This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]

On: 04 August 2013, At: 03:18

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Use of Pushover Analysis for Predicting

Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings:
A Case Study
a a a
Angelo D'Ambrisi , Mario De Stefano & Marco Tanganelli
a
Dipartimento di Costruzioni, Università di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
Published online: 06 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Angelo D'Ambrisi , Mario De Stefano & Marco Tanganelli (2009) Use of Pushover
Analysis for Predicting Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings: A Case Study, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 13:8, 1089-1100, DOI: 10.1080/13632460902898308

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460902898308

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13:1089–1100, 2009
Copyright Ó A.S. Elnashai & N.N. Ambraseys
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632460902898308

Use of Pushover Analysis for Predicting Seismic

Response of Irregular Buildings: A Case Study

ANGELO D’AMBRISI, MARIO DE STEFANO,

and MARCO TANGANELLI
Dipartimento di Costruzioni, Università di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

Structural irregularity undermines capability of conventional methods for 2D pushover analysis to

closely approximate results from inelastic dynamic analysis. In recent years, different methods have
been developed to overcome such limitation and their suitability has been checked with reference
either to idealized building models or to geometrically simple tested structures. In this paper,
suitability of one such method, proposed by Fajfar et al. [2005], is evaluated considering an
existing school building which presents both vertical and plan irregularities. Types of irregularity
encompass not only those usually considered by seismic codes but also those deriving from a bad
conceptual design and construction inaccuracies, very frequent at the year of construction (1974).
It is found that, even under such complex irregularity conditions, this ‘modified’ pushover analysis
correlates well results from inelastic dynamic analysis almost up to failure, since, in most cases, its
predictions of interstorey drifts and plastic rotations are conservatively close to values from
inelastic dynamic analysis. Even failure mechanism, consisting of a floor mechanism at the third
level, is correctly predicted, thus demonstrating adequacy of such method for actual framed
structures.

Keywords Existing RC Building Structures; Pushover Analysis; Structural Irregularity

1. Introduction
Plan-wise irregular buildings require 3D modeling and exhibit torsional behavior under
seismic excitations, due to effects of torsional modes of vibration. Such behavior leads to
non uniform envelope of top lateral displacements and, therefore, it undermines capabil-
ity of conventional methods for 2D pushover analysis, such as the N2 method [e.g., Faifar
et al., 1997], the Capacity Spectrum Method [e.g., Freeman, 1998], etc., to closely
approximate results from nonlinear dynamic analysis, since definition of only one target
displacement (typically at the mass center) is not sufficient.
As a consequence, in the last few years large research efforts have been devoted to
development of pushover methods capable to account for torsional response of plan
irregular buildings. Among these methods, one can mention the Modal Pushover
Analysis method by Goel and Chopra [2004], incorporating effects of higher modes,
and the method by Moghadam and Tso [2000], using an elastic modal analysis to predict
the envelope of top lateral displacements and distribution of forces acting on each
resisting element.
In 2005, Fajfar et al. [2005] proposed combining the results from a conventional
pushover analysis based on the N2 method with those from elastic modal analysis.
Namely, the elastic modal analysis is used to predict the shape of top lateral
Received 22 February 2008; accepted 14 March 2009.
Address correspondence to Angelo D’Ambrisi, Dipartimento di Costruzioni, Università di Firenze, Piazza
Brunelleschi, 6, 50121 Firenze Italy; E-mail: adam@dicos.unifi.it

1089
 1090 A. D’Ambrisi, M. De Stefano, and M. Tanganelli

displacements in plan, i.e., non dimensionalized with respect to the top lateral displace-
ment at the mass center, thus providing amplification factors of top lateral displacements
to be applied to those obtained from conventional N2 pushover analysis. Top lateral
displacements at the mass center are unaffected by amplification factors and
de-amplification of displacements with respect to that at the mass center is neglected
(‘‘no reduction rule’’). Fajfar et al.’s [2005] method (in the following also denoted as
modified pushover analysis) appears the most suitable for practical purposes, as it
attempts to capture in a simple and conceptually clear manner the key effect of torsional
response, i.e., unevenness of the envelope of roof lateral displacements.
However, it has to be noticed that capability of all above methods to closely correlate
results from inelastic dynamic analysis has been checked with reference either to idea-
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

lized building models or to geometrically simple tested structures [Fajfar et al., 2005].
Actually, irregularity conditions in existing buildings can go far beyond the code defini-
tion of plan (and vertical) irregularity and, in any case, it is very likely that vertical and
plan irregularities are combined. Therefore, this article is aimed at checking whether the
procedure proposed by Fajfar et al. [2005] to extend the N2-method to asymmetric (plan
irregular) structures can be successful even in the case of very complex irregularity
conditions. To this purpose, a case study has been selected, consisting of an existing
school building which presents both vertical and plan irregularities. Types of irregularity
encompass not only those usually considered by seismic codes but also those deriving
from a bad conceptual design and construction inaccuracies, very frequent at the time of
construction (1974). This case study is even more interesting since wide information
about material mechanical properties was available, thus allowing the implementation of
a quite realistic computational model.

2. The Existing School Building: Structural Dimensions and Material

Properties
The four-story school building under investigation was built in 1974 in Londa, a small
town near Florence (Italy) located in the seismic area of Mugello, which, according to the
Italian seismic maps, is characterized by an expected PGA of 0.25 g (seismic zone 2).
The building structure is constituted of a 3D RC 4-story frame. Structural plans and
sections are reported in Figs. 1 and 2, from which it can be seen that some frames are not
complete, because of lack of beams at the third and fourth level. Frames are denoted with
X or Y according to their direction of action. In columns, geometrical percentage of
reinforcement ranges between 1.3 and 2.3%; in beams, reinforcement for hogging
moment ranges between 0.3 and 1.2%, while reinforcement for sagging moment ranges
between 0.3 and 0.8%.
Structural schemes of Figs. 1 and 2 evidence that this building structure is irregular
both in plan and in elevation. Plan configuration is characterized by stiffness concentra-
tion on the right side, mainly due to the reduction in beam spans and, in turn, to the
increase in number of columns of frame Y5. As a consequence, it can be easily detected a
stiff side of building plan, i.e., the right side, and a flexible side, i.e., the left side.
Irregularity in elevation is mainly due to a setback along X-direction of third level
with respect to second level, as shown in Fig. 2(a). X plan dimension at the first and
second level is 36.9 m long, whereas it becomes 28.9 m long at the two upper levels (see
also Fig. 1c). Along the Y-direction, plan dimension is constant at the four levels of the
main building part (going from frame Y1 to Y5), while, in the secondary part it reduces
by 4 m at the second level. The presence of a setback results in the eccentricity of masses
at the third and fourth floor with respect to those at the first two ones.
 Predicting Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings 1091

1 2 3 4 5 21 22
X4

2,4
23 24 25
X7

6,1

4,4
6 7 8 9 10
X3 27 28
26 X6

3,3
11 12 13 14 15

4,8
X2
29 30 31
X5

6,1

3,9
16 17 18 19 20 32 33
X1
7,15 7,15 7,15 7,15 4 4

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7
(a)
1 2 3 4 5 21 22
X4

2,4
23 24 25
X7
6,1
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

4,4
6 7 8 9 10
X3 27 28
26 X6
3,3

11 12 13 14 15

4,8
X2
29 30 31
X5
6,1

3,9
16 17 18 19 20
X1
7,15 7,15 7,15 7,15 4 4

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7
(b)
1 2 3 4 5
X4
6,1

6 7 8 9 10
X3
3,3

11 12 13 14 15
X2
6,1

16 17 18 19 20
X1
7,15 7,15 7,15 7,15
30 cm X 30 cm
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 40 cm X 40 cm
(c)

FIGURE 1 Building structural plans: (a) 1st level; (b) 2nd level; (c) 3rd; and 4th levels.

30 X 70
30 X 70
3,4

3,4

30 X 70
30 X 70
3,35

3,35

30 X 60
30 X 60
1,8
3,6

3,6

30 X 60
1,8

30 X 60
30 X 60
3,3

3,3

1 2 3 4 5 21 22
16 11 6 1
7,15 7,15 7,15 7,15 4 4
6,1 3,3 6,1
(a) (b)
30 X 70
3,4

3,4

30 X 70
1,8 1,67 1,67
3,35

3,35

30 X 60

40 X 60 30 X 60
3,6

3,6

30 X 60
1,65 1,65 1,8

40 X 60 30 X 60
3,3

30 X 60
3,3

17 12 7 2 20 29 15 26 10 23 5
3,9 2,2 2,6 3,7 2,4
6,1 3,3 6,1 0,7
(c) (d)

FIGURE 2 Building structural sections at frames: (a) X4; (b) Y1; (c) Y2, Y3, Y4; and
(d) Y5.
 1092 A. D’Ambrisi, M. De Stefano, and M. Tanganelli

Furthermore, the lack of beams at the third and fourth levels of some Y-direction
frames, combined to the presence of short beams and columns in frame Y5, as shown in
Figs. 2(b,c,d), represents a quite amazing type of irregularity in elevation.
It follows that this existing building exhibits a combination of irregularities, both in
plan and in elevation, that makes seismic behavior very complex. Therefore, it is very
interesting to check if modified pushover analysis is suitable for this particular case study,
although in principle such procedure has been formulated to consider effects of plan
irregularity only [e.g., Fajfar et al., 2005].
Concrete properties have been investigated by means of direct tests (core sampling)
and indirect tests (sclerometric and ultra-sonic tests), which have allowed to define a
mean concrete cubic strength Rc,cub equal to 15.0 MPa. Such a value of Rc,cub is quite
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

below the claimed design value of 30 MPa, thus undermining ability of this structure to
resist seismic forces corresponding to the Italian seismic zone 2. Steel properties have
been estimated according to the Italian standards holding at the time of construction;
namely, since a A38 steel (not controlled) was used, a yield strength of 310 MPa has been
assumed for the subsequent numerical analyses.

3. Numerical Modeling
The above material properties have been used to characterize numerical constitutive
relationships implemented into the computer code ZEUSNL adopted for the nonlinear
static and dynamic numerical analyses [e.g., Elnashai et al., 2002]. Namely, for the
confined concrete, ZEUSNL implements a four parameter constitutive model based on
the Mander’s theory [e.g., Mander et al., 1988], while it implements a four parameter
tri-linear law for the unconfined concrete. For steel, ZEUSNL implements a simple
uniaxial bilinear stress-strain three parameter model with kinematic strain hardening,
whereby the elastic range remains constant throughout the various loading stages and the
kinematic hardening rule for yield surface is assumed as a linear function of the incre-
ment of plastic strain. Table 1 shows values of calibrating parameters for the three
considered material models.
Figure 3 shows the 3D model of the structure as given by the pre-processor of
ZEUSNL; it can be seen that the diaphragmatic action of floor slabs, which is not
represented directly by slaving all floor nodes to a master node, is introduced by means
of truss elements with large stiffness calibrated to constrain all floor nodes to move as a
rigid body. Furthermore, both beam and column elements have been subdivided into four
parts: length of the two outer parts at the element ends has been taken equal to the cross
section depth while lengths of the two inner parts have been taken equal.
To better specify the numerical model, floor masses have been taken as 456.64,
411.88, 305.25, and 283.84 kN/m/s2 going from the first to the fourth level. It can be

TABLE 1 Calibrating parameters of material models

E1 (N/mm2) fc1 (N/mm2) E2 (N/mm2) fc2 (N/mm2)
Unconfined Concrete 22000 15 22000 5
Confined concrete fc (N/mm2) ft (N/mm2) eco Kc
15 0.001 0.002 1.0
Steel Es (N/mm2) fy (N/mm2) M
200000 310 0.01
 Predicting Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings 1093
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

FIGURE 3 3D model of the analyzed building obtained with ZEUSNL.

noticed that floor mass varies dramatically due to the setback of the third level, thus
exceeding the limit provided by Eurocode 8 (EC8) [2003] to detect mass vertical
irregularity (25% mass variation). Since in the considered school building non structural
elements give a very low contribution to energy dissipation, the structure has been
considered as a bare frame. Therefore, viscous damping has not been included in the
analytical model, while hysteretic damping has been considered through nonlinear mate-
rial modeling.

4. Seismic Input for Inelastic Dynamic Analyses

It is well known that nonlinear dynamic response of structures is influenced by seismic
input characteristics to a large extent. Iervolino et al. [2006] selected, within a research
project sponsored by the Italian Department of Civil Protection, different ensembles of
earthquake records which are compatible with seismic actions defined by the EC8 [2003]
and the Italian Seismic Code (OPCM 3431) [2005] for the different soil types. In this
article, the ensemble calibrated for the seismic action of OPCM 3431 and for soil type
B has been considered. Record characteristics are reported in D’Ambrisi et al. [2007b],
where it is also shown that the selected ensemble matches well the code seismic action,
especially in the period range including the fundamental building period, equal to 1.01 s.
To assess adequacy of the modified N2 method for different levels of inelasticity, the
entire ensemble has been scaled so that its mean PGA goes from 0.0625 to 0.1875 g, the
latter value exceeding the collapse acceleration of the structure, as it will be seen below.
Since the structure is almost symmetric along the X-direction and, therefore, the X- and Y-
directions are weakly coupled, the above-defined ensemble has been applied uni-directionally
along the X- and Y-direction separately; mean results, over the 14 records, have been
computed to show and to compare effectiveness of the different methods of analysis.

5. Assessment of Suitability of Modified Pushover Analysis for the Selected

Case Study
In order to apply any pushover method, usually two types of horizontal force pattern are
recommended by seismic codes: (1) proportional to floor masses; (2) proportional to the
product of floor masses by first mode floor displacements. Since this article is not aimed
at investigating suitability of any loading pattern, the one proportional to the product of
masses by the first mode floor displacements has been selected, having verified that it
generally provides a better approximation of results from inelastic dynamic analysis.
 1094 A. D’Ambrisi, M. De Stefano, and M. Tanganelli

In order to verify adequacy of modified N2 method for the selected case study, it
should be first recognized that the framed structure under investigation is virtually
symmetric about the X-plan direction. In D’Ambrisi et al. [2008], the mean envelopes
of top story lateral displacements along X-direction are plotted for different levels of
mean PGA, as obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis; it can be seen that all envelopes
are practically uniform in plan, thus demonstrating that building response in the X-
direction is primarily translational. As a consequence, this study focuses on building
response along the Y-direction, about which the structure is definitely asymmetric.
As already underlined, the key problem that undermines suitability of conventional
pushover analysis in the presence of plan irregularity is plan variation of maximum top
lateral displacements. Due to floor rotations, during excitation maximum top lateral
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

displacement are attained at different times along the building plan, so that, even under
the assumption of rigid floor slabs, their envelope is nonlinear. Furthermore, amplification
of displacements at the building flexible side with respect to the mass center may be well
magnified by dynamic amplification of static eccentricity due to onset of torsional inertia
moments. As a consequence, conventional pushover analysis is unsuitable in the presence
of plan irregularity, as (i) it invariably leads to predict a linear plan envelope of top lateral
displacements and (ii) it may well underestimate displacements at the flexible side.
To overcome the above shortcoming of conventional pushover analysis, it is mandatory
to predict the shape of the envelope of top lateral displacements in a simplified and con-
servative manner. Fajfar et al. [2005] proposed to consider the envelope of top lateral
displacements obtained from elastic modal analysis under the assumption that it provides a
conservative estimate of the actual one obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis.
To follow Fajfar’s et al. [2005] procedure to extend conventional pushover analysis
based on the N2 method, a modal analysis has been conducted with the computer code
SAP2000 [1999]. Shapes of the first four modes with higher participating mass along
with periods and participating masses of the first eight vibration modes in the X- and
Y-directions are reported elsewhere [D’Ambrisi et al., 2007a], showing that the first
mode is mainly translational along the X-direction, whereas the second one, mainly
developing along the Y-direction, is largely characterized by lateral-to-torsional coupling.
Considering elastic spectra of all selected records, the envelopes of lateral displace-
ments at the top storey, uy, have been defined by means of modal analysis. Figure 4 shows
the shapes of envelopes obtained by non dimensionalization with respect to the top lateral
displacement at the mass center, uyCM. These shapes confirm that plan left side is the flexible

0232XA 0232YA 0297XA 0297YA 1214XA

1214YA 1722XA 1722YA 5809XA 5809YA
5815XA 5815YA 6144XA 6144YA Mean
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

FIGURE 4 Normalized envelopes of Y-top lateral displacements from modal analysis.

 Predicting Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings 1095

one (frame Y1 side) and plan right side is the rigid one (frame Y5 side). Amplification of
lateral displacement at the flexible side (about 35% at frame Y1) does not appreciably vary
with the input ground motion, whereas de-amplifications at the rigid side present significant
scatterings. The mean shape is also represented, going from a value of 1.347 at frame Y1 on
the flexible side to 0.803 at frame Y5 on the rigid side.
Once the (mean) normalized shape of the top lateral displacements is obtained
from modal analysis, Fajfar et al. [2005] conservatively require that normalized
displacements at the stiff side, which actually are smaller than unity (Fig. 4) — i.e.,
their absolute values are smaller than those at the mass center — be taken equal to
unity, thus applying in some way the so-called ‘‘no reduction rule’’ subscribed by IBC
[2003]. In Fig. 5, as mean PGA varies from 0.0625 to 0.1875 g, the envelope shapes
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

obtained from the above combination of modal analysis and ‘‘no reduction rule,’’
represented by the dashed-dotted curves, are compared to those obtained from non-
linear dynamic analysis (solid lines) and from conventional pushover analysis based on
the N2 method (dashed lines). It can be seen that amplification of displacements at the
flexible side is always larger with nonlinear dynamic analysis than with conventional
pushover analysis, thus confirming that the latter type of analysis is really unconserva-
tive. With the Fajfar’s method (dashed-dotted lines), a much better prediction of the
actual shapes (solid lines) is achieved at the flexible side. As mean PGA increases,
such prediction even improves, with a tendency to become conservative. At the stiff
side, the ‘‘no reduction rule’’ always works, providing an overestimation of lateral
displacements. On the whole, from Fig. 5, it emerges that the Fajfar’s method to
predict the shape of top lateral displacements leads to a significant improvement
with respect to the conventional pushover analysis and, therefore, such method can
really make feasible pushover analysis for plan irregular buildings.
By applying the envelope shapes obtained by the Fajfar et al.’s method to the
patterns of absolute lateral displacements given by conventional pushover analysis
(Fig. 6, dashed lines), the final envelopes of absolute top lateral displacements can be
defined, as represented in Fig, 6 (dashed-dotted lines) for different levels of mean PGA.
For the sake of comparison, the actual envelopes of top lateral displacements, as obtained
from nonlinear dynamic analysis, are also plotted in Fig. 6 (solid lines).
Of course, to draw correct indications from this comparison, one must consider
that accurate prediction of the top lateral displacement of the mass center is not the
key issue in this paper dealing with irregular structures. Indeed, accurate prediction
of the target displacement at the mass center is a primary issue for application of
pushover analysis to regular structures and it is a pre-requisite for any further
extension of pushover analysis to irregular structures. As a consequence, discussion
of discrepancies between actual top lateral displacement at the mass center and
its prediction through the N2 method goes beyond the scope of this article. It is
evident, however, that in this case study the N2 method leads either to accurate
prediction of the actual top lateral displacement at the mass center for the lowest and
the highest level of mean PGA, or to conservative prediction, for the intermediate
levels of PGA.
On the whole, it appears that modified pushover analysis really represents an
enhancement of conventional pushover analysis as actual top lateral displacements are,
in most cases, well or conservatively correlated with a tendency to greater conservative-
ness for the intermediate values of PGA due to overestimation of the target displacement
at mass center. Conversely, it appears evident that conventional pushover is unsuitable for
this irregular structure since it becomes safe only when, by chance, target displacement at
mass center is largely overestimated.
 1096 A. D’Ambrisi, M. De Stefano, and M. Tanganelli

1.5 1.5
Mean PGA = 0.0625 g Mean PGA = 0.08 g
1.4 1.4

1.3 1.3

1.2 1.2

U y/ UyCM
1.1 1.1

1.0 1.0
Conventional Pushover Conventional Pushover
0.9 0.9
Modified Pushover Modified Pushover
0.8 0.8
Inelastic dynamic analysis Inelastic dynamic analysis
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

0.7 0.7

1.5 1.5
Mean PGA = 0.10 g Mean PGA = 0.14 g
1.4 1.4

1.3 1.3

1.2 1.2
Uy/ UyCM

Uy/ U yCM

1.1 1.1

1.0 1.0

0.9 Conventional Pushover 0.9 Conventional Pushover

Modif ied Pushover Modif ied Pushover

0.8 0.8
Inelastic dynamic analysis Inelastic dynamic analysis
0.7 0.7

1.5 1.5
Mean PGA = 0.16 g Mean PGA = 0.1875 g
1.4 1.4

1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
Uy/ U yCM

Uy/ U yCM

1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9 Conventional Pushover
0.9 Conventional Pushover
0.8
Modif ied Pushover
Modif ied Pushover
0.8 0.7
Inelastic dynamic analysis Inelastic dynamic analysis
0.7 0.6

FIGURE 5 Plan envelopes of normalized top lateral Y-displacements (envelope shapes).

As it is very straightforward, good correlation of the envelope of top lateral

displacement is crucial to obtain good correlation of response parameters, characteriz-
ing seismic performance. According to the modified pushover analysis, the relevant
patterns of absolute top lateral displacements from Fig. 6 have been used to define the
target displacements of frames aligned along the Y-direction, thus allowing the com-
putation of the corresponding values of performance parameters, i.e., interstory drift
ratios and plastic rotations.
In the following discussion, attention will be paid to response parameters computed
for frame Y1, located at the building flexible side, which is the critical one for assessment
of suitability of modified pushover, since the largest displacements occur at its side and
 Predicting Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings 1097

240 240
Mean PGA = 0.0625 g Mean PGA = 0.08 g

200 200
Conventional Pushover Conventional Pushover

160 Modified Pushover 160 Modified Pushover

Inelastic dynamic analysis Inelastic dynamic analysis

Uy (mm)

Uy (mm)
120 120

80 80

40 40
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

0 0

240 240
Mean PGA = 0.10 g Mean PGA = 0.14 g

200 200
Conventional Pushover

160 Modified Pushover 160

Inelastic dynamic analysis

Uy (mm)

Uy (mm)

120 120

80 80

Conventional Pushover
40 40
Modified Pushover
Inelastic dynamic analysis
0 0

240 240
Mean PGA = 0.16 g Mean PGA = 0.1875 g

200 200

160 160
Uy (mm)

Uy (mm)

120 120

80 80

Conventional Pushover Conventional Pushover

40 40
Modified Pushover Modified Pushover
Inelastic dynamic analysis Inelastic dynamic analysis
0 0

FIGURE 6 Plan envelopes of top lateral Y-displacements.

prediction of the envelope based on the Fajfar et al.’s procedure is not always conserva-
tive. On the stiff side, top lateral displacements given by the ‘‘no reduction rule,’’
i.e., equal to those at mass center, are always larger than the actual ones: this trend, in
turn, leads to safe estimate of response parameters (not shown as it is straightforward).
Figure 7(a) shows vertical profiles of interstory drift ratios obtained by modified
pushover analysis for frame Y1, considering mean values over the selected 14 earthquake
records. Mean interstory drift ratios are also compared to limit values provided by the
SEAOC ‘‘Vision 2000’’ [1995] document to characterize attainment of the Operational
(OP), Life Safe (LS), and Near Collapse (NC) performance levels, i.e., to 0.5, 1.5, and
2.5%, respectively. Profiles are plotted for the different values of mean PGA and they
 1098 A. D’Ambrisi, M. De Stefano, and M. Tanganelli

PGA = 0.0625 g PGA = 0.08 g PGA = 0.1 g PGA = 0.0625g PGA = 0.08g PGA = 0.10g
PGA = 0.12 g PGA = 0.14 g PGA = 0.16 g PGA = 0.12g PGA = 0.14g PGA = 0.16g

PGA = 0.1875 g PGA = 0.1875g

4 4

3 3
Level

Level
2 2

1 1
OP LS NC NC
OP LS

0 0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

Drif t (%) Drif t (%)

(a) (b)

FIGURE 7 Mean vertical profiles of interstory drift ratios for flexible side frame Y1 as
obtained with: (a) modified pushover analysis; and (b) inelastic dynamic analysis.

show formation of a floor mechanism at the third level, with drift ratio exceeding 2% for
a mean PGA equal to 0.14 g. For a PGA = 0.1875 g, a drift ratio of 3.6% is predicted at
the third floor, which is higher than the frame NC limit, thus evidencing that collapse
PGA is largely lower than the design one (= 0.25 g according to the Italian seismic
zonation). To check suitability of modified pushover analysis, Fig. 7(b) shows mean
profiles obtained with nonlinear dynamic analysis. It emerges that pushover analysis
detects correctly the failure mode, i.e., floor mechanism at the third floor, which, when
using inelastic dynamic analysis, becomes evident only for the largest mean PGA
(= 0.1875 g). Furthermore, prediction of maximum interstory drift with modified push-
over analysis is conservative up to mean PGA = 0.16 g, i.e., almost up to failure. Though
trend of vertical profiles obtained with the two methods of analysis is somehow different,
on the whole modified pushover analysis captures well failure mode and it approximates
on the safe side inelastic dynamic analysis interstory drift ratios almost up to failure. Only
when the floor mechanism at the third floor fully develops, then modified pushover
analysis becomes slightly unconservative, as interstory drift ratio exceeds 4% with
inelastic dynamic analysis.
When looking at column plastic rotations, a similar scenario comes out. Figures 8(a)
and (b) show mean plastic rotations at column ends obtained with modified pushover
analysis and with inelastic dynamic analysis, respectively. Again, modified pushover
analysis predicts well and conservatively (up to mean PGA = 0.16 g) values obtained
with inelastic dynamic analysis, which is particularly remarkable for a local response
parameter such as plastic rotation. Furthermore, with modified pushover analysis, forma-
tion of a floor mechanism at the third level emerges clearly from the lower values of
mean PGA.
The above-described enhanced performance of modified pushover analysis with
respect to conventional pushover analysis confirms that the Fajfar’s procedure is parti-
cularly suitable for framed structures, as proved in De Stefano and Pintucchi [2008] by a
parametric study of a simplified single story model. It also shows that vertical irregularity
does not affect significantly the ability of modified pushover analysis to correlate well
results from inelastic dynamic analysis, as the Fajfar’s procedure is intrinsically formu-
lated to account exclusively for plan irregularity. Only at failure, modified pushover
analysis becomes slightly unconservative due to development of a local (floor)
mechanism.
 Predicting Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings 1099

PGA = 0.0625 g PGA = 0.08 g PGA = 0.1 g PGA = 0.12 g PGA = 0.0625 g PGA = 0.08 g PGA = 0.1 g PGA = 0.12 g

PGA = 0.14 g PGA = 0.16 g PGA = 0.1875 g PGA = 0.14 g PGA = 0.16 g PGA = 0.1875 g
4 4

3 3
Level

Level
2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)

(a) (b)

FIGURE 8 Mean vertical profiles of column plastic rotations at flexible side frame Y1
as obtained with: (a) modified pushover analysis; and (b) inelastic dynamic analysis.

6. Conclusions
In this article, an assessment of suitability of modified pushover analysis for irregular
building structures has been carried out with reference to an existing RC school building,
presenting a complex combination of plan and vertical irregularities.
A comparison between results obtained with pushover analysis, modified according
to a procedure proposed by Fajfar et al. [2005] to account for plan irregularity only, and
those obtained with inelastic dynamic analysis has been carried out, covering global and
local response parameters. On the whole, modified pushover analysis correlates well
results from inelastic dynamic analysis, almost up to failure, as it can be seen that, in most
cases, its predictions of interstory drifts and plastic rotations are conservatively close to
values from inelastic dynamic analysis. Even failure mechanism, consisting of a floor
mechanism at the third level, is correctly predicted under such complex irregularity
conditions. Only at failure, due to full development of the floor mechanism, modified
pushover analysis becomes slightly unconservative.
Therefore, it becomes evident that modified pushover analysis is very promising as a
simplified method for evaluating seismic performance of irregular framed buildings; in
this respect, it appears that vertical irregularity does not undermine its suitability, though
Fajfar’s procedure in principle covers plan irregularity only.

Acknowledgments
The financial support provided through the project DPC-ReLUIS 2005–2008, Research
line n.2, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also wish to thank the Mid-America
Earthquake Center and the U.S. National Science Foundation for distributing the
computer code ZEUSNL used for numerical analyses.

References
CEN. Eurocode 8. [2003] ‘‘Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures,’’ European
Prestandard ENV 1998, Brussels. Final Draft.
Chopra, A. K. and Goel, G. K. [2004] ‘‘A modal push over analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands
for unsymmetric-plan buildings,’’ Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 33, 903–927.
 1100 A. D’Ambrisi, M. De Stefano, and M. Tanganelli

D’Ambrisi, A., De Stefano, M., and Tanganelli, M. [2007a] ‘‘Analisi del comportamento sismico
di un edificio scolastico irregolare: confronto di metodi differenti,’’ XII Convegno ANIDIS
‘‘L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia,’’ 10–14 Giugno 2007 Pisa Italia, in italian.
D’Ambrisi, A., De Stefano, M., and Tanganelli, M. [2007b] ‘‘Numerical investigation of seismic
vulnerability of existing RC structures: a case study,’’ Proc. of the 3rd SEMC International
Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, September 10–12, with CD-Rom.
D’Ambrisi, A., De Stefano, M., and Tanganelli, M. [2008] ‘‘Analisi della risposta sismica di edifici
esistenti irregolari: un caso di studio,’’ Valutazione e riduzione della vulnerabilità sismica
di edifici esistenti in c.a., 29–30 Maggio 2008 Roma Italia, in Italian.
De Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B. [2008] ‘‘Parametric bounds for application of pushover analysis to
plan irregular buildings’’, Proc. of 5th EWICS, Catania, with CD-Rom.
Elnashai, A. S., Papanikolau, V., and Lee, D. H. [2002] ‘‘A system for inelastic analysis of
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:18 04 August 2013

structures,’’ User Manual ZEUSNL (http://www.mae.ce.uiuc.edu/download/Zeus_nl.htm).

Fajfar, P., Gaspersic, P., and Drobnic, D. [1997] ‘‘A simplified non-linear method for seismic
damage analysis of structures,’’ Bled Conference on Displacement-Based Design.
Fajfar, P., Marušić, D., and Perus, I. [2005] ‘‘Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic
analysis of buildings,’’ Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9(6), 831–854.
Freeman, S. A. [1998] ‘‘The capacity spectrum methods as a tool for seismic design,’’ Proc. of
the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France.
IBC [2003] International Building Code. International Code Council, Inc., Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Iervolino, I., Maddaloni, G., and Cosenza, E. [2006] ‘‘Accelerogrammi naturali per l’analisi
dinamica delle strutture secondo l’OPCM 3431,’’ Report (http://www.reluis.unina.it).
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. [1988] ‘‘Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete,’’ Journal of Structural Engineering 114(8), 1804–1826.
Moghadam, A. S. and Tso, W. K. [2000] ‘‘3-D push-over analysis for damage assessment of
buildings,’’ Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 2(3), 23–31.OPCM 3431
[2005] Ulteriori modifiche ed integrazioni alla Ordinanza PCM 3274, Roma, Italia.
SAP2000 [1999] User Manual, Computer and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA.
SEAOC, Vision 2000 [1995] ‘‘Performance based seismic engineering of buildings,’’ vols I and II:
Conceptual framework. Sacramento (CA): Structural Engineers Association of California.