Dan Zamfirescu

Comparison of Simplified Procedures for

Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Structures

Objective

To evaluate the suitability for practical application of

different procedures based on:

Accuracy
Simplicity
Transparency
Theoretical background

Investigated Procedures
ATC 40
TriServices Manual 1996 (Freeman)
FEMA 273 and 356
BSL 2000
N2 (EC8 draft 2001)
Yield Point Spectrum
Chopra-Goel (Modal Pushover Analysis)
Priestley
Fardis - Panagiotakos (Elastic)

Investigated Procedures

Common Features

Common steps (exceptions Priestley and Fardis):

Pushover analysis of the MDOF to the target
displacement
Bilinear approximation of the pushover curve
(exception BSL)
MDOF to SDOF transformation
The use of the response spectrum for the
assesment of target displacement
Common restriction
Planar model (partial exceptions FEMA, N2)

Differences
Response spectrum
Inelastic (Chopra, FEMA, N2, Yield Spectra)
Equivalent (overdamped) elastic using substitute
structure (ATC 40, TriServices, BSL, Priestley)

Elastic stiffness of structural components

Distribution of lateral forces for pushover
Displacement shape along the height
MDOF to SDOF transformation
Idealization of pushover curve (bilinear)
Iterative procedure for the target displacement and
for the bilinear idealization needed
Graphic presentation

FEMA 273 & 356

Pushover: two lateral load distributions

Special rule for bilinear idealization (iteration
needed for FEMA 356)
Inconsistent MDOF to SDOF transformation
Target displacement from nonlinear spectra:
T > TC equal displacement rule with possible
correction
T < TC elastic displacement amplified

No graphic representation

Chopra-Goel (Modal)
Modal Pushover Analysis - the effect of
higher modes is taken into account by
combining several individual peak modal
responses obtained from a pushover
procedure.
The pushover procedure is iterative due to
the proposed bilinear idealization of the
pushover curve.
Advocates the use of computed, or
simplified (Newmark-Hall) inelastic spectra.

ATC 40 & TriServices

Known as capacity spectrum method
Pushover: lateral load distribution according to the
first elastic mode (basic variant)
Target displacement (performance point) from
equivalent elastic spectrum by a graphical iterative
procedure
Equivalent damping determined from
dissipated energy based on idealized hysteretic loops
(ATC 40)
Newmark-Hall reduction factors for inelastic spectra
(TriServices Manual)

Iteration is needed

N2 - BSL 2000
Comparison
N2

BSL 2000

Load Pattern
According to assumed
displacement shape
2 different shapes

MDOF

SDOF

According to assumed
displacement shape

Load Pattern
Consistent with the
previous BSL

MDOF

SDOF

According to first mode

shape

N2 - BSL 2000
Comparison
N2
Response Spectra
Inelastic
For T < Tc

S de
Tc
Sd
(1 ( Rm 1) * )
Rm
T

For T > Tc
Sd = Sde equal
displacement rule

BSL 2000
Response Spectra
Equivalent elastic
m

heqi

1)
heq

1
1
(1 )
4
m

h W

W
m

eqi m

2) Simplified approach

m-displacement ductility
of eq. SDOF

BSL 2000 equivalent damping

Frame Structure

Wall Structure

Reduction Factor
2) Fh SDOF

1) Fh

1.2

1.2

Reduction Factor

Reduction Factor

1) Fh

Reduction Factor

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

Top Displacem ent (m )

0.20

0.25

2) Fh SDOF

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.00

0.05

0.10

Top Displacem ent (m )

0.15

Inelastic vs. Equivalent Elastic

Spectrum
INELASTIC

EQUIVALENT ELASTIC
Sa

sp e c t r e d espectra
r a sp u n s
Damped

Sa
T

b i p ar ti te

= 0 ,5 %

Sae
m1 (elastic)

sp e c t r u l
Capacity diagram
c ap ac i tati i

= 30%

Say
Sad

4
*

D d Dy *

Sd = Sde

Sd

Sd

F
Fu
Fn

RK i

Simple Version of N2 in A-D Format

K

N2 - BSL 2000
Comparison
N2
Response Spectra
Initial elastic period
(bilinear idealization)
Solution bilinear
idealization function of
the target displacement
(FEMA 356). Result
iterative procedure.

BSL 2000
Response Spectra
1) - Complicated for large
structures. Advantage no
bilinear idealization.
2) - The yielding displacement has to be specified
Iteration is needed if performance has to be assesed.
Is heq easier to determine
than inelastic spectra?

Priestley

MAIN STEPS:
The plastic mechanism of the structure is assumed, based on
simple calculations
The global displacement and ductility capacity of the structure is
determined, based on simplified formulas for yield and ultimate
element rotations, assumed (PREDETERMINED) displacement
shape, and drift limit values
Substitute structure characteristics are based on ductility
capacity
The displacement demand is established using the substitute
structure (equivalent elastic) method
Compare demand and capacity (End of original procedure 1997)
Iteration is needed for determination of actual demand! (For
direct displacement-based design (new buildings), no iteration is
required)

Fardis-Panagiotakos
ELASTIC ANALYSIS
similar to FEMA LSP and NZ code

Determine secant stiffness (at yielding) of

components using empirical relations for chord
rotations
Estimate the peak inelastic chord rotations from
linear analysis using the equal displacement rule
Restrictions:
The method is appropriate for structures having
moment diagram in the inelastic range similar to
the elastic one
Restricted for structures having T > Tc

EXAMPLES
Test example
5 storey RC frame designed according EC8 (PGA =0.2g)
5 storey RC wall structure (only wall & wall + frame is
considered to resist lateral forces)

Seismic demand in terms of:

Top displacement
Storey drifts
Rotations and ductilities of components

Was determined by:

All investigated procedures
Nonlinear time-history analysis using 11 accelerograms
calibrated to EC8 acceleration spectra

Two ground motions intensities considered:

Spectral acceleration equal to EC8 elastic spectrum
Spectral acceleration equal to twice EC8 elastic spectrum

Test Example
74.5 KN

99.7 KN
28 KN/m

2.85m

12f16
2f222f22
2f16

2.85m

12f18
12f16

2.85m

102.2 KN

100.6 KN
12f18

21 KN/m

2.85m

25x55 cm
3f22

2.85m

12f20
4f22

2f22
40x40 cm

5.4m

5.4m

Test Example
390 KN

390 KN

74.5 KN

99.7 KN
28 KN/m

2.85m
530x30 cm

2f20+1f16
2f16

530x30 cm

2.85m

370 KN

2.85m

370 KN

102.2 KN

8f16

100.6 KN

21 KN/m
40x40 cm

2.85m
2f8/15cm
2.85m

2f20
6f16

2f8/15cm
2f20
6f16

2f20
6f16

25x55 cm
2f20
6f16

5.4m

5.4m

European Accelerograms
Recorded on Stiff Soil
Frame Structure

Wall Structure

Te= 0.38 s
Te= 0.95 s

MDOF a SDOF

Frame Structure
T(s)
cy
Sh
DF

N2
mod1
0.95
0.25
0.00
1.26

N2
uni1
0.97
0.25
0.00
1.00

FEMA
mod2
0.88
0.22
0.08
1.30

FEMA
uni2
0.86
0.25
0.08
1.20

T
cy
Sh
DF

ATC TriserMPA
3
4
40
vices
Mode I5
0.87
0.90
0.91
0.20
0.22
0.19
0.06
0.00
0.00
1.26
1.26
1.26
Limit State 2
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.10
0.00
0.00
1.26
1.26
1.26

MPA
Mode II5
0.19
1.26
0.00
0.37

BSL6
1.26

1.59
1.00

Priest
ley8
1.55
1.35

0.32
1.26
0.00
0.37

Fardis
7

MDOF a SDOF

Wall Structure
T(s)
cy
Sh
DF

N2
mod1
0.39
0.26
0.00
1.34

N2
uni1
0.43
0.23
0.00
1.00

FEMA
mod2
0.32
0.19
0.02
1.30

T
cy
Sh
DF

FEMA ATC Triseruni2

403
vices4
0.35
0.38
0.38
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.02
0.03
0.00
1.20
1.34
1.34
Limit State 2
0.38
0.38
0.23
0.25
0.02
0.00
1.34
1.34

MPA
Mode I5
0.32
0.20
0.00
1.34

BSL6

Priestley8

1.34

0.78
1.34

0.32
0.22
0.00
1.34

Response spectrum

PGA=0.4g

PGA=0.4g

PGA=0.2g

PGA=0.2g

PGA=0.4g

PGA=0.4g

PGA=0.2g

PGA=0.2g

Time- history mean spectrum

Time- history mean + StDev spectrum

Resulting spectrum

EC8 Elastic spectrum

Lateral Load Pattern

Wall

Frame
Modal

Ai BSL

Uniform

Modal

Ai BSL

Uniform

5
5

4
4

1
-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

S t ory Forc e / Ba se Forc e

-0.1

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

S t ory Forc e / Ba se Forc e

-0.1

Results
Displacements
Maximum Drift - Frame

Top Displacement (Drift) - Frame

Sa

Sa

2Sa

Priestley

Priestley

BSL

BSL

T riServices

T riServices

AT C 40

AT C 40

Chopra

Chopra

FEMA uni

FEMA uni

FEMA mod

FEMA mod

N2 uni

N2 uni

N2 mod

N2 mod

M+Stdev Synth

M+Stdev Synth

Mean Synth

Mean Synth

M+StDev

M+StDev

Mean

Mean
0

0.5

%H

1.5

0.5

2Sa

% Hs

1.5

Results Maximum Plastic

Rotations
Beam Plastic Negative Rotations - Frame

Column Plastic Rotations - Frame

Sa

Sa

2Sa

Fardis

Fardis

Priestley

Priestley

BSL

BSL

T riServices

T riServices

AT C 40

AT C 40

Chopra

Chopra

FEMA uni

FEMA uni

FEMA mod

FEMA mod

N2 uni

N2 uni

N2 mod

N2 mod

M+Stdev Synth

M+Stdev Synth

Mean Synth

2Sa

Mean Synth

M+StDev

M+StDev

Mean

Mean
0

0.005

0.01

rad

0.015

0.02

0.005

rad

0.01

0.015

Results
Displacements
Maximum Drift - Wall

Top Displacement (Drift) - Wall

Sa

Sa

2Sa

Priestley

Priestley

BSL

BSL

T riServices

T riServices

AT C 40

AT C 40

Chopra

Chopra

FEMA uni

FEMA uni

FEMA mod

FEMA mod

N2 uni

N2 uni

N2 mod

N2 mod

M+StDev Synth

M+StDev Synth

Mean Synth

Mean Synth

M+StDev

M+StDev

Mean

Mean
0

0.5

%H

1.5

0.5

2Sa

%H

1.5

Results Maximum Plastic

Rotations
Maximum Plastic Rotation - Wall
Sa

Wall Plastic Rotation Reduction

Wall + Frame

2Sa

Sa

Priestley

2Sa

BSL
T riServices

BSL

AT C 40

TriServices

Chopra

ATC 40

FEMA uni

Chopra

FEMA mod

FEMA uni
FEMA mod

N2 uni

N2 uni

N2 mod

N2 mod

M+StDev Synth
Mean Synth

Mean Synth

Mean

M+StDev

Mean

20

40

60

diff %
0

0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008

rad

0.01

0.012

80

100

Features
Procedure

Analysis

Spectrum

Iteration

Consistency of
MDOFSDOF

Graphic
Presentation

ATC 40
Pushover
Equiv. El.
Yes
Yes (1st Mode)
Yes
st
TriServices
Pushover
Equiv. El.
Yes
Yes (1 Mode)
Yes
1
FEMA
Pushover
Inelastic
Yes
No
No
BSL
Pushover
Equiv. El.
Yes
No
Yes
N2
Pushover
Inelastic
No
Yes
Yes
Yield Spectra
Pushover
Inelastic
No
NA
Yes
Chopra &
Pushover
Inelastic
Yes1
Yes (El. Modal
No/Yes2
Goel
(Several)
Shapes)
Priestley (A)
Equiv. El.
Yes/No3
No
No
Fardis &
Linear
Equal Disp.
No
Yes (Elastic)
No
Panagiotakos (B)
(A) - Predetermined plastic mechanism and displacement shape. Appropriate for regular structures.
(B) - Fundamental period T > Tc. Predetermined elastic displacement shape (global plastic mechanism).
1
Due to bilinear idealization
2
For each mode
3
For new structures (direct displacement-based design)

Conclusions
The procedures generally yield results of adequate
accuracy (particularly for T>Tc domain)
Global quantities (top displacements, maximum
drifts) more accurate then local ones (plastic
rotations)
Demand Spectrum the most important parameter
Final results show low sensitivity to characteristics of
SDOF equivalent system
BSL 2000 most accurate results
MPA without further simplifications significantly
more complex
Main dilemma inelastic demand spectra or
equivalent elastic?