Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings

A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai *
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; Time–history collapse analysis; RC buildings; Fourier amplitude analysis
408 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
1. Introduction
Inelastic time–history 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 time–histories 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
* Corresponding author. Fax: +44 207 594 6053.
E-mail address: a.elnashai@ic.ac.uk (A.S. Elnashai).
-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII:
S0141-0296(00)00068-7
applicablity to performance-based seismic design
approaches and can be used at different design levels to
verify the performance targets. Finally, it is clear from
recent discussions in code-drafting committees in
Europe that this approach is likely to be recommended in
future codes.
The technique has been evaluated in several previous
studies [6–10], to some extent, with different emphasis.
In most of the previous work, only comparative studies
between dynamic and static pushover analysis have been
assessed at certain loading levels, i.e. design level, or at
equal top displacement (roof displacement from
pushover equal to the maximum dynamic roof
displacement). The results have been presented mainly
in terms of global quantities, i.e. deformations,
calculated hysteretic energy and structural damage
indices. The main aim of this paper is to develop
complete pushover-like load– displacement curves from
incremental dynamic analysis up to collapse for a range
of structural configurations representing the most
common types of RC building, including different
structural systems, building heights, design acceleration
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
and level of ductility. The dynamic pushover envelopes
are then compared with the force– deformation curves
obtained from inelastic static pushover analysis
considering different lateral loading patterns. The
procedure offers an opportunity for full comparisons
between the two methods of analysis up to ultimate
collapse.
2. Description of the buildings
In order to achieve the aforementioned objectives,
twelve RC buildings are considered, split into three
groups: sets of four 8-storey irregular frame, four
12storey regular frame and four 8-storey dual frame-wall
structures. Within each group, combination of two
design ground accelerations (0.15 and 0.30 g) and three
design ductility classes (High, Medium and Low) lead to
the four cases mentioned above. The selection of four
cases for each configuration is motivated by the desire to
compare the performance of structures design according
to a ductility class set of rules but for different ground
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 409

acceleration and for the same ground acceleration but the member length. It is widely accepted that this
different ductility class rules. The value of the force technique is more accurate than the point–hinge models
reduction factor (behaviour factor q in EC8 and response mainly used in many other programs, especially when
modification factor R in UBC) increases and rigorous large axial force variations exist. The program has been
standards on member detailing requirements are verified elsewhere [14–16].
imposed for higher ductility classes. Table 1 shows the To accurately predict the inelastic seismic response of
definition of the set of structures under consideration the structure with sufficient accuracy, due care has been
where the elastic force reduction factors used in the given to create detailed and efficient models of the
design as well as the observed elastic fundamental structures, taking into account all necessary geometric
period, obtained from elastic free vibration analyses, are and strength characteristics of columns, beams and
also given. beam– column connections. Towards minimising the
Each building has been designed and detailed in computational requirements and the volume of input and
accordance with Eurocode 8 [11], Parts 1-1 to 1-3, as a output data to be handled, an effort was made to select
representative of a seismic design code applicable to powerful two-dimensional models that can provide, with
more than one country. While the second and third appropri-
groups are regular in plan and in elevation, the first
group exhibits two sources of irregularity in elevation.
The first storey has a greater height than the remaining
ones and severance at the first storey of some
intermediate columns, which are supported by long span
beams. The geometric characteristics of the structures
are illustrated in Fig. 1.
The overall plan dimensions of the configurations
considered are 15 m×20 m. The total heights are 25.5,
36 and 24 m for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively, with
equal storey heights of 3 m except the first storey of
group 1 , which is 4.5 m high. While the lateral force
resisting system for groups 1 and 2 is moment frames,
group 3 possesses both a central core extending over the
full height and moment frames on the perimeter. The
floor system is solid slab in groups 1 and 2, and a waffle
slab in group 3. Live loads and loading from floor
finishes and partitions are both assumed to be 2.0 kN/m2.
All buildings are assumed to be founded on medium soil
type ‘B’ of EC8 (firm). The cross section capacities have
been computed by considering a characteristic cylinder
strength of 25 N/mm2 for concrete and a characteristic
yield strength of 500 N/mm2 for both longitudinal and
transverse steel. More details regarding member cross
section sizes and reinforcements are given in Fardis [12].

3. Modelling approach and assumptions

The inelastic analyses have been performed using the

adaptive static and dynamic structural analysis program
ADAPTIC, a program developed at Imperial College
[13] for the nonlinear analysis of steel, reinforced
concrete and composite structures under static and
dynamic loading. The program utilises the layered
‘fibre’ approach for inelastic RC frame analysis and has
the capability of predicting the large displacement
response of elastic and inelastic plane and space frames.
It has also the feature of representing the spread of
inelasticity within the member cross section and along
Table 1
Definition of the structural systems under analysis
Reference No. of storeys and structural Ductility
Group A.M.name
410 class 407–424Design acc. (g)
system / Engineering Structures 23 (2001)
Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai Force red. factor Elas. fund. period ( s )

1 IF-H030 8-storey irregular frame High 0.30 4.00 0.674

IF-M030 Medium 3.00 0.654
IF-M015 Medium 0.15 3.00 0.719
IF-L015 Low 2.00 0.723
2 RF-H030 12-storey regular frame High 0.30 5.00 0.857
RF-M030 Medium 3.75 0.893
RF-M015 Medium 0.15 3.75 0.920
RF-L015 Low 2.50 0.913
3 FW-H030 8-storey regular frame-wall High 0.30 3.50 0.538
FW-M030 Medium 2.625 0.533
FW-M015 Medium 0.15 2.625 0.592
FW-L015 Low 1.75 0.588

Fig. 1. Plane and cross sectional elevation of the buildings: (a) 8-storey irregular frame buildings; (b) 12-storey regular frame buildings; (c) 8-
storey regular frame-wall buildings. supported by the fact that conservative response
parameters will be obtained as a result of the domination
of gravity loads in long beam spans in the frame
ate selection of parameter values, acceptable
structures. On the other hand, the critical strain and shear
representation of the cyclic inelastic behaviour on
criteria are expected to occur in the coupling beams in
member and structure levels, while guaranteeing
the dual structural systems. Taking advantage of
numerical stability. The choice of two-dimensional
symmetry, only the interaction of two distinct frames
modelling may be also justified in the light of satisfying
(one internal and another external) is considered. Both
basic code requirements for such type of modelling.
lateral load-resisting frames are assembled using an
Two-dimensional analyses are undertaken in one
overlay approach, which is illustrated in Fig. 2 for the
direction only (global X- direction of frame structures
irregular frame structure. The two frames are coupled
and global Z-direction of frame-wall ones). This is
appropriately with regard to translational and rotational
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
degrees of freedom by 2D joint elements to meet the
assumption of infinite in-plane stiffness of the slab in the
normal direction.
The structural mesh utilises three elements for beam–
column members, the lengths of which are determined
on the basis of the critical member lengths. These
lengths are determined according to EC8 provisions for
different ductility classes. The ends of horizontal
elements within the beam–column joints are considered
rigid. Consequently, two elements are added to each
beam at its extremities. Furthermore, shear spring
connection elements are introduced to represent the
shear stiffness of the beam–column connection. To
simplify calculations of the shear stiffness of the joint,
the force– deformation relationship for both concrete
and steel reinforcement within the joint is assumed to be
linear elastic. Despite the simplicity of the joint
modelling, global structural response obtained have been
extensively compared and checked with analyses
performed by Salvitti and Elnashai [17] and
Panagiotakos and Fardis [18]. These show a good
conceptual agreement with the current modelling results
since the drift values are on the whole higher than the
values by Salvitti and Elnashai [17] where no provision
for beam–column connection behaviour was made. For
the sake of brevity, only some results of the comparison
are shown in Fig. 3. The results of the current study, for
two of the 12-storey frame buildings, are between results
of the rigid beam–column joint modelling of the former
and the flexible, one member lumped plasticity
modelling, of the latter where bar slip effects within the
joints and member shear deformations are considered.
Fig. 2. The overlay technique considered and description of the beam–column joint modelling.
411
Modelling of the core is achieved by making use of
two flexural elements, for each wall at each storey, in
order to account for splicing of bars at mid-storey
height. The elements are located at the centroid of the
core Ushaped cross section and connected with beams at
each storey level using two rigid links. In addition, five
elements are used to represent each coupling beam, with
bidiagonal reinforcement represented by vectorial
resolution of the inclined reinforcement area along the
longitudinal and transverse directions. The same method
is utilised to represent the bidiagonal shear
reinforcement in some other beams and in the lower two
storeys of the core of the FW-H030 and FW-M030
building.
Reinforced concrete column-section and T-section are
utilised for modelling of columns and beams,
respectively. Both sections, taken from ADAPTIC
library, allow the geometrical definition of the section as
well as that of the confined concrete region within it.
Taking into account the available cross sections in
ADAPTIC library, a reasonable approximation is made
to replace the original U-shaped section of the core of
the framewall structures by a T-section, with the same
stiffness properties. The approximation may be justified
in the light of the two-dimensional modelling which
neglects torsion and the regularity of the structure both
in terms of stiffness and strength. Reinforcement
patterns are varied for each section as a function of
stirrup spacing in accordance with those specified in the
design. Confinement factors are evaluated as described
in Eurocode 8, and varied along the member length
according to the arrangement of transverse
reinforcements. The effective slab width participating in
beam deformation is taken as
 412 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
Fig. 3. 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
beam–column 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 stress–strain 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.
4. Load pattern and seismic action
According to the data used in the design [12], a live
load Q=2.0 kN/m2 is considered to calculate the total
gravity loads on the frames, which is applied as point
loads at nodes. Using the appropriate coefficients from
EC8, the vertical loads are combined with seismic
actions in a combination of 1.0G+0.15Q+E L for all
stories except the top floor, where it was taken equal to
1.0G+0.30Q+E L . To account for inertia effects during
dynamic analysis, masses are calculated in a manner
consistent with the gravity loading combinations and are
represented by lumped 2D mass elements.
Due to the fact that the lateral force profiles in static
pushover analyses will influence the structural response,
three different load patterns have been utilised to
represent the distribution of inertia forces imposed on
the building. The first shape is calculated as SRSS
combinations (for the first three modes) of the load
distributions obtained from modal analyses of the
buildings. The choice of this load shape is made to take
into consideration the anticipated effect of higher modes
of vibrations for moderate long period and irregular
structures (the 12-storey and the 8-storey frame
buildings), as well as for buildings with hybrid lateral
resistance systems (the 8-storey frame-core structures).
The design code lateral load pattern and a uniform load
distribution shape have been also utilised. The latter
represents the lateral forces that are proportional to the
vertical distribution of the mass at various levels. On the
other hand, the code lateral load shape represents the
forces obtained from the predominant mode of vibration.
The use of the uniform load shape may be justified in the
light of a possible soft storey mechanism of the 8-storey
irregular buildings. If this mechanism occurs the
response will be controlled by a large drift in the first
storey. Therefore, this load distribution may give better
predictions of the overall response. The inverted
triangular (code) and the rectangular (uniform) load
shapes also represent the extreme cases from the linear
distribution point of view. The shape of the lateral load
should be selected on the light of anticipated changes in
inertia forces as the structure moves from the elastic to
the plastic phases. Ideally, this shape should be modified
with the changes in inertia forces during the actual
earthquake. These changes mainly depend on the
characteristics of both the record and the structure.
Several trials [2,3] have been made to permit of changes
in inertia forces with the level of inelasticity through the
use of adaptive load patterns. The underlying approach
of this technique is to redistribute the lateral load shape
with the extent of inelastic deformations. The load shape
is suggested to be redistributed according to the global
displacement shape, the level of storey shear demands or
a combination of mode shapes obtained from secant
stiffnesses. This redistribution is performed at each time
step, which leads to a substantial increase in the
computational effort. Moreover, the pushover analysis
has not been widely established as yet in the design
office environment. Therefore, for common types of
building the need for more taxing approaches is by no
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
mean fully established. The variable load distribution
option may be appropriate for special and long period
structures, despite that eminence of this technique has
not been confirmed yet [9,10]. On this basis, the
aforementioned fixed load distribution shapes have been
utilised for the current study. It is also worth mentioning
that the NEHRP (FEMA 273) guidelines recommend
utilising fixed load patterns with at least two load
profiles. The first shape should be the uniform load
distribution and the other is the code profile or the load
shape obtained from multimodal analyses. The code
lateral load distribution is allowed if more than 75% of
the total mass participates in the predominant mode.
Time–history analyses employ four artificially
generated 10-s duration acceleration records, referred to
as Art-rec1 to Art-rec4, as well as two natural records.
The artificial accelerograms were generated to fit the
Eurocode 8 elastic response spectrum for medium soil
class as shown in Fig. 4 for a PGA=0.3 g. The use of the
artificial accelerograms is in order to allow effective
comparisons and calibrations with the design code.
Moreover, the effect of the vertical component of the
seismic excitation is worthy of consideration [21],
particularly for the irregular frame structures where the
Fig. 4. Acceleration spectra for the artificial accelerograms (5%
damping).
planted columns are supported by long span beams.
Towards this end, two natural ground motions have been
selected in terms of the V/H ratio (peak vertical-to-
horizontal acceleration). The Kobe (Hyogo-ken Nanbu
at Kobe University, Japan, 1995) and the Loma Prieta
(Northern California at Saratoga ‘Aloha Ave’, USA,
1989) earthquakes are employed and applied with and
without the vertical components, giving two analyses for
each record. However, for the sake of brevity, results of
the effect of vertical ground motion on the seismic
response are not presented herein. Comprehensive
results of this study are given elsewhere [22].
Characteristics of the records that have been used are
413
given in Table 2, while their acceleration response
spectra for 5 % damping are shown in Fig. 5.
In order to apply the outlined procedure for the
evaluation of dynamic collapse envelopes, scaling of the
records utilised is frequently required. The technique of
scaling earthquake records to possess equal values of
spectrum intensity was based on a proposal by Housner
[23]. The spectrum intensity is defined as the area under
the pseudo-velocity spectrum between certain period
limits. It is suggested in the current study to modify the
limits employed in the original method (between 0.1 and
2.5 s) to be between 0.8 T y and 1.2 T 2D , where T y and T 2 D
are the inelastic periods of the structure at global
yielding and at twice the design ground acceleration,
respectively. This follows the proposal of
MartinezRueda [24,25], modified for the range used
here. Therefore, the normalisation factor for an
accelerogram (n) is equal to the ratio SI c /SI n . Where, SI c
and SI n are the areas under the code velocity spectrum
and the velocity spectrum of the scaled accelerogram,
respectively. SI c and SI n are calculated between periods
of 0.8 T y and 1.2
T 2D , as explained above.
It is also worth mentioning that there is no need to use
the aforementioned scaling method with the artificial
accelerograms since they are already spectrum-
compatible. Hence, the four artificial records are scaled
according to their PGA. The buildings are analysed first
under the artificial records at different PGA levels and
the recorded top response time history is utilised to
obtain the inelastic periods T y and T 2D of each building
from Fourier analyses (average for four artificial
records). The scaling factors are then calculated for the
longitudinal component of natural records and used for
scaling the accelerograms up to collapse. The factors
used to scale the longitudinal earthquake component are
also used to scale the vertical component of the motions,
when employed, to keep the V/H ratio constant. Table 3
shows the average normalisation factors to ground
acceleration 0.30 g for each of the three groups of
buildings. Finally, it should be noted that the quoted
values of PGA are not of the natural or scaled records
but rather multiples of the design ground acceleration.
Table 2
Characteristics of records used in analysis

Earthquake
414 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Date Ms 407–424
Structures 23 (2001) Station PGA (g) V/H No. of input runs

Horiz. Vert.

Kobe (Japan) 17/01/95 7.20 KBU 0.276 0.431 1.56 2

Loma Prieta (USA) 18/10/89 7.17 SAR 0.319 0.349 1.09 2
Artificial Records Art-rec1, Art-rec2, Art-rec3,
4
and Art-rec4

is both inelastic and geometrically nonlinear. The large

displacement formulation is an updated Lagrangian
form, where convected member axes are used to derive
member deformations.
The criteria used for defining collapse are classified
into two groups; local and global criteria. Two failure
criteria on the member-level are applied: the ultimate
curvature, which is normally controlled by the maximum
compression strain at the extreme fibre of the confined
concrete and shear failure in any structural member. An
empirical axial load-sensitive shear model capable of
providing an experimentally verifiable estimate of shear
supply in RC members was proposed by Priestley et al.
[26] and has been utilised in this study [27]. The code
shear supply model has also been employed after elimin
Fig. 5. Elastic spectra for the long. component of the natural records chosen: a limit corresponds to a maximum inter-storey
(5% damping). drift of 3% of the storey height, formation of a sidesway
mechanism and reduction in lateral resistance by
Table 3 considering the load–displacement curve of the
Normalisation factors for ground acceleration 0.30 g structure. Additionally, the criterion used to define
global yield threshold, which is essential for the
Earthquake IF-buildings RF-buildings FW-buildings proposed scaling method of the records, is selected as
Average the yield displacement of the equivalent elasto-plastic
system with reduced stiffness evaluated as the secant
Artificial 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 stiffness at 75% of the ultimate load of the real system.
Kobe (KBU) 0.54 0.61 0.56 0.57
The utilised shear models are implemented with other
Loma Prieta 1.15 1.25 1.32 1.24 collapse and yield criteria in a post-processing program
(SAR) connected to ADAPTIC [28]. This post-processsor
traces the shear supply–demand situation at each time
step at both ends of all members. It also performs the
appropriate calculations to evaluate the local and global
5. Collapse criteria and incremental dynamic collapse response parameters of the structure and directly apply
‘dynamic pushover’ results the selected criteria.

Three types of analyses have been performed using

the structural models described earlier. Eigenvalue
analyses are conducted to determine the elastic periods
and the mode shapes of the buildings needed for
calculating the first lateral load profile of the static
pushover analysis (combination of loads from modal
shapes). Inelastic static pushover and dynamic analyses
are then performed using the calculated lateral load
shapes and the seismic actions with increasing severity.
The analyses are progressed until all the predefined
collapse limits are exceeded. In both static and dynamic
analyses, permanent loads are first applied and iteration
to equilibrium is performed. This is followed by
applying the horizontal action (loads or ground
acceleration). The analysis ating the design safety
factors. On the structure level, three collapse criteria are
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
The results of more than 1300 inelastic time–history
analyses were employed to perform regression analyses
to obtain the dynamic pushover (ideal) envelope for each
of the twelve examined buildings. Figs. 6–8 depict
dynamic response points and the fitted regression
equations of the response of the buildings subjected to
the eight seismic actions considered for all limit states.
The fitted envelopes for the upper and lower response
points, the number of analyses carried out, the design
base shear and the correlation coefficient for each case
Fig. 6. Dynamic collapse analysis results for the irregular frame structures.
are also shown. The actual response of the 8-storey
irregular frame structures illustrated in Fig. 6 show how
the results of the eight seismic actions follow the same
trend and shape the pushover envelopes without the need
to apply curve fitting. This is clear from the correlation
coefficient values, which are almost invariably above
0.9. It is worth mentioning that the number of time–
history analyses shown on each graph varies according
to the number of trials needed to identify the collapse
and the yield limits, as discussed above.
Concerning the 12-storey regular frame structures,
Fig. 7 shows a higher scatter in the dynamic analysis
results of different ground motions than the results of the
8-storey irregular frame buildings. Moreover, the scatter
415
for the two buildings designed for the higher design
ground acceleration gives the impression of being higher
than the other pair of results. The low correlation of the
former and the high correlation of the latter are reflected
in the correlation values which are equal to 0.69 and
0.66 for the first pair and 0.93 and 0.88 for the second
one. It should be noted that the main difference between
the two pairs is in the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement of the structural members, while the
dimensions of the cross-sections for this group are the
same except a slight changes, mainly in the beams
crosssection width (from 0.35 m for the first pair to 0.30
m for the second one). In spite of the aforementioned
observations, the difference in scatter between the higher
and the lower design ground acceleration pair diminishes
when calculating the difference between the lower and
the upper response envelope for each case (quotient of
minimum and maximum strength for the eight records).
This value is equal to 0.69 and 0.72 for the 0.30 g design
ground motion pair and 0.76 and 0.74 for the other pair.
This is more consistent since the calculated inelastic
periods, which are the main cause of the different
response, are very close for the four buildings, as
subsequently discussed. Finally, the difference in the
416 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
correlation values between the two pair of buildings can
only be justified in the light of the lower number of runs
( or response points) needed to achieve yield and
collapse for each pair. This number is equal to 97 and
105 for the first pair and 60 and 73 for the second one.
The high sensitivity to changes in the input motion
observed in the 12-storey frame buildings are also
Fig. 7. Dynamic collapse analysis results for the regular frame structures.
reflected, to a lesser extent, in the 8-storey frame-wall
group. Fig. 8 illustrates the results of the time–history
analyses for this group. At collapse limit state, a scatter
is observed for values of V Min /V Max shown in Table 4. A
higher hardening stiffness is also observed for the 0.30 g
design ground acceleration pair compared to the other
pair. This is not observed in the other two groups of
building. Previous analytical investigations [29,30] have
indicated that base shear demands of wall structures are
sensitive to higher mode effects. Once a plastic hinge
has formed at the base of the wall, higher mode effects
can considerably amplify the base shear as well as the
shear at each storey level. The results shown in Fig. 8
confirm that such amplification may occur and could be
large. It is also worth mentioning that the thickness of
the core-walls for the higher design ground acceleration
pair is 0.35 m, compared to 0.25 m for the other pair.
This causes an increase in the mass at each storey level
for the former, hence higher amplification of base shear
demand. Alongside the high initial stiffness of this pair,
the difference in response between the two pairs of
building shown in Fig. 8 can be explained.
6. Contribution of the elongated period to the seismic
response
The scatter observed for some buildings is mainly in
the post-elastic range, and is associated with the spread
of yielding and member failure throughout the structure.
Subsequently, the stiffness of the structure decreases, the
fundamental period elongates and the distribution of the
inertia forces along the building undergoes continuous
change. To provide insight into the response of the
investigated buildings, extensive analyses in the
frequency domain (Fourier analyses) of the acceleration
response at the top have been conducted to identify the
predominant inelastic period of each building under
consideration. Fig. 9 illustrates the calculated periods
(average for the eight seismic actions) at the design and
twice the design ground acceleration, along with the
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 417

Fig. 8. Dynamic collapse analysis results for the frame-wall structures.

Table 4
Observed response at global collapse for the eight records

Group Reference name Roof disp. (mm) D Min /D Max Base shear (kN) VMin /VMax Storeya
D Max D Min Mean VMax V Min Mean

1 IF-H030 613 503 542 0.82 11,614 9918 10,567 0.85 1, 2, 3, 5

IF-M030 635 500 570 0.79 13,930 12,713 13,146 0.91 1, 2, 4, 5
IF-M015 492 381 449 0.77 7699 6663 7123 0.87 1, 4, 5
IF-L015 590 380 465 0.64 9229 8102 8685 0.88 1, 2, 4, 5
2 RF-H030 690 580 625 0.84 15,647 11,568 13,689 0.74 2, 4, 8, 9
RF-M030 796 611 684 0.77 16,278 12,076 13,990 0.74 4, 5, 8, 9
RF-M015 735 630 681 0.86 9743 9234 9453 0.95 5, 6, 8
RF-L015 785 607 694 0.77 12,735 11,009 11,972 0.86 4, 5, 9
3 FW-H030 643 599 631 0.93 20,821 15,520 17,849 0.75 2, 3, 6, 7
FW-M030 660 576 625 0.87 23,300 18,123 20,738 0.78 2, 5, 7
FW-M015 643 590 621 0.92 12,724 8769 10,642 0.69 2, 3
FW-L015 652 598 626 0.92 16,153 11,604 13,425 0.72 2, 3, 7
a
Location where interstorey drift collapse criterion is observed for the eight ground motions.
elastic period for each building calculated from respectively. It is observed that the average percentage
eigenvalue analyses. of elongation in the period is (100%), (90%), and (60%).
It is clear to what extent the fundamental periods of The percentage increase is clearly related to the overall
the buildings are elongated as a result of the spread of stiffness of the structural system of the building. The
cracks and yielding. The average elastic periods for the maximum calculated elongation is recorded in the most
three groups of building are 0.69, 0.90, and 0.56 s,
respectively. On the other hand, the calculated inelastic
periods at the design and twice the design ground
acceleration are (1.30–1.46), (1.65–1.80), and (0.81–
1.00) s,
418 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
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.
flexible system, where the first storey can be considered
as a soft storey; whereas the minimum elongation is
observed in the stiff frame-wall structural system. The
results point towards an important conclusion,
employment of elastic periods of vibration in estimating
design forces leads to high levels of overstrength (ratio
of actual-to-required strength). Moreover, they lead to
nonuniform safety margins for different structural
systems.
To facilitate the comparison between the input
accelerograms utilised in this study in terms of the
frequency content, the records are scaled to ground
acceleration equal to 0.30 g and used to obtain the
Fourier spectrum for each record. The normalisation
factors used are the average of the scaling factors
utilised to perform the collapse analysis for the three
groups of buildings, as shown in Table 3. The Fourier
amplitude spectra for the acceleration records (one of the
utilised artificial records, Artrec1, and the horizontal
component of the two natural records) are shown in Fig.
10. The average inelastic period for each group of
building is also shown on the graphs. It is clear that the
input motions, with the exception of the Kobe (KBU)
record, have high amplitude that may amplify the effect
of the second mode of vibration for structures with
period between 0.35 and 0.50 s. The amplitude in this
period range is higher than the amplitude corresponding
to the fundamental period of the three groups of
structures. This is one of the reasons for the scatter in the
results of the 12-storey regular frame and the 8-storey
frame-wall structures. It is verified that the high
response points in Figs. 7 and 8 are for the artificial and
Loma Prieta (SAR) records, while the low response is
for the Kobe (KBU) record. This may also justify
obtaining a higher maximum base shear corresponding
to almost an identical top deflection when applying the
same ground motion with higher PGA. Furthermore, the
Fourier spectral ordinate corresponding to the inelastic
fundamental period of the buildings can also be utilised
to justify the scatter in the results of the second and the
third group of buildings. For the 12-storey buildings, the
average inelastic fundamental period is about 1.75 s,
which corresponds to high amplification in the Loma
Prieta (SAR) record only. This also accounts for the high
response of the 12-storey frame structures when
subjected to the latter record. The same applies, to a
lesser extent, to the artificial and Loma Prieta (SAR)
records when imposed on the frame-wall structures
(inelastic period 0.91 s), compared to the Kobe (KBU)
record. For this reason the observed scatter for this
group is less than the 12-storey buildings. On the other
hand, the ordinates of the spectra correspond to the
inelastic period of the 8-storey irregular buildings are
equivalent, hence the high correlation for this group.
7. Inelastic static-to-collapse ‘static pushover’
analyses
Following the success in obtaining the incremental
dynamic response envelopes for the twelve buildings
under investigation, inelastic static pushover analyses
are performed to assess the applicability of the technique
(for different load distributions) in predicting the overall
dynamic response of structures. Figs. 11–13 illustrate the
base shear vs top displacement plots for the three lateral
load profiles utilised along with the incremental dynamic
envelopes for the twelve buildings. The dynamic
pushover curve for each case is shown in the form of the
upper and lower response envelope as well as the best fit
of the time–history analysis results. The global yield and
collapse thresholds are also shown. It should be pointed
out that it was decided to choose only one global yield
limit from the limits obtained from the four pushover
envelopes (the three static and the dynamic one). This is
due to the need to unify and simplify obtaining this limit,
which is necessary for the suggested method of scaling
the input seismic actions explained earlier. The yield
limit state obtained from the static pushover analysis
using the code lateral load shape is selected for this
purpose. For collapse, the observed upper and lower
global collapse limits from the eight earthquake records
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 419

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.
 420 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
Fig. 12. Static and dynamic pushover analysis results for the regular frame structures.
as well as from the three pushover analyses are
presented. It is important, however, to note that the static
pushover and the incremental dynamic collapse analyses
are continued beyond all the predefined collapse
thresholds. This is to ensure that all collapse states are
bounded by the dynamic analysis.
The static pushover method is rarely used to predict
seismic demands when a particular ground motion is
imposed on a structure [9,10]. If this is needed, the top
‘target’ displacement expected when this ground motion
is imposed on the building should be estimated. It is
beyond the scope of this study to address the approaches
of estimating the target displacement. A review of these
methods was given in the latter two references. Since the
main application of the static pushover analysis is to
estimate the seismic capacity of structures, the following
observations are driven by this requirement. In this
application of the procedure, the analysis is usually
continued until any of the predefined collapse criteria is
exceeded.
In general, it is clear in all cases that the response of
the buildings is sensitive to the shape of the lateral load
distribution. This is particularly true when moving from
the code and the multimodal load patterns to the uniform
load shape. It is also noticeable that the difference
between load shape A (the design code load pattern,
which is almost an inverted triangle) and load shape B
(load shape from multimodal analysis) is very small.
Although higher mode effects are confirmed in the
response of the second and the third group of buildings,
as explained earlier, the multimodal analysis load
pattern did not show an enhanced capability to predict
these effects. This is due to the fact that this load shape
represents the distribution of inertia forces in the elastic
range only, while the amplification of higher mode
effects are observed in the post-elastic phase. Table 5
presents the results at global collapse limit state for the
three load shapes. In terms of the predicted ultimate
strength and drift at collapse, the differences between
load A and B are less than 4%, for the twelve buildings.
As a general trend, the collapse is observed earlier
when applying the uniform load than the triangular load.
Collapse is observed slightly earlier than the triangular
distribution when imposing the multimodal load. In Figs.
11–13 the lower collapse limits from static analyses are
always from the uniform load and the upper limits are
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 421

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 Roof disp. (mm) Base shear (kN) Storeyd

Aa Aa Aa
Bb Cc Bb Cc Bb Cc

1 IF-H030 534 528 508 10,091 10,446 11,592 4th 3rd 3 rd

IF-M030 552 534 480 12,690 13,056 14,219 3rd 3rd 2 nd
IF-M015 474 462 432 6652 6914 7620 3rd 3rd 2 nd
IF-L015 516 498 450 8253 8508 9147 3rd 2nd 2 nd
2 RF-H030 648 624 552 12,135 12,499 14,650 5th 4th 3 rd
RF-M030 712 688 568 13,083 13,444 15,748 5th 5th 3 rd
RF-M015 656 640 600 7332 7554 9235 5th 5th 4 th
RF-L015 688 664 592 9817 10,136 12,175 5th 5th 4 th
3 FW-H030 570 560 535 13,243 13,796 16,425 3rd 3rd 3 rd
FW-M030 580 570 545 16,671 17,241 20,754 3rd 3rd 3 rd
FW-M015 575 565 530 7880 7988 9843 3rd 3rd 3 rd
FW-L015 590 580 545 10,001 10,119 12,490 3rd 3rd 2 nd
a b
Triangular load. Multimodal
load. c Uniform load. d Storey at which
collapse is observed.
from the triangular load. Moreover, the maximum uniform load pattern is observed in lower storeys than
interstorey drift collapse limit when employing the the recorded collapse from the triangular or the
422 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
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 load–deformation 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 underestimates the average drift of dynamic
analysis in two buildings, it is between the upper and
lower drift limits obtained from the eight records, as
shown in Fig. 11.
Higher modes effect and concentration of inelastic
deformations are expected to be significant in the first
group of structures where the buildings exhibit two
sources of irregularity and weak storey.
Notwithstanding, four static pushover analyses using the
simple triangular load pattern have succeeded in
predicting the average results of more than 600 inelastic
time–history analyses. It is also important to note that
the good design of these buildings and the high
overstrength associated with structural elements,
particularly the columns, prevented any undesirable
mode of failure. The results show that utilising the
triangular load shape only to predict the global response
of low rise frames as well as well designed irregular
frame structures is adequate.
In contrast to the first group of buildings, the results of
the static pushover of the 12-storey group, illustrated in
Fig. 12, show discrepancies with the dynamic response
envelope in the post-elastic range. While the static
pushover results of the triangular and the multimodal
load pattern show a good agreement with the dynamic
results best fit in the elastic range, both give a
conservative prediction of the maximum lateral strength,
as also shown in Table 6 for the triangular load.
However, in the four buildings the triangular load
response is higher than the lower limit envelopes
obtained from dynamic analyses employing natural and
artificial records. On the other hand, the capacity curve
obtained from the uniformly distributed load
overestimates the response in the elastic range.
However, it gives better prediction of the ultimate
strength. It is also clear from Fig. 12 that the triangular
load shape gives good prediction of the deformation at
collapse, while the uniform load underestimates the
collapse limit state in the four buildings. It is concluded
for this group of buildings that the triangular distribution
is again the most suitable load pattern given that the
uniform load, which is rec-
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
Fig. 14. Differences between the three lateral load patterns.
Table 6
Differences between static and dynamic pushover analysis at global collapse limit state
Group Difference in drift
Triangular Uniform
ommended by the NEHRP guidelines (FEMA 273), is
unconservative in predicting the response and the drift at
collapse.
Concerning the frame-wall group of buildings, the
differences between the static pushover and the dynamic
analysis results are larger than for the other two groups.
In terms of the predicted elastic response and initial
stiffness, the triangular and the multimodal load shapes
show good correlation with the dynamic analysis best fit
for three buildings and a conservative prediction for the
fourth (FW-M030). In the post-elastic range, the two
load shapes underestimate the lateral strength obtained
from the time–history analyses. Table 6 shows that the
triangular load prediction of strength at global collapse
is between 20 and 26% less than the average results of
dynamic analyses. Similar to the 12-storey buildings, the
uniform load overestimates the elastic response but gives
better prediction of the lateral strength at collapse for
this group of buildings. Moreover, none of the
investigated load patterns give reasonable prediction of
the high hardening stiffness obtained from dynamic
analysis for the higher design ground motion pair. With
regard to predicting the drift at collapse, both the
triangular and the uniform load patterns are
unconservative. This is clear from Fig. 13 and Table 6.
423
Difference in strength
Triangular Uniform
The comparison between static and dynamic pushover
analysis for this group of buildings shows more
discrepancies than the second group, especially for the
0.30 g design ground motion pair. As explained earlier,
these differences are mainly due to higher mode effects,
which amplify the base shear following formation of
first plastic hinge at the base of the wall. In pushover
analysis, once the wall attained its ultimate lateral
strength, it will deform by plastic hinging at the base
[31]. Clearly, for this type of structure (shear frame
response plus cantilever wall response) the amplification
of the base shear during the dynamic analysis is difficult
to predict by pushover analysis. However, the triangular
load profile shows good correlation in the elastic range,
conservative predictions of the ultimate strength and
reasonable estimations of the collapse limit state
(underestimates the drift by about 8%). Hence, it may be
employed for estimating the seismic capacity and
collapse limit state.
424 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
Finally, if the static pushover analysis is utilised as a
tool for predicting seismic demands instead of
estimating capacities, the analysis is usually performed
until the roof drift corresponding to the design ground
acceleration is attained. Table 7 presents the average for
eight ground motions of the maximum top displacement
observed from time–history analyses at the design
ground acceleration. Clearly, the target displacement is
almost always below the global yield limit state. The
comparison between the static pushover and the dynamic
analysis discussed above show that the triangular load
gives better estimation of the response in the elastic
range. In few buildings, however, it underestimates the
initial stiffness. In contrast, in the same range the
uniform load shape overestimates the stiffness and the
base shear in all cases. From the design point of view,
the uniformly distributed load is conservative for the
twelve buildings investigated. It is concluded that the
use of two load distributions is needed for estimating the
seismic demand. The simple triangular or the
multimodal shape, which correlate well with dynamic
analysis results and the uniform load pattern which
shows a conservative prediction of demands in almost
all cases considered. This conclusion is supported by the
observations obtained from the results of the frame-wall
group of buildings. The uniform load pattern can provide
Table 7
Observed maximum roof displacement at the design ground acceleration (average for eight ground motions)
Group 1 Roof disp. (mm) Group 2
IF-H030 285 RF-H030
IF-M030 202 RF-M030
IF-M015 138 RF-M015
IF-L015 136 RF-L015
a conservative estimation of shear demand below
collapse limit states; hence it can support preventing
undesirable shear failure. Moreover, it shows reasonable
estimation of shear at global collapse limit state (at 3%
interstorey drift). It is worth mentioning that, according
to the SEAOC (Vision 2000), complete collapse is
considered once the interstorey drift exceeds 2.5%.
Utilising this definition of collapse leads to obtaining
conservative prediction of shear demand in all buildings
investigated when employing the uniformly distributed
load.
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:
I 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.
I 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 time–
history analysis.
I 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
Roof disp. (mm) Group 3 Roof disp. ( mm )
290 FW-H030 115
304 FW-M030 120
146 FW-M015 56
163 FW-L015 67
predict higher mode effects in the post-elastic range.
To overcome this problem, more than one load
pattern should be selected to guarantee providing an
accurate or slightly conservative prediction of
capacities and demands.
I The investigation carried out on two sets of four
12storey frame buildings and four 8-storey frame-
wall structures show that a conservative prediction of
capacity and a reasonable estimation of deformation
is obtained using the simple triangular or the
multimodal load distribution. The same load patterns
slightly underestimate the demand of some buildings
in the elastic range. On the other hand, the uniform
load provides a conservative prediction of seismic
demands in the range before first collapse. It also
yields an acceptable estimation of shear demands at
the collapse limit state.
I Comparison between the triangular and the multimodal
distribution results show differences less than 4 %,
for the twelve buildings, since the former captures the
 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424
characteristics of the most important mode of
vibration. The load distribution from multimodal
analysis only represents the distribution of inertia
forces in the elastic range; hence higher mode effects
are not entirely accounted for in the post-elastic
domain.
I The elongation in the fundamental period of structures
due to extensive yielding and cracking during
earthquakes depends on the overall stiffness of the
structural system of the building. In the current study,
the observed elongation ranges between 100% for the
most flexible irregular frame system and 60% for the
stiff frame-wall structural system. Employment of
elastic periods in seismic code does not therefore
provide uniform levels of safety for different
structural systems.
I The results of the dynamic collapse analysis show
clearly that each earthquake record exhibits its own
peculiarities, dictated by frequency content, duration,
sequence of peaks and their amplitude. The dispersion
in the results of different ground motions depends on
the characteristics of both the structure and the
record. The Fourier spectral analysis is an important
tool to investigate the observed variability of the
results and to identify the elongated inelastic periods
of the structure.
I The importance of pushover analysis as an assessment
and design tool warrants much needed further
developments. These may be classified as ‘tools’ and
‘behaviour’. There is considerable scope for
development of tools for more efficient and versatile
pushover analysis techniques. One such development
would be the continuous assessment of the effect of
inelasticity on the load distribution used, taking into
account the shape of the spectrum. This would enable
the accurate and realistic analysis of highly irregular
structures. With regard to ‘behaviour’, analysis of a
larger sample of buildings that includes high-rise
structures and structures with heavily irregular
strength distribution is needed.
To close, it is emphasised that, notwithstanding the
range of structures analysed, the number of records
employed and the rigour of the limit state criteria
monitored, the conclusions are, strictly speaking,
applicable to the range investigated. However, some
generality may be claimed by noting that every effort
has been made to select distinct structural systems,
comprehensive limit states and verified investigation
tools.
References
425
[1] Saiidi M, Sozen MA. Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C
structures. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE
1981;107(ST5):937–51.
[2] Fajfar P, Gaspersic P. The N2 method for the seismic damage
analysis of RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1996;25:31–46.
[3] Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance
and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(1):3–10.
[4] FEMA. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,
1996.
[5] SEAOC. Performance based seismic engineering of buildings.
Vision 2000 Committee, Structural Engineers Association of
California, Sacramento, CA, 1995.
[6] Lawson RS, Vance V, Krawinkler H. Nonlinear static push-over
analysis — why, when, and how? In: Proceedings 5th US
NCEE, vol. 1. IL, USA: Chicago, 1994:283–92.
[7] Mitchell D, Paultre P. Ductility and overstrength in seismic
design of reinforced concrete structures. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering 1994;21:1049–60.
[8] Faella G, Kilar V. Asymmetric multistorey R/C frame
structures: push-over versus nonlinear dynamic analysis. In:
Proceedings 11th ECEE, Paris, 1996, CD-Rom.
[9] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover
analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering
Structures 1998;20(4-6):452–64.
[10] Tso WK, Moghadam AS. Pushover procedure for seismic
analysis of buildings. Progress in Structural Engineering and
Materials 1998;1(3):337–44.
[11] Eurocode 8. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of
structures. Part 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, Comite Europeen de
Normalisation, European Pre-standard ENV 1998-1-1, 1-2, and
1-3, Bruxelles, 1994.
[12] Fardis MN. Analysis and design of reinforced concrete
buildings according to Eurocodes 2 and 8. Configuration 3, 5
and 6, Reports on Prenormative Research in Support of
Eurocode 8, 1994.
[13] Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. ADAPTIC — a program for
adaptive large displacement elastoplastic dynamic analysis of
steel, concrete and composite frames. ESEE Report No. 89/7,
Imperial College, London, 1989.
[14] Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. Performance of composite
steel/concrete members under earthquake loading, Part I:
Analytical model. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1993;22(4):315–45.
[15] Broderick BM, Elnashai AS. Seismic resistance of composite
beam–columns in multi-storey structures, Part 2: Analytical
model and discussion of results. Journal of Construction Steel
Research 1994;30(3):231–58.
[16] Elnashai AS, Pinho R. Repair and retrofitting of RC walls using
selective techniques. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
1998;2(4):525–68.
[17] Salvitti LM, Elnashai AS. Evaluation of behaviour factors for
RC buildings by non-linear dynamic analysis. In: Proceedings
11 th WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, CD-Rom, Paper No.
1820.
[18] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Effect of column capacity design
on earthquake response of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering 1998;2(1):113–45.
426 A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424

[19] Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. Confined concrete model

under cyclic load. Materials and Structures 1997;30(197):139–
47.
[20] Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of material nonlinearities
in steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22:509–
32.
[21] Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical and field evidence of
the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1996;25:1109–37.
[22] Mwafy AM. Seismic performance of code-designed RC
buildings. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London,
2000. [23] Housner G. Spectrum intensities of strong-motion
earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquake
and Blast Effects on Structures. CA, USA: Los Angeles,
1952:20–36.
[24] Martinez-Rueda JE. Energy dissipation devices for seismic
upgrading of RC structures. PhD thesis, Imperial College,
University of London, 1997.
[25] Martinez-Rueda JE. Scaling procedure for natural
accelerograms based on a system of spectrum intensity scales.
Earthquake Spectra 1998;14(1):135–52.
[26] Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of
reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 1994;120(8):2310–29.
[27] Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM, Lee D. Collapse analysis of RC
structures including shear. ASCE Structures Congress, New
Orleans, 1999.
[28] Mwafy AM. Seismic performance of RC buildings under
multiaxial earthquake loading. PhD transfer report, Imperial
College, London, 1998.
[29] Ghosh SK. Required shear strength of earthquake resistant
reinforced concrete shear walls. In: Krawinkler H, Fajar P,
editors. Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced
Concrete Buildings. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 1992.
[30] Seneviratna GDPK. Evaluation of inelastic MDOF effects for
seismic design. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1995.
[31] Krawinkler H. New trends in seismic design methodology. In:
Proceedings 10th ECEE. The Netherlands: Rotterdam,
1995:821–30.