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

net/publication/233884605

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I :

Methodology

Article  in  Journal of Earthquake Engineering · November 2005

DOI: 10.1080/13632460509350572

CITATIONS READS

39 637

2 authors, including:

Amr S. Elnashai
Pennsylvania State University
301 PUBLICATIONS   5,945 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Earthquake vulnerability assessment of bridges including nonlinear soil response and SSI View project

Croatian Science Foundation project IP-06-2016-5325: Seismic base isolation of a building by using natural materials - shake table
testing and numerical modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vassilis K. Papanikolaou on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 6 (2005) 923–941

c Imperial College Press

EVALUATION OF CONVENTIONAL AND ADAPTIVE

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS I: METHODOLOGY

VASSILIS K. PAPANIKOLAOU
Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures
Civil Engineering Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
P.O. Box 482, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece

AMR S. ELNASHAI
Willet Professor, Director Mid-America Earthquake Center
University of Illinois, 205 North Mathews, Urbana, Illinois, 61801, USA

Received 20 December 2004

Reviewed 24 June 2005
Accepted 3 August 2005

In this paper, a methodology is suggested and tested for evaluating the relative perfor-
mance of conventional and adaptive pushover methods for seismic response assessment.
The basis of the evaluation procedure is a quantitative measure for the difference in
response between these methods and inelastic dynamic analysis which is deemed to be
the most accurate. Various structural levels of evaluation and different incremental rep-
resentations for dynamic analysis are also suggested. This method is applied on a set of
eight different reinforced concrete structural systems subjected to various strong motion
records. Sample results are presented and discussed while the full results are presented
alongside conclusions and recommendations, in a companion paper.

Keywords: Pushover analysis; incremental dynamic analysis; seismic assessment.

1. Introduction
Until recently, seismic assessment and design has relied on linear or equivalent lin-
ear (with reduced stiffness) analysis. In this approach, simple models are used for
various components of the structure, which are subjected to seismic forces evalu-
ated from elastic or design spectra, and reduced by force reduction (or behaviour)
factors. The ensuing displacements are amplified to account for the reduction of
applied forces. This procedure, though simple and easy to apply in the design office
environment, fails to fit within the principle of failure mode control which is part
of performance-based assessment and design [Elnashai, 2000]. This in turn has led
to an increase in the use of inelastic analysis as a more realistic means of assessing
the deformational state in structures subjected to strong ground motion.
Static and dynamic analyses use the same material constitutive relationships
with the exception being static monotonic analysis that does not require unloading
and reloading models. Both use principles of equilibrium and compatibility with

923
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

924 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

the difference being that dynamic equilibrium of forces includes damping and iner-
tial effects. Both make use of iterative procedures to arrive at convergent solutions.
Finally, whereas in static inelastic analysis the variable is the current level of dis-
placement or force, in dynamic analysis, it is time. Therefore, the four features
that may affect the difference in the level of complexity and computing resource
requirements are:
• Static monotonic analysis requires only monotonic constitutive models.
• Dynamic analysis requires treatment of structural damping and mass
distribution.
• Static analysis to collapse is repeated as many times as the deformation causing
collapse divided by the displacement increment necessary for convergence; this is
likely to be in the tens of steps.
• Dynamic analysis is a static analysis repeated as many times as the duration
of the earthquake divided by the time step for response history analysis; this is
likely to be in the thousands of time increments.
The outcome of the above discussion leads to the conclusion that static analysis
requires simpler models, representation of stiffness and strength only, and a fraction
of the number of analyses, compared to dynamic analysis. This is the underlying
reason for the increased use of pushover analysis in the industry, and the inclusion of
static inelastic methods in assessment guidance notes (e.g. FEMA 273/274 [FEMA,
1997] and sequels) as well as modern design codes (e.g. the new draft of Eurocode 8).
With the proliferation in the use of static inelastic (pushover) methods for seis-
mic assessment and design comes controversy. Many researchers have contributed
developments to enhance the performance of the pushover technique [Freeman et al.,
1975; Bracci et al., 1997; Chopra and Goel, 2002 among others]. They, including
the writers of this paper, advocate the use of pushover in its various forms in lieu
of dynamic analysis. On the other hand, resistance to the use of pushover analysis
comes from two opposing ends of the complexity spectrum. Advocates of simplicity
legitimately state that the single load distribution pushover fails to capture the
actual behaviour, and that more advanced versions are too complex for practical
applications. Others state, also legitimately, that inelastic dynamic effects cannot be
captured by any static method. Hence, full dynamic analysis is necessary. Previous
research, with very few exceptions, has focused on developing pushover techniques
without assessing their performance comprehensively. This would require applica-
tion of static pushover to a wide range of structures ranging from low to high rise,
regular to highly irregular, subjected to a large number of earthquake records cov-
ering a wide range of magnitudes, distance, site conditions and source mechanism,
monitored on various structural levels. Towards this challenge, the objective of this
paper is to first suggest a general methodology for evaluation of pushover methods,
including conventional and adaptive as compared to inelastic response history anal-
ysis. Then, apply this methodology to a series of different structural systems under
various strong motion records. The above are deployed to answer, at least in part,
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 925

the central question of whether pushover analysis of various levels of complexity

is capable of replacing dynamic analysis as a reliable assessment and design tool.
The complementary question is: What are the limits of applicability of the method
in terms of structural and input motion characteristics. These questions will be
answered in a companion paper following the presentation of the analysis results.

2. Conventional Pushover Analysis

The use of inelastic static analysis in earthquake engineering is traced to the work
of Gulkan and Sozen [1974] or earlier, where a single-degree-of-freedom system is
derived to represent the multi-degree of freedom structure via an equivalent or
‘substitute’ structure. Simplified inelastic analysis procedures for multi-degree of
freedom systems, have also been proposed by Saiidi and Sozen [1981] and Fajfar
and Fischinger [1988]. In addition, several publications review the advantages and
disadvantages of pushover analysis, with varying degrees of success [Lawson et al.,
1994; Faella, 1996; Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998]. Pushover analysis per se is
not a recent development. However, this study is concerned with multi-degree of
freedom inelastic analysis of complex structures, which is relatively recent.
Conventional pushover analysis is the nonlinear incremental-iterative solution
of the equilibrium equation KU = P in a finite element formulation, where K is
the nonlinear stiffness matrix, U is the displacement vector and P is a predefined
load vector applied laterally over the height of the structure in relatively small load
increments (Fig. 1). This lateral load can be a set of forces or displacements that
have a necessarily constant ratio throughout the analysis (fixed pattern). At the
end of each iteration, the reaction vector (Pe ) of the structure is assembled from
all finite element contributions. The out of balance forces are iteratively reapplied
until convergence to a specified tolerance is reached [Bathe, 1982]:
−1
∆U = [KT ] · (λ · P0 − Pe ) , (1)

Fig. 1. Modelling principle of pushover analysis.

December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

926 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

where

∆U is the calculated displacement increment within an iteration

KT is the current nonlinear (tangent) stiffness matrix
λ is the load factor within the corresponding load increment
P0 is the initial load
Pe is the equilibrated load (reaction) of the previous iteration


Pe = BT · σN L · dV, (2)
V

where

B is the strain displacement matrix of each element

σN L is the element nonlinear stress vector as determined by its material
constitutive law

The procedure continues until a predefined limit state is reached or a struc-

tural collapse is detected. This target limit state may be the deformation expected
for the design earthquake in case of designing a new structure, or the drift
corresponding to structural collapse for assessment purposes. Furthermore, it is
presumed that the finite element code has been sufficiently verified so that numeri-
cal collapse as opposed to structural, is not operative. Generally, this procedure
allows tracing the sequence of yielding and failure on the member and struc-
ture level, as well as the progress of the overall capacity curve of the structure
(Fig. 2).
The critical parameters defining the characteristics of the conventional pushover
analysis are the lateral load nature (forces or displacements), its distribution pattern
along the height of the structure (triangular, uniform etc) and its magnitude. The
number of applied load steps, and iterative strategy and convergence criteria, also
play a significant role in the effectiveness and reliability of the analysis.

Fig. 2. Yielding sequence obtained from conventional pushover analysis.

December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 927

3. Adaptive Pushover Analysis

The necessity of implementing advanced pushover approaches, such as the adaptive
pushover analysis applied in this study, is due to many fundamental deficiencies of
the conventional pushover approach, as compared to inelastic dynamic analysis:

• Generally, pushover analysis implies a separation between structural capacity

and earthquake demand and many research findings have established an inter-
connection between them. Moreover, nonlinear structural behaviour is load path
dependent and separation between loading input and structural response is not
always adequate.
• This procedure also assumes that structural damage is a function only of the
lateral deformation of the structure, neglecting duration effects and cumulative
energy dissipation demand. It is generally accepted that damage is a function of
both deformation and energy and hence, the applicability of pushover analysis is
too simplistic, particularly for nonductile structures that exhibit severely pinched
hysteretic behaviour.
• Static pushover analysis neglects dynamic effects and therefore, during strong
motion, nonlinear structural behaviour can be described by balancing the
dynamic equilibrium at every time step. As pushover analysis focuses only on
the strain energy of the structure during monotonic loading, it neglects other
sources of energy mainly associated with dynamic components of forces such as
kinetic and viscous damping energy.
• The conventional pushover analysis procedure does not account for the progres-
sive changes in the modal properties during nonlinear yielding and cracking in
the structure which leads to period elongation and different spectral amplifica-
tions. This is due to the constant lateral load pattern used, which ignores the
potential redistribution of inertia forces and higher mode effects, as yielding and
cracking governs the inelastic structural behaviour.

It is clear that conventional pushover analysis, due to its static nature, lacks
many features of its dynamic counterpart that may be critical in certain cases.
However, it provides the engineer with an efficient alternative, not only to expensive
inelastic dynamic analysis, but also to standard seismic code practice. Consequently,
some possible developments to enhance this are suggested below:

• A combination of pushover analysis with fibre models where no prior assumptions

are made on the behaviour of the member and where the moment curvature
response is derived from the material properties.
• Adaptive pushover analysis which takes into account the current level of local
resistance or by mode interaction at instantaneous states of inelasticity and
updates the forcing function accordingly. Moreover, spectral amplifications due
to the elongated instantaneous inelastic periods of the structure can also be
accounted for.
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

928 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

Several attempts to consider higher mode effects in pushover procedures are

suggested in the literature. Paret et al. [1996] and Sasaki et al. [1998] suggested
the simple Multi-Modal Pushover (MMP) procedure, in which several pushover
analyses were performed using loading patterns representing different excitation
modes of the structure. The calculated response curves were then converted to
acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS) format and compared to
earthquake demand using the Capacity Spectrum method [Freeman et al., 1975].
Moghadam and Tso [2002] proposed the similar Pushover Results Combination
(PRC) method, where the structural response was calculated by a weighted sum-
mation (by modal participation factors) of the different mode-specific pushover
analyses. Another procedure proposed by Chopra and Goel [2002], called Modal
Pushover Analysis (MPA), converts the aforementioned mode-specific pushover
curves to idealised bilinear curves of SDOF equivalent systems in order to cal-
culate the target deformation and response for each mode separately. The total
response is then calculated by combining the individual peak responses using the
SRSS rule. The aforementioned methods reported varying degrees of success but
still did not account for damage accumulation and resulting modification of the
modal parameters. This could significantly affect the structural response.
Therefore, adaptive methods accounting for the variation of the modal proper-
ties during the inelastic process are considered to be a promising alternative. Bracci
et al. [1997] and Lefort [2000] used the inelastic storey forces of the previously equi-
librated load step to update the lateral load pattern. Storey force distribution was
obtained by either adding an increment of force to the equilibrated force vector
from the previous step or by a new set of forces accounting for the current state of
resistance distribution. Gupta and Kunnath [2000] proposed a constantly updated
load pattern depending on the instantaneous dynamic characteristics of the struc-
ture and a site specific spectrum. Before each load increment, eigenvalue analysis
was carried out and the storey forces for each mode were calculated by multiplying
the storey weight with the modal participation factor, mode shape and spectral
amplification. A static analysis was then performed for each mode of interest and
calculated responses were first combined with SRSS and then added to the previous
load step. An alternative approach was suggested by Albanesi et al. [2002], where
the loading took into account both the inertial properties and the kinetic energy of
the structure generated under strong motion.
Work undertaken by the writers and their co-workers has developed a robust
procedure for adaptive pushover analysis that is shown to be superior to, or at worst,
as good as conventional pushover. Formulations given by Papanikolaou [2000], sub-
sequent developments by Antoniou [2003] and an overview by Elnashai [2002] detail
this fibre-based, self-adjusting adaptive approach. According to this approach, the
lateral load pattern is not kept constant during the analysis but it is continuously
updated, based on a combination of the instantaneous mode shapes corresponding
to the inelastic periods of the structure. These mode shapes are determined by
performing eigenvalue analysis operating on the current tangent stiffness matrix
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 929

Fig. 3. Flow chart of the adaptive pushover method.

(KT ). These ingredients can form the new lateral load pattern as described below
(Fig. 3). The modal load for mode i, applied on the j degree of freedom is defined:

Fji = ν i · Φij · mj , (3)

where
i
νi is the modal participation factor of mode i, ν i = ΦΦ ·M·δ
iT ·M·Φi

Φij is the eigenvector for mode i

M is the mass matrix
δ is a unit vector
Fji is the element of the i-mode eigenvector, referring to the j degree of freedom.
mj is the lumped mass on the j degree of freedom.

After defining the lateral load profiles for all different modes, a modal combina-
tion (ABS/SRSS/CQC) produces the updated load vector. Before the application
of the updated lateral load vector, normalisation and multiplication by the current
loading level is performed so that the magnitude of the pushover load is still applied
incrementally, as done in the conventional pushover approach.
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

930 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

It is noteworthy that additional complexity required to perform adaptive

pushover analysis is considerable, in terms of accessing a robust eigenvalue solver,
efficiently updating the applied force vector, and switching if necessary to a fixed-
distribution displacement control past the peak point on the load-displacement
curve. However, onus of these complications is on the software, not the user. The
software package used throughout this study fulfils all the above requirements and
the only complexity left to the user is the reasonable and sufficient mass represen-
tation of the structure.

4. Inelastic Dynamic Analysis — Incremental Technique

One efficient yet simple way to compare pushover with dynamic analysis results is to
introduce the incremental dynamic analysis technique (IDA) [Mwafy and Elnashai,
2001; Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002]. According to this approach, the structural
model under consideration is excited by the same strong motion input, scaled to
different PGA values. For every scaling factor, the absolute maximum dynamic
response parameters (load displacement, moment curvature etc.) are plotted on a
two dimensional chart, similarly to pushover analysis (Fig. 4). The difference is
that each point now represents a full-run inelastic dynamic analysis, while each
point on the static pushover curve is the response at one load step. The obvious
drawback of this procedure is the extremely high cost in editing time, and computer
resources. For this reason, it was implemented in the used software package to run
automatically without any user intervention.
The selection of the dynamic response absolute maxima is an issue which may
require further discussion regarding the fact that they may occur in different time
instants. Nevertheless, it is assumed that this approach reflects the corresponding
monotonic pushover nature where response maxima occur simultaneously. Another

Fig. 4. Implementation of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA).

December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 931

Fig. 5. Response maxima and corresponding values.

45

40

35

30

25
Pushover
20
IDA Max-Max
15
IDA Max-Corresponding
10
IDA Corresponding-Max
5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Fig. 6. The three different representations of IDA.

advantage is that the use of absolute maxima sets a safety upper bound in the
structural response.
For reasons of completeness, an alternative approach capturing the correspond-
ing values Ycor , Xcor of both response maxima Xmax , Ymax respectively, within the
same time instant has also been implemented (Fig. 5). As a result, two more sets
of IDA points are introduced (Fig. 6).

5. Capacity Curve Discrepancy Factor — CCDF

The present study has surfaced the need for defining a measuring quantity for
the difference between inelastic static and dynamic analysis in the form of a simple
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

932 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

Fig. 7. Definition of the capacity curve discrepancy factor (CCDF).

percentage number. The capacity curve discrepancy factor (CCDF) is a numerically

simple yet efficient way to define the difference between the ordinates of a single
pushover curve compared to a set of IDA points, both emerging from the same
structural model.
Consider the pushover curve S0-S4 and the set of dynamic points D1-D5 in
Fig. 7. The coordinates of the vertical projection of each IDA point on the pushover
curve are calculated by linear interpolation between neighbouring pushover points.
Points with no projections, like D5, are ignored. The percentile difference di between
each projection point (static analysis) and the corresponding dynamic point is cal-
culated as follows:

di = abs (YP i − YDi )/YDi , i = 1 to 4 (D5 ignored). (4)

The CCDF value is the average of the above difference values:

CCDF = Σdi /4 = 31.25%. (5)

Averaging all difference values suggests that equal weight has been assigned to
each IDA point. This is considered realistic when the scaling step of the record
remains constant throughout the analysis, which is analogous to the constant load
increment used in pushover methods. The formula (YP i − YDi )/YDi was selected
because the reference value (denominator YDi ) is the dynamic response (in other
words comparing static to dynamic, not the opposite). For easy and fast application,
the CCDF method was implemented as an additional tool in the used software
package. An application of the CCDF method is shown in Fig. 8.
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 933

Variable Concrete Strength Regular Structure - Three Storey,Two bay

800

25 runs - Step 0.2

700 PGA : 0.3g
CCD = 1.90%
CCD = 2.35%
600

CCD = 2.04%
500
Base shear (KN)

x 5.0
(1.5g)
400
x 1.0
(0.3g)
300 x 0.2
Static C12
(0.06g)
Dynamic C12
200 Static C20
Dynamic C20
100 Static C40
Dynamic C40

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
Global drift (m)

Fig. 8. Application of the capacity curve discrepancy factor (CCDF).

6. Levels of Evaluation
Apart from the usual practice of monitoring base shear versus global drift, storey
shear versus interstorey drift and element moment versus section curvature are
also suggested for the evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover methods
in order to capture possible hidden features of the inelastic response that may not
be explicitly reflected on the global scale.

• Global level: The first monitored quantity was the base shear (V ) versus top
displacement (d) (Fig. 9). Horizontal forces (Vi ) of the support nodes were added
and plotted against the horizontal displacement of the top floor. In dynamic anal-
ysis though, the support displacement is subtracted from the top displacement
in order to establish the global drift of the structure.
• Storey level: The second monitor is the storey shear (V s ) versus interstorey
drift (ds ) (Fig. 10). The storey force (Vis ) is derived by adding all individual
element shear forces (Vis ) which are equal to (M t − M b )/, where M t and M b
are the top and bottom element moments and  is the storey height.
• Section level: The final monitor used in this study accounts for the local
behaviour (section level) during inelastic static and dynamic analysis through
plotting the element moment (M ) versus curvature (κ) (Fig. 11). The latter is
derived from (εt − εb )/h where εt and εb are the top and bottom layer strains
respectively and h is the height of the section.
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

934 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

Fig. 9. Monitoring base shear versus global drift.

Fig. 10. Monitoring storey shear versus interstorey drift.

Fig. 11. Monitoring element moment versus section curvature.

December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 935

7. Analysis Setup
The components of a large scale analytical study targeting the evaluation of con-
ventional and adaptive pushover procedures are presented in subsequent sections.
These include analysis software and methods, structural models under considera-
tion and strong motion input. The analysis results are presented in a companion
paper.

7.1. Analysis software

The software package used is Zeus-NL [Elnashai et al., 2002–2005] developed at the
Newmark Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It is an
analytical tool for finite element analysis of reinforced concrete, composite and steel
plane and space frames. It is an advancement of earlier analysis packages: ADAPTIC
[Izzuddin and Elnashai, 1989] and INDYAS [Elnashai et al., 2000], developed at
Imperial College, London.
Zeus-NL performs nonlinear analysis using a layered response approach which
accounts for the spread of inelasticity along the element length and across the sec-
tion depth. It is also capable of predicting the large frame displacements by imposing
equilibrium in the deformed state of the structure and therefore, it can represent
geometrical nonlinearity and P-∆ effects. It also has the ability to perform eigen-
value, static conventional and adaptive pushover, static time-history and dynamic
analysis. In the present study, all the models considered were analysed with con-
ventional pushover (with triangular lateral load distribution), adaptive pushover,
and inelastic dynamic analysis.
The Zeus-NL materials library contains a set of uniaxial models for steel and
concrete reinforced concrete. The section library features a large number of steel,
reinforced concrete and composite sections, including solid, hollow and jacket sec-
tions. Contributions and verifications of the Zeus-NL finite element code in its
present or previous forms of ADAPTIC and INDYAS have been carried out by a
large number of researchers obtaining MSc and PhD theses in the past where its
stability and robustness has been confirmed throughout.

7.2. Models considered

Eight structural models were analysed in this study, chosen in order to cover vari-
ous levels of irregularity in plan and elevation, structural ductility, and directional
effects. They are also intended to represent buildings with and without seismic
design provisions, so coverage of both old existing and modern structures is pro-
vided. The first six models were buildings designed according to the Eurocode 8
recommendations [Fardis et al., 1994; Mwafy and Elnashai, 2000].
• Regular structures: Two models designed with high (H) and low (L) ductility
recommendations and detailing according to Eurocode 8, under design acceler-
ations of 0.30 g and 0.15 g, respectively (Fig. 12). Apart from their structural
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

936 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

Actual structure FE modelling and mass distribution

2D reinforced concrete frame Storeys : 12

with regularity in plan and elevation. Total height : 36.00 m
Typical storey height : 3.00 m
Structural ductility : High / Low Total length : 20.00 m
Design acceleration : 0.30g / 0.15g
Concrete strength : f c = 30 MPa Number of nodes : 584
Steel yield strength : f y = 585 MPa Number of elements : 624 (conv. pushover)

Fig. 12. Regular structure modelling and features.

regularity, these structures were selected for their long natural periods and the
possibility to attract higher mode effects during the inelastic process.
• Shear wall structures: Two models designed with high (H) and low (L) ductil-
ity recommendations with a design acceleration of 0.30 g and 0.15 g, respectively
(Fig. 13). These structures were selected because they exhibited a cantilever (sin-
gle degree of freedom) instead of frame behaviour and hence, be dominated by
the fundamental mode.
• Irregular structures (in elevation): Two models designed with high (H) and
low (L) ductility recommendations with a design acceleration of 0.30 g and 0.15 g,
respectively (Fig. 14). These structures were selected for their irregularity in
elevation and the possibility to produce soft storey mechanisms and attract higher
mode effects.
• ICONS frame: The following model was based on the full scale structure
(ICONS) tested in Ispra, Italy on 1999 (Fig. 15). It was selected for its strong
irregularity in plan; representing design and construction practice in many South-
ern European and Mediterranean countries in the 50s and 60s [Pinho and
Elnashai, 2001].
• The SPEAR frame: The final model is a 3D frame based on a full scale struc-
ture tested in 2003 within the European network on Seismic Performance Assess-
ment and Rehabilitation (SPEAR). It features irregularities both in plan and
elevation (Fig. 16). Similar to the ICONS frames, this structure was designed
according to outdated design codes and with no seismic design provisions. It
will be constructed from weak concrete and smooth bars. It has heavily imbal-
anced stiffness in two orthogonal directions as well as large eccentricity in plan
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 937

Actual structure FE modelling and mass distribution

2D reinforced concrete frame Storeys : 8

with a shear wall core. Total height : 24.00 m
Typical storey height : 3.00 m
Structural ductility : High / Low Total length : 15.00 m
Design acceleration : 0.30g / 0.15g
Concrete strength : f c = 30 MPa Number of nodes : 238
Steel yield strength : f y = 585 MPa Number of elements : 248 (conv. pushover)

Fig. 13. Shear wall structure modelling and features.

Actual structure FE modelling and mass distribution

2D reinforced concrete frame Storeys : 8

with irregularity in elevation. Total height : 25.50 m
Typical storey height: : 3.00 m (first: 4.50 m)
Structural ductility : High / Low Total length : 20.00 m
Design acceleration : 0.30g / 0.15g
Concrete strength : f c = 30 MPa Number of nodes : 390
Steel yield strength : f y = 585 MPa Number of elements : 414 (conv. pushover)

Fig. 14. Irregular structure modelling and features.

and irregularity, in elevation. It differs from the ICONS frame in being a 3D

structure with potential torsional effects.

7.3. Strong motion characteristics

Four different strong motion records were imposed on the above eight structural
systems, selected in terms of origin and frequency content: Two artificial records,
one representing the European earthquake of a 975 year return period (E975)
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

938 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

Actual structure FE modelling and mass distribution

Storeys : 4
Total height : 10.80 m
2D reinforced concrete frame Typical storey height : 2.70 m
with irregularity in plan. Total length : 12.50 m

Concrete strengths : f c = 13.6 to 21.7 MPa Number of nodes : 150

Steel yield strength : f y = 343.6 MPa Number of elements : 152 (conv. pushover)

Fig. 15. ICONS frame modelling and features.

FE modelling and mass distribution Actual structure

Storeys : 3
Total height : 8.75 m
Typical storey height : 3.00 m (first : 2.75 m)
Total length (x) : 9.00 m
3D reinforced concrete frame Total length (y) : 10.375 m
with irregularity in plan and elevation.
Concrete strength : f c = 20 MPa
Number of nodes : 366 Longitudinal steel strength : f y = 400 MPa
Number of elements : 384 (conv. pushover) Transverse steel strength : f y = 220 MPa

Fig. 16. SPEAR frame modelling and features.

and another derived from the Eurocode 8 design code response spectrum (EC8), and
two natural records, one with low (Emeryville, Loma Prieta earthquake, 1989) and
another with high (Santa Monica, Northridge earthquake, 1994) frequency content,
providing high amplifications in the long and short period range respectively. All
four records were normalised to a PGA of 0.3 g in order to be comparable during
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 939

0.3 a( g) 1 SA(g)

0.5
0
T ( se c)
0
-0.3 15 sec 0 1 2 3 4

1 SA(g)
0 .3 a ( g)
0.5
0 T ( se c)
0
- 0 .3 10 sec 0 1 2 3 4

1 SA(g)
0 .3 a ( g)

0.5
0
T ( se c)
30 sec 0
- 0 .3 0 1 2 3 4

1 SA(g)
0 .3 a ( g)

0.5
0
T ( se c)
30 sec 0
- 0 .3 0 1 2 3 4

Fig. 17. Scaled accelerograms and elastic response spectra of the four records (E975, EC8,
Emeryville, St. Monica).

the variable scaling of the incremental dynamic analysis approach. Twenty-five runs
for each record were performed with a scaling factor from 0.2 to 5.0 (up to 1.5 g
of PGA) with a step of 0.2. The accelerograms and elastic response spectra are
depicted in Fig. 17.

8. Conclusions
A methodology for evaluating the performance of conventional and adaptive static
pushover methods is presented in this paper. The comparative assessment is based
on the comparison of the structural response between the two pushover methods and
incremental representation of inelastic dynamic analysis (IDA), using a simple and
efficient quantitative measure, the Capacity Curve Discrepancy Factor (CCDF).
The structural response is monitored on several levels, global, storey, and section.
All of the above techniques are implemented in the software package Zeus-NL and
applied to a number of different structural systems under the effect of various strong
motion acceleration records. The analysis results are presented and discussed in a
companion paper. It is believed that the proposed general methodology provides
the researcher with a versatile tool for evaluating the performance of existing and
new advanced static pushover analysis techniques.

Acknowledgement
The work described in the paper was funded by the Mid-America Earthquake Center
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

940 V. K. Papanikolaou & A. S. Elnashai

References
Albanesi, T., Biondi, S. and Petrangeli, M. [2002] “Pushover analysis: An energy based
approach,” Proceedings of the Twelfth european Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing, London, United Kingdom, Paper No. 605.
Antoniou, S. [2003] Pushover Analysis for Seismic Design and Assessment of RC Struc-
tures, PhD Thesis, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section,
Imperial College, London, UK.
Bathe, K. J. [1982] Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice Hall.
Bracci, J. M., Kunnath, S. K. and Reinhorn, A. M. [1997] “Seismic performance and
retrofit evaluation of RC structures, ASCE, ST Division 123(1), 3–10.
Chopra, A. K. and Goel, R. K. [2002] “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating
seismic demands for buildings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
31(3), 561–582.
Elnashai, A. S. [2000] “Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for seismic design and
assessment,” G.Penelis International Symposium on Concrete and Masonry Struc-
tures, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Elnashai, A. S. [2002] “Do we really need inelastic dynamic analysis?” Journal of Earth-
quake Engineering 6 (Special Issue 1), 123–130.
Elnashai, A. S., Papanikolaou, V. and Lee, D. H. [2002–2005] Zeus-NL — A Program for
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of Structures — User Manual, Mid-America Earthquake
Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Elnashai, A. S., Pinho, R. and Antoniou, S. [2000] INDYAS — A Program for Inelastic
Dynamic Analysis of Structures, ESEE Research Report, Imperial College, London.
Fajfar, P. and Fischinger, M. [1988] “N2 — Method for nonlinear seismic analysis of regular
structures,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 1988) 5, 111–116.
Fardis, M. N. [1994] Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings According to
Eurocodes 2 and 8, Configurations 3, 5 and 6, Reports on Prenormative Research in
Support of Eurocode 8.
FEMA [1997] NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Developed by
the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FEMA Report, No. 273, Washington, D.C.
Freeman, S. A., Nicoletti, J. P. and Tyrell, J. V. [1975] “Evaluation of existing buildings for
seismic risk — A case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Bremerton, Washington,”
Proceedings of the United States National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Berkeley, pp. 113–122.
Gulkan, P. and Sozen, M. A. [1974] “Inelastic response of reinforced concrete structures
to earthquake motions,” ACI Journal 71, 604–610.
Gupta, B. and Kunnath, S. K. [2000] “Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for
seismic evaluation of structures,” Earthquake Spectra 16(2), 367–391.
Izzudin, B. A. and Elnashai, A. S. [1989] ADAPTIC — A Program for Adaptive Large Dis-
placement Elastoplastic Dynamic Analysis of Steel, Concrete and Composite Frames,
ESEE Research Report, No. 89–7, Imperial College, London.
Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. [1998] “Pros and cons of a pushover analysis
of seismic performance evaluation,” “Engineering Structures,” 20 4–6, 452–464.
Lawson, R. S., Vance, V. and Krawinkler, H. [1996] Nonlinear static pushover analysis:
Why, how, when and when not to use it, “Proceedings of the 65th Annual Convention
of Structural Engineers Association of California,” Structural Engineers Association
of California (Sacramento, 1996), pp. 17–36.
 December 5, 2005 11:30 WSPC/124-JEE 00242

Evaluation of Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Analysis I: Methodology 941

Lefort, T. [2000] Advanced Pushover Analysis of RC Multi-story Buildings, MSc Disserta-

tion, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section, Imperial College,
London, UK.
Moghadam, A. S. and Tso, W. K. [2002] “A pushover procedure for tall buildings,”
Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London,
United Kingdom, Paper No. 395.
Mwafy, A. M. and Elnashai, A. S. [2001] “Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis
of RC buildings,” Journal of Engineering Structures 23, 407–424.
Paret, T. F., Sasaki, K. K., Eilbeck, D. H. and Freeman, S. A. [1996] “Approximate inelas-
tic procedures to identify failure mechanisms from higher mode effects,” Proceedings
of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Disc 2, Paper No. 966.
Papanikolaou, V. [2000] Development and Verification of Adaptive Pushover Analysis Pro-
cedures, MSc Dissertation, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Sec-
tion, Imperial College, London, UK.
Pinho, R. and Elnashai, A. S. [2001] “Dynamic collapse testing of a full-scale four story
RC frame,” ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology 37(4) (Special Issue), 143–164.
Sasaki, K. K., Freeman, S. A. and Paret, T. F. [1998] “Multimodal pushover procedure
(MMP) — A method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analy-
sis, “Proceedings of the Sixth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering”
(Oakland, California, 1998), computer file, Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute, 12 pages.
Saiidi, M. and Sozen, M. A. [1981] “Simple nonlinear analysis of RC structures,” ASCE,
ST Division 107(ST5), 937–951.
Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A. [2002] “Incremental dynamic analysis,” Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 31(3), 491–514.

View publication stats