See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285299142

A comparative study on static push-over and time-history analysis methods

in base isolated buildings

Conference Paper · September 2006

CITATIONS READS

3 469

3 authors, including:

Christos Kotanidis Ioannis N Doudoumis

Siemens Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
8 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   337 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Update of IEC 62271-207 High Voltage Gas Insulated Switchgear Standard View project

Energy-based approach of nonlinear static analysis (Static Pushover) for the evaluation of seismic response of structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ioannis N Doudoumis on 01 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
(a joint event of the 13th ECEE & 30th General Assembly of the ESC)
Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006
Paper Number: 420

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON STATIC PUSH-OVER AND TIME-HISTORY

ANALYSIS METHODS IN BASE ISOLATED BUILDINGS
\

Nikolaos I. DOUDOUMIS1, Christos KOTANIDIS2 and Ioannis N. DOUDOUMIS 3

SUMMARY

For the analysis and design of seismic isolated buildings with an expected inelastic behaviour of
the superstructure, two analysis methods are generally acceptable today by the Code Provisions:
(a) the dynamic non-linear time-history analysis, that is permitted for all structures and (b) the
static push-over analysis which can be applied to a broad category of buildings that meet certain
requirements. In the current paper, a specific analytical case study is presented, where these
methods are comparatively used for the calculation of certain response quantities of a multi-storey
concrete building with a base isolation system consisting of Lead Rubber Bearings. The purpose
of the paper is to clarify certain details which are essential for the application of these methods and
to study similarities and differences in their results. The results showed that there is a very good
agreement between the values of the maximum base shear of the building, its corresponding
maximum roof displacement and the total number of plastic hinges formed at the superstructure
during the time-history analyses, with the respective values given by the pushover analysis. All
these confirm in principal the FEMA Provisions that accept the pushover method for this
particular base isolation system, however there are still several open issues that must be further
studied.

1. INTRODUCTION

For the analysis and design of new structures the engineers mainly use linear static or linear dynamic analysis
methods, as they can be applied with a relative simplicity and they are explicitly described by the provisions of
the modern seismic codes. When the earthquake resistance of an existing structure is being evaluated, or when a
more accurate analysis of the building’s inelastic seismic response is expected, then two non-linear analysis
methods are generally accepted:
 The non-linear Dynamic Analysis (Time-History) which can be applied to any kind of structures.
 The non-linear Static Analysis (Static Pushover) which can be applied to a variety of buildings that satisfy
certain criteria. The main purpose in the use of this method is to significantly reduce the computational effort
without at the same time reducing the credibility of the results

There are plenty of studies in which analysis results of the application of pushover and time-history analyses on
conventional structures are compared. Mwafy and Elnashai used the results of a large number of inelastic
dynamic analyses of several types of RC frames to develop “dynamic pushover” envelopes and compare these
with the static pushover results with different load patterns [Mwafy and Elnashai, 2001]. They concluded that
static pushover analysis is more suitable for low rise and short period frame structures without any structural

1
Dipl. civil engineer of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki & M.Eng.
Email : ndoudoum@civil.auth.gr
2
Dipl. civil engineer of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Email: ckotanid@civil.auth.gr
3
Assoc. professor, Civil Engineering Department of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (A.U.Th.), 54006 Thessaloniki, GREECE
Email: doud@civil.auth.gr

1
irregularities and they suggested the use of more than one lateral load distributions. Lawson, Vance and
Krawinkler compared the results (storey drifts, plastic hinge rotations, hysteretic energy) of various steel
moment resisting frames in order to determine “why, when and how” should static pushover be used instead of
nonlinear dynamic analysis [Lawson, Vance and Krawinkler, 1994]. Kalkan and Kunnath proposed a “Method of
modal combinations for pushover”, the validity of which was examined by comparing response quantities such
as inter-storey drift and member ductility demands using other pushover methods and also the results of
nonlinear time-history analyses [Kalkan and Kunnath, 2004]. Papanikolaou, Elnashai and Pareja investigated the
applicability of conventional and advanced non-linear static analysis for seismic response assessment by
presenting extensive results of pushover analysis conducted on various types of structures and comparing them
to results from inelastic dynamic analyses under various strong motion records [Papanikolaou, Elnashai and
Pareja, 2005]. The results showed that pushover requires further refinement in order to provide reliable estimates
of the dynamic response of 3D asymmetrical structures, because torsional effects are not adequately represented
in pushover analysis.

Regarding the case of buildings involving passive energy dissipators, there are only few studies comparing
analyses results of pushover and time-history. Williams and Albermani investigated the suitability of various
displacement-based analysis methods for estimating the seismic response of frames fitted with dissipative
devices. They used various pushover methods and time-history analysis, thus concluding that pushover methods
present difficulties in estimating the performance of the dissipative frames, where they appeared to
underestimate the beneficial effects of energy dissipation [Williams and Albernami, 2003]. Regarding the case of
base isolated buildings, there are no pushover – time history comparative studies that are known to the authors.

In the current paper, a specific case study is presented, where the Dynamic Non-linear Time-History and the
Static Pushover methods are comparatively used for the calculation of certain response quantities of a multi-
storey concrete building with a base isolation system consisting of Lead Rubber Bearings (LRB). The purpose of
the paper is to clarify certain details which are essential for the application of these two methods, to study the
similarities and differences in their results and furthermore to correlate the conclusions acquired from them with
the related references of the FEMA 356 and Eurocode 8 Provisions.

2. BASIC FEATURES OF THE NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS METHODS

2.1 Non-linear Dynamic Time-History Analysis

In this method a mathematical model of the structure is used which incorporates inelastic load-deformation
relations of individual structural elements of the building. The model is subjected to a seismic excitation of its
base, in the form of a ground motion time-history. The response of the model is calculated at repeated time steps
and the obtained results (displacements and stresses–forces) can be directly compared to Code’s acceptance
criteria.

In the dynamic time-history method, the calculated deformations and internal forces are considered reasonable
approximations of the actual structural response during an earthquake, because the mathematical model and the
methodology itself can realistically simulate the dominant features of inelastic seismic response of the real
(physical) structure. For these reasons the time-history analysis can be applied to virtually any kind of structure
and foundation ground. However the structural response can by very sensitive to specific characteristics of the
ground and the ground motion. For that reason this analysis should be repeated for several ground motion
records. While non-linear dynamic analysis is currently the most accurate analysis method, its use for the design
of the ordinary structures is limited, because of its large computational cost, the need of careful selection of
ground motion records and the difficulty in processing the vast quantity of output results. Time-history is used
mainly by researchers in order to provide “accurate” results for the evaluation of the rest of the analysis methods,
chiefly non-linear static procedures (static pushover) [Mwafy and Elnashai, 2001], [Chopra and Goel, 2001].

Particularly for base-isolated buildings, FEMA 356 mandates the use of non-linear analysis methods, when the
structure above the isolation system responds inelastically during the earthquake under consideration, or when all
of the criteria for the application of linear procedures stated by the code are not met. In addition, FEMA 356
states that the Time-History Analysis is required for: isolated structures on very soft soil .., systems with more
than about 30% effective damping .., systems that lack significant restoring force .., systems that are expected to
exceed the sway-space clearance with adjacent structures .., or systems that are rate- or load-dependent.

2
2.2 Non-linear Static Analysis (Static Pushover)

The Non-linear Static Analysis (NSA according to the American Codes) is widely known by the term Static
Pushover or simply Pushover. In this method, like in the previous one, the mathematical model of the structure
incorporates inelastic load-deformation relations for the structural elements. The model is loaded with
monotonically increasing lateral loads of invariant profile, which represent the inertial forces acting at each floor
during an earthquake. Pushover analysis is carried out until the structure fails. Typical forms of failure contain
flexural failure of a crucial section and local or global instability of the structure [Makarios, 2005]. Flexural
failure normally precedes shear failure, because of capacity design of buildings mandated by modern seismic
codes.

Currently the pushover method is being under continuous revision, while in U.S. building codes [FEMA 356,
1997] the Target Displacement Method is now used. At the same time many researchers have proposed several
enhancements or variations of the classic pushover method, for example:
 Adaptive spectra-based procedure [Gupta and Kunnath, 2000].
 Modal Pushover Analysis [Chopra and Goel, 2001], which accounts for the higher modes of the structure.
 Energy-based pushover [Hernandez-Montes et al, 2004], [Tjhin, Aschheim and Hernandez-Montes, 2005],
which was proposed as an enhancement to the Modal Pushover.

FEMA 356 accepts the use of pushover in the analysis of base-isolated buildings, especially when the
superstructure is expected to perform inelastically during the considered earthquake. However, in special cases,
the use of the time-history method is mandatory, as described earlier. Eurocode 8 does not mention non-linear
static procedures for the design of base-isolated buildings. New U.S. building design Codes mainly use the
pushover method as a tool to check existing buildings and not for the design of new ones.

The accuracy and usefulness of pushover analysis in seismic design of structures has been a matter under
constant discussion. As [Lawson, Vance and Krawinkler, 2001] report, pushover lacks theoretical background
and therefore provides only approximate results. What it actually offers to the designer is a rough approximation
of deformation demands of crucial structural elements. It also reveals possible weaknesses of the structure, like
stiffness discontinuities and overloading of shear elements. Additionally, areas of the structure exhibiting large
deformation demands are exposed and the overall stability can be evaluated. Pushover analysis cannot accurately
estimate the structure’s dynamic behaviour, especially when the contribution of higher modes is significant
during seismic response and its results strongly depend on the shape of the lateral loads.

2.3 Comparison possibilities between the two methods

From all the above mentioned, it is evident that certain similarities exist between the pushover and the time-
history methods. At the same time though, a lot of differences also exist, regarding their possibilities for
application on the seismic design of buildings and the possibility of direct or indirect comparisons between their
results of these two methods. It is obvious that it is not possible in general to compare their results that concern
the time variation of the response quantities (displacements, stresses-forces, dissipated energy), due to a specific
seismic excitation. It is however possible to make certain direct or indirect comparisons between several similar
response quantities, as for example:
 for a given value of roof displacements in the compared methods, comparisons of their respective base shears
and vise-versa,
 for a given value of base shears in the compared methods, comparisons on respective floor displacements and
vise-versa,
 for a given value of base shears in the compared methods, comparisons of their respective numbers of
developed plastic hinges and vise-versa.
The implementation process of certain such comparisons and the evaluation of their results are analytically
presented in the application that follows.

An important issue at the comparative study between the two methods in buildings with a base isolation system
is the modeling of the isolators. In the time-history analysis this is accomplished by defining the elastic and
plastic properties of the bearings as wanted, while in the pushover analysis only the definition of the effective
stiffness of the bearing is needed. In order though to define this effective stiffness, the total displacement of the

3
bearing during the examined seismic excitation must be known, which in turn depends on the characteristics of
this excitation. This means that each seismic excitation gives a different value to the bearing’s effective stiffness,
making the comparison between the two methods more difficult.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

3.1 Model description

Various possible comparisons between the results obtained by the time-history and pushover methods will be
investigated below through an analytical comparative parametric study. In this study a 4-storey reinforced
concrete building with a plan and elevation view as shown in Figure 1, is considered. Each storey consists of 8
columns (C1 to C8) and 4 walls (W1 to W4). There are no interior beams at the floors except at the ground floor
above the foundation and the 2 interior columns are connected to the exterior frames with the floor slabs. The
superimposed Dead Load of the slab is assumed to be 1.2 kN/m2 and the Live Load is 5.0 kN/m2. In both
analysis methods, the vertical loads acting on the structure will be the total dead load plus 0.5 times the live load.
The analytical modeling of the structure was performed at the computer code SAP2000, where proper frame
elements were used, together with diaphragm constraints at the floor levels.

Figure 1: Plan view and vertical section of the examined building

The response of the building’s superstructure is elastoplastic, where the elastoplastic behaviour is accomplished
thought the possible formation of plastic hinges at the ends of each beam (Figure 2). Each plastic hinge is
assumed to yield in pure bending by considering equal absolute values of the positive and negative yield moment
(|My|=|My|). The constitutive law of the plastic hinge is a bilinear pure elastoplastic (Figure 3b). For this
particular building, the strength demands of the structural members were determined according to the Greek
Seismic Code, assuming that the building was located in a Seismic Zone 3 region. As a result of the final
strength capacity of the superstructure, for base shear larger than 0.16-0.20W (W is the total weight of the
structure, just above the foundation slab) plastic hinges will begin to form in the superstructure.

The concept of the base isolation was modeled by placing a single Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) under each
column and wall at the ground floor. The idealized hysteretic force-displacement relation of the LRB is shown in
Figure 3a. The maximum displacement of the bearing (DMCE) and the effective stiffness corresponding to that
displacement, depend on the characteristics and the magnitude of each seismic excitation and they are not known
from the beginning.

4
 Figure 2: Possible location of plastic hinge at the ends of the beams

(a) (b)
Figure 3: Constitutive laws for (a) the Lead Rubber Bearings and (b) the plastic hinges at the beams

3.2 Application of the Time-history method

For the time-history analysis the model was subjected to 3 scaled seismic excitations, given by the accelerograms
of El Centro 1940 (component 180), Kalamata 1986 (component N-S) and California 1934 (component 180)
earthquake. The selection of these earthquakes was based on the fact that their response spectra in the long
periods area can coincide (with proper scaling) with the response spectrum that is given by the Greek Seismic
Code and which was used for the design of the building.

In order for the present study to give results that correspond to an inelastic behaviour of the superstructure, the
seismic excitations should be strong enough to create plastic hinges in the isolated building. To this cause, the
target spectrum (Maximum Considered Earthquake) was taken equal to two times the Elastic Response Spectrum
given by the Greek Seismic Code, for seismic zone 3 and soil category B. The scale factors of the selected
earthquakes are shown in table 1, while their response spectra after the scaling are shown in Figure 4.

The result of this careful selection of seismic excitations and their proper scaling was that all 3 of them cause the
same maximum lateral displacement in the bearings (DMCE), which takes the value of 250 mm. Furthermore, the
bearings effective stiffness, that corresponds to this displacement takes the single value of 800 kN/m for all of
these earthquake motions. The effective period of the structure becomes 2.35 sec.

Table 1: Selected ground motions and scale factors

PGA Scale factor for

Ground Motion Station Component
(g) time-history analysis
1940 El Centro 117 (USGS) 180 (X) 0.342 2.00
1934 Lower California 117 (USGS) 180 (X) 0.156 5.45
1986 Kalamata Kalamata1 1NS (X) 0.238 2.65

5
 3.0 Target Spectrum (Scale Factor = 2.0)
(Seismic Zone 3 - Soil B)
Scaled Kalamata N-S
Scaled California 180
2.0 Scaled El Centro 180
Rd (g)

1.0

0.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Period (sec)

Figure 4: Target response spectrum and response spectra of the scaled earthquake motions

3.3 Application of the Pushover method

As mentioned in chapter 2.3, an essential step before the pushover analysis is performed, is the modelling of the
isolation system by defining the value of the bearing’s effective stiffness. The selection of this value can greatly
change the base shear versus roof displacement curves given by the pushover analysis. For the current building
and the selected scaled seismic excitations, this effective stiffness was calculated to be 800 kN/m.

For the application of the pushover, two different loading profiles are used as given by FEMA 356 for the case of
buildings with a base isolation system. The Constant Profile, where we have a uniform distribution of the lateral
forces at each level which are proportional to the total mass at each level, and the 1st-mode profile where the
vertical distribution is proportional to the shape of the fundamental mode in the direction under consideration
(Figure 5). In the examined example, since the profiles are almost identical, only the results of the 1st-mode
profile are shown. It must be also noted that no P-delta effects have been taken into account.

Figure 5: Loading profiles for the Pushover procedure

4. RESULTS

The results of the two methods will be presented in two forms. The classic form, implemented in all previous
studies for the comparison of the two methods, is the plot that shows the displacement of the roof of the building
versus the total base shear. The suggested new form is a plot depicting the number of plastic hinges formed at the
superstructure versus the base shear of the superstructure (Vb,s). This suggested form has the advantage that is
independent of the stiffness at the base of the building, meaning that the resultant plot will be the same either we
have a fixed-base or a base isolation system with a high flexibility. This is important as this plot can compare the
results of the two methods for any seismic excitation without worrying about the calculation of the effective
stiffness of the isolation system, as mentioned in chapter 2.3. It must be noted here that in both analyses the base
shear of the superstructure Vb,s is different than the total base shear Vb of the building. In the pushover analysis

6
in particular, the base shear of the superstructure is given by the formula Vb,s = Vb – P0, where P0 is the lateral
force acting at the foundation level. In the examined example P0 constitutes 19% of the total base shear (Figure
5).

Because of the different nature of the two examined methods, it is essential to define the way that the results
should be presented and compared. In the pushover analysis a single curve is produced and it will be presented
as such. In the time-history analysis we have a dynamic response of the structure so a continuous curve is
produced in each seismic excitation, which is characterized by repeated and complicated loading-unloading
loops of variable shape and size. In order for the time-history results to be clearer and comparable to those given
by the pushover analysis, they were filtered as follows:

Specific time instances were properly selected and the results were presented as distinct points only for these
instances instead of a continuous curve. For the selection of these instances it was decided only the time steps
when a new plastic hinge is formed at the superstructure during the “loading” of the structure (for increasing
base shear) to be shown.

2500

2000
Vb,superstructure (kN)

1500

1000 Pushover curve

Kalamata N-S
California 180
500 El Centro 180

Number of plastic hinges

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 6: Pushover curve and points between the base shear of the superstructure
and the number of plastic hinges created along the Y direction of the building

2500

2000
Vb,superstructure (kN)

1500
Pushover curve
Kalamata N-S
1000 California 180
El Centro 180

500

Number of plastic hinges

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 7: Pushover curve and points between the base shear of the superstructure
and the number of plastic hinges created along the X direction of the building

7
Figures 6 and 7 show the variation of the superstructure’s base shear Vb,s versus the total number of plastic
hinges that are developed in the structure, due to lateral actions along the directions Y and X respectively. The
values corresponding to the filtered results of time-history analyses are presented as distinct points, while the
values corresponding to the results of pushover analysis are presented as a continuous line. We observe that the
results of time-history analyses may be considerably different than the pushover curve for small values of Vb,s
(small number of plastic hinges), but they tend to draw nearer to the pushover curve as the values of Vb,s increase
(large number of plastic hinges). We also observe that the points representing the maximum value of Vb,s that
corresponds to a prescribed number of plastic hinges during time-history analyses, are very close to the pushover
curve. The fact that the same number of plastic hinges can be formed for different values of the base shear Vb,s in
the time-history analysis can be explained, if we take into account that the structure responds differently during
each loading cycle of the seismic excitation.

3000

2500

2000
V b (kN)

1500
Pushover curve
1000 Kalamata N-S
California 180
El Centro 180
500

Roof Displacement (mm)

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Figure 8: Pushover curve and points between the total base shear and the displacement of the roof
along the Y direction of the building

3000

2500

2000
V b (kN)

1500
Pushover curve
1000 Kalamata N-S
California 180
El Centro 180
500

Roof Displacement (mm)

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Figure 9: Pushover curve and points between the total base shear and the displacement of the roof
along the X direction of the building

Figures 8 and 9 show the variation of the total base shear Vb versus the lateral displacement of the roof, due to
lateral actions along the directions Y and X respectively. The values corresponding to the filtered results of time-
history analyses are presented as distinct points, while the values corresponding to the results of pushover
analysis are presented as a continuous line. We observe that the results of the two methods are very close to each
other and the nearer we reach the design displacement DMCE=250 mm of the bearings, the more the results tend
to match with each other. With a closer look it becomes obvious that the displacement of the roof follows the

8
force-displacement law of the isolation system, which for the case of the time-history is bilinear, while in the
case of the pushover is the Keff line (Figure 3a). This can be sheen more clearly if an entire time-history curve of
a single seismic excitation is shown (Figure 10).

Interesting conclusions can be drawn by comparing the Vb – Dtop results acquired in this study with those of the
respective fixed-base building. Concerning the shape of the typical pushover curve in the fixed-base building
(Figure 11), we observe that the transition from the initial slope to the horizontal branch is smoother. This is
because the non-linear response of the entire building depends only on the formation of plastic hinges at the
superstructure, which in general are formed progressively and not all at once. However in buildings with a LRB
isolation system, where the bearings have a bilinear constitutive law and they are usually designed to yield all
together, their bilinear behaviour dominates over the non-linear behaviour of the superstructure. In such a case,
the shape of the pushover curve is almost bilinear too, as it was explicitly resulted in the current study (Figure
10).

3000
Base
Shear
(kN)

Roof Displacement (mm)

0

-400 -200 0 200 400

Pushover curve
El Centro 180

-3000

Figure 10: Pushover curve and El Centro time-history curve

between the total base shear and the displacement of the roof along the Y direction of the building

2000
Base
Shear
(kN)

Roof Displacement (mm)

0

-40 -20 0 20 40

Pushover curve
(1st-mode loading profile)

-2000

Figure 11: Pushover curve between the total base shear and the displacement of the roof
along the Y direction of the respective building with fixed-base

9
 5. CONCLUSIONS

By taking into account the entire procedure that was followed for the comparative study of the two methods,
there was a very good agreement between the value of the maximum base shear of the building and its
corresponding maximum roof displacement during the time-history analysis, with the respective values given by
the pushover curve. The same conclusion applies for the value of the maximum base shear of the superstructure
and its corresponding number of plastic hinges formed. Considering that these quantities are the most
determining for the design of both the isolation system and the building’s superstructure, FEMA provisions that
accept the pushover method for this particular base isolation system, are confirmed in principal, in contrast to the
EC8 provisions which do not have any reference to the potential acceptance of this method. However, because
the research studies that have been conducted to the examined topic are not yet adequate, there are still several
open issues that must be further studied.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A part of this report is based on research sponsored by the European Commission and the Ministry of National
Education and Religions Affairs of Greece, within the framework of the Operational Programme of Education
and Initial Vocational Training (project “Pythagoras II”).

7. REFERENCES

Chopra, Anil K., Goel, Rakesh K. (2000), Evaluation of NSP to estimate seismic deformation: SDF systems,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 4, 482-490.
Chopra, Anil K., Goel, Rakesh K. (2002), A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands
for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002, 31, 561–582.
Eurocode 8 (2002), Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings, DRAFT No 5, Revised Final Project Team Draft (preStage 49), CEN, European Committee
for Standardization.
FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by
American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA 450 (2003), NEHRP (national earthquake hazards reduction program) recommended provisions for
seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures.
Greek Seismic Code (2000), Earthquake resistance design of structures, Earthquake Planning and Protection
Organisation, Athens, Greece.
Gupta, Balram, Kunnath, Sashi (2000), Adaptive Spectra-Based Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of
Structures, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No 2, 367-390.
Hernandez-Montes, Enrique, Kwon, Oh-Sung, Aschheim, Mark A. (2004), An energy-based formulation for
first-and multiple-mode nonlinear static (pushover) analyses, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8,
No. 1, 69-88.
Lawson R. Scott, Vance Vicky, Krawinkler Helmut (1994), Nonlinear static push-over analysis—why, when,
and how?, Proceedings of the 5th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. I., 283–292.
Makarios, Triantafyllos K. (2005), Optimum definition of equivalent non-linear SDF system in pushover
procedure of multistory r/c frames, Engineering Structures 27, 814–825.
Miranda, Eduardo (2001), Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 9, 1005-1012.
Mwafy, A.M., Elnashai, A.S. (2001), Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings,
Engineering Structures 23, 407–424.
Papanikolaou, Vassilis K., Elnashai, Amr S., Pareja, Juan F. (2005), Limits of Applicability of Conventional and
Adaptive Pushover Analysis for Seismic Response Assessment, Report, Mid-America Earthquake Center,
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Tjhin, T., Aschheim, M., Hernandez-Montes, E. (2005), Estimates of peak roof displacement using “equivalent”
single degree of freedom systems, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 3, 517-522.
Williams, M.S., Albermani, F. (2003), Evaluation of Displacement-Based Analysis and Design Methods for
Steel Frames with Passive Energy Dissipators, Civil Engineering Research Bulletin No. 24, University of
Queensland, Department of Civil Engineering, ISBN 186 499 7540.

10

View publication stats