Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Cyclic Pushover Analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for

buildings
Phaiboon Panyakapo ⇑
Department of Civil Engineering, Sripatum University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Conventional Pushover Analysis relies on the use of monotonic lateral load distribution. The seismic dis-
Received 7 September 2012 placement demands based on this procedure are considered an approximate solution that has not taken
Revised 31 January 2014 into account the cyclic loading effects. Under earthquake loading, structural components experience stiff-
Accepted 3 February 2014
ness degradation and strength deterioration, which are the important characteristics of reinforced con-
Available online 3 March 2014
crete members under cyclic loading, causing a reduction of deformation capacity. The Cyclic Pushover
Procedure is proposed to estimate seismic demands of buildings that take into account the cumulative
Keywords:
damage under cyclic loading. The cyclic lateral force distribution is developed based on the mode shapes
Cyclic pushover
Seismic displacement demand
and the prescribed displacement history. The cyclic pushover curve is converted to the equivalent SDOF
Loading protocol pseudo-acceleration and displacement relationship based on the first mode response of the structure. The
Cumulative damage seismic demands of a 9-story reinforced concrete building are evaluated by Cyclic Pushover Procedure.
Modal pushover Four types of loading protocol, i.e., Laboratory, ATC-24, International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), and Sequential Phased Displacement (SPD) protocols are employed to investigate the effects of dis-
placement histories on seismic demands. The seismic demands include the peak roof displacement, the
peak floor displacement and the peak inter-story drift ratio. The results are compared with the exact
demands resulting from nonlinear time history analyses of MDOF structure subjected to 20 ground
motions, as well as the demands estimated from the Modal Pushover Analysis. The results demonstrate
that the Cyclic Pushover Analysis provides a reasonable and accurate estimate of seismic displacement
demands.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction resulting from modal forces in the higher modes. As an alternative,

To evaluate the seismic displacement demands of a structure
under earthquake loading, a nonlinear time history analysis pro-
vides the solutions accepted as the exact demands. However, the
accuracy of each solution depends on the appropriate selection of
ground motions as well as the modeling of structural behavior.
This procedure requires computational effort. In practice, nonlin-
ear static analysis based on the Pushover Analysis method has been
widely employed to evaluate the seismic performance of struc-
tures. During the past decade, the Pushover Analysis procedures
have been improved to estimate more accurate displacement de-
mands. The adaptive pushover method [1–3] was proposed to con-
sider the stiffness of the structure at each step of lateral
displacement. A set of lateral displacement was monotonically ap-
plied to the structure, which is displacement based rather than
force based. However, the story force could be a reversal sign
⇑ Tel.: +66 25791111x2171; fax: +66 25791111x2147.
E-mail address: phaiboon.pa@spu.ac.th
Shakeri et al. [4] introduced a force based approach in terms of a
story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure to take into ac-
count the reversal sign in the higher modes. For the multi-mode
pushover method, the Modal Pushover Analysis has been proposed
by Chopra and Goel [5–7] to allow for the influence of higher
modes. This method uses invariant modal lateral force distribution
to push the structure for each mode, and the results in each mode
are combined with SRSS by assuming linear elastic behavior. The
method is widely used to estimate seismic demands for tall build-
ings; however, some limitations have been reported [7] regarding
the reversal in the pushover curve under higher mode lateral force
distribution, and the location of plastic hinges may not be accu-
rately predicted. Moreover, an over-estimate of the peak demands
in the modal combination procedure has been pointed out [8]. An
alternative method, which employed the Mass Proportional Push-
over procedure, was proposed by Kim and Kurama [8] to avoid
the errors due to modal combination. In this procedure, the effects
of higher modes are lumped into a single invariant lateral force dis-
tribution that is proportional to the total seismic masses. The

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.001
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23
resulting peak displacement demands were more accurate than
those of the Modal Pushover Analysis. However, the inter-story
drifts were poor estimates due to the inability of a single mode
shape to capture the changes in the relative floor displacements.
An alternative method to take into account the higher mode effects
was proposed by Poursha et al. [9,10]. This method utilized multi-
stage and single-stage pushover analyses in terms of a consecutive
modal pushover procedure. The final structural response was
determined by enveloping the results of multi-stage and single-
stage pushover analyses. Later on, a modified consecutive modal
pushover procedure has been proposed to improve the accuracy
of the results [11]. In this modified method, the effective modal
participating ratio was employed for the contribution of mode.
Innovative pushover methods have been developed to overcome
the higher modes pushover analysis by energy concept [12–15].
However, the procedure needs to construct the energy demand
and capacity diagrams, and hence, the displacement demands
may not be computed directly.
In design practice, pushover analysis has been used in seismic
design regulations, for example, the N2 method [16] has been
implemented in European regulation [17]. This method relies on
a pushover analysis using invariant load patterns to estimate
deformation demands under seismic loads. An extension of the
N2 method has been improved to take the higher mode effects
into account for medium and high-rise buildings [18]. The capac-
ity spectrum and the coefficient methods were introduced in US
provisions [19–21]. The capacity spectrum is based on an equiva-
lent linearization, in which the target displacement is the inter-
section of the SDOF capacity curve and an over-damped elastic
spectrum. The coefficient method uses empirical displacement
coefficients determined from statistical analysis to define dis-
placement modification factors [22,23]. The application of push-
over analysis on buildings with irregular plans has also been
introduced to overcome the torsional problem in buildings with
asymmetric plan. For example, the N2 method has been extended
to the pushover analysis by applying to each direction of a 3D
model [24–27]. The results are then amplified by torsional correc-
tion factors to take into account the torsional effects. The Modal
Pushover Analysis has also been extended to the case of plans
for asymmetric buildings [6,10,28,29]. The method was based
on multi-mode pushover analysis, where the load vectors are pro-
portional to each 3D elastic mode of vibration. The load vectors
are composed of modal forces in two orthogonal directions and
torsion.
The above mentioned methods typically employ monotonic lat-
eral load in the pushover analysis. This is based on an assumption
that the behavior of structural members under earthquake loading
in the hysteretic model may be represented by a backbone curve or
an envelope curve of cyclic hysteretic behavior. However, when the
reinforced concrete members are subjected to cyclic loading,
cumulative damage occurs under several repeated loads resulting
in stiffness degradation and strength deterioration. Experimental
and numerical investigations for the effect of loading history on
the response of reinforced concrete frames show that the mono-
tonic loading provides greater strength than the cyclic loading
[30]. In addition, the effects of reinforcement slippage of reinforced
concrete frame structure under cyclic loading cause a decrease in
the lateral stiffness and an increase in the lateral displacement
[31–34]. The experimental results [35] also showed that modeling
of structural nonlinearity needs to be considered not only flexural
failure, but also joint shear failure should be taken into account.
This is to achieve the realistic prediction of displacement demands.
Therefore, the monotonic lateral load in the pushover analysis may
provide an over-estimate in the lateral stiffness and strength of the
structure, and this leads to an under-estimate of displacement
demands.
11
The Cyclic Pushover Analysis is proposed to capture these
important characteristics of reinforced concrete members under
cyclic loading. The seismic demands of a 9-story reinforced con-
crete building are investigated by Cyclic Pushover Procedure. To
determine the effects of displacement history on seismic demands,
four types of loading protocol, i.e., Laboratory, ATC-24, ISO, and
SPD protocol are employed as the prescribed displacement in the
Cyclic Pushover Analysis. The seismic demands include the peak
roof displacement, the peak floor displacement and the peak in-
ter-story drift ratio. The results are compared with the exact de-
mands resulting from nonlinear time history analyses, as well as
the demands estimated from the Modal Pushover Analysis. In this
study, the Cyclic Pushover Analysis procedure is currently limited
to the structures, the responses of which are primarily governed
by the fundamental mode of vibration.
2. Cyclic Pushover Procedure
To evaluate the seismic displacement of structures using the
Cyclic Pushover Analysis, a step-by-step procedure is presented
in this section. This procedure is basically related to the concept
of modal response analysis of nonlinear structures.
2.1. Cyclic pushover lateral force distribution
The modal response analysis which was described in the Modal
Pushover Analysis procedure in Chopra and Goel [5–7] is applied in
this section. The equivalent governing equation of motion for a
SDOF system, that has been uncoupled from the differential equa-
tion of a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system subjected to
earthquake ground motion, can be presented in the following
form:
€ n þ 2nn xn D_ n þ F sn ¼ u
D € g ðtÞ ð1Þ
Ln
where Dn ; D_ n ; D
€ n are the modal displacement, velocity and accelera-
tion, respectively, nn and xn are the modal damping and frequency,
respectively, F sn ¼ f/n gT ffs ðDn ; signD_ n Þg is the modal internal resist-
ing force; Ln = {/n}T[m]{i}, and [m] is the mass matrix of the struc-
ture, and {/n} the corresponding mode shape, and {i} is the unit
vector and u € g ðtÞ is acceleration of ground motion.
To solve Eq. (1), it is common to conduct a nonlinear SDOF
dynamic time-history analysis. In the analysis, the relationship
between Fsn and Dn is to be determined using pushover analysis.
For Modal Pushover Analysis, the lateral force distribution for the
pushover analysis in each mode is fn, which can be expressed as
follows:
fn ¼ Cn ½mf/n gAn ð2Þ
where fn is the lateral force distribution in each mode, and
An ¼ x2n Dn : Cn is the modal participation factor of the nth mode
and it can be determined from
Ln f/n gT ½mfig
Cn ¼ ¼ ð3Þ
M n f/n gT ½mf/n g
For Cyclic Pushover Analysis, the lateral force distribution is pro-
posed as follows:
fn ¼ ki Cn ½mf/n gAn ð4Þ
where fn is the lateral force distribution for cyclic pushover in each
mode. ki is a variable factor which defines the direction of force, i is
defined as the sequence numbers of peak displacement for the spec-
ified displacement history, when i is an odd number (1, 3, 5,. . .)
ki ¼ 1, and for i is an even number (2, 4, 6,. . .) ki ¼ 1.
12 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23

The structure is subjected to the force distribution in the posi- The bilinear of the cyclic pushover curve is converted to an
tive direction until it reaches the first peak displacement, and then equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) pseudo-acceleration
the force distribution is reversed to the negative direction aiming and displacement (as shown in Fig. 2) by using the following
to the second peak displacement. This process repeats in cycles relations:
according to the specified displacement history. For example, the
displacement history pattern known as laboratory-test-like-dis- ðV b =WÞbilinear
Sa ; A ¼ ð6Þ
placement history, which is typically employed in the laboratory, a1
is applied to control the displacement pattern in Cyclic Pushover The pseudo-displacement, Sd or D is given by
Analysis. In this displacement pattern, as shown in Fig. 1, each cy-
cle is dependent on the displacement ductility ratio, l. ur;bilinear
Sd ; D ¼ ð7Þ
For structures where significant participation from modes of C1  /1;roof
vibration other than the fundamental mode is required, higher
where a1 is the modal mass coefficient for the first mode, which can
mode effects may be determined by conducting higher mode cyclic
be calculated from
pushover analyses. That is, the lateral load distributions as shown
in Eq. (4) are applied for each mode. However, the Cyclic Pushover hP i2
N
Procedure in this study is presented for the structures, the re- i¼1 ðwi /i1 Þ=g
a1 ¼ hPN . iP   ð8Þ
sponses of which are primarily governed by the first mode. For this N 2
i¼1 wi g i¼1 wi /i1 g
purpose, Eq. (4) can be simplified to
wi/g is the mass assigned to level i; /i1 is the amplitude of the first
f1 ¼ ki C1 ½mf/1 gA1 ð5Þ
mode at level i; N the uppermost level of structure; (Vb/W)bilinear the
where C1 is the Participation factor of the first mode; A1 the accel- base shear force normalized with building weight W obtained from
eration in the first mode = x21 D1 and x1, D1 is the angular frequency the bilinear of the envelope curve; ur,bilinear is the roof displacement
and displacement in the first mode. obtained from the bilinear of the envelope curve and /1,roof is the
roof displacement for the first mode.
This relationship is developed to represent the first mode re-
2.2. Equivalent SDOF pseudo-acceleration and displacement sponse of the structure based on the assumption that the funda-
relationship mental mode of vibration is the predominant response of the
structure.
It is obvious that the base shear force and roof displacement The procedure of Cyclic Pushover Analysis can be summarized
relationship obtained from the Cyclic Pushover Analysis is a cyclic as follows:
loop reversal of force and displacement. To determine the push-
over curve in the form similar to monotonic loading, an envelope (a) Compute the lateral force distribution corresponding to the
of cyclic loop is normally used to represent the characteristic of first mode shape, Eq. (5).
cyclic reversal curve. In this study, the criterion to determine an (b) Define the displacement history, which is the relationship
envelope curve suggested in ASCE41-06 [20] was adopted. This between displacement and the number of cycles to control
takes into account the strength and stiffness deterioration com- the displacement pattern.
monly experienced by reinforced concrete structural components. (c) Perform nonlinear static analysis using the above specified
The backbone curve is defined by points given by the intersection force distribution and displacement history. The result is
of an unloading branch and the loading curve of the next load cycle plotted for the relationship between base shear and roof dis-
that goes to a higher level of displacement. To obtain an idealized placement, which is called cyclic pushover curve.
cyclic pushover curve, a bilinear curve that is represented for the (d) Determine the envelope and its bilinear representation of
base shear and roof displacement relationship can be plotted based the cyclic pushover curve.
on the following assumptions [20,21]: (e) Determine the equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF)
pseudo-acceleration and displacement relationship by using
(a) The effective stiffness must be such that the first segment Eqs. (6) and (7).
passes through the curve at a point where the base shear (f) Compute the maximum displacement ðDmax Þ for SDOF sys-
is 60% of the effective yield strength. tems by solving Eq. (1). This is carried out by conducting
(b) The areas of the segments above and below the curve should nonlinear time history analysis of the bilinear equivalent
be approximately equal. SDOF systems.
(g) Convert the maximum displacement ðDmax Þ for SDOF sys-
tems to the maximum roof and floor displacement for MDOF
8μ
25
structure by the relation
6μ
Displacement Ductility

Peak number (i) 21 23 umax ¼ Dmax C/1 ð9Þ

4μ 17 19
9 11 13 15
2μ 1 3 5 7
0 3. Analysis of 9-story rc building
2 4 6 8
− 2μ 10 12 14
3.1. Modeling of structure
16
18 20
− 4μ 22 24
− 6μ In this study, a 9-story reinforced concrete building was em-
ployed in the Cyclic Pushover Analysis. This is a typical apartment
− 8μ building, constructed in Thailand. The details of the building can be
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
summarized as follows: (a) the building is relatively symmetric in
Cycle Numbers
plan and vertical views, floor dimensions of 14.40  35.10 m, and
Fig. 1. Displacement history for laboratory type protocol. an overall height of 22.50 m, (b) the floor system is precasted
 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23
Cyclic Pushover Curve
Envelope Curve
Vb
Bilinear Representation
ur
(a) Cyclic pushover and envelope curve
Fig. 2. Conversion from cyclic pushover curve to pseudo-acceleration and displacement.
concrete plank supported by reinforced concrete beams, (c) the
structure is a beam–column reinforced concrete system with nor-
mal material strength, i.e., compressive strength of concrete is
24 MPa, and the tensile strength of reinforcing steel is 300 MPa.
The reinforced concrete structure was designed primarily for grav-
ity load according to EIT [36]. Since this is an old building that has
been constructed before the seismic regulation became effective, it
was not designed for seismic loading. The beam–column frame
was modeled as a two-dimension moment resisting frame in the
N–S direction by using RUAUMOKO [37]. The plan view and cross
section details of this building are shown in Fig. 3. The inelastic
behavior of beam and column members is modeled according to
the Giberson one-component concept [38], which has a plastic
hinge possible at one or both ends of the elastic central length of
the member. For Cyclic Pushover Analysis (CPA), the hysteretic
behavior of beam and column is Modified Takeda model [39] as
shown in Fig. 4a. The stiffness degradation for unloading and
reloading branches are a ¼ 0:4 and b ¼ 0:1 according to Sezen
and Chowdhury [40]. The strength loss in each direction is propor-
tional to the maximum ductility and the numbers of inelastic
cycles.
For Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NTHA), the hysteresis
model was calibrated with the experimental results of reinforced
concrete beams and columns [41] as shown in Fig. 4b. In this anal-
ysis, the mass of building was lumped to the nodes of beam–col-
umn joint for the horizontal degree of freedom. The initial
stiffness Rayleigh damping was assumed to have a damping ratio
of 5%. The Newmark average acceleration method was employed
in the dynamic time history analysis.
3.2. Loading history protocols for Cyclic Pushover Analysis
It is known that the seismic performance of structures in terms
of strength and deformation capacities of structural components
depends on the cumulative damage due to the cyclic loading. The
level of damage is the result of the previous damage of cyclic load-
ing history. Therefore, a loading history protocol plays an impor-
tant role in the damage of structural components. In this study,
four types of loading history protocol were employed for the Cyclic
Pushover Analysis. These include (a) Laboratory type protocol as
described in the preceding section and shown in Fig. 1, (b) ATC-
24 protocol [42], in this protocol, the yield displacement is used
as the reference for increasing the amplitude of cycles as shown
in Fig. 5. To determine the yield displacement Dy of the structure
in the loading protocol, the Pushover curve has been constructed
by the conventional Pushover Analysis, then, the yield displace-
ment Dy can be determined based on an idealized bilinear repre-
13
Sa , A
αω 2
Ay 1
ω2
1
Dy Sd , D
(b) Pseudo-acceleration and displacement
sentation of the pushover curve. (c) ISO protocol [43], the ISO
protocol has been developed by International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). It is a standard of testing for timber struc-
tures whose joints were made with mechanical fasteners. This pro-
tocol uses the maximum displacement as the control parameter of
displacement in each cycle as shown in Fig. 6. The maximum dis-
placement Dm, as suggested by Krawinkler [44], is the expected
acceptable performance of the specimen when subjected to this
loading protocol. It could be a design target displacement for which
the component is to be qualified, (d) SPD (Sequential Phased Dis-
placement) Protocol [45], this protocol uses the concept of the
yield displacement as the reference in each cycle, similar to ATC-
24. The difference is the presence of decay amplitude after reach-
ing its peak displacement in each cycle as shown in Fig. 7. The
SPD protocol was developed by the Technical Coordinating Com-
mittee on Masonry Research (TCCMAR). The loading protocol is
based on the First Major Event (FME) which is considered as the
yield displacement of the specimen.
3.3. Ground motion records
For the ground motions, these were collected from a moderately
strong magnitude and near-fault earthquakes with a magnitude
between 6.1 (ML) and 7.1 (Ms), and epicentral distance less than
40 km, as shown in Table 1. They represent for earthquake events
that may occur in the northern part of Thailand. These ground mo-
tions were scaled to the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
response spectrum, which corresponds to a 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years according to SPT 1302 [46]. The ground
motions were adjusted by different scale factors so that the aver-
age of the scaled SRSS 5-percent-damped spectra over the period
range 0.2T to 1.5T is not less than the MCE response spectrum. T
is the fundamental mode period of the vibration of structure. The
resulting scaled spectrum corresponds to the normal soil profile
(Soil Type D) according to SPT 1302 [46]. From Table 1, the last col-
umn shows input energy equivalent velocity, VI, which is defined
as the equivalent velocity of the normalized input energy. Previous
researchers [47–50] have studied reliable parameters to measure
the damage potential of earthquake ground motion. Among many
parameters, VI is an interesting parameter that closely relates to
the earthquake damage potential for moderate seismicity region.
Therefore, this parameter was selected as an index to correlate
with the seismic demands of the structure in this study. It is known
that reliable nonlinear time history analysis results depend on the
use of appropriate ground motion records. These include the char-
acteristics of soil conditions on the sites, frequency contents, the
duration of the ground motions, etc. The selected ground motion
14 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.90 m 3.90 m 3.90 m 3.90 m 3.90 m 3.90 m 3.90 m 3.90 m 3.90 m

1.90 m 2.00 m 2.00 m 1.90 m 1.90 m 2.00 m 2.00 m 1.90 m 1.90 m 2.00 m 2.00 m 1.90 m 1.90 m 2.00 m 1.90 m 2.00 m 1.90 m 2.00 m

B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2

D
1.40 m

S1 PS PS S1 S1 PS PS S1 S1 PS PS S1 S1 PS S1 PS PS

B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B4
6.00 m

4.60 m

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3
B3
PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS ST

B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2
C
2.40 m

ST PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS
B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4
B B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS
B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3
4.60 m
6.00 m

B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2
1.40 m

S1 PS PS S1 S1 PS PS S1 S1 PS PS S1 S1 PS S1 PS PS PS
A
B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2

N
S1 cast-in-place slab
PS precast slab Plan view
E
ST stairway

A B C D

6.0 m 2.4 m 6.0 m

9 B8 B4 B8
5DB25mm
14DB20 mm
C3 C3 C3 C3 4-RB6 mm@0.20 m
8 B3 B4 B3 2-RB9mm@0.20m

C3 C3 C3 C3 0.25x0.40 m 5DB25mm
7 B3 B4 B3
C3 0.25x0.45
C3 C3 C3 C3 B3
6 B3 B4 B3
14DB25 mm
4-RB6 mm@0.20 m 2DB12mm
C3 C3 C3 C3
5 B3 B4 B3 RB6mm@0.20m
9@2.5 = 22.5 m

C2 C2 C2 C2
0.30x0.40 m
4 B3 B4 B3 C2 3RB12mm
0.25x0.40
C2 C2 C2 C2 B4
3 B3 B4 B3 16DB25 mm
4-RB6 mm@0.20 m
4DB25mm
C2 C2 C2 C2
2 B3 B4 B3
0.30x0.50 m
RB6mm@0.125m
C1 C1 C1 C1 C1
1 B3 B4 B3
Column Details 4DB25mm
C1 C1 C1 C1 0.25x0.45
G B3 B4 B3 B8
Beam Details

Cross Section

Fig. 3. Plan view and cross section details of 9-story RC building.

records have variable characteristics, which are correspondent to 4. Evaluation of seismic displacement demands
moderate seismicity and near-fault earthquakes. Therefore, the re-
sults presented in this paper may be limited to the site and seismic This section presents the results of seismic displacement de-
characteristics used in this study. mands based on the Cyclic Pushover Analysis (CPA) procedure for
 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23 15

(
Fig. 4. Hysteresis models used for CPA and NTHA.

the 9-story reinforced concrete building. Four types of loading his-

6 tory protocol, i.e., Laboratory type, ATC-24, ISO, and SPD protocols,
Yield Displacements, D y

5.04
4.08 were employed for the Cyclic Pushover Analysis. The cyclic push-
4 3.00 over and their envelope curves under the four loading protocols
1.92
2
0.72
0.96 are presented. The envelopes of cyclic pushover curves were trans-
0.48
0 formed to the equivalent bilinear SDOF models. The BISPEC [51]
-2 program was employed to conduct the SDOF dynamic analysis
for the equivalent bilinear SDOF models. The seismic demands
-4
were evaluated for the peak roof displacements, the peak floor dis-
-6 placement, and the peak inter-story drift ratio. The results are
0 5 10 15 20
compared with those from MDOF Nonlinear Time History Analysis
Cycle Numbers
(NTHA) and the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) procedure pro-
Fig. 5. ATC-24 protocol. posed by Chopra and Goel [5–7].
16 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23

1.5 provided a decrease in yield strength and an increase in yield dis-

Maximum Displacement, Dm

1.26
1.02
placement resulting in a decrease in the lateral stiffness and
1.0 0.78 strength of structure when it is compared to the conventional
0.60
pushover curve. This is due to the yielding effect under cyclic load-
0.5 0.42
0.18 ing, and causing plastic hinge formation in some components of
0.06 0.09
0 the structure. These plastic hinge regions absorbed hysteretic en-
ergy due to each cyclic loading, resulting in the cumulative damage
-0.5 of some beam and column components. These components experi-
enced stiffness degradation and strength deterioration in each
-1.0
inelastic cycle, and consequently a decrease in the lateral stiffness
-1.5 and strength of the structure. The strength loss is dependent on
0 5 10 15 20 cumulative damage due to each loading history. From Fig. 9, the
Cycle Numbers pseudo-acceleration and displacement (Sa  Sd) relationship of
Fig. 6. ISO protocol.
the Lab-type protocol provides slightly lower stiffness and strength
than that of the Pushover Analysis (PA). Contrary to those of ATC-
24, SPD, and ISO protocols, the stiffness and strength are much
4.0 lower than that of PA. Because the loading histories for ATC-24,
Yield Displacement, Dy

3.0 3.00 SPD, and ISO protocols consist of many repeated cycles, particu-
2.60 2.60
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 larly in the initial loading range before it reaches the yield dis-
2.0 1.60 1.60 1.60
1.0 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.20 placement, cumulative damages occur. It is also noticed that the
0.25 0.50 ISO protocol provides the lowest strength because the loading his-
0
tory consists of large displacement excursions for many inelastic
-1.0
cycles. As a result, the ISO protocol produces large absorbed energy
-2.0
demands, resulting in high cumulative damage.
-3.0
-4.0
0 10 20 30 40
4.2. Peak roof displacement demands
Cycle Numbers

Fig. 7. SPD protocol. The peak roof displacements were evaluated by using nonlinear
time history analyses of the idealized bilinear equivalent SDOF
models. The peak roof displacements computed based on the CPA
4.1. Cyclic pushover curves and equivalent bilinear SDOF models are compared with those of the MPA and the exact MDOF Nonlin-
ear Time History Analysis (NTHA) for each ground motion as
The cyclic pushover curves and their envelope curves are plot- shown in Table 3. The peak roof displacements obtained from the
ted in comparison with the conventional pushover curve as shown CPA provide the mean displacements of 10.40, 11.51, 11.33,
in Fig. 8a–d. The equivalent bilinear SDOF models in terms of pseu- 11.12 cm for Laboratory Type, ATC-24, ISO, SPD, respectively. These
do-acceleration and displacement (Sa  Sd) relationships for the results are compared with the mean displacement of the exact
four types of loading protocols are plotted in comparison to the NTHA, which is 10.75 cm. The percentages of error are 3.23 for
conventional pushover (mode 1) as shown in Fig. 9. The bilinear the under-estimate for Laboratory Type, and 7.07, 5.35, 3.43 for
slopes in terms of x2 and ax2, as well as the yield acceleration the over-estimates for ATC-24, ISO, SPD, respectively. The results
Ay, and the yield displacement Dy, are presented in Table 2. These of MPA provide the mean displacements of 9.25, 9.63, 9.71 cm
parameters were employed to conduct nonlinear time history anal- for one mode, two modes and three modes, respectively. The per-
yses of the idealized bilinear equivalent SDOF models by BISPEC centages of error are 13.97, 10.46, 9.70 under-estimates for one
program.It is observed that the Cyclic Pushover Analysis (CPA) mode, two modes and three modes, respectively. For an overview,

Table 1
Ground motions and scale factor to SPT 1302.

No Record Earthquake Magnitude Epicentral distance (km) PGA (g) Scale factor Input energy equivalent
velocity, VI (m/s)
1 IMP-1 Imperial Valley 1940 6.3 (ML) 8 0.348 1.27 1.056
2 IMP-2 0.214 1.81 1.176
3 PARK-1 Parkfield 6.1 (ML) 9.9 0.357 1.42 0.427
4 PARK-2 1966 0.272 1.95 0.494
5 IMP-3 Imperial Valley 1979 6.6 (ML) 26.5 0.169 2.64 1.055
6 IMP-4 0.157 2.00 1.695
7 MAM-1 Mammoth Lake 1980 6.1 (ML) 15.5 0.430 1.72 0.843
8 MAM-2 0.271 2.05 0.820
9 NAHAN-1 Nahanni, Canada 1985 6.9 (Ms) 16 0.148 5.87 0.802
10 NAHAN-2 0.139 7.15 0.713
11 SPI-1 Spitak, Armenia 1988 7.0 (Ms) 30 0.199 2.31 0.940
12 SPI-2 0.175 2.68 0.522
13 LOMA-1 Loma Prieta 1989 7.1 (Ms) 11.2 0.411 0.89 0.423
14 LOMA-2 0.473 0.72 0.395
15 LOMA-3 Loma Prieta 1989 7.1 (Ms) 21.4 0.244 1.72 0.665
16 LOMA-4 0.240 1.77 0.883
17 LOMA-5 Loma Prieta 1989 7.1 (Ms) 28.2 0.247 1.74 1.310
18 LOMA-6 0.215 1.62 1.478
19 NORTH-1 Northridge 1994 6.7 (Ms) 26.8 0.165 3.16 0.632
20 NORTH-2 0.217 2.08 0.530
 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23 17

PA, Pushover Curve (Mode 1)

PA, Pushover Curve (Mode 1) Cyclic Pushover Curve (ISO)
Cyclic Pushover Curve Base Shear, kN
Base Shear, kN CPA (ISO), Envelope Curve
CPA (Lab Type), Envelope Curve
2000
2000 PA PA

1500
1500 CPA (Lab Type)
CPA(ISO)
1000
1000

500 500

0 0
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

-500 Roof Displacement, m -500

Roof Displacement, m

-1000 -1000

-1500 -1500

-2000 -2000

(a) Cyclic pushover curve for Laboratory type (c) Cyclic pushover curve for ISO type

PA, Pushover Curve (Mode 1) PA, Pushover Curve (Mode 1)

Base Shear, kN Cyclic Pushover Curve (ATC-24) Cyclic Pushover Curve (SPD)
Base Shear, kN
CPA (ATC-24), Envelope Curve CPA (SPD), Envelope Curve
2000 2000
PA CPA (ATC-24) PA
1500 1500 CPA(SPD)

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-500 -500
Roof Displacement, m Roof Displacement, m

-1000 -1000

-1500 -1500

-2000 -2000

(b) Cyclic pushover curve for ATC-24 type (d) Cyclic pushover curve for SPD type
Fig. 8. Cyclic pushover curves for the four types of loading protocols.

the results of the CPA are slightly over-estimated; however, those

of MPA are under-estimated.
PA (Mode 1) To gain more details, the estimated peak roof displacements of
each ground motion were evaluated for error from the exact NTHA.
12.00
The results of the CPA provide the mean errors of 11.59%, 12.55%,
CPA (SPD) 15.30%, 11.68% over-estimates, and 12.31%, 6.50%, 6.96%,
10.00
CPA (ATC-24) 9.39% under-estimates for Laboratory Type, ATC-24, ISO, SPD,
8.00 respectively. The mean absolute errors are 11.95%, 11.04%,
Sa,A(m / sec2)

CPA (LAB)
12.38%, and 10.99% for Laboratory Type, ATC-24, ISO, SPD,
6.00 CPA (ISO) respectively.
The results of the MPA provide the mean errors of 17.51%,
4.00 19.99%, 22.09% over-estimates, and 24.08%, 23.96%, 23.48%
under-estimates for one mode, two modes, three modes, respec-
2.00 tively. The mean absolute errors are 20.79%, 21.58%, 22.65% for
one mode, two modes, and three modes, respectively. It can be ob-
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 served that the combined modal response demands resulting from
Sd,D(m) higher mode effects do not significantly reduce the errors. The er-
rors tend to increase when the higher modes were considered be-
Fig. 9. Pseudo-acceleration and displacement for the Cyclic Pushover and Pushover cause the estimated peak roof displacements of the MPA were
(mode 1). over-estimate for many ground motions. Therefore, the inclusion
18 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23

Table 2
Parameters for the Pushover Analysis (PA) and the Cyclic Pushover Analysis (CPA).

Parameters PA CPA
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 (LAB) (ATC) (ISO) (SPD)
Ay (m/s2) 8.80 54.0 140.0 8.07 7.33 6.23 6.60
Dy (m) 0.11 0.30 0.53 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.11
x2 (radian/s2) 77.19 180.0 264.15 62.56 56.38 54.65 57.89
Post-elastic stiffness, a 0.11 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.20

Table 3
Peak roof displacements for MPA, CPA, and NTHA.

Earthquake ground motions Cyclic Pushover Analysis Modal Pushover Analysis Nonlinear time history
analysis (cm)
LAB (cm) ATC-24 (cm) ISO (cm) SPD (cm) 1 Mode (cm) 2 Modes (cm) 3 Modes (cm)
IMP-1 12.93 16.86 17.19 16.12 10.78 11.15 11.18 14.46
IMP-2 16.25 15.21 14.37 16.02 13.36 13.57 13.61 14.73
IMP-3 8.70 10.49 10.58 10.21 9.33 9.97 10.10 8.62
IMP-4 17.23 18.64 17.86 18.57 13.10 13.23 13.26 12.72
LOMA-1 4.16 4.06 4.03 4.10 4.30 4.58 4.67 3.76
LOMA-2 4.10 4.97 5.24 4.73 3.46 4.50 4.76 4.33
LOMA-3 10.38 11.48 11.69 11.25 10.68 11.19 11.23 10.17
LOMA-4 11.82 9.57 9.44 9.91 16.59 16.72 16.75 8.91
LOMA-5 25.86 29.28 27.70 26.66 15.08 15.42 15.44 29.54
LOMA-6 21.83 25.12 25.72 24.65 19.91 20.05 20.07 26.38
MAM-1 12.12 13.73 13.77 13.53 11.54 12.09 12.14 12.3
MAM-2 9.57 10.68 10.98 10.21 11.99 12.42 12.45 10.12
NAHAN-1 4.37 4.16 4.23 4.16 4.53 4.66 4.69 3.98
NAHAN-2 4.53 4.97 5.04 4.90 4.63 4.76 4.79 4.32
NORTH-1 3.56 3.26 2.99 3.39 3.86 3.96 3.98 3.3
NORTH-2 2.32 2.42 2.38 2.35 2.35 2.56 2.62 2.85
PARK-1 4.40 4.77 4.97 4.63 4.10 4.73 5.03 4.33
PARK-2 3.59 4.30 4.57 4.06 4.23 4.90 5.10 4.16
SPI-1 21.09 24.08 20.89 21.62 13.57 13.78 13.82 22.55
SPI-2 9.27 12.16 12.96 11.38 7.66 8.34 8.46 13.56
Mean displacements 10.40 11.51 11.33 11.12 9.25 9.63 9.71 10.75
Error of mean displacements 3.23% 7.07% 5.35% 3.43% 13.97% 10.46% 9.70%
Mean error over-estimate 11.59% 12.55% 15.30% 11.68% 17.51% 19.99% 22.09%
Mean error under-estimate 12.31% 6.50% 6.96% 9.39% 24.08% 23.96% 23.48%
Mean absolute error 11.95% 11.04% 12.38% 10.99% 20.79% 21.58% 22.65%

of higher modes increased the peak roof displacements over the
exact demands. From the above comparisons, it appears that the
results of the CPA provide lower percentages of error than those
of the MPA.
The reason that the CPA procedure provides a lower percentage
of error than those of the MPA method is due to the stiffness deg-
radation and strength deterioration under cyclic loading. The pre-
scribed loading protocols require many inelastic cycles, and
hence, some columns undergo inelastic behavior resulting in a
reduction of stiffness and strength. This is consistent with the
behavior of reinforced concrete structures under earthquake load-
ing. The estimated roof displacement demand is therefore close to
the exact demand.
To determine the accuracy of the estimation in a statistical as-
pect, the peak roof displacements of each ground motion were ver-
ified for their accuracy by computing the Peak Roof Displacement
Ratio (PRDR).
Destimate
PRDR ¼
Dexact
where Destimate is the estimated peak roof displacement and Dexact is
the exact peak roof displacement.
The PRDR of each ground motion was plotted against the per-
centage of frequency interval of data. The results of the MPA for
one mode, three modes, and the CPA for LAB type, ATC-24, ISO,
and SPD are shown in Fig. 10a–f, respectively.
From Fig. 10c–f, the median of PRDR estimated from the CPA are
0.997, 1.071, 1.078, and 1.079 with Standard Deviation (SD) of
0.161, 0.129, 0.135, and 0.137 for Laboratory Type, ATC-24, ISO,
SPD, respectively. When these are compared with the MPA, the
median of PRDR estimated from the MPA are 0.982 and 1.101 with
Standard Deviation (SD) of 0.294 and 0.300 for one mode and three
modes, respectively. It was found that the CPA results are close to
the exact value (PDRD = 1.00) with a small Standard Deviation.
To determine the scatter of the estimated peak roof displace-
ment for each ground motion, the error of the estimated peak roof
displacement of the CPA for Lab-Type, ATC-24, ISO, SPD and those
of the MPA were plotted against the input energy equivalent veloc-
ity, VI, as shown in Figs. 11(a)–(d), respectively. It should be noted
that the errors of the CPA scatter in a narrow range when they are
compared with those of the MPA. The percentage errors of the CPA
for Lab-Type, ATC-24, ISO, and SPD protocols scatter mostly within
the range of 35%, 20%, 20%, and 20%, respectively. This is unlike
those of the MPA, which scatter within the range of 40%. These
are considered based on the majority result of errors.
ð10Þ
When the results of the CPA are compared among each other,
the errors of the peak roof displacement for ATC-24, ISO, and SPD
protocols are less scattered than those of the Lab-Type protocol.
These are consistent with the characteristics of loading protocols.
ATC-24, ISO, and SPD protocols consist of many repeated cycles
resulting in cumulative damage and consequently stiffness and
strength degradation. This behavior may be consistent with the
characteristics of earthquake ground motions.
 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23 19

50.0

Median = 0.982
50.0

Median = 1.101
40.0 SD = 0.294 40.0 SD = 0.300

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
30.0 30.0

20.0 20.0

10.0 10.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Peak Roof Displacement Ratio Peak Roof Displacement Ratio
(a) PA - 1 mode (b) MPA - 3 modes

Median = 1.071
Median = 0.997

50.0 50.0

40.0 40.0
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
SD = 0.161
SD = 0.129
30.0 30.0

20.0 20.0

10.0 10.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Peak Roof Displacement Ratio Peak Roof Displacement Ratio
(c) CPA- LAB Type (d) CPA - ATC-24 Type

Median = 1.079
Median = 1.078

50.0 50.0

40.0 40.0
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

SD = 0.135 SD = 0.137
30.0 30.0

20.0 20.0

10.0 10.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Peak Roof Displacement Ratio Peak Roof Displacement Ratio
(e) CPA - ISO Type (f) CPA - SPD Type
Fig. 10. Peak roof displacement ratios and frequency.

4.3. Peak floor displacement demand placements for the CPA, especially for LAB Type, are close to the ex-
act displacement demands. While the displacement demands of
To determine the peak floor displacement of each story of the 9- the other CPA types, i.e., ATC-24, ISO, SPD, are slightly greater than
story building, the floor displacement demands for a MDOF system the exact values, particularly for the upper floor levels. This is due
can be obtained by multiplying the peak roof displacement with to the fact that the characteristics of the loading protocols for
the normalized mode shape, as shown in Eq. (9). The results ob- ATC-24, ISO, and SPD consist of many repeated cycles at each peak
tained from the 20 ground motions are presented in terms of a sin- displacement. This leads to the tendency of more degradation of
gle value as the mean of the maximum floor displacement of each stiffness and strength, and hence, they tend to produce large seis-
story. The mean values for the CPA procedure are plotted with the mic displacement demands. Contrary to those of the MPA method,
floor levels of building and compared with those of the exact Non- the mean peak floor displacements are slightly under-estimated.
linear Time History Analysis (NTHA) and those of the MPA method, To determine the accuracy of the proposed procedure, the error
as shown in Fig. 12. It was observed that the mean peak floor dis- of the mean peak floor displacements for each story between the
20 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23

MPA (3 Modes) MPA (3 Modes)

CPA (LAB - Type) CPA (ISO - Type)

Input Energy Equivalent Velecity (m/sec.) Input Energy Equivalent Velecity (m/sec.)
2.00
2.00

1.50
1.50

1.00
1.00

0.50
0.50

0.00
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.00
Error of Peak Roof Displacement (%) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Error of Peak Roof Displacement (%)
Fig. 11a. Error of peak roof displacement for CPA (LAB Type).
Fig. 11c. Error of peak roof displacement for CPA (ISO Type).

MPA ( 3 Modes )
MPA ( 3 Modes )
CPA (ATC-24)
CPA ( SPD Type )
Input Energy Equivalent Velocity (m/sec.)
2.00 Input Energy Equivalent Velocity (m/sec.)
2.00

1.50
1.50

1.00
1.00

0.50
0.50

0.00
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.00
Error of Peak Roof Displacement (%) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Error of Peak Roof Displacement (%)
Fig. 11b. Error of peak roof displacement for CPA (ATC-24 Type).

Fig. 11d. Error of peak roof displacement for CPA (SPD Type).

CPA procedure and the exact solutions were evaluated. The results
are also compared with those of the MPA method for one mode,
two modes, and three modes, as shown in Fig. 13. For an overview
consideration, the percentage errors of the mean peak floor dis-
placement for each story were computed for the average of all nine
stories. The results are also presented in three groups as described
in the preceding section, as shown in Table 4.
From Fig. 13 and Table 4, it was found that the errors of peak
floor displacements for the CPA procedure are deviated in a narrow
boundary. They have a similar trend to that of the MPA (1 mode)
because the proposed CPA procedure employs the normalized first
mode shape in the determination of the floor displacement. For
those of the MPA method, the combined modal response demands,
resulting from higher mode effects, tend to reduce the under-esti-
mated errors, especially for the lower floors (third floor and fourth
floor). Nevertheless, when the whole building was considered as
shown in Table 4, the mean absolute errors for the CPA procedure
are 6.65%, 4.43%, 4.14%, and 3.88% for LAB, ATC-24, ISO, SPD,
respectively. These are less than those of the MPA, which are
16.99%, 8.84%, 11.22% for 1 mode, 2 modes, and 3 modes, respec-
tively. Therefore, the CPA procedure provides better estimates than
those of the MPA for the MDOF peak floor displacement demands.
4.4. Peak inter-story drift ratio demand
The inter-story drift is an important parameter to determine the
seismic performance of buildings. This section presents the peak
inter-story drift ratio which is the maximum relative floor dis-
placement between two adjacent floor levels divided by the story
height. The results obtained from the 20 ground motions are pre-
sented in terms of the mean of the peak inter-story drift ratio of
each story. The mean values for the CPA procedure are plotted with
the floor levels of building and compared with those of the exact
 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23 21

9 9

8 8

7 7
NTHA
6 6

Floor Level
CPA ( LAB Type )
Floor Level

NTHA
5 CPA ( LAB Type ) 5 CPA (ATC-24)
CPA (ISO)
4 CPA (ATC-24) 4
CPA (ISO) CPA (SPD)
3 3
CPA (SPD) MPA (1 mode)
2 MPA ( 1 Mode) 2 MPA (2 modes)
MPA (3 modes) MPA (3 Modes )
1 1
0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Displacement (m) Inter Story Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 12. Mean peak floor displacements under 20 ground motions.
Fig. 14. Mean peak inter-story drift ratio under 20 ground motions.

Floor Level
I SO
S PD

Floor Level
9
-24
AT C

9
8
e

8
T yp

7
LAB

7
6
6 CPA (LAB)
5
CPA (ATC-24)
5
4 CPA (ISO)
mode)

4
CPA (SPD)
3
MPA (1

MP 3 MPA (1 mode)
M

2 A(
PA

3m MPA (2 modes)
o de 2
(2

s)
mo

1 MPA (3 modes)
de

1
s)

0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0

Error of peak floor displacement (%)

Error of Peak Inter-Story Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 13. Error of mean peak floor displacements under 20 ground motions.
Fig. 15. Errors of mean peak inter-story drift ratio under 20 ground motions.

Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NTHA) and those of the MPA
method, as shown in Fig. 14.
The errors of the mean peak inter-story drift ratio for each story
between the CPA procedure and the exact solutions were evalu-
ated. The results are also compared with those of the MPA method
for one mode, two modes, and three modes, as shown in Fig. 15. For
an overview consideration, the errors of the mean peak inter-story
drift ratio for each story were computed for the averages of all nine
stories. The results are also presented in three groups similar to the
preceding section, as shown in Table 5.
For a summary, the mean peak inter-story drift ratios for both of
the CPA and the MPA procedures are consistent with the exact de-
mands. It is observed that the peak inter-story drift ratios for the
CPA procedure are close to the exact demands, particularly for
the 1st floor to 4th floor. The results of the CPA procedure are
slightly over-estimated for the 5th floor to roof level. When the
whole building was considered as shown in Table 5, the CPA pro-
cedure provided 14.77%, 22.97%, 21.04%, 22.70% over-estimates
and 9.86%, 1.33%, 2.87%, 3.63% under-estimates for LAB,
ATC-24, ISO, SPD, respectively. The results of the CPA procedure
are better than those of the MPA method, which provide 13.73%,
28.91%, 36.75% over-estimates and 13.78%, 19.21%, 21.07%
under-estimates for one mode, two modes and three modes,
respectively. The mean absolute errors for the CPA procedure are
12.59%, 15.76%, 14.99%, and 14.23% for LAB, ATC-24, ISO, SPD,
respectively. These are comparable to that of the MPA for one
mode, which is 13.77%. However, the effect of modal combination
of the higher modes increased the errors of the MPA procedure to
23.52% and 28.04% for two modes and three modes, respectively.

Table 4
Mean percentage of errors of the mean peak floor displacement for the whole building.

Error Cyclic pushover Modal pushover

LAB (%) ATC (%) ISO (%) SPD (%) 1 Mode (%) 2 Modes (%) 3 Modes (%)
Mean error over-estimate – 5.78 5.22 4.13 – 6.57 12.79
Mean error under-estimate 6.65 1.73 2.80 3.68 16.99 9.49 10.44
Mean absolute error from NTHA 6.65 4.43 4.14 3.88 16.99 8.84 11.22
22 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23
Table 5
Errors of the mean peak inter-story drift ratio for the whole building.
Error Cyclic pushover
LAB (%) ATC (%)
Mean error over-estimate 14.77 22.97
Mean error under-estimate 9.86 1.33
Mean absolute error from NTHA 12.59 15.76
Therefore, the proposed CPA procedure provides, on average, a
more accurate estimate for the mean peak inter-story drift ratios
than the MPA method.
5. Conclusions
The Cyclic Pushover Analysis is proposed to capture the charac-
teristics of stiffness and strength degradation of reinforced con-
crete structures under cyclic loading. The seismic displacement
demands for a 9-story reinforced concrete building are evaluated,
i.e., the peak roof displacement, the peak floor displacement, and
the peak inter-story drift ratio. The results are compared with
the exact MDOF nonlinear time history analysis and the Modal
Pushover Analysis. The effects of displacement history on seismic
demands are investigated. It should be remarked that the results
of this study are limited to the following assumptions: (a) one sam-
ple building in which the response is primarily controlled by the
first mode, (b) a set of ground motion records with moderate seis-
micity and near-fault earthquakes. The conclusions are summa-
rized below.
(a) The Cyclic Pushover Analysis procedure based on lateral cyc-
lic loading provides better estimates of the displacement
demands than those of monotonic loads. This is due to the
effect of the cumulative damage resulting from cyclic load
reversal, which cannot be accounted for by monotonic push-
over analysis; and so it leads to a reduction in the stiffness
and strength of the structure. This is consistent with the
behavior of reinforced concrete structures under earthquake
loading. The estimated seismic displacement demands are
therefore close to the exact demands.
(b) The displacement demands are sensitive to the characteris-
tics of loading protocols that define the cyclic loading his-
tory. The loading protocols that consist of many repeated
cycles at each peak displacement in the initial loading range
and beyond the yield displacement tend to produce large
cumulative damage. This effect leads to more severe degra-
dation of stiffness and strength, and consequently structures
undergo large seismic displacement demands.
(c) The peak floor displacement and inter-story drift ratio for
the Cyclic Pushover Analysis (CPA) are close to the exact
demands. These may be explained by two reasons. Firstly,
the shape of the floor displacement for the CPA is deter-
mined based on the fundamental mode shape. This is consis-
tent with the response of this sample building which is
dominated by the first mode. Secondly, the estimated roof
displacements for the CPA procedure are close to the exact
demands, and the peak floor displacement and inter-story
drift ratio are in proportion to the peak roof displacements,
and as a consequence, the results have a similar trend to
the exact demands.
(d) It is worth pointing out that the seismic demands in this
study are limited to the displacement demands. In view of
the seismic damage assessment, damage of a structure is
not only dependent on the displacement demand, but also
Modal pushover
ISO (%) SPD (%) 1 Mode (%) 2 Modes (%) 3 Modes (%)
21.04 22.70 13.73 28.91 36.75
2.87 3.63 13.78 19.21 21.07
14.99 14.23 13.77 23.52 28.04
the cumulative damage caused by cyclic loading has to be
taken into account. For this purpose, the Cyclic Pushover
Analysis is useful to estimate the seismic damage due to
the cumulative damage. Particularly for the old reinforced
concrete structures that had not been designed for seismic
resistance, the contribution of cumulative damage may play
an important role. This requires an investigation for further
study.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Research Grant of Sripatum
University. The author wishes to thank the staffs of Sripatum Uni-
versity who contributed materials and provided helpful input for
this research project.
References
[1] Antoniou S, Pinho R. Development and verification of a displacement-based
adaptive pushover procedure. J Earthquake Eng 2004;8(5):643–61.
[2] Papanikolaou VK, Elnashai AS, Pareja JF. Evaluation of conventional and
adaptive pushover analysis II: Comparative results. J Earthquake Eng
2006;10(1):127–51.
[3] Abbasnia R, Davoudi AT, Maddah MM. An adaptive pushover procedure based
on effective modal mass combination rule. Eng Struct 2013;52:654–66.
[4] Shakeri K, Shayanfar MA, Kabeyasawa T. A story shear-based adaptive
pushover procedure for estimating seismic demands of buildings. Eng Struct
2010;32:174–83.
[5] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating
seismic demand of buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2002;31:561–82.
[6] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic
demands for unsymmetrical-plan buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam
2004;33(8):903–27.
[7] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Role of higher mode pushover analyses in seismic analysis
of buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2005;21(4):1027–41.
[8] Kim S-P, Kurama YC. An alternative pushover analysis procedure to estimate
seismic displacement demands. Eng Struct 2008;30:3793–807.
[9] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. A consecutive modal pushover
procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings. Eng Struct
2009;31:591–9.
[10] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. A consecutive modal pushover
procedure for nonlinear static analysis of one-way unsymmetric-plan tall
building structures. Eng Struct 2011;33:2417–34.
[11] Khoshnoudian F, Mehdi M, Kashani B. Assessment of modified consecutive
modal pushover analysis for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings
with dual system considering steel concentrically braced frames. J Constr Steel
Res 2012;72:155–67.
[12] Hernandez-Montes E, Kwon OS, Aschheim MA. An energy based formulation
for first and multiple-mode nonlinear static (Pushover) Analyses. J Earthquake
Eng 2004;8(1):69–88.
[13] Leelataviwat S, Saewon W, Goel SC. Application of energy balance concept in
seismic evaluation of structures. J Struct Eng 2009;135(2):113–21.
[14] Jiang Y, Li G, Yang D. A modified approach of energy balance concept based
multimode pushover analysis to estimate seismic demands for buildings. Eng
Struct 2010;32:1272–83.
[15] Manoukas G, Athanatopoulou A, Avramidis I. Static pushover analysis based on
an energy-equivalent SDOF system. Earthquake Spectra 2011;27(1):89–105.
[16] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design.
Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(3):573–92.
[17] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European standard EN 1998–1.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brusselsl; 2004.
[18] Kreslin M, Fajfar P. The extended N2 method taking into account higher mode
effects in elevation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2011. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/eqe.1104.
 P. Panyakapo / Engineering Structures 66 (2014) 10–23
[19] Applied Technology Council (ATC-40). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings, Washington, DC; 1996.
[20] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Seismic rehabilitation of existing
building: ASCE Standard No. ASCE/SEI 41–06; 2007.
[21] FEMA. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Federal
Emergence Management Agency. FEMA 440, Washington D.C.; 2005.
[22] Miranda E. Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites. J Struct
Eng 2000;126(10):1150–9.
[23] Chopra AK. Estimating seismic demands for performance-based engineering of
buildings. Key-note lecture at the 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Paper No. 5007. Vancouver; 2004.
[24] Fajfar P, Marusic D, Perus I. Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic
analysis of buildings. J Earthquake Eng 2005;9(6):831–54.
[25] Fajfar P, Marušic D, Perus I. The extension of the N2 method to asymmetric
buildings. In: Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic
behavior of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki;
2005.
[26] Koren D, Kilar V. The applicability of the N2 method to the estimation of
torsional. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2011;40:867–86.
[27] D’Ambrisi A, Stefano M, Tanganelli M. Use of pushover analysis for predicting
seismic response of irregular buildings: a case study. J Earthquake Eng
2009;13:1089–100.
[28] Reyes JC, Chopra AK. Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings
subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for
tall buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2011;40:789–806.
[29] Shakeri K, Tarbali K, Mohebbi M. An adaptive modal pushover procedure for
asymmetric-plan buildings. Eng Struct 2012;36:160–72.
[30] Koutromanos I, Stavridis A, Shing PB, Willam K. Numerical modeling of
masonry-infilled RC frames subjected to seismic loads. Comput Struct
2011;89(11–12):1026–37.
[31] Limkatanyu S, Spacone E. Effects of reinforcement slippage on the nonlinear
response under cyclic loadings of RC frame structures. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dynam 2003;32:2407–24.
[32] D’Ambrisi A, Filippou FC. Correlation studies on an RC frame shaking-table
specimen. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1997;26:1021–40.
[33] Di Sarno L, Manfredi G. Experimental tests on full-scale RC unretrofitted frame
and retrofitted with buckling restrained braces. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam
2012;41(2):315–33.
[34] Di Sarno L, Yenidogan C, Erdik M. Field evidence and numerical investigation of
the Mw = 7.1 October 23 Van, Tabanli and the Mw>5.7 November Earthquakes
of 2011. Bull Earthq Eng 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9417-0.
[35] Sharma A, Reddy GR, Vaze KK, Eligehausen R. Pushover experiment and
analysis of a full scale non-seismically detailed RC structure. Eng Struct
2013;46:218–33.
23
[36] Engineering Institute of Thailand. Standard for reinforced concrete building
(strength design method). EIT Standard 1008–38, Bangkok, Thailand; 2000.
[37] Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO computer program. Christchurch, New
Zealand: University of Canterbury; 2006.
[38] Sharpe RD. The seismic response of inelastic structures. Ph.D. Thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand;
1974.
[39] Otani S. SAKE, A computer program for inelastic response of RC frames to
earthquakes. Report UILU-Eng-74-2029: Civil Engineering Studies, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 1974.
[40] Sezen H, Chowdhury T. Hysteretic model for reinforced concrete columns
including the effect of shear and axial load failure. J Struct Eng ASCE
2009;135(2):139–46.
[41] Warnitchai P, Chintanapakdi C, Panyakapo P, Bunyapinyo V, Leelatavivat S,
Pimanmas A. Seismic evaluation and retrofitting of existing buildings in
Thailand: Thailand Research Fund Report, Bangkok, Thailand; 2011.
[42] ATC-24. Guidelines for cyclic testing of components of steel structures.
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 11; 1992.
[43] ISO. Timber structures-joints made with mechanical fasteners – Quasi-static
reversed-cyclic test method. Draft standard, ISO-TC165 timber structures
working group 7; February 10, 1998.
[44] Krawinkler H. Loading histories for cyclic tests in support of performance
assessment of structural components. In: 3rd International conference on
advances in experimental structural engineering, San Francisco; October 15–
16, 2009.
[45] Porter ML. Sequential phased displacement (SPD) procedure for TCCMAR
testing. In: Proceedings the 3rd meeting of the joint technical coordinating
committee on masonry research, US-Japan Coordinated Research, Program;
1987.
[46] SPT 1302. Standard of earthquake resistant design of building. Department of
Public Works and Town & Country Planning, Bangkok, Thailand; 2009.
[47] Uang CM, Bertero VV. Implication of recorded earthquake ground motions on
seismic design of building structures. UCB/EERC Report No. 88/13, University
of California, Berkeley, California; 1988.
[48] Kurama YC, Farrow KT. Ground motion scaling methods for different site
conditions and structure characteristics. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam
2003;32:2425–50.
[49] Spyracos CC, Maniatakis CA, Taflambas J. Evaluation of near-source seismic
records based on damage potential parameters Case study: Greece. Soil Dynam
Earthquake Eng 2008;28:738–53.
[50] Climent AB, Almansa FL, Gonza DAB. Design energy input spectra for
moderate-to-high seismicity regions based on Colombian earthquakes. Soil
Dynam Earthquake Eng 2010;30:1129–48.
[51] Hachem M. BISPEC user manual. Berkeley (CA): University of California; 1999.