Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, Imperial College Road, London SW7 2BU, UK
Received 2 February 2000; received in revised form 23 May 2000; accepted 26 May 2000
Abstract
Owing to the simplicity of inelastic static pushover analysis compared to inelastic dynamic analysis, the study of this technique
has been the subject of many investigations in recent years. In this paper, the validity and the applicability of this technique are
assessed by comparison with dynamic pushover idealised envelopes obtained from incremental dynamic collapse analysis. This
is undertaken using natural and artificial earthquake records imposed on 12 RC buildings of different characteristics. This involves
successive scaling and application of each accelerogram followed by assessment of the maximum response, up to the achievement
of the structural collapse. The results of over one hundred inelastic dynamic analyses using a detailed 2D modelling approach for
each of the twelve RC buildings have been utilised to develop the dynamic pushover envelopes and compare these with the static
pushover results with different load patterns. Good correlation is obtained between the calculated idealised envelopes of the dynamic
analyses and static pushover results for a defined class of structure. Where discrepancies were observed, extensive investigations
based on Fourier amplitude analysis of the response were undertaken and conservative assumptions were recommended. 2001
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pushover analysis; Timehistory collapse analysis; RC buildings; Fourier amplitude analysis
1. Introduction
Inelastic timehistory analysis is a powerful tool for
the study of structural seismic response. A set of carefully selected ground motion records can give an accurate evaluation of the anticipated seismic performance of
structures. Despite the fact that the accuracy and
efficiency of the computational tools have increased substantially, there are still some reservations about the
dynamic inelastic analysis, which are mainly related to
its complexity and suitability for practical design applications. Moreover, the calculated inelastic dynamic
response is quite sensitive to the characteristics of the
input motions, thus the selection of a suite of representative acceleration timehistories is mandatory. This
increases the computational effort significantly. The
inelastic static pushover analysis is a simple option for
estimating the strength capacity in the post-elastic range.
The technique may be also used to highlight potential
weak areas in the structure. This procedure involves
applying a predefined lateral load pattern which is distributed along the building height. The lateral forces are
then monotonically increased in constant proportion with
a displacement control at the top of the building until a
certain level of deformation is reached. The target top
displacement may be the deformation expected in the
design earthquake in case of designing a new structure,
or the drift corresponding to structural collapse for
assessment purposes. The method allows tracing the
sequence of yielding and failure on the member and the
structure levels as well as the progress of the overall
capacity curve of the structure.
The static pushover procedure has been presented and
developed over the past twenty years by Saiidi and
Sozen [1], Fajfar and Gaspersic [2] and Bracci et al. [3],
among others. The method is also described and recommended as a tool for design and assessment purposes
by the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
NEHRP (FEMA 273) [4] guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of existing buildings. Moreover, the technique is accepted by the Structural Engineers Association of California SEAOC (Vision 2000) [5] among
other analysis procedures with various level of complexity. This analysis procedure is selected for its
0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 8 - 7
408
409
Table 1
Definition of the structural systems under analysis
Group
1
Reference
name
Ductility
class
IF-H030
IF-M030
IF-M015
IF-L015
RF-H030
RF-M030
RF-M015
RF-L015
FW-H030
FW-M030
FW-M015
FW-L015
High
Medium
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Low
0.30
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
5.00
3.75
3.75
2.50
3.50
2.625
2.625
1.75
0.674
0.654
0.719
0.723
0.857
0.893
0.920
0.913
0.538
0.533
0.592
0.588
0.15
0.30
0.15
0.30
0.15
Fig. 1. Plane and cross sectional elevation of the buildings: (a) 8-storey irregular frame buildings; (b) 12-storey regular frame buildings; (c) 8storey regular frame-wall buildings.
ate selection of parameter values, acceptable representation of the cyclic inelastic behaviour on member and
structure levels, while guaranteeing numerical stability.
The choice of two-dimensional modelling may be also
justified in the light of satisfying basic code requirements
410
Fig. 2.
The overlay technique considered and description of the beamcolumn joint modelling.
Fig. 3.
411
Verification of modelling assumptions (a) RF-H030 building and (b) RF-L015 building (average for four artificial accelerograms).
the beam width plus 7% of the clear span of the structural member on either side of the web. Horizontal and
vertical structural members including core walls are
modelled using two-dimensional cubic elasto-plastic
beamcolumn elements, where a cubic shape function is
used for the transverse displacement [13]. This formulation is intended to represent short lengths of RC
elements, consequently, axial strain is assumed to be
constant along the element length. The numerical integration of the governing equations for this element is
performed over two Gauss sections, which have a fixed
position within the element length. The inelastic
response of the cross section is assembled from contributions of individual layers for which inelastic cyclic
material constitutive relationships are applied. The cubic
elasto-plastic elements are combined with material models for concrete, which account for active confinement
and reinforcing steel with nonlinear hardening. On the
concrete side, the uniaxial constant confinement concrete
model, Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai [19], has been
chosen. For steel, the advanced multisurface steel model
for cyclic plasticity, which defines the stressstrain
response of steel in terms of a series of cubic polynomials, Elnashai and Izzuddin [20], is utilised. The
parameters used in the material models are the mean
values.
412
413
Table 2
Characteristics of records used in analysis
Earthquake
Date
Ms
Kobe (Japan)
17/01/95
Loma Prieta (USA)
18/10/89
Artificial Records Art-rec1, Art-rec2, Art-rec3,
and Art-rec4
7.20
7.17
Table 3
Normalisation factors for ground acceleration 0.30 g
IF-buildings RF-buildings FW-buildings
Artificial
0.30
Kobe (KBU) 0.54
Loma Prieta
1.15
(SAR)
KBU
SAR
PGA (g)
Horiz.
Vert.
0.276
0.319
0.431
0.349
V/H
1.56
1.09
2
2
4
Fig. 5. Elastic spectra for the long. component of the natural records
(5% damping).
Earthquake
Station
Average
0.30
0.61
0.30
0.56
0.30
0.57
1.25
1.32
1.24
414
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
415
416
Fig. 8.
Table 4
Observed response at global collapse for the eight records
Group
Reference name
IF-H030
IF-M030
IF-M015
IF-L015
RF-H030
RF-M030
RF-M015
RF-L015
FW-H030
FW-M030
FW-M015
FW-L015
Min/Max
Min
Mean
613
635
492
590
690
796
735
785
643
660
643
652
503
500
381
380
580
611
630
607
599
576
590
598
542
570
449
465
625
684
681
694
631
625
621
626
0.82
0.79
0.77
0.64
0.84
0.77
0.86
0.77
0.93
0.87
0.92
0.92
VMin
Mean
11,614
13,930
7699
9229
15,647
16,278
9743
12,735
20,821
23,300
12,724
16,153
9918
12,713
6663
8102
11,568
12,076
9234
11,009
15,520
18,123
8769
11,604
10,567
13,146
7123
8685
13,689
13,990
9453
11,972
17,849
20,738
10,642
13,425
VMin/VMax
Storeya
0.85
0.91
0.87
0.88
0.74
0.74
0.95
0.86
0.75
0.78
0.69
0.72
1,
1,
1,
1,
2,
4,
5,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
4,
5,
6,
5,
3,
5,
3
3,
3,
4,
5
4,
8,
8,
8
9
6,
7
5
5
5
9
9
Location where interstorey drift collapse criterion is observed for the eight ground motions.
417
Fig. 9. Elastic and inelastic (at the design and twice the design ground acceleration) predominant response periods of the buildings average
for the eight seismic actions.
418
Fig. 10. Fourier amplitude spectra for the input accelerograms (scaled to 0.30 g) and the average inelastic period of the buildings.
Fig. 11.
Static and dynamic pushover analysis results for the irregular frame structures.
419
Fig. 12. Static and dynamic pushover analysis results for the regular frame structures.
420
Fig. 13. Static and dynamic pushover analysis results for the frame-wall structures.
Table 5
Results at global collapse limit state for the three load patterns
Group
Reference name
IF-H030
IF-M030
IF-M015
IF-L015
RF-H030
RF-M030
RF-M015
RF-L015
FW-H030
FW-M030
FW-M015
FW-L015
a
b
c
d
Storeyd
Aa
Bb
Cc
Aa
Bb
Cc
Aa
Bb
Cc
534
552
474
516
648
712
656
688
570
580
575
590
528
534
462
498
624
688
640
664
560
570
565
580
508
480
432
450
552
568
600
592
535
545
530
545
10,091
12,690
6652
8253
12,135
13,083
7332
9817
13,243
16,671
7880
10,001
10,446
13,056
6914
8508
12,499
13,444
7554
10,136
13,796
17,241
7988
10,119
11,592
14,219
7620
9147
14,650
15,748
9235
12,175
16,425
20,754
9843
12,490
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
5th
5th
5th
5th
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
2nd
4th
5th
5th
5th
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
2nd
2nd
2nd
3rd
3rd
4th
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
2nd
Triangular load.
Multimodal load.
Uniform load.
Storey at which collapse is observed.
from the triangular load. Moreover, the maximum interstorey drift collapse limit when employing the uniform
load pattern is observed in lower storeys than the
recorded collapse from the triangular or the multimodal
loads. This observation is also recorded in dynamic
analyses, where collapse is observed in lower storeys for
records that impose higher base shear. Fig. 14 depicts
the relationship between collapse limit states of the three
load shapes for one of the investigated buildings
(building RF-L015). It should be emphasised that the
loaddeformation envelope is for global response, which
is a function of the point of application of resultant force.
The uniformly distributed load gives the lowest point;
hence the maximum strength and earlier global yield and
collapse limit states. On the other hand, resultant in the
triangular load case is applied at a higher point; consequently lower strength and delayed global yield and collapse are observed in all cases.
Despite the fact that all load shapes do not represent
the actual distribution of relative inertia forces during
the dynamic analysis, almost an identical response is
observed in the first group of buildings between the
dynamic analysis best-fit envelopes and the static
response obtained from the triangular and the multimodal distributions. On the other hand, the uniform load
overestimates the initial stiffness and the maximum base
shear in the four buildings. Table 6 illustrates graphically
the differences between the results of the static pushover
analysis for the triangular and the uniform load patterns
on one side, and the incremental dynamic analysis
(average for eight records) on the other, at global collapse limit state. Since the triangular load shape is simple
and show very close results with the multimodal load
pattern, it was decided to exclude the latter from this
comparison. It is clear that the uniformly distributed load
is unconservative in predicting collapse limit states
(underestimates the drift and overestimates the strength).
The overall prediction of collapse using the triangular
load is significantly better. Although it slightly under-
Fig. 14.
421
422
Table 6
Differences between static and dynamic pushover analysis at global collapse limit state
Group
Difference in drift
Triangular
Difference in strength
Uniform
Triangular
Uniform
423
Table 7
Observed maximum roof displacement at the design ground acceleration (average for eight ground motions)
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
IF-H030
IF-M030
IF-M015
IF-L015
285
202
138
136
RF-H030
RF-M030
RF-M015
RF-L015
290
304
146
163
FW-H030
FW-M030
FW-M015
FW-L015
115
120
56
67
8. Conclusions
The applicability and accuracy of inelastic static pushover analysis in predicting the seismic response of RC
buildings are investigated. Twelve RC buildings with
various characteristics, incremental dynamic analysis
employing eight natural and artificial records, static
pushover analysis using three lateral load distributions
and local and global limit state criteria are utilised.
Based on the large amount of information obtained,
which is nonetheless far from comprehensive, the following conclusions are drawn:
Subject to adequate modelling of the structure, careful
selection of the lateral load distribution and articulate
interpretation of the results, pushover analysis can
provide insight into the elastic as well as the inelastic
response of buildings when subjected to earthquake
ground motions.
Static pushover analysis is more appropriate for low
rise and short period frame structures. For welldesigned buildings but with structural irregularities,
the results of the procedure also show good correlation with the dynamic analysis. In this study,
response obtained for a group of four 8-storey irregular frame buildings using an inverted triangular lateral
load distribution is identical to inelastic timehistory analysis.
The experience gained from previous studies can help
to eliminate the discrepancies between static and
dynamic analysis results for special and long period
buildings. These differences are mainly due to the
limited capability of the fixed load distribution to predict higher mode effects in the post-elastic range. To
overcome this problem, more than one load pattern
424
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
References
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]