Be!

inci Ulusal Deprem Mhendisli"i Konferans, 26-30 Mays 2003, #stanbul Fifth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 26-30 May 2003, Istanbul, Turkey Keynote Lecture

A MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE TO ESTIMATE SEISMIC DEMANDS FOR BUILDINGS: SUMMARY AND EVALUATION
Anil K. Chopra1 and Rakesh K. Goel2
2

Prof., University of California, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engrg., Berkeley, California USA Prof., Calif. Polytechnic State Univ., Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engrg., San Luis Obispo, California, USA

ABSTRACT Summarized and evaluated herein is an improved pushover analysis procedure based on structural dynamics theory, which retains the conceptual simplicity and computational attractiveness of current procedures with invariant force distribution. Called the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) procedure, its underlying concept is outlined and a step-by-step summary is presented. The accuracy and reliability of MPA in estimating story-drift demands is evaluated. Results are presented for six SAC buildings, each analyzed for 20 ground motions, and their statistical analysis leads to bias and dispersion in the procedure. These results demonstrate that by including a few modes (typically two or three), the height-wise distribution of demands estimated by MPA is generally similar to the exact results from nonlinear response history analysis. Finally, the MPA procedure is demonstrated to provide much superior results compared to the force distributions in the FEMA-273 and FEMA-356 guidelines for evaluation of existing buildings. Keywords: buildings, pushover analyses, seismic demands

INTRODUCTION
While nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) is the most rigorous procedure available to estimate seismic demands for buildings, it remains impractical for widespread use by the profession. Currently, the structural engineering profession prefers to use the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis described in FEMA-273/356 (Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997; American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000), and ATC-40 (Applied Technology Council, 1996) documents. Seismic demands are computed by nonlinear static analysis of the structure subjected to monotonically increasing lateral forces with an invariant height-wise distribution until a predetermined target displacement is reached. Both the force distribution and target displacement are based on the assumptions that the response is controlled by the fundamental mode and the mode shape remains unchanged after the structure yields. The NSP procedure has led to good estimates of seismic demands, but such predictions are mostly restricted to low- and medium-rise structures in which inelastic action is distributed throughout the height of the structure (Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998; Gupta and Krawinkler, 1999). None of the invariant force distributions account for the contributions of higher modes to response or redistribution of inertia forces because of structural yielding and the associated changes in the vibration properties of the structure. To overcome these limitations, several researchers have proposed adaptive force distributions that attempt to follow more closely the time-variant distributions of inertia forces (Bracci et al., 1997; Gupta and Kunnath, 2000). While these adaptive force distributions may provide better estimates of seismic demands (Gupta and Kunnath, 2000), they are conceptually complicated and computationally demanding for application in structural engineering practice. Attempts have also been made to consider more than the fundamental vibration mode in pushover analysis (Paret et al., 1996; Sasaki et al., 1998, Kunnath and Gupta, 2000; Matsumori et al, 1999). This paper summarizes our recent research aimed toward developing improved procedures for pushover analyses. It describes the basic concept of the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) procedure, presents a summary of the procedure, 1

evaluates the bias and dispersion in MPA relative to results of nonlinear RHA, and finally demonstrates MPAs superiority over the NSP using FEMA-273 or FEMA-356 force distributions.

SAC BUILDINGS, GROUND MOTIONS AND RESPONSE STATISTICS SAC Buildings and Ground Motions:
SAC commissioned three consulting firms to design 3-, 9-, and 20-story model buildings with symmetric plan according to the local code requirements of three cities: Los Angeles, Seattle, and Boston. Described in detail in Gupta and Krawinkler (1999), the structural systems of these model buildings consisted of perimeter steel moment-resisting frames (SMRF). The N-S perimeter frames of 9- and 20-story buildings are the structural systems analyzed in this paper. For all three locations, sets of 20 ground motion records were assembled representing probabilities of exceedance of 2% and 10% in 50 years (return periods of 2475 and 475 years, respectively) (Somerville et al., 1997). The 2/50 set of records is used in the subsequent analysis. Response Statistics The dynamic response of each structural system to each of the 20 ground motions was determined by the two procedures: nonlinear RHA and modal pushover analysis (MPA). The exact peak value the jth-story drift, , determined by nonlinear RHA is denoted by NL-RHA , and the approximate value from MPA by MPA . From these data for each ground motion, the ratio * MPA = MPA NL-RHA is defined. An approximate method is invariably biased in the sense that the median of this ratio differs from one, underestimates the median response of the ratio is less than one, and provides an overestimate if the ratio exceeds one. Before presenting such response data for inelastic response of the selected buildings, their response assuming elastic behavior will be considered. In this case the nonlinear RHA procedure specializes to linear RHA and the MPA procedure to standard response spectrum analysis (RSA); thus, the response ratios for story drift is written as * RSA = RSA RHA .
, defined as the geometric mean and the dispersion measure, , of the n observed values The median value, x xi = ( i = 1, 2...n ) of a random variable x are defined as follows:

! n " # ' ln xi $ # $ = exp # i =1 x $; n # $ # $ # $ % &

! n " )2 $ # ' ( ln xi ln x # $ = # i =1 $ 1 n # $ # $ # $ % &

1/ 2

(1)

For small values, e.g., 0.3 or less, the above dispersion measure is close to the coefficient of variation. In subsequent sections we will use loosely the term dispersion when referring to this measure. Equations 1a and 1b are logical estimators for the median and dispersion, especially if the data are sampled from lognormal distribution (Benjamin and Cornell 1970), which is appropriate for earthquake response of structures. In the case where one or more excitations caused collapse of the building or its first-mode SDF system, the median and dispersion were estimated by a counting method. The 20 data values for a displacement ratio were sorted in ascending order, the median was estimated as the average of the 10th and 11th values starting from the lowest value; the 84th-percentile value as the 17th value; and the dispersion = log (84th percentile value) log (median value).

MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS (MPA) Basic Concept

!!g ( t ) The equations of motion for a symmetric-plan multistory building subjected to earthquake ground acceleration u

are the same as those for external forces, known as the effective earthquake forces (Chopra , 2001, Section 9.4.1):
!!g ( t ) p eff ( t ) = m1 u

(2)

where m is the mass matrix and 1 is a vector with all elements equal to unity. Defined by s m1 , the spatial (heightwise) distribution of forces can be expanded into its modal components s n :
s=
N

n =1

' sn

s n n m n

(3)

T m1 T m where n is the nth-mode and n = n n n

!!g ( t ) , the nth-mode component of In the MPA procedure, the peak response of the building to peff,n ( t ) = s n u effective forces, is determined by a nonlinear static or pushover analysis. The peak demands due to these modal components of forces are then combined by an appropriate modal combination rule.

Summary of Procedure
The MPA procedure, which has been developed by Chopra and Goel (2002) to consider the contributions of higher modes of vibration, is summarized below in a sequence of steps: 1. Compute the natural periods, Tn , and modes, n , for linearly-elastic vibration of the building. Figure 1a shows such results for the 9-story SAC building. 2. Develop the base-shearroof-displacement ( Vbn urn ) pushover curve for the nth-mode force distribution
s* n = m n . These force distributions are shown in Figure 1(b) and the pushover curves in Figure 2. Gravity loads,

including those acting on the interior (gravity) frames, are applied before the first-mode pushover analysis. The resulting P- effects generally lead to a pushover curve with negative post-yield stiffness (Figure 2). The gravity loads are not considered in developing the higher-mode pushover curves. 3. 4. Idealize the pushover curve as a bilinear curve [Figure 3(a)]. Convert the idealized pushover curve to the force-deformation ( Fsn Ln Dn ) relation of the nth-mode inelastic SDF system [Figure 3b)] by utilizing the relationships
Fsny Ln = Vbny
* Mn

Dny =

urny nrn

(4)

* is the effective modal mass, and is the nth-mode shape value at the roof. where M n rn
9 8 7 6
T = 0.49 sec
3

3.05 2.61

3.05 1.51 0.0272 2.72 1.13 2.93 1.38 0.728 0.39

3.05

T2 = 0.85 sec

2.33 2.04

Floor

5 4 3 2 1

T = 2.27 sec
1

1.75 1.44 1.12 0.796 0.487

1.8 2.1 2.03 1.67 1.1

2.37 2.94 2.31

Ground 1.5

0.5 0 0.5 Mode Shape Component

1.5

s1

s2

s3

(a) distributions s* n = m n , n = 1, 2, and 3 for the 9-story SAC-Los Angeles building. 3

(b)

Figure 1. (a) First three natural-vibration periods and modes of the 9-story SAC-Los Angeles Building; (b) Force

"Modal" Pushover Curves 10000 "Mode" 3 "Mode" 2 6000 "Mode" 1

8000

Base Shear (kN)

4000

2000

0 0

50 100 150 Roof Displacement (cm)

200

Figure 2. Modal pushover curves for the 9-story SAC-Los Angeles building.
V
bn

(a) Idealized Pushover Curve

sn

/L

(b) F

sn

/ L D Relationship
n n

Idealized Vbny Actual 1

nkn

bny

/ M*

2 n n

kn 1 1

u u
rny

rn

ny

=u

rny

/
n

D
rn

(a) Figure 3. Properties of the nth-mode inelastic SDF system from the pushover curve.

(b)

5.

Compute the peak deformation, Dn of the nth-mode inelastic SDF system with force-deformation relation of Figure 3b) and damping ratio n . The initial vibration period of the system is Tn = 2 Ln Dny / Fny

1/ 2

. For a

SDF system with known Tn , n , and force-deformation relation, Dn for a given ground motion can be computed
by nonlinear RHA. In practical application, Dn would be estimated from a design spectrum using empirical equations for inelastic deformation ratios (Chopra and Chintanapakdee, 2003). 6. Calculate the peak roof displacement urn associated with the nth-mode inelastic SDF system from

urn = nrn Dn
7.

(5)

From the pushover database values at roof displacement urn , extract values of desired response rn : floor displacements, story drifts, plastic hinge rotations, etc. Repeat Steps 3 to 7 for as many modes as required for sufficient accuracy; usually the first two or three modes will suffice.

8.

9. Determine the total response (demand) rMPA by combining the peak modal responses using an appropriate modal combination rule, e.g., the SRSS combination rule:

rMPA

( J 2) + = * ' rn * + , n =1 -

1/ 2

(6)

where J is the number of modes included.

Higher Mode Contributions

The MPA procedure was implemented for each of the six SAC buildings and the 20 ground motions. Figure 4 shows the median values of story drift demands, including a variable number of modes in MPA superimposed with the exact result from nonlinear RHA. The first mode alone is inadequate in estimating story drifts, but with sufficient number of modes included, the height-wise distribution of story drifts estimated by MPA is generally similar to the nonlinear RHA results.

Accuracy of MPA
Figure 5 shows the median of the story drift ratios * MPA for each of the six SAC buildings. Results are presented for two cases: gravity loads (and P- effects) excluded or included. Figure 5 also shows the results * RSA for SAC buildings analyzed as elastic systems. The median value of * RSA being less than one implies that the standard RSA procedure underestimates the median response of elastic systems. Because the approximation in the RSA procedure for elastic systems in entirely due to modal combination rules, the resulting bias serves as a baseline for evaluating additional approximations in MPA for inelastic systems. Although the profession tacitly accepts the modal combination approximation by using commercial software based on this approximation, perhaps such significant underestimation of response has not been recognized fully. The additional bias introduced by neglecting modal coupling (Chopra and Goel, 2002) in the MPA procedure is small to modest if P- effects are neglected unless the building responds far into the inelastic range, as in the case of the Los Angeles 20-story building (Figure 5f). P- effects due to gravity loads have little influence on the bias in the MPA results for Boston 9- and 20-story buildings, but they increase the bias in the MPA results for Seattle and Los Angeles 9-story buildings. Although Figure 5f implies that the bias in the MPA procedure is affected little by P- effects for the Los Angeles 20-story building, this impression is misleading because six of the twenty excitations led to collapse of the first-mode SDF system. If these collapsed cases could be included in the calculation, the bias would have increased considerably because of P- effects. Further interpretation of these results is presented in Goel and Chopra (2003).
* * Figure 6 shows the dispersion of the story drift ratios * RSA and MPA . The dispersion of the ratio RSA for elastic * systems is small. The dispersion of the story drift ratio * MPA for Boston buildings is about the same as RSA because these buildings remain essentially elastic, but is larger for all other buildings that are deformed well into the inelastic range. For such buildings, P- effects also tend to cause additional increase in the dispersion.

Comparative Evaluation of FEMA and MPA Results

The nonlinear static procedure in FEMA-356 requires development of a pushover curve by first applying gravity loads followed by monotonically increasing lateral forces with a specified height-wise distribution. At least two force distributions must be considered. The first is to be selected from among the following: Fundamental (or first) mode distribution; Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) distribution; and SRSS distribution. The second distribution is either the Uniform distribution or an adaptive distribution; the latter varies with change in deflected shape of the structure as it yields. Distributions such as those specified in Bracci et al. (1997), Fajfar and Fischinger (1988), and Gupta and Krawinkler (2000) are permitted. The other four force-distributions mentioned above are defined next: 1. Fundamental mode distribution: s* j = m j j1 where m j is the mass and j1 is the mode shape value at the jth floor;
k Equivalent lateral force (ELF) distribution: s* j = m j h j where h j is the height of the jth floor above the base, and

2.

the exponent k = 1 for fundamental period T1 0.5 sec , k = 2 for T1 2.5 sec ; and varies linearly in between;

3.

SRSS distribution: s* is defined by the lateral forces back-calculated from the story shears determined by response spectrum analysis of the structure, assumed to be linearly elastic; and Uniform distribution: s* j = mj .
5

4.

(a) Boston 9Story Building 9 20 16 6 NLRHA MPA 1 "Mode" 2 "Modes" 3 "Modes"

Floor

(b) Boston 20Story Building

12 8 4 Ground 2 0 20 16

NLRHA MPA 1 "Mode" 3 "Modes" 5 "Modes"

Ground 9

0.5 1 1.5 (c) Seattle 9Story Building

0.5 1 1.5 (d) Seattle 20Story Building

6
Floor

12 8 4

Ground 9

1 2 3 4 (e) Los Angeles 9Story Building

Ground 5 0 20 16

1 2 3 4 (f) Los Angeles 20Story Building

6
Floor

12 8 4

Ground

1 2 3 4 Story drift, MPA or NLRHA (%)

Ground 5 0

1 2 3 4 Story drift, MPA or NLRHA (%)

Figure 4. Median story drifts determined by MPA with variable number of modes and nonlinear RHA; P- effects due to gravity loads are excluded.

(a) Boston 9Story Building 9 20 16 6 RSA MPA, P effects Excluded Included

Floor

(b) Boston 20Story Building

12 8 4

Ground 9

0.5 1 1.5 (c) Seattle 9Story Building

Ground 2 0 20 16

0.5 1 1.5 (d) Seattle 20Story Building

6
Floor

12 8 4

Ground 9

0.5 1 1.5 (e) Los Angeles 9Story Building

Ground 2 0 20 16

0.5 1 1.5 (f) Los Angeles 20Story Building

6
Floor

12 8 4 1

Ground

0.5

* or MPA

* RSA

1.5

Ground 2 0

0.5

1 * or * MPA RSA

1.5

Figure 5. Median story drift ratios * MPA for two cases (P- effects due to gravity loads excluded or included) and * RSA for SAC buildings.

(a) Boston 9Story Building 9 20 16 6 RSA MPA, P effects Excluded Included

Floor

(b) Boston 20Story Building

12 8 4

Ground 9

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (c) Seattle 9Story Building

Ground 1 0 20 16

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (d) Seattle 20Story Building

6
Floor

12 8 4

Ground 9

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (e) Los Angeles 9Story Building

Ground 1 0 20 16

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (f) Los Angeles 20Story Building

6
Floor

12 8 4 1

Ground

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 * Dispersion of * or MPA RSA

Ground 1 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 * Dispersion of * or MPA RSA

Figure 6. Dispersion of story drift ratio

* MPA for two cases (P- effects due to gravity loads excluded or included) and

of * RSA for SAC buildings; with P- effects included, dispersion could not be calculated for the Los Angeles 20-story building because the first-mode SDF-system collapsed under 6 excitations.

0.195 0.167 0.149 0.131 0.112 0.0923 0.0714 0.051 0.0311

0.281 0.21 0.165 0.126 0.0913 0.062 0.0381 0.0197 0.00719

0.367 0.177 0.0654 0.042 0.0446 0.0466 0.0702 0.0981 0.0896

0.119 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.112

(a) 1st Mode

(b) ELF

(c) SRSS

(d) Uniform

Figure 7. Force distributions in FEMA-356 for Los Angeles 9-story building: (a) 1st Mode, (b) ELF, (c) SRSS, and (d) Uniform.

Figure 7 shows these four force distributions for the Los Angeles 9-story building. Figure 8 shows the median values of drift demands, FEMA , determined by pushover analysis for four FEMA-356 lateral force distributions up to the target displacement determined by MPA. Comparing the drift demands from the FEMA-256 distribution with the exact median value determined by nonlinear RHA demonstrates the serious limitation of this approximate procedure. The FEMA-356 force distributions lead to gross underestimation of story drifts in upper stories of buildings. The Uniform force distribution grossly overestimates drifts in lower stories, with the exception of Boston buildings, which remain essentially elastic. The MPA procedure, on the other hand, leads to median story drifts that are much closer to the exact results.

CONCLUSIONS
Our recent research on improved pushover analysis procedures to estimate seismic demands for buildings has led to the following conclusions:

1.

The MPA procedure estimates seismic story-drift demands to a degree of accuracy that should be sufficient for most building design and retrofit applications. With a few modes included, the height-wise distribution of seismic story drift demands determined by MPA is similar to the exact results from nonlinear RHA. The increase in bias and dispersion in MPA is small compared to the RSA procedure for elastic systemsa standard tool for structural engineering practice. Furthermore, the MPA procedure is much more accurate compared to the results obtained by using the force distributions specified in FEMA-356. Based on structural dynamics theory, this improved pushover analysis procedure retains the conceptual simplicity of current procedures with invariant force distribution. Pushover analyses for the first two or three modal force distributions are typically sufficient in the MPA procedure. Thus, the computational effort required is comparable to the FEMA-356 procedure that requires pushover analysis for at least two force distributions.

2.

Acknowledgments
This research investigation is funded by the National Science Foundation under Grant CMS-9812531.

(a) Boston 9Story Building 9 8 7 6

Floor

(b) Boston 20Story Building 20

Nonlinear RHA MPA FEMA 1st Mode ELF SRSS Uniform

16

5 4 3 2 1

12

Ground 0

0.5

1.5

Ground 0
20 16 12 8 4

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

(c) Seattle 9Story Building 9 8 7 6

(d) Seattle 20Story Building

Floor

5 4 3 2 1

Ground 0

Ground 0

(e) Los Angeles 9Story Building 9 8 7 6 16 12 8 4 20

(f) Los Angeles 20Story Building

Floor

5 4 3 2 1

Ground 0

2 4 Story Drift,

6 ,
MPA

8 , or
FEMA

10 (%)

Ground 0

NLRHA

2 4 6 8 Story Drift, NLRHA, MPA, or FEMA (%)

10

Figure 8. Median story drifts determined by nonlinear RHA, MPA, and four FEMA-356 force distributions: 1st Mode, ELF, SRSS, and Uniform.

10

REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Applied Technology Council (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Report No. ATC-40, Redwood City, Calif. Benjamin, J. R., Cornell, C. Allin (1970). Probability, Statistics, and Decisions for Civil Engineers, McGraw Hill, New York. Bracci, J. M., Kunnath, S. K., Reinhorn, A. M. (1997). Seismic Performance and Retrofit Evaluation for Reinforced Concrete Structures, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, 123, 3-10. Building Seismic Safety Council (1997). NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Chopra, A. K. (2001). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd Ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Chopra, A. K., Goel, R. K. (2002). A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands for Buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 561-582. Chopra, A. K., Chintanapakdee, C. (2003). Inelastic Deformation Ratios for Design and Evaluation of Structures: Single-Degree-of-Freedom Bilinear Systems, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, to appear. Fajfar, P., Fischinger, M. (1988). N2a Method for Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Regular Structures, Proceedings of 9th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 5:111-116. Goel, R. K., Chopra, A. K. (2003). Evaluation of Modal Pushover Analysis using SAC Buildings, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, submitted for publication. Gupta, A., Krawinkler, H. (1999). Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures (SAC Task 5.4.3), Report No. 132, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Gupta, B., Kunnath, S. K. (2000). Adaptive Spectra-based Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures, Earthquake Spectra, 16, 367-392. Krawinkler, H., Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation, ASCE, Journal of Engineering Structures, 20, 452-464. Kunnath, S. K., Gupta, B. (2000). Validity of Deformation Demand Estimates Using Nonlinear Static Procedures, Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for R/C Building Structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan. Matsumori, T., Otani, S., Shiohara, H., Kabeyasawa, T. (1999). Earthquake Member Deformation Demands in Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures, Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for R/C Building Structures, Maui, Hawaii, 79-94. Paret, T. F., Sasaki, K. K., Eilbekc, D. H., Freeman, S. A. (1996). Approximate Inelastic Procedures to Identify Failure Mechanisms from Higher Mode Effects, Proceeding of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No. 966, Acapulco, Mexico. Sasaki, K. K., Freeman, S. A., Paret, T. F. (1998). Multimode Pushover Procedure (MMP)A Method to iIdentify the Effects of Higher Modes in a Pushover Analysis, Proceedings of the 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington. Somerville, P., Smith, N., Punyamurthula, S., Sun., J. (1997). Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC Steel Project, SAC Background Document, Report No. SAC/BD09/04, Sacramento, Calif.

11