Valutazione e riduzione della vulnerabilit sismica di edifici esistenti in c.a.

Roma, 29-30 maggio 2008

Topic: MND FC IRREG MIX TAMP SCALE NODI BIAX PREFAB

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGULAR RC STRUCTURES BY 3D
FORCE/ TORQUE PUSHOVER METHOD
Barbara Ferracuti
a
, Marco Savoia
b
, Rui Pinho
c
, Maurizio Serpieri
d
a
DISTART Struct. Engineering, University of Bologna, barbara.ferracuti@unibo.it
b
DISTART Structural Engineering, University of Bologna, marco.savoia@mail.ing.unibo.it
c
Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, rui.pinho@eucentre.it
d
DISTART Structural Engineering, University of Bologna, maurizio.serpieri@ unibo.it

ABSTRACT
In the present study, a new pushover procedure for 3D frame structures is proposed, based on
the application of a set of horizontal force and torque distributions at each floor level; in order
to predict the most severe configurations of an irregular structure subjected to an earthquake,
more than one pushover analysis has to be performed. The proposed method is validated by a
consistent comparison of results from static pushover and dynamic simulations in terms of
different response parameters, such as displacements, rotations, floor shears and floor torques.
Starting from the linear analysis, the procedure is subsequently extended to the nonlinear case.
The results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed procedure to predict the structural
behaviour in the most severe configurations.
KEYWORDS
3D Pushover Analysis, Incremental Dynamic Analysis, RC frame structures.
1 INTRODUCTION
The main goal of nonlinear static analysis is to describe the nonlinear capacity of the structure
when subjected to earthquake ground motion, with a reduced computational effort with
respect to nonlinear dynamic analyses.
For 2D frame structures, a large number of studies have been performed in order to validate
different pushover techniques by comparison with results from dynamic analyses (e.g.
Ferracuti et al. 2007, amongst many others). On the contrary, few pushover methods for
irregular 3D frame structures have been proposed (Moghadam and Tso, 2000; Penelis and
Kappos, 2002; Chopra and Goel, 2004; Fajfar et al., 2005). The definition and assessment of
3D pushover methods is however much more complex than in the 2D case.
Indeed, the fundamental point in 3D pushover analyses is the selection of the distribution of
horizontal forces along the frame height and across the individual floors. At floor level,
horizontal forces can be divided into translational and torsional contributions. By analyzing
the dynamic response of an irregular structure subjected to earthquake excitation, it can be
observed that maximum displacement and maximum rotation do not occur at the same time
step. Therefore, a unique pushover force distribution giving the most severe conditions for the
structure cannot really be defined.
In the present work, a new pushover procedure for 3D RC structures, called Force/Torque
pushover (FTP) is thus proposed; a set of force and torque distributions is selected to predict
the most severe configurations the structure may undergo during the earthquake. In order to
validate such technique, the comparison between results from a series of incremental dynamic
analyses and pushover analyses has been carried out, considering different representative
parameters of the structural response. In particular, both global parameters (capacity curves,
horizontal displacement versus rotation of the centre of mass of the roof) and local parameters
such as floor shears, interstorey drifts, floor rotations have been considered. A relatively good
agreement between results with the proposed pushover method and dynamic analyses has
been preliminarily found.
2 PROPOSED METHOD: FORCE/TORQUE PUSHOVER (FTP)
By analyzing the dynamic response of an irregular structure subjected to earthquake
excitation, it can be observed maximum displacement and maximum rotation do not occur at
the same timing step. Therefore, a unique pushover force distribution giving the most severe
conditions for the structure cannot be defined. In the present study, Force/Torque Pushover
has been proposed. To start with, a rigid diaphragm constraint is introduced at each individual
floors of the structure. Then, the force distribution proportional to the fundamental mode of
the structure with the highest participation factor for the selected ground motion direction is
obtained. The floor force resultant at the i-th floor level is divided into lateral forces
i x
F
,
,
i y
F
,

and torque
i
T with respect to the centre of mass. A coefficient weighting the two
components is then introduced, so defining a class of force distributions with variable force
and torsional resultants. Forces applied at the i-th floor are then written as (see Figure 1):

=
=
=
i i
i y i y
i x i x
T T
F F
F F
, ,
, ,
) 1 (
) 1 (
(1)
The weight coefficient can vary from zero to one. Therefore, forces-only or alternatively
torque-only are applied for the two limit cases, =0 and =1, respectively (see Figure 1). For
= 0.5, the force system (1) corresponds to the force distribution proportional to the selected
fundamental mode.


Figure 1. Proposed pushover technique: force distribution at each floor and two limit cases.
FTP Force Distribution Two Limit Force Distributions
3 CASE STUDIES
Two simple multi-storey RC frame structures with floor plans symmetric about the y-axis but
asymmetric about the x-axis are considered (see Figure 2). Column cross-sections and
eccentricities of Centre of Rigidity (CR) with respect to the Centre of Mass (CM) are present,
Elastic modulus of concrete is 25000 MPa, whilst the distributed mass is 6.60 kN/m
2
. For case
n.1, the frame structure is slightly irregular, whilst case n.2 features a significant eccentricity.
The periods of the first three vibration modes are also reported in Figure 2, together with mass
participation factors for a ground motion acting in x-direction.
The structures have been modelled using the fibre finite element code Seismosoft (2007).

Case n.1 Case n.2
Cross Section Cross Section
Col. 1 30x25 60x25
Col. 2 30x25 60x25
Col. 3 25x25 25x25
Col. 4 25x25 25x25

e
y
/L 0.133 0.433
T
1
-
1
0.97 s 0% 0.90 s 0%
T
2
-
2
0.94 s 76.7% 0.86 s 45.3%

T
3
-
3
0.80 s 7.5% 0.59 s 33.1%
Figure 2. Geometry of two case studies, column cross-sections, periods T and mass participation factors
for an earthquake acting in x direction.
4 COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM DYNAMIC AND PUSHOVER ANALYSES
4.1 Linear range
The aim of the present work is to validate the proposed FTP procedure through comparison
with results from dynamic analyses. The comparison has been made at a given limit state,
corresponding to the achievement of ultimate strain in concrete core (
cu
=0.35%) in a column.
For the case studies, the pushover procedure proposed in Section 2 has been performed by
selecting a set of values of weight coefficient . For case n.1, two selected response
parameters, i.e. maximum displacement and maximum rotation of the centre of mass (CM) of
the three floors, obtained for different values of , are reported in Figures 3a,b. By
increasing , i.e. reducing forces and increasing torsional component, displacement of CM
decreases and rotation increases.
The results from static analyses have been compared with those from linear dynamic analyses
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x

[
m
]
CM3 CM2 CM1

-0.04
-0.035
-0.03
-0.025
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

[
r
a
d
]
CM3 CM2 CM1

Figure 3. Case n.1: (a) Maximum displacement and (b) maximum rotation of centre of mass (CM) at
failure of the three floors obtained by the proposed FTP method with different values of the weight
coefficient .
(a)
(b)
by adopting 12 artificial time-histories compatible with Eurocode 8 response spectrum
(seismic zone 2 and type B ground). Artificial ground-motions have been preferred here over
natural records in order to reduce variability of the structural response and to obtain a
homogeneous statistical sample. The artificial records have been scaled up to the achievement
of the limit state (
cu
=0.35%) for the structure under study.
As an example, the response in terms of displacement versus rotation of CM3 obtained from
one time history analysis (Ag1a) with scaling factor 1.69 (corresponding to the attainment of
the limit state) is compared with results from FTP in Figure 4a. In particular, from dynamic
analyses the points corresponding to maximum values of displacement
x
, rotation and
concrete deformation
cu
(the limit state condition) are indicated with markers on the curve.
For pushover analyses, only the ultimate values corresponding to the limit state condition are
reported. The ultimate points from FTP for different values of the coefficient are located
along the dashed line between limit cases =0 and =1. Moreover, points from dynamic
analyses corresponding to the maximum values of response parameters are inside the cone
described by the two limit cases ( =0 and =1) and the line of ultimate points obtained from
static analyses. The same behavior can be observed when static results are compared with all
the results from 12 time histories analyses. These results are summarized in Figure 4b, where
all the maximum values of response parameters from 12 dynamic analyses have been
compared with results from linear static analyses (red points corresponding to limit state
conditions).
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
Dyn

x,max

max

cu
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.75
=0.90
=1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.66
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 4. Case n.1: Displacement versus rotation of CM3: (a) results from time history Ag1a with SF=1.69
and failure states from static analyses for different values of ; (b) maximum values of response
parameters from 12 dynamic analyses, their mean values (bold symbols), and results from static analyses
with different values of .
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800

x
[m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

V
x

[
k
N
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.66
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
[Rad]
B
a
s
e

T
o
r
q
u
e

T

[
k
N

m
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.66
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 5. Case n.1: (a) Base shear in the direction of the seismic action V
x
vs top displacement of CM from
static analysis compared with the maximum value of response parameters obtained from dynamic
analyses; (b) base torque versus rotation.
(a)
(b)

=
0

=
1
=0

=
1
(a) (b)

=
1

=
0
=1
=0
The same results from both dynamic and static analyses, but in terms of capacity curves (Base
Shear displacement and Base Torque rotation) are depicted in Figure 5.
It is observed that dynamic results corresponding to maximum displacement and rotation
occur at different time steps with respect to that corresponding to the achievement of the limit
state (
cu
=0.35%). In order to perform a consistent comparison between static and dynamic
analyses, scaling coefficients have been then introduced:
) (
max ,
x

=
t
Coef
c
cu
;
) (
-
max ,

=
t
Coef
c
cu
(2)
where t

and

t

are the timing steps of dynamic analysis corresponding to maximum
displacement and maximum rotation of third floor, respectively,
c,max
(t

) and
c,max
(t

) are
maximum concrete strains corresponding to timing steps t

and t

, respectively. For the 12

dynamic analyses, the mean values of coefficients
x
Coef and - Coef are 1.10 and 1.27,
respectively for case n.1, whilst for case n.2 they are 1.3 and 1.09.
The results of linear dynamic analyses at time instant t

and

t

are then multiplied by the

above coefficients in order to compare results from static and dynamic analyses in the same
conditions (the attainment of the ultimate limit state). In Figure 6, the maximum values of
those response parameters from 12 dynamic analyses are reported and compared with the
failure states predicted by FTP for different values of .
For case n.1, the results, in terms of displacement-rotation couples corresponding to the
attainment of the maximum rotation or maximum displacement, are quite close to each other
because of the relatively reduced irregularity of the structure (due to its small eccentricity).
Indeed, for this case pushover analyses with weight coefficients =0.30 and 0.66 give results
close to the mean values of failure conditions, corresponding to the attainment of the
maximum displacement and maximum rotation of the structure, respectively, whereas =0.42
corresponds to the mean value of dynamic states when the limit state is attained.
For case n.2, displacement-rotation couples corresponding to the attainment of the maximum
rotation or the maximum displacement are very distant from each other, due to the larger
eccentricity of the centre of mass of the second structure (see Figure 2). In this case, the static
analysis with =0 (
i x i x
F F
, ,
= and T
i
=0) turns to be very close to the mean value of failure
conditions corresponding to the attainment of maximum displacement from the 12 dynamic
analyses; analogously, the ultimate condition obtained from static analysis with =0.9
(i.e.,
i x i x
F F
, ,
1 . 0 = and
i i
T T = 9 . 0 ) coincides with the mean value of failure conditions
corresponding to the attainment of the maximum rotation.
These results show that, for regular structures, the most severe conditions in the linear range
can be predicted adopting force/torque distributions quite close to the first mode distribution
(=0.3 and 0.6 instead of =0.5). On the contrary, for irregular structures, such as case n.2,
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.66
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 6. Displacement versus rotation of CM3 with amplified values of dynamic results: (a) Case
n.1, (b) Case n.2.

=
0

=
1

=
1
=0
=0.66
=0.9
=0.30
(a) (b)
force/torque distributions similar to the limit distributions =0 and =1 are required.
In the following, a comprehensive comparison of results from static and dynamic analyses at
time steps corresponding to maximum displacement and maximum rotation is performed.
For case n.1, displacements, interstorey drifts, floor shears in x direction, and floor torques
have been reported in Figures 7 a,b,c,d. Results from static analysis with =0.66 are reported
with red line, whereas the mean value of results from 12 dynamic analyses, corresponding to
the time instant where maximum rotation
max
has been attained, is depicted as black line. A
good matching between results can be observed. Displacements and forces over the

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

x
/H [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interstorey drift ratio
x
/h [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Shear [kN]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)
0 500 1000 1500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Torque [kNm]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

-0.04 -0.035 -0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
[Rad]
|

|

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)


Figure 7. Case n.1 Linear FTP analysis with = 0.66 and results from 12 dynamic analyses at time
instant corresponding to maximum rotation: (a) Displacement in x direction; (b) interstorey drift in x
direction; (c) Storey shear in x direction; (d) Storey torque; (e) Displacement versus rotation of three
floors.
Dynamic Analyses corresponding to
max
and FTP with =0.66
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
structures height have been correctly predicted. In order to compare the deformed
configurations of the frame structure under seismic action as predicted by static analysis,
displacement versus rotation of the three floors is reported in Figure 7e. Although dynamic
results are significantly spread, static analysis (red points) predicts very well the mean value
of dynamic results (black points). Moreover, good agreement can be observed between results
from static analysis with =0.30 and mean values of the 12 dynamic analyses at time instant
corresponding to maximum displacement
max
(see Figures 8 a,b,c,d).
4.2 Nonlinear range
In order to investigate the efficiency of the proposed procedure in the nonlinear range,
nonlinear material models for concrete and steel bars have been introduced. For case n.2,
preliminary results in terms of displacement versus rotation and capacity curves giving base
shear vs top displacement in x direction are reported in Figure 9. In the nonlinear range, mean
value of failure conditions corresponding to the attainment of the maximum displacement and
maximum rotation of the structure are closer to each other than in the linear case. The weight
coefficients giving the force distributions able to predict the mean values corresponding to
the attainment of the
max
and
max
of the structure, are 0.13 and 0.55 instead of 0 and 0.9 of
the linear range. This result seems to confirm that in the nonlinear range the effect of mass
eccentricity tends to reduce.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

x
/H [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interstorey drift ratio
x
/h [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Shear [kN]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)
0 500 1000 1500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Torque [kNm]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

Figure 8. Case n.1- Linear FTP analysis with = 0.30 and results from 12 linear dynamic analyses at time
instant corresponding to maximum displacement: (a) Displacement in x direction; (b) interstorey drift in x
direction; (c) Storey shear in x direction; (d) Storey torque.

Dynamic Analyses corresponding to
max
and FTP analysis with =0.30
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
5 CONCLUSIONS
A new procedure to select storey force distributions for 3D pushover analysis of irregular RC
frame structures has been proposed here. The most severe configurations in terms of
maximum top displacement or maximum rotation can be captured by a weighted distribution
of force resultant and torque distributions. A preliminary parametric study to validate the
proposed procedure has been performed in the linear range. Good agreement has been found
between static and dynamic results in terms of displacement and rotation of the centre of mass
of the top floor, interstorey drift, floor shear and floor torque. In the non linear range, to
predict the most severe deformation states for an irregular structure at least two different force
distributions must be selected, in order to capture the behaviour corresponding to maximum
rotation and maximum displacement of the top floor. The optimum values of the distribution
weight coefficient () depend on the degree of irregularity of the structure; further studies are
thus needed to obtain realistic intervals of .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support of the Italian Department of Civil Protection, through the two 2005-2008
framework programmes established with the Italian National Network of Earthquake
Engineering University Laboratories (RELUIS, Task 7) and the European Centre for Training
and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Chopra A. K., Goel R. K., [2004]: A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands
for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Eng. and Struct.Dyn., 33, pp. 903-927.
Fajfar P., Marusic D., Perus I., [2005]: Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of
buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9(6), pp. 831-854.
Ferracuti B., Savoia M., Pinho R., Francia R. [2007]: Validation of non-linear pushover analyses by
Statistical Incremental Dynamic Analysis (S-IDA), in Proceedings COMPDYN, 13-16 June 2007.
Moghadam A.S., Tso W.K., [2000]: Pushover analysis for asymmetric and set-back multistorey
buildings, in Proceedings, WCEE, 12
th
, Upper Hutt, paper 1093.
Penelis G.G., Kappos A.J., [2002]: 3D Pushover analysis: The issue of torsion, in Proceedings,
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12
th
, London, paper 015.
SeismoSoft [2007]: "SeismoStruct - A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of
framed structures" [online], URL: http://www.seismosoft.com.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.13
=0.25
=0.30
=0.38
=0.50
=0.55
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200

x
[m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

V
x

[
k
N
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.38
=0.50
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 9. Case n.2 - Nonlinear dynamic and FTP analysis: (a) Displacement versus rotation; (b) Capacity
curve in x direction.
(a)
(b)

=
0

=
1

=
0
=1