of structural damage.
As a result, the force vs. deformation curve, which is the so called capacity curve, is not linear any more,
but has a parabolic shape as the structural deformations increase disproportionally with the level of
lateral loading. In other words for the same level of load increase, the increase of the deformations get
larger as we push further on in the inelastic range.

The lateral force profile is expected to approximate the earthquake loading, and several different types
of force distributions can be employed, triangular, uniform, modal or even adaptive distributions that
change from step to step. During the analysis the sequence of the plastic‐hinge formation, the
members’ failures, and the change in the loading paths and the redistribution of forces are identified.
 Figure 2‐ 1: Nonlinear Static Procedure, NSP
Base shear

( =λ3 x )
( =λ2 x )
λ1< λ2 < λ3
0
( =λ1 x )
Top displacement
Figure 2‐ 2: Gradual increase of the load factor  during a pushover analysis
base shear

0
top displacement
Figure 2‐ 3: Formation of plastic hinges and softening of the structure during a pushover analysis
Information obtained with pushover analysis
The purpose of pushover analysis is to assess the structural performance by estimating and considering
the actual strength and deformation capacities of the structural components and comparing these
capacities with the demands at the corresponding performance levels.
It provides crucial information on response parameters that cannot be obtained with conventional
elastic methods (either static or dynamic). The response characteristics that can be obtained with
pushover analysis include:
 The realistic force demands on potentially brittle elements, such as axial demands on columns,
moment demands on beam‐to‐column connections or shear force demands on short, shear‐
dominated elements.
 Estimates of the deformation demands of elements that have to deform inelastically, in order
to dissipate energy.
 Consequences of the strength deterioration of particular elements on the overall structural
stability.
 Identification of the critical regions, where the inelastic deformations are expected to be high.
 Identification of strength irregularities in plan or elevation that cause changes in the dynamic
characteristics in the inelastic range.
 Estimates of the interstorey drifts, accounting for strength and stiffness discontinuities. In this
way, damage on non‐structural elements can be controlled.
 Sequence of the member’s yielding and failure and the progress of the overall capacity curve
of the structure.
 Verification of the adequacy of the load path, considering all the elements of the system, both
structural and non‐structural.
Compared to the elastic procedures, pushover analysis treats inelasticity in a more explicit manner and
being more ‘displacement‐based’ it is more suitable for performance‐based engineering. Of course,
these benefits come with the additional cost of having to model accurately the inelastic load‐
deformation characteristics of both structural and non‐structural members, as well as increased
computational effort.

Theoretical background of pushover analysis

The static pushover analysis has no robust theoretical background. It is based on the assumption that
the response of the multi‐degree‐of‐freedom (MDOF) structure is directly related to the response of an
equivalent single‐degree‐of‐freedom (SDOF) system with appropriate hysteretic characteristics. This
implies that the dynamic response of the MDOF system is determined by a single mode only, and that
the shape {} of that mode is constant, throughout the time‐history, regardless of the level of
deformation. The reference SDOF displacement x* is related to the top displacement xt of the MDOF
system through equation (2.1):

{}T  M {}
x*  c  xt   xt (2.1)
{}T  M  {1}
Presuming that the vector {} is known, the c parameter can be calculated. The force deformation
characteristics of the equivalent SDOF system can be determined from the results of the nonlinear
pushover analysis of the MDOF system, which usually derives a base shear vs. top displacement curve
that can be idealised by a bilinear curve with an effective elastic stiffness Ke = Vy/xt,y and a hardening
stiffness Ks = Ke.
V Q*

KMDOF Q*y KSDOF

Vy

KMDOF KSDOF

Xt,y Xt X*
X*y

(a) (b)
Figure 2‐ 4: Force‐displacement characteristics of the MDOF structure and the equivalent SDOF system

The force‐displacement curve of the SDOF system can be evaluated as follows:

{}T  M  {}
x *y   xt , y Q *y  {}T  {Q} y KSDOF = Q*y / x*y (2.2)
{}T  M  {1}
where {Q}y is the storey force vector at yield for the MDOF building. The strain hardening parameter 
is assumed to be the same with that of the bilinear approximate curve of the MDOF system.
Although these considerations are apparently incorrect, sensitivity studies have shown that the
modification factor c can be considered constant for small to moderate changes in {} and that rather
accurate predictions can be attained, if the structural response is dominated by the fundamental mode.
The maximum displacement of the SDOF model subjected to the expected ground motion can now be
found by means of elastic or inelastic spectra or time‐history analysis. The expected deformation level
of the MDOF structure can be estimated by equation:

{}T  M  {1}
xt  x max
SDOF
/ c  x max
SDOF
 (2.3)
{}T  M  {}
Several critical parameters of the procedure are worthy of consideration, namely the target
displacement, the shape of the load distribution, as well as its nature (forces or displacements). All
these issues are discussed in the following sections.

Target displacement
The target displacement of pushover analysis approximates the maximum level of deformation that is
expected during the design earthquake. It can be calculated by any procedure that accounts for the
effects of non‐linear response on displacement amplitude.
It was explained in the previous section that it is assumed that the target displacement for the MDOF
structure can be estimated from the displacement demand of the equivalent SDOF system, through the
use of the selected shape vector {} (usually corresponding to that of the fundamental mode) and
equation (2.3). A method is, therefore, sought to determine the target displacement of the SDOF
system. For increased sophistication dynamic time‐history analysis of the SDOF model can be used,
assuming simple hysteretic rules.
For more practical applications the so‐called Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) can be employed. The
Capacity Spectrum Method is a useful and intuitive tool, and follows a simple procedure to correlate
structural damage states to amplitudes of ground motion. The method compares graphically the
capacity of the lateral force‐resisting system of the building (representing the strength) with response
spectra values (representing the demand). The values are often plotted in an Acceleration‐
Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) format, in which spectral accelerations are plotted against
spectral displacements and periods T are represented by radial lines. The procedure is summarised
graphically in Figure 2‐ 5.
The Capacity Spectrum Method is the approach proposed by Eurocode 8 for the calculation of the target
displacement. ASCE 41 instead proposes the so called Coefficient Method, according to which the target
displacement is given with the following simplified equation:

Te2
 t  C0  C1  C 2  S a g (2.4)
4 2
Te is the effective fundamental period of the structure in the direction under consideration
C0 is a modification factor that relates spectral displacements with the likely roof displacement.
C1 relates maximum inelastic displacements to displacements calculated for linear response. It
corresponds to the ductility demand  of the SDOF model
C2 is a modification factor that represents the effect of the hysteresis shape on the maximum
displacement response. It depends on the framing system and the selected performance level.

Pushover envelope Capacity curve
V SA

 SD
V
Elastic response spectrum Dem and spectrum
SA SA
T1

T2

T SD
SA
Increasing
5% Dem and
period
spectrum T el

T in
Capacity
curve
Elastic acceleration
dem and
Dem and
spectrum w ith
increased dam ping
Inelastic acceleration
dem and

SD
Inelastic Elastic
displacem ent dem and displacem ent dem and

Figure 2‐ 5: Graphical representation of the Capacity‐Spectrum Method

Applied forces vs. applied displacements
Considering earthquake loading as a set of imposed energy input, ground displacements and
deformations of the structural members rather than a set of lateral forces seems a much more rational
approach for pushover analysis. After all, the fact that earthquake input has been modelled as forces
rather than displacements can only be explained by historical reasons, related to the development of
contemporary engineering methods in countries of low seismic hazards, like England and Germany,
where the most significant actions are the vertical gravity loads. Had modern engineering made its
initial step is earthquake‐prone regions like New Zealand, California or Southern Europe, today’s code
provisions would probably be based on deformations. Therefore, applying displacement rather than
force patterns in the pushover procedures appears to be more appropriate and theoretically correct.
However, displacement‐based pushover analysis suffers from significant inherent deficiencies. Due to
the constant nature of the applied patterns, it can conceal important structural characteristics, such as
strength irregularities, e.g. weak ground stories. This is illustrated by means of an example in Figure 2‐
6, where a 5‐storey simplified model with a soft storey at the ground level has been pushed to the same
target displacement with constant displacement and constant force patterns (triangular distributions).
Although the interstorey drift at the soft‐storey during an earthquake is expected to be larger than the
other storeys, the displacement‐based pushover yields equal drifts for all the storeys. On the contrary,
this structural deficiency becomes easily apparent when force patterns are applied.

4
constant displacement
profiles

constant force
Soft storey 1 profiles

0
displacement
Figure 2‐ 6: Displacement profiles of a 5‐storey simplified model under constant‐force and constant‐
displacement distributions

Therefore, force‐based pushover seems a far superior option, since fixing the displacements could yield
seriously misleading results. However, problems of a different nature are related to force‐based
approaches: the applied load factor can only be increased up to the peak of the curve, after which the
analysis fails to converge and derive the descending branch of the pushover curve, as depicted in Figure
2‐ 7.

Hence, a hybrid approach that consists of applying increments of forces, but controlling the roof
displacement throughout the procedure seems a better choice considering the existing analytical
capabilities. According to this, a set of forces is distributed along the height of the structure in a fixed
predefined pattern. The horizontal displacement of a node at the top is increased and, at each step, the
load factor that corresponds to the aforementioned top displacement increment is calculated.
 cannot converge for this
load level

equilibrium last point of curve obtained by force-

based pushover analysis

Figure 2‐ 7: Graphical illustration of the inability of force‐based schemes to derive the post‐peak branch of the
pushover curve

Lateral load patterns

The lateral load patterns should approximate the inertia forces expected in the building during an
earthquake. Although, clearly, the inertia force distributions will vary with the severity of the
earthquake and with time, usually an invariant load pattern is used. This approximation is likely to yield
adequate predictions of the element deformation demands for low to medium‐rise framed structures,
where the structure behaviour is dominated by a single mode. However, it is noted that pushover
analysis can be grossly inaccurate for structures of larger periods, where higher mode effects tend to
be important.
Since the constant distributions are incapable of capturing such characteristics of the structural
behaviour under earthquake loading, the use of at least two different patterns is advisable. Hence, in
most modern codes a Uniform and a Modal distribution are proposed. With the Uniform distribution
the load profile is proportional to the mass distribution of the building, whilst with the Modal
distribution the load profile is proportional to the shape of the fundamental mode (or a combination of
the important modes).

Load Combinations
Since in the general case, the direction of the earthquake loading is unknown, pushover analyses at
different directions should always be considered. Moreover, the effects of bidirectional loading, as well
as accidental eccentricity should also be accounted for. In the general case, a user could use:
‐ the Uniform or the Modal distributions
‐ Uniaxial loading: X & Y
‐ Biaxial loading: X0.3Y and Y 0.3X
‐ No Eccentricity
‐ Single Eccentricity, i.e. X  eccY
‐ Double Eccentricity, i.e. (X  eccY)  (0.3Y  eccX)
If all the variations are applied the number of combinations becomes too large, 168 in total. Since there
is no point in running so many analyses, the different codes propose just some of these variants. For
instance ASCE 41 proposes the Modal distribution, uniaxial loading and single eccentricity, i.e. 8
Combinations in total. Likewise, Eurocode 8 proposes 16 combinations.
Pushover analysis limitations
As already mentioned, there are good reasons for using pushover analysis rather than simplified elastic
methods for estimating the deformation demands. Moreover, the simplicity of the method makes it a
more attractive approach for everyday practice than time‐history analysis. Pushover analysis can be an
extremely useful tool, if used with caution and acute engineering judgement, but it also exhibits
significant shortcomings and limitations, which are summarised below:
‐ The theoretical background of the method is not robust and it is difficult to defend. As
mentioned earlier, an important implicit assumption behind pushover analysis is that the
response of a multi‐degree‐of‐freedom structure is directly related to an equivalent single‐
degree‐of‐freedom system. Although in several cases the response is dominated by the
fundamental mode, this can by no means be a generalised statement. Moreover, in dynamic
time‐history analysis the shape of the fundamental mode itself may vary significantly
depending on the level of inelasticity and the locations of damage.
‐ As a consequence of the previous point, the deformation estimates obtained from a pushover
analysis may be highly inaccurate for structures where higher mode effects are significant. The
method explicitly ignores the contribution of higher modes to the total response. In the cases
where this contribution is significant, the pushover estimates may be totally misleading.
‐ The progressive stiffness degradation that occurs during the cyclic non‐linear earthquake
loading of the structure is not taken into account. This degradation leads to changes in the
periods and the modal characteristics of the structure that affect the loading attracted during
earthquake ground motion.
‐ Being a static method, pushover analysis concentrates on the strain energy of the structure,
neglecting other sources of energy dissipation, which are associated with the dynamic
response, such as the kinetic and the viscous damping energy. Moreover, it neglects duration
effects and cumulative energy dissipation demand.
‐ Only the horizontal earthquake load is considered. The vertical component of the earthquake
loading, which can be in some cases of great importance is ignored, since no method has been
proposed up to now on how to combine pushover analysis with actions that account for the
vertical ground motion.
‐ A separation between the supply and the demand is implicit in the method. This is clearly
incorrect, as the inelastic structural response is load‐path dependent and the structural
capacity is always associated to the earthquake demand.
Obviously, pushover analysis lacks many important features of dynamic non‐linear analysis and will
never substitute it as the most accurate tool for structural analysis and assessment. Nevertheless, and
despite these problems, the static nonlinear procedure has become the basic method for the
assessment and strengthening of existing structures providing a very good balance between accuracy
and simplicity of application.
 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
According to ASCE 41‐17, Section 7.4.3.1, the definition of the Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure NDP, or
nonlinear dynamic time‐history analysis is the following:
A mathematical model directly incorporating the nonlinear load‐deformation characteristics of
individual components of the building shall be subjected to earthquake shaking represented by ground
motion acceleration histories to obtain forces and displacements
The objective of the method is to assess the capacity of the structure, considering the deformability,
the strength and the hysteretic behaviour of all structural members that are subjected to the specified
earthquake ground motion.
The basis, modelling approaches, and acceptance criteria of the NDP are similar to those for the NSP.
One additional complication with respect to the NSP is that now the monotonic force‐displacement
curves are not sufficient for the structural modelling, and the full hysteretic loading & unloading rules
need to be introduced for all the structural members (or at least those that we expect to behave
inelastically). These rules should realistically reflect the energy dissipation in the element over the range
of displacement amplitudes expected in the seismic design situation.
Furthermore, the modelling of the mass distribution of the structure should be done, so that to model
correctly the inertia forces that are introduced in the structure from the dynamic vibrations.
Regarding the modelling of seismic action, instead of the lateral forces distributions that are used in
the LSP, the LDP and the NSP, an earthquake record is now applied at the foundation level of the
building in the form of an acceleration time‐history. This accelerogram can be a real recorded seismic
action, or an artificial or synthetic record that matches a given target (usually code‐defined) spectrum.
The direct integration of the equations of motion is accomplished using appropriate integration
algorithms, such as the numerically dissipative ‐integration algorithm (Hilber‐Hughes‐Taylor HHT
scheme) or a special case of the former, the well‐known Newmark scheme. by introducing acceleration
time‐histories (i.e. accelerograms) at the supports of the structure.

Figure 2‐ 8: Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure, NDP

Information obtained with nonlinear dynamic analysis
With the dynamic analysis different building response parameters at the discrete time steps are
calculated:
(i) Deformations at the different storey levels, both the absolute and the relative, the latter
being of more importance, since it is a measure of the damage caused on the structure
(ii) Member Action Effects and the base shear time‐history. Particularly important are the
force demands on brittle elements
(iii) The displacement demand on ductile components
(iv) The force demand on non‐ductile components
(v) The gradual formation of plastic hinges during the entire duration of the time‐history
(vi) Stresses, strains and curvatures of the frame members
Contrary to pushover analysis, where the checks are carried out at the particular step of the analysis
that corresponds to the target displacement, in dynamic analysis the maxima of the response
parameters throughout the time‐history are obtained as demand and compared the components
deformation or strength capacities. If there exceedance of the capacity, the acceptance criteria are not
fulfilled, if there is not, the acceptance criteria are deemed as fulfilled.

Figure 2‐ 9: Deformation time‐histories at the floor levels during a dynamic analysis

Advantages of nonlinear dynamic analysis
The Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure constitutes a sophisticated approach for examining the inelastic
demands produced on a structure by a specific suite of ground motion acceleration time‐histories.
Being the more advanced numerically method of analysis, it is considered to be the most accurate in
the representation of the dynamic nature of seismic loading.
As nonlinear dynamic analysis involves fewer assumptions than the nonlinear static procedure, it is
subject to fewer limitations than nonlinear static procedure. It automatically accounts for higher‐mode
effects and shifts in inertial load patterns as structural softening occurs. In addition, it provides reliable
results even for highly irregular structures, or with irregular seismic action (e.g. near‐fault ground
motion or loading in 2 or 3 directions simultaneously).
Furthermore, for a given earthquake record, this approach directly solves for the maximum global
displacement demand produced by the earthquake on the structure, eliminating the need to estimate
this demand based on general relationships and assumptions (e.g. in the calculation of the target
displacement).
As a result, the NDP is the only method that can be used for any structural configuration and any type
of loading. In practice, we can analyse with adequate accuracy any structural configuration subjected
to any type of seismic action.

Disadvantages of nonlinear dynamic analysis

Unfortunately, the increased accuracy that the Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure provides does not come
without a cost.
Firstly, it is time‐consuming, and expensive in terms of computer resources; a dynamic analysis can last
up to 5 or 10 times more than a pushover analysis for the same building, let alone the fact that the
analysis should be carried out with more than one ground motion records (at least 3) in each direction
under consideration.
Furthermore, the NDP requires non‐negligible judgment and experience, and should only be used when
the engineer is thoroughly familiar with nonlinear dynamic analysis techniques and limitations. For
instance, there are always difficulties in the selection of the seismic motion (accelerogram), which is
influenced by several factors such as the expected seismic event (magnitude, mechanism, depth), the
distance from the source, the expected PGA & PGV, the geology between the source and the structure,
as well as local phenomena, and the geology of the region of the structure.
Moreover, specialized knowledge is often needed for the interpretation of the results, since the
calculated response can be highly sensitive to characteristics of individual ground motions or small
changes in the input and the initial modelling assumptions. For instance, two ground motion records
enveloped by the same response spectrum can produce radically different results both in the global
and the local level, with regards to the distribution and amount of inelasticity predicted in the structure.
Hence, because of these complications, the Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure is not the first choice for the
assessment and strengthening of structures in the average design office, and its use is only economically
justified only for large and/or important projects.
 How reliable are the numerical predictions
from the nonlinear analysis methods?
Through realistic modelling of the underlying mechanics, nonlinear static analysis and especially
nonlinear dynamic analysis, reduce uncertainty in demand predictions, as compared to the linear
methods of analysis. However, even with nonlinear dynamic analyses, it is practically impossible to
always calculate accurately the demand parameters for the different structural members. Hence, very
often there are discrepancies between the analytical predictions of the response parameters and their
actual values during a seismic event. These discrepancies are usually largest for structural deformations
and accelerations and lower in force‐controlled components of capacity‐designed structures where the
forces are limited by the strength of yielding members.
Since no numerical representation of the components response is perfect, one of the sources of
inaccuracy is the limitations related to the analytical capabilities of the selected software package with
which the analysis is to be carried out. Naturally, any analytical formulation that describes the hysteretic
behaviour of materials, sections or members has limitations that restrain its ability to represent the
structural response in a very precise manner, especially in the highly inelastic range, where the lateral
stiffness is significantly reduced and the deformation response is thus very sensitive to small changes
of the loading. Analysts should be well aware of these limitations prior to the execution of the analyses,
so as to avoid modelling strategies that magnify the possible errors and affect considerably the
analytical predictions.
All the same, with the continuous development of new, enhanced models to represent structural
behaviour, inaccuracies related to the software itself and its analytical formulations and capabilities
tend to become smaller, especially in the cases of analysis of ordinary structures with components
featuring relatively predictable behaviour that can be approximated reasonably well. In such cases the
two main sources of inaccuracy are mostly related to human‐related parameters, that is (i)
uncertainties arising from the variability in the measured physical attributes of the structure such as
material properties, geometry and structural details, and (ii) incomplete mathematical model
representation of the actual structural behaviour by the analyst. The problems described above,
coupled with hazard uncertainties in the ground motion intensity, and ground motion uncertainty
arising from frequency content and duration of ground motions for a given intensity, may lead to large
divergence of the analytical predictions from the true structural response during a large earthquake
event.
Considering the discussion above, analysts should always bear in mind the different sources of
uncertainty in the structural evaluation process, and how these may affect the predictions. The
uncertainties should always be accounted for and, if possible, they should be quantified and
represented in the acceptance criteria checks through the selection of appropriate values of the
corresponding safety factors. Obviously, the selected values of the safety factors should reflect the level
of uncertainties in the knowledge of the structure and in the analytical model that has been employed.
For instance, depending on the level of knowledge of a structure, different values of the knowledge are
assigned, with more conservative values in the cases where there is lack of good knowledge of the
structural configuration.