Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings
Mehdi Poursha a , Faramarz Khoshnoudian a, , A.S. Moghadam b
a b

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran International Earthquake and Seismology Research Centre, Tehran, Iran

article

info

a b s t r a c t
The nonlinear static procedure (NSP), based on pushover analysis, has become a favourite tool for use in practical applications for building evaluation and design verification. The NSP is, however, restricted to single-mode response. It is therefore valid for low-rise buildings where the behaviour is dominated by the fundamental vibration mode. It is well recognized that the seismic demands derived from the conventional NSP are greatly underestimated in the upper storeys of tall buildings, in which highermode contributions to the response are important. This paper presents a new pushover procedure which can take into account higher-mode effects. The procedure, which has been named the consecutive modal pushover (CMP) procedure, utilizes multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses. The final structural responses are determined by enveloping the results of multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses. The procedure is applied to four special steel moment-resisting frames with different heights. A comparison between estimates from the CMP procedure and the exact values obtained by nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA), as well as predictions from modal pushover analysis (MPA), has been carried out. It is demonstrated that the CMP procedure is able to effectively overcome the limitations of traditional pushover analysis, and to accurately predict the seismic demands of tall buildings. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 6 August 2007 Received in revised form 19 October 2008 Accepted 20 October 2008 Available online 10 December 2008 Keywords: Consecutive modal pushover (CMP) procedure Seismic demands Higher-mode effects Tall buildings

1. Introduction Nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA) is a robust tool for calculating seismic demands, as well as for identifying plastic hinge mechanisms in structures. However, the response of NLRHA is strongly affected by the modelling parameters and by the characteristics of the earthquake input such as frequency content, intensity, and duration [20,24]. It is therefore necessary to carefully choose a set of representative ground motion records. This causes additional computational effort [24]. On the other hand, the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis, unlike dynamic analysis, can easily provide valuable information about the locations of structural weaknesses and failure mechanisms in the inelastic range [22]. Also, pushover analysis is capable of using a codes response spectrum as a demand diagram and computing the earthquake-induced demands [7]. Thus, in recent years the NSP has gained importance as a standard tool for building assessment and design verification. However, pushover analysis suffers from several inherent deficiencies [21,22]. Among them, invariant load distribution in the traditional NSP is one of the most

Corresponding author. E-mail address: khoshnud@aut.ac.ir (F. Khoshnoudian).

important limitations, and it cannot take higher-mode effects into consideration [10,16,22]. Recently, attempts have been made to develop enhanced pushover procedures and to consider highermode effects. About 10 years ago, the multi-mode pushover (MMP) method [26] was proposed, but the seismic demands were not quantified. More recently, the pushover results combination (PRC) method [23] was proposed, in which the maximum seismic response was derived from combining the results of several pushover analyses and utilizing a mode-shape as a load pattern in each analysis. The final response was determined as a weighted (using modal participation factors) summation of the results from each pushover analysis. About the same time, modal pushover analysis (MPA) [10] was developed, in which the seismic demands were separately determined for each of the modal pushover analyses and combined using the appropriate modal combination rule. It was concluded that the MPA procedure would be accurate enough in practical applications for building evaluation and design [10]. Nevertheless, the plastic rotations of the hinges were considerably underestimated [10,11,17,25], even if a large number of modes were included. A modified version of the MPA (MMPA) [12] was then proposed, in which the seismic demands of the structure are obtained by combining the inelastic response of first-mode pushover analysis with the elastic response of higher modes. In another investigation, an

0141-0296/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.10.009

592

M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

Notations c h k m mi Mn M N Ns Peff (t ) qn (t ) r s n T g (t ) u u( t ) damping matrix of the structure height of the structure lateral stiffness-matrix of the structure diagonal mass-matrix of the structure lumped mass of the ith floor effective modal mass of the nth mode total mass of the structure number of storeys number of stages in the multi-stage pushover analysis the effective earthquake forces modal co-ordinate the peak response of the structure in the CMP procedure incremental lateral force distribution for the nth stage of multi-stage pushover analysis predominant period of the structure acceleration of the ground motion displacement of the NDOF system nth mode-shape of the structure damping ratio of the nth mode natural frequency of the nth mode modal participating factor of the nth mode effective modal participating mass ratio of the nth mode target displacement of the roof

in the body of this paper, indicate the effectiveness of the CMP procedure in estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings. 2. Modal response analysis and the required concepts The differential equation governing the response of a multidegree-of-freedom (MDOF) system to earthquake-induced ground motion is as follows [8]:

+ cu + ku = miu g (t ) mu

(1)

where m, c , and k are the diagonal mass, damping, and lateral stiffness matrices of the structure, respectively, and i is the unit vector. The right-hand side of Eq. (1) represents the effective earthquake forces, Peff (t ), and can be written as

g (t ) = su g (t ) Peff (t ) = miu

(2)

where s defines the spatial distribution of the effective earthquake forces over the height of the building, and can be expanded as a summation of the modal inertia force distributions, sn , as follows:
N N

s = mi =
n =1

sn =
n =1

n mn

(3)

n n n n n t

in which n is the modal participating factor of the nth mode and n is the corresponding mode-shape. The displacement of an N degree-of-freedom (NDOF) system, u, can be defined by the sum of the modal contributions:
N

u( t ) =
n =1

n qn (t )

(4)

upper-bound pushover analysis [18] was developed in which the contributions of the first two elastic modes to the invariant load pattern were combined through the absolute sum rule. A single pushover analysis was then implemented with the resulting load pattern. Other researchers proposed a two-phase load pattern [19], and found it suitable for approximating the seismic capacity curve only for low- to mid-rise buildings. This procedure was not verified with respect to the estimation of the seismic demands of buildings. In another study, an incremental response spectrum analysis (IRSA) [3] was developed. In this procedure, whenever a new plastic hinge occurs, elastic modal spectrum analysis is executed in order to take into account the changes in the dynamic properties of the structure. More recently, an adaptive modal combination (AMC) [20] procedure was proposed, in which the applied lateral forces are updated in accordance with the changes in the dynamic characteristics during inelastic analysis, for each mode. The total response is obtained by combining the peak modal responses, using an appropriate combination scheme at the end. The accuracy of this procedure was not demonstrated for the estimation of plastic rotations of the hinges. The main objective of the present paper is therefore to propose a new procedure which can take into account higher-mode effects in the pushover analysis of tall buildings, and can improve estimates of seismic demands, especially of the plastic rotations of the hinges. The new procedure, called the consecutive modal pushover (CMP) procedure, benefits from the concepts of structural dynamics and uses multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses that are elaborated in detail in this paper. To demonstrate its applicability and effectiveness, the procedure has been applied to four special steel moment-resisting frames. Predictions based on the MPA procedure are also presented for the sake of comparison to those obtained by the CMP procedure. Seismic demands obtained by approximate pushover procedures are compared with exact solutions derived from nonlinear response history analysis. The results of the comprehensive analyses, which are summarized

where the modal co-ordinate, qn (t ), is governed by


2 n + 2n n q n + n g (t ) q qn = n u

(5)

in which n and n are the natural vibration frequency and damping ratio of the nth mode, respectively. n is obtained as follows:

n =

T n mi . T m n n

(6)

The solution to Eq. (5) is qn (t ) = n Dn (t ) (7) where Dn (t ) is governed by the equation of motion for a single g (t ): degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system subjected to u
2 n + 2n n D n + n D Dn = ug (t ).

(8)

The floor displacements, u(t ), can be expressed by substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (4), so that
N

u( t ) =
n=1

n n Dn (t ) .

(9)

Making use of Eq. (6), the effective modal mass, Mn , and the effective modal participating mass ratio for the nth mode, n , can be defined as Mn = Ln n

(10) (11)

n =

Mn

M in which
T Ln = n mi N

(12) (13)

M =
j =1

mj

M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

593

where M is the total mass of the structure obtained by summation of the lumped masses, mj , over all floor levels. An important result can be derived by pre-multiplying Eq. (3) by iT :
N N

Mn =
n=1 j =1

mj .

(14)

a triangular or uniform load distribution. Finally, the seismic demands are obtained by enveloping the peak responses derived from the multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses. The details of the CMP procedure are expressed as a sequence of the following steps: 1. Calculate the natural frequencies, n , and the mode-shapes, n . These properties are determined by eigen-analysis of the linearly elastic structure for the first three modes. The modeshapes are normalized so that the roof component of n equals unity (rn = 1). 2. Compute s = mn , where s n n shows the distribution of incremental lateral forces over the height of the structure for the nth stage of multi-stage pushover analysis. 3. Compute the total target displacement of the structure at the roof, t . 4. The CMP procedure consists of single-stage and multi-stage pushover analyses. First apply the gravity loads and then perform these displacement-control pushover analyses according to the following sub-steps: 4.1 Perform the single-stage pushover analysis using an inverted triangular load pattern for medium-rise buildings and a uniform force distribution for high-rise buildings, until the control node at the roof sways to the predefined total target displacement, t . 4.2 The second pushover analysis is a two-stage pushover analysis. In the first stage, perform the nonlinear static analysis, using the incremental lateral forces s 1 = m1 , until the displacement increment at the roof reaches ur 1 = 1 t (Eq. (15); i = 1), where 1 = 1 (Eq. (16); i = 1). Then implement the second stage of analysis using the incremental lateral forces s 2 = m2 until the displacement increment at the roof equals ur 2 = 2 t (Eq. (15); i = 2), where 2 = 1 1 (Eq. (17); i = 2). It is noted that the initial condition in the second stage of the two-stage pushover analysis is the same as the state at the last step of analysis in the first stage. 4.3 The third analysis is a three-stage pushover analysis. It is only performed for buildings having a fundamental period of 2.2 s or more. The first stage is exactly the same as the first stage of the two-stage pushover analysis described above. After the first stage, continue the nonlinear static analysis using the incremental lateral forces s 2 = m2 until the displacement increment at the roof reaches ur 2 = 2 t (Eq. (15); i = 2) where 2 = 2 (Eq. (16); i = 2). Thereafter, perform the third (last) stage of the three-stage pushover analysis using the incremental lateral forces s 3 = m3 . The displacement increment at the roof at this stage is equal to ur 3 = 3 t (Eq. (15); i = 3) where 3 = 1 1 2 (Eq. (17); i = 3). It is again noted that the initial condition at each stage of the analysis is the same as the state at the end of the analysis in the previous stage. 5. Calculate the peak values of the desired responses, such as displacements, storey drifts, and hinge plastic rotations, for the pushover analyses described above. The peak values resulting from the one-, two-, and three-stage pushover analyses are denoted by r1 , r2 , and r3 , respectively. 6. Calculate the envelope, r , of the peak responses as follows: r = Max {r1 , r2 } T < 2.2 s T 2.2 s (18) (19) r = Max {r1 , r2 , r3 }

This result shows that the sum of the effective modal masses over all modes (N ) is equal to the total mass of the building [8]. As a result from Eqs. (11), (13) and (14), the summation of effective modal participating mass ratios over all modes is equal to unity. 3. Consecutive modal pushover procedure The consecutive modal pushover (CMP) procedure is presented, which can be used to estimate the peak response of inelastic structures subjected to earthquake excitation. Some pushover analyses are employed in the CMP procedure since it is possible to use different pushover analyses and to envelope the results [16]. The procedure uses multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses. The multi-stage pushover analysis benefits from consecutive implementation of modal pushover analyses, including a limited number of modes, such that when one stage (one modal pushover analysis) has been completely performed, the next stage (the next modal pushover analysis) begins with an initial structural state (stress and deformation) which is the same as the condition at the end of the previous stage. Consecutive modal pushover analyses are carried out with force distributions using mode-shapes obtained from eigen-analysis of the linearly elastic structure. Changes in the modal properties of the structure are ignored when the structure experiences nonlinear yielding under increasing lateral loads during pushover analysis. The number of modes in the consecutive modal pushover analyses (i.e. the number of stages in the multi-stage pushover analysis) depends on the fundamental period, T , of the building structure. When the fundamental period of the building (with a moment-resisting frame system) is less than 2.2 s, the multi-stage pushover analysis is carried out in two stages. For buildings with fundamental periods of 2.2 s or more, both twoand three-stage pushover analyses are used. The displacement increment at the roof is obtained, in each stage of multi-stage analysis, as the product of a factor and the total target displacement of the roof. This factor is determined from the initial modal properties of the structure. The displacement increment, uri , at the roof in the ith stage of multi-stage pushover analysis, is therefore calculated as uri = i t in which (15)

i = i
and

for the stages before the last stage

(16)

Ns 1

i = 1
j=1

for the last stage

(17)

where t is the total target displacement at the roof, and Ns is the number of stages included in the multi-stage pushover analysis. Also, i is the effective modal mass ratio for the ith mode, which is derived from Eq. (11). Several different approaches can be used to establish the total target displacement at the roof level. This displacement can be determined by using the capacity spectrum method [2], the displacement coefficient approach [4,5], the N2 method [15,16], or dynamic analysis of the structure [14,23,24,28]. As demonstrated previously, in addition to multi-stage pushover analysis, single-stage pushover analysis is used in the procedure. The single-stage pushover analysis is performed separately with

showing that the seismic demand of the inelastic structure in the CMP procedure is obtained by enveloping the peak responses resulting from the single- and multi-stage pushover analyses.

594 Table 1 Characteristics of the analyzed frames. No. No. of storeys h (m)

M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

b (m)

Seismic mass of floors (kg s2 /m)

Periods T1 (s) T2 (s) 0.605 0.854 1.135 1.381 T3 (s) 0.347 0.493 0.670 0.798

S1 S2 S3 S4

10 15 20 30

32 48 64 96

15 15 15 15

5440 5546 5600 5650

1.697 2.338 3.092 3.866

Fig. 2. Generalized loaddeformation curve for hinges (BSSC 1997). Fig. 1. Configuration of two-dimensional frames.

5. Ground motion characteristics It is notable that the nonlinear behaviour of the structure depends on the loading path, and separation between the loading input and the structural response is not possible [21]. Consequently, modal pushover analyses must, in the CMP procedure, be carried out consecutively in the order of modes, from the first to the higher ones, as has been demonstrated in detail. 4. Description of the analytical models and assumptions The structures considered were three-bay frames with four different heights of 10, 15, 20, and 30 storeys, covering a wide range of fundamental periods. All the frames had 5 m bays. A storey height of 3.2 m was assumed throughout. The configuration of the frames is shown in Fig. 1. The dead and live loads were equal to 650 and 200 kg/m2 on the floor area, assuming the loading width of the frames to be 5 m. The concentrated seismic masses were assumed to be equal at all floors of each structure and to consist of the dead load plus 20% of the live load. The lateral load-resisting system of the structures was a special steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF). More characteristics of the frames and their first three naturalvibration periods are listed in Table 1. All of the frames were assumed to be founded on type II firm soil of the Iranian seismic code [27] (class C of NEHRP [6]), and located in the region of highest seismicity. The seismic effects were determined in accordance with the requirements of the Iranian code of practice for the seismicresistant design of buildings [27]. The frames were designed according to the allowable stress design method [1]. All buildings were also designed to satisfy the drift criterion and the strongcolumn/weak-beam philosophy. P (second-order) effects were included, but the panel zone size, strength, and deformation were neglected. The sections of the beams and columns were assumed to be of the plate girder and box type, respectively. More details about the members can be found in [25]. The nonlinear behaviour of the structures occurred in discrete hinges in the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. Hinges were defined at the ends of the frame members. Hinges based on the interaction of the axial forces and bending moments were defined for column members, whereas hinges based on bending moments were assigned to beams. Fig. 2 shows the loaddeformation curve of the hinges. The hinge properties and modelling parameters a, b, and c (Fig. 2) were specified according to FEMA-273 [4]. The postyield slope was assumed to be 3% of the elastic slope. It is noted that Q and Qy , in Fig. 2, are the generalized and yield component loads, respectively. Seven ground motions were selected from the strong ground motion database of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Centre (http://peer.berkeley.edu). The selected ground motions were far-field records, and corresponded to locations which were at least 12 km from a rupturing fault. Also, the soil at the site corresponds to NEHRP site class C. To ensure that the structures respond into the inelastic range when subjected to ground motions, the records were scaled up to 0.7g . More characteristics of the ground motion records used are given in Table 2. The elastic pseudo-acceleration and displacement spectra, together with the corresponding the mean spectra, are presented, for a 5% damping ratio, in Fig. 3. The mean spectra are shown by a thicker line. 6. Types of analysis To verify the proposed CMP procedure, elaborated in detail earlier, the procedure was performed, together with NL-RHA, for frames S1, S2, S3, and S4. The predicted results from the MPA procedure are also presented for the purpose of comparison. The MPA procedure was carried out for each ground motion. The seismic responses were calculated for the medium-rise (i.e. 10 and 15 storey) frames, including three modes, and for the high-rise (i.e. 20 and 30 storey) frames, including five modes. The mean value of the responses was then determined over the set of used ground motions. P effects were included in the CMP and MPA for all modes. In the CMP procedure, the target displacement at the roof was obtained as the mean of the maximum top floor displacements resulting from the NL-RHA for the selected ground motions. The target displacements were equal to 26.92, 33.05, 38.27, and 61.26 cm for frames S1, S2, S3, and S4, respectively. The nonlinear response history analyses were performed using the numerical implicit Wilson time integration method, in which the stability and accuracy characteristics are determined by the parameter . This parameter was assumed to have a value of 1.4. A damping ratio of 5% was considered for the first and third modes of vibration, in order to define the Rayleigh damping matrix. The response resulting from each pushover procedure was compared with the mean value of the maximum seismic demands computed by rigorous nonlinear response history analyses. It is noted that the nonlinear version of the computer program SAP2000 [13] was used to perform these analyses.

M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

595

Fig. 3. (a) Pseudo-acceleration spectra and (b) displacement spectra of the set of far-field records of ground motions, damping ratio = 5%. Table 2 List of the ground motions used. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Earthquake name Duzce, Turkey Northridge Trinidad, California Victoria, Mexico Hollister Imperial Valley Morgan Hill Date 1999/11/12 1994/01/17 1980/11/08 1980/06/09 1986/01/26 1979/10/15 1984/04/24 Magnitude Ms (7.3) Ms (6.7) Ms (7.2) Ms (6.4) Ml (5.5) Ms (6.9) Ms (6.1) Station name Lamont LA - Baldwin Hills Rio Dell Overpass, FF Cerro Prieto SAGO South - Surface Parachute Test Site Corralitos Station number 1061 24157 1498 6604 47189 5051 57007 Component (deg) E 90 270 45 295 315 310 PGA (g ) 0.134 0.239 0.147 0.621 0.09 .204 0.109

Fig. 4. Peak values of storey drift ratios derived from pushover analyses used in the CMP procedure and from NL-RHA for the 10-storey frame.

Fig. 5. Peak values of storey drift ratios derived from pushover analyses used in the CMP procedure and from NL-RHA for the 20-storey frame.

For a yielding structure, the occurrence of structural damage is closely related to storey drift [9]. The reduction of drift protects the structural components and elements, as well as non-structural components which are sensitive to drift-induced damage. To evaluate the structural performance, the hinge plastic rotations are usually compared to the acceptability criteria specified in FEMA-273/356 [4,5]. For this reason, storey drift ratios (storey drifts/height of the storey) and the hinge plastic rotations of the internal beams at all floor levels are presented in the current paper. The errors in the seismic demands obtained from the approximate pushover procedures are also shown. Because floor displacements are incapable of indicating structural damage [9], they are not displayed. 7. Discussion of the results First, the implication of using multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses in the CMP procedure is discussed in detail. As explained earlier, the seismic demands in the CMP procedure are obtained by enveloping the peak responses from the multistage and single-stage pushover analyses. Figs. 4 and 5 show the

peak storey drift ratios resulting from the multi-stage and singlestage pushover analyses in the CMP procedure, as well as from NL-RHA, for the 10- and 20-storey frames. As could be expected, the single-stage pushover analysis with triangular or uniform load distribution controls the seismic demands only at the lower storeys. Fig. 4 provides evidence that the storey drifts derived from the two-stage pushover analysis for the 10-storey frame are close to the results of NL-RHA for the five upper storeys. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the seismic demands at the mid and upper storeys of the 20-storey frame are controlled by two- and three-stage modal pushover analyses, respectively, because the higher modes in the consecutive modal pushover analyses strongly affect the responses at the mid and upper storeys, contrary to the lower storeys. The same trend can be demonstrated for the other seismic demands. Shown in Fig. 6 are the storey drift ratios obtained by the MPA and CMP procedures, together with NL-RHA, for the medium-rise (10- and 15-storey) frames. The errors in the storey drifts from the pushover procedures are displayed in Fig. 7. The figures illustrate that the MPA and CMP procedures produce satisfactory estimates of storey drifts. The CMP provides better estimates than the MPA at some upper storeys, whereas the errors from the MPA are less

596

M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

(a) Storey drift ratios of the 10-storey frame.

(b) Storey drift ratios of the 15-storey frame.

Fig. 6. Height-wise variation of the storey drifts for the 10- and 15-storey frames.

(a) Storey drift ratios of the 10-storey frame.

(b) Storey drift ratios of the 15-storey frame.

Fig. 7. Errors in the storey drifts for the 10- and 15-storey frames.

than those from the CMP at some lower storeys. For example, in the 15-storey frame, the storey drift ratios are underestimated by up to 11.7% and 25% at the upper eight storeys by the CMP and MPA procedures, respectively. In the lower seven storeys, the errors from the MPA and CMP procedures reach 5% and 14%, respectively. More detailed discussion about the results of the MPA procedure is available in [25]. The height-wise variation of hinge plastic rotations and the errors from pushover procedures for the medium-rise frames are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. The figures show that the MPA procedure fails to accurately predict hinge plastic rotations at the upper floor levels of the 10- and 15-storey frames, whereas noticeable improvement was achieved in the estimates of these rotations by the CMP procedure. The figures illustrate that the CMP procedure is in closer agreement with the NL-RHA. As a result, the hinge plastic rotations obtained by the CMP procedure are more accurate than those obtained by the MPA procedure, especially at the mid and upper floors. It is noted that the 100% errors resulting from the CMP procedure at the last floor of the 10-storey frame and at the first floor of the 15-storey frame are ignored since the plastic rotations predicted by the CMP procedure are zero, whereas the rotations obtained by NL-RHA are very small. At some lower floor levels, the CMP procedure occasionally provides better estimates of plastic rotations than the MPA procedure, and vice versa. Also, the CMP procedure tends to slightly overestimate the plastic rotation of the hinges at some lower floor levels. From Figs. 1013, consequences similar to those for the medium-rise frames can be almost deduced for the high-rise (20and 30-storey) frames. Figs. 10 and 11 provide evidence that the MPA and CMP procedures are accurate enough in predicting storey drift ratios. As can be seen from Figs. 12 and 13, the CMP procedure,

in general, provides substantially better estimates of hinge plastic rotations than the MPA procedure for high-rise frames. It is noteworthy that a key aspect of the CMP procedure is the fact that modal pushover analyses are carried out continuously. The consecutive implementation of modal pushover analyses means that rotations of the plastic hinges are continuously accumulated at the mid and upper floor levels during the modes of interest in the multi-stage pushover analysis, whereas the MPA procedure attempts to estimate the total response quantities by combining the individual peak responses obtained separately for each mode. The trend of the higher-mode influences and incremental application of lateral forces in the multi-stage pushover analysis of the CMP procedure indicate a significant improvement in comparison with the MPA procedure in predicting hinge plastic rotations at the mid and upper floor levels. However, the pushover procedure suffers from the limitation that it is unable to take into account the cumulative rotation of hinges due to cyclic hysteretic behaviour [21]. It is noted that the results derived from the CMP procedure may be occasionally inaccurate at some mid or lower floors of high-rise frames in which the plastic rotations obtained by NL-RHA are small. Some large errors in hinge plastic rotations (such as in the case of the last floor of frame S3) are also not important since the rotations computed by NL-RHA are very small. As can be seen from Figs. 6, 8, 10 and 12, the height-wise distribution of storey drifts and hinge plastic rotations derived from the CMP procedure is more similar to the distribution obtained by the benchmark solution (NL-RHA) than to that obtained by the MPA procedure. This achievement by the CMP procedure is more remarkable for the plastic rotations of the hinges in comparison with the MPA procedure.

M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

597

(a) Hinge plastic rotations of the 10-storey frame.

(b) Hinge plastic rotations of the 15-storey frame.

Fig. 8. Height-wise variation of the hinge plastic rotations for the 10- and 15-storey frames.

(a) Hinge plastic rotations of the 10-storey frame.

(b) Hinge plastic rotations of the 15-storey frame

Fig. 9. Errors in the hinge plastic rotations for the 10- and 15-storey frames.

(a) Storey drift ratios of the 20-storey frame.

(b) Storey drift ratios of the 30-storey frame.

Fig. 10. Height-wise variation of the storey drifts for the 20- and 30-storey frames.

The locations of the plastic hinges for the 15- and 20-storey frames are shown in Figs. 14 and 15, respectively. They were obtained by the MPA and CMP procedures, together with NLRHA. The results of the MPA procedure, shown in the figures, were obtained by using the mean spectrum of the selected ground motions. As shown in the figures, the MPA and CMP procedures are almost able to identify the yielding of beams in the upper floor levels. The CMP procedure is nearly able to recognize yielding at most of the floors, but it fails to predict yielding at some locations. It was shown in the previous investigation [25] that FEMA force distributions [4] are unable to identify the yielding of beams at the upper floor levels of tall frames, in which highermode contributions to the response are important. It has also

been demonstrated that the seismic demands are considerably underestimated in the upper storeys of tall frames through the FEMA force distributions. It can therefore be concluded that, in the case of tall building structures, the CMP procedure provides substantially better estimates of seismic response than the FEMA force distributions. 8. Conclusions To take into account higher-mode effects in pushover analysis for estimating the seismic demands of tall building structures, the consecutive modal pushover (CMP) procedure has been proposed. The procedure employs multi-stage and single-stage pushover

598

M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

(a) Storey drift ratios of the 20-storey frame.

(b) Storey drift ratios of the 30-storey frame.

Fig. 11. Errors in the storey drifts for the 20- and 30-storey frames.

(a) Hinge plastic rotations of the 20-storey frame.

(b) Hinge plastic rotations of the 30-storey frame.

Fig. 12. Height-wise variation of the hinge plastic rotations for the 20- and 30-storey frames.

(a) Hinge plastic rotations of the 20-storey frame.

(b) Hinge plastic rotations of the 30-storey frame.

Fig. 13. Errors in the hinge plastic rotations for the 20- and 30-storey frames.

analyses. In the multi-stage pushover analyses, modal pushover analyses are conducted consecutively with force distributions, using mode-shapes derived from the eigen-analysis of the linearly elastic structure. The single-stage pushover analysis is performed with a triangular or uniform load distribution. The seismic demands are then determined by enveloping the peak responses resulting from the multi-stage and single-stage pushover analyses. The former analyses control the seismic demands in the mid and upper storeys, whereas the latter analysis controls the responses in the lower storeys of tall buildings. Using the CMP procedure, storey drifts can be estimated with acceptable accuracy. At some (upper) storeys, the storey drifts are more accurately estimated by the CMP than by the MPA, whereas the MPA yields better estimates of storey drift than the CMP at some other (lower) storeys of the analyzed tall frames. A

significant improvement has been achieved in estimating the hinge plastic rotations through the CMP procedure. The plastic rotations produced by the CMP procedure are substantially better than those obtained by the MPA procedure, especially at the mid and upper floor levels, when compared to NL-RHA. The improvement in the CMP procedure results from the consecutive implementation of modal pushover analyses, so that rotations of the plastic hinges are continuously accumulated at the mid and upper floor levels during the modes of interest in the multi-stage pushover analysis. Also, the height-wise distribution of the hinge plastic rotations produced by the CMP procedure is, in general, more similar to that obtained by the benchmark solution (NL-RHA) than that produced by the MPA procedure. The CMP procedure is more accurate than the FEMA load distributions in predicting the seismic demands of tall buildings.

M. Poursha et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591599

599

Fig. 14. Locations of the plastic hinges yielded by several analyses for the 15-storey frame.

Fig. 15. Locations of the plastic hinges yielded by several analyses for the 20-storey frame.

In order to confirm these conclusions with greater certainty, the CMP procedure should be verified for different lateral forceresisting systems, reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, and a variety of ground motion sets. Work in this area is underway. Acknowledgements The first author wishes to express his deep thanks to Professor Peter Fajfar for having given him the opportunity to stay and do research at the University of Ljubljana. He has also benefited from valuable discussions with Professor Fajfar. Comments from anonymous reviewers helped to improve the manuscript. References
[1] AISC-ASD. Manual of steel construction, allowable stress design. Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction; 1989.

[2] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. vol. 12. Redwood City (California); 1996. [3] Aydinoglu MN. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation. Bull Earthq Eng 2003;1:336. [4] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-273, Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1997. [5] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356, Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency ; 2000. [6] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. FEMA-450, Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency ; 2003. [7] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacitydemand-diagram methods for estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDOF systems. PEER Report 1999/02. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. 1999. [8] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures. In: Theory and applications to earthquake engineering. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 2001. [9] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for buildings. PEER Report 2001/03. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California. 2001. [10] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:56182. [11] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demand for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33: 90327. [12] Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanapakdee C. Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands. Earthq Spectra 2004;20(3):75778. [13] Computers & Structures Incorporated (CSI). SAP 2000 NL. (USA, CA): Berkeley. 2004. [14] Fajfar P, Gaspersic P. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1996;25:3146. [15] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1999;28:97993. [16] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 2000;16(3):57392. [17] Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analysis: SAC Buildings. Earthq Spectra 2004;20(1):22554. [18] Jan TS, Liu MW, Kao YC. An upper-bound pushover analysis procedure for estimating the seismic demands of high-rise buildings. Eng Struct 2004;26: 11728. [19] Jing Jiang S, Ono T, Yangang Z, Wei W. Lateral load pattern in pushover analysis. Earthq Eng Eng Vibration 2003;2(1):99107. [20] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures. ASCE, J Struct Eng 2006;132(11): 172131. [21] Kim S, DAmore E. Pushover analysis procedure in earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 1999;15:41734. [22] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 1998;20(4-6):45262. [23] Moghadam AS. A pushover procedure for tall buildings. In: Proc. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. London (United Kingdom): Elsevier Science Ltd; 2002. paper 395. [24] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic analysis of R/C buildings. Eng Struct 2001;23:40724. [25] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. Assessment of modal pushover analysis and conventional nonlinear static procedure with load distributions of Federal Emergency Management Agency for high-rise buildings. J Struct Des Tall Spec Build; 2008 (in press) corrected proof available online. [26] Sasaki KK, Freeman SA, Paret TF. Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP) a method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. In: Proceedings of 6th US nat. conf. on earthq. eng., Seattle (Washington); 1998. [27] Standard No. 2800-05. Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. 3rd ed. Building and Housing Research Centre, Iran; 2005. [28] Tso WK, Moghadam AS. Pushover procedure for seismic analysis of buildings. Progress in Struct Eng Mat 1998;1(3):33744.