Nonlinear Static Methods for Design/Assessment of 3D Structures

R. Bento & R. Pinho (Eds.)

5-6 May 2008 Lisbon, Portugal

FORCE/TOURQUE PUSHOVER METHOD FOR PLAN IRREGULAR
STRUCTURES
M. Savoia*, B. Ferracuti *, M. Serpieri*
*DISTART Structural Engineering, University of Bologna, Italy
e-mails: marco.savoia@mail.ing.unibo.it,
barbara.ferracuti@mail.ing.unibo.it

Abstract. In the present study, a pushover procedure for 3D frame structures is proposed. A new way to
define a set of horizontal force and torque distributions to apply on the floor level is proposed here. For
predicting the behaviour of irregular structures in the worst configurations more than one pushover
analyses have to be performed. The proposed method is validate by a consistent comparison of results
from static and dynamic analyses in terms of different response parameters, such as displacements,
rotations, floor shears and floor torques. Starting from the linear analysis, the procedure is subsequently
extended to non linear analysis. The results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed procedure to
predict the structural behaviour in the most dangerous configurations.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the recent years, nonlinear static analyses received a great deal of research attention within the
earthquake engineering community. Their main goal is to describe the nonlinear capacity of the structure
when subjected to horizontal loading, with a reduced computational effort with respect to nonlinear
dynamic analyses. For 2D frame structures, many studies have been performed in order to validate
different pushover techniques by comparison with results from dynamic analyses (Ferracuti et al. 2007).
On the contrary, few methods to perform pushover analyses for irregular 3D frame structures have been
proposed (Chopra and Goel, 2004; Fajfar et al., 2005; Moghadam and Tso, 2000; Penelis and Kappos,
2002). The definition and assessment of 3D pushover methods are much more complex than in the case
of 2D analyses for several reasons. First of all, the horizontal loading distribution both over the frame
height and on the various floors must be defined in order to correctly take torsional effects into account.
Secondly, parameters of structural response (maximum displacement and maximum rotation of roof
floor, relative rotation/displacement between floors, etc) to be predicted by the nonlinear static analyses
must be preliminary selected. The second point is fundamental to evaluate the accuracy of different
methodologies.
In the present work, a new pushover procedure for 3D plan-irregular RC structures is proposed. By this
new approach, a set of force and torque distributions is selected to predict the worst configurations of the
structures. In order to validate such technique, comparison between results from a series of incremental
dynamic analyses and pushover analyses has been carried out, with an accurate selection of
representative parameters of structural response. In particular, the comparisons have been made in terms
of global parameters (capacity curves, horizontal displacement versus rotation of the center of mass of the
roof) and local parameter as well as floor shears, interstorey drift, floor rotations. A very good agreement
between results of proposed pushover and dynamic analyses has been found.
M. Savoia et al.

2 PROPOSED METHOD: FORCE/TORQUE PUSHOVER (FTP)
The fundamental point in 3D pushover analyses is to define the distribution of horizontal force over the
frame height and on the individual floors. At the floor level, horizontal forces can be divided into
translational and torsional contributions. By analyzing the dynamic response of an irregular structure
subjected to earthquake excitation, it can be observed maximum displacement and maximum rotation do
not occur at the same timing step. On the contrary in a static pushover analysis maximum rotation and
displacement occur at the same force level. Therefore, a unique pushover force distribution giving the
worst conditions for the structure cannot be defined.
In the present work, a new pushover procedure for 3D irregular RC frame structure, called
Force/Torque Pushover (FTP), has been proposed. First of all, rigid diaphragm constraint is introduced
for the individual floors of the structure. Then, the force distribution proportional to the fundamental
mode of the structure with the highest participant factor for the selected ground motion direction is
obtained. The floor force resultant of the i-th floor level is divided into lateral forces
i x
F
,
,
i y
F
,
and torque
i
T with respect to the centre of mass. In the proposed procedure, a weight coefficient for components is
then introduced, so defining a class of force distributions with variable translational and torsional
configurations. Forces applied at i-th floor are then written as (see Figure 1):

=
=
=
i i
i y i y
i x i x
T T
F F
F F
, ,
, ,
) 1 (
) 1 (
(1)
The weight coefficient can vary from zero to one. Therefore, translational forces only and torque
only are applied, for the two limit cases, =0 and =1, respectively, as depicted in Figure 1. For =0.5,
the force system (1) corresponds to the force distribution proportional to the selected fundamental mode.
3 CASE STUDIES
Simple multi-storey RC frame structures with plans symmetric about the y-axis but unsymmetric
about the x-axis are considered (see Figure 2). In particular, two different structures are studied, whose
column cross-sections and eccentricities are shown in Figure 2. Elastic modulus of concrete is 25000
MPa, whilst the distributed mass was considered as equal to 6.60 kN/m
2
. For case n.1, the frame structure
has a small eccentricity of the centre of rigidity with respect to the centre of mass, whereas for case n.2 a
large eccentricity is considered. Periods of the first three vibration modes are also reported in Table 1,
together with mass participation factors for a ground motion acting in x-direction.
The two structures have been modelled by a fibre finite element code (Seismosoft 2007).



Figure 1.Proposed FTP technique: force distribution at each floor and two limit cases.
Limit Force Distributions
Proposed Force Distribution
M. Savoia et al.




Figure 2. Geometry of case studies.
Table 1: Column cross-sections, first three periods T and mass participation factor of structures with
small eccentricity (case n. 1) and large eccentricity (case n. 2).
Case n.1 Case n.2
Cross Section Cross Section
Col. 1 30x25 25x25
Col. 2 30x25 25x25
Col. 3 25x25 25x25
Col. 4 25x25 25x25

e
y
/L 0.133 0.433
T
1
-
1
0.97 s 0% 0.90 s 0%
T
2
-
2
0.94 s 76.7% 0.86 s 45.3%
T
3
-
3
0.80 s 7.5% 0.59 s 33.1%
4 COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM DYNAMIC AND PUSHOVER ANALYSES
4.1 Linear range
The aim of the present work is to validate the proposed pushover procedure by comparing results
from static and dynamic analyses. In the present work the comparison has been made at the same limit
state, corresponding to the achievement of ultimate strain in concrete core (
cu
=0.35%).
For the case studies, the pushover procedure proposed in Section 2, has been performed by selecting
a set of values of weight coefficient (0, 0.25,0.3, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 1.0). For both cases n.1-2, two selected
response parameters, i.e., maximum displacement and maximum rotation of the centre of mass (CM) of
the three floors, obtained for different values of the weight coefficient , are reported in Figure (3-4)b.
By increasing , then reducing translational force component and increasing torsional force component,
displacement of CM decreases and rotation increases. It is interesting to observe that for case n.2, by
increasing , displacement of CM decreases and rotation increases according to an almost linear law.
M. Savoia et al.

The results from static analyses have been compared with results from linear dynamic analyses
performed by adopting 12 artificial response spectrum-compatible time-histories with response spectrum
from Eurocode 8 (seismic zone 2 and type B ground). Artificial ground-motions have been preferred here
over natural records in order to reduce variability of the structural response and to obtain a homogeneous
statistical sample. The artificial records have been scaled up to the achievement of the limit state
(
cu
=0.35%) for the structure under study (Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002).
As an example, the response in terms of displacement versus rotation of CM3 obtained from one time
history analysis (Ag1a) with scaling factor SF=169 and SF=1.89 (corresponding to the attainment of the
limit state), for case n.1 and n.2, respectively, is compared with results from pushover procedures in
Figure 5a - 6a. In particular, from dynamic analyses points corresponding to maximum values of
displacement
x
, rotation and concrete deformation
cu
(the limit state condition) are indicated with
markers on the hysteretic curve. For pushover analyses, only the ultimate values corresponding to the
limit state condition are reported. It is worth to observe that the ultimate points from pushover analyses
for different values of the coefficient are located along the dashed line.



0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x

[
m
]
CM3 CM2 CM1

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

[
r
a
d
]
CM3 CM2 CM1

(a) (b)
Figure 3: Case n. 1 - (a) Maximum displacement and (b) maximum rotation of centre of mass (CM) of the
three floors obtained by proposed pushover method with different values of the weight coefficient .

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x

[
m
]
CM3 CM2 CM1

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

[
r
a
d
]
CM3 CM2 CM1

(a) (b)
Figure 4: Case n. 2 - (a) Maximum displacement and (b) maximum rotation of centre of mass (CM) of the
three floors obtained by proposed pushover method with different values of the weight coefficient .
M. Savoia et al.

-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
Dyn

x,max

max

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

x
[m]

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

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 5: Case n. 1 - Displacement versus rotation of CM3: (a) results from time history Ag1 with
SF=1.86 and maximum values from static analyses with different values of ; (b) maximum values of
response parameters from 12 dynamic analyses, their mean values, and results from static analyses with
different values of .
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
Dyn

x,max

max

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

x
[m]

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

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 6: Case n.2 - Displacement versus rotation of CM3: (a) results from time history Ag1 with
SF=1.86 and maximum values from static analyses with different values of ; (b) maximum values of
response parameters from 12 dynamic analyses, their mean values, and results from static analyses with
different values of .
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800

x
[m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

V
x

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

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

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

T
o
r
q
u
e

T

[
k
N

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

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figura 7: Case n. 1 - (a) Base shear V
x
in the direction of the seismic action vs top displacement of CM
from static analysis compared with the maximum value of response parameters obtained from dynamic
analyses. (b) Torque versus rotation.
(a)
=0

=
1
=0

=
1
(a)

=
0

=
1

=
0

=
1
(b)
(b)
(a)
(b)

=
1

=
0
=1 =0
(b)
M. Savoia et al.

Moreover, points from dynamic analysis corresponding to maximum values of response parameters
are inside the area described by the two limit cases ( =0 and =1) and the line of ultimate points from
static analyses. The same type of behaviour can be observed by comparison static results with all the
results from 12 time histories analyses. These results are summarized in Figures 5b-6b, where all the
maximum values of response parameters from 12 dynamic analyses have been reported with results from
linear static analyses (red points corresponding to limit state conditions). It is worth noting that mean
values (black markers) of dynamic results corresponding to maximum displacement, rotation and the
limit state condition are inside the area delimited by =0 and =1 lines.
The same results from both dynamic and static analyses, but in terms of capacity curves (Base Shear
displacement and Torque rotation) are depicted in Figure 7 .
It is observed that dynamic results at time step corresponding to the achievement of maximum
displacement and maximum rotation are always smaller than results from static analyses corresponding to
the attainment of the limit state (
cu
=0.35%). This is due to the fact that maximum displacement and
maximum rotation occur at different time steps with respect to that corresponding to the achievement of
the limit state (
cu
=0.35%). In order to perform a consistent comparison between for static and dynamic
analyses, a scaling coefficient has been introduced:
) (
max ,
x

=
t
Coef
c
cu
;
) (
-
max ,

=
t
Coef
c
cu
(2)
where
cu
is the ultimate strain equal to 0.35%, t

and

t

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

) and

c,max
(t

) are maximum concrete strains corresponding to timing steps t

and t

, respectively. For the 12

dynamic analyses the mean values of 12 coefficients
x
Coef and - Coef are 1.10 and 1.27,
respectively for case n.1, whilst for case n.2 they are 1.3 and 1.089, respectively.
The results of linear dynamic analyses at time instant t

and

t

are multiplied by the above

coefficients in order to compare results from static and dynamic analyses in the same conditions (the
attainment of the ultimate limit state). In Figure 8a, the maximum values of response parameters from 12
dynamic analyses are reported amplified by coefficients reported in eqn (2).

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04

x
[m]

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

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

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

x
[m]

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

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 8: Displacement versus rotation of CM3 maximum with amplified values of dynamic results: (a)
Case n.1; (b) Case n.2.

=
0

=
1

=
1
=0
=0.66

=0.9
M. Savoia et al.

Results, in terms of displacement-rotation couple, corresponding to the attainment of the maximum
rotation or maximum displacement, are close to each other because of slight irregularity of the structure.
The structure has a small eccentricity, therefore the torsional effects are less influent than the case n.2
and dynamic results are close to each other. In this case, pushover analyses with weight coefficients
=0.30 and 0.66 give results close to the mean value of failure conditions corresponding to the attainment
of the maximum displacement and maximum rotation of the structure, respectively.
For case n.2, results, in terms of displacement-rotation couple, corresponding to the attainment of the
maximum rotation or maximum displacement, are very far to each others, due to the high irregularity of
the second structure (see Figure2). It is possible to observe that the ultimate value of static analysis with
=0 (
i x i x
F F
, ,
= and T
i
=0) is very close to the mean value of failure conditions corresponding to the
attainment of maximum displacements from the 12 dynamic analyses; analogously, the ultimate
condition obtained from static analysis with =0.9 (i.e.,
i x i x
F F
, ,
1 . 0 = and
i i
T T = 9 . 0 ) is very close to
the mean value of failure conditions corresponding to the attainment of the maximum rotation.
These results show that, for regular structure, the structural behaviour in the linear range can be
predicted adopting a force distribution proportional to the first mode (=0.5). On the contrary, for
irregular structures, such as case n.2, force distributions similar to the limit distributions =0 and =1 are
required.
In the following a comprehensive comparison of results from static and dynamic analyses at time step
corresponding to maximum displacement and maximum rotation is performed.
For case n.1, displacement in x direction, interstorey drift in x direction, floor shears in x direction
and floor torques have been reported in Figure 9 a,b,c,d. Results from static analysis with =0.66 are
reported with red line, whereas results from 12 dynamic analyses are those corresponding to the time
instant where maximum rotation
max
has been attained, together with their mean value (black line). A
perfect match between results from static analysis and mean value of dynamic analyses can be observed.
Displacement and force over the structure height has been correctly defined. In order to compare the
deformed configurations of the frame structure under seismic action and predicted by static analysis,
displacement versus rotation of the three floors is reported in Figure 9e.
Dynamic results are significant spread, nevertheless, static analysis (red points) predicts very well the
mean value of dynamic results (black points).
Moreover , good agreement between results can be observed by comparing results from static
analysis with =0.30 and from mean values of the 12 dynamic analyses at time instant corresponding to
maximum displacement
max
(see Figure 10 a,b,c,d,e). A very close match between results from static and
mean value of dynamic analyses can be observed.
Therefore, the proposed FTP procedure is able to predict different structural dynamic configurations
corresponding to maximum rotation and maximum displacement in terms of floor shear, floor torque,
floor displacement and floor rotation.

M. Savoia et al.




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

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

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interstorey drift ratio
x
/h [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

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

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

[
m
]

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

[
m
]

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

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

|

[
m
]

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

Figure 9: Case n.1 - Pushover analysis with = 0.9 and results from 12 dynamic analyses at time instant
corresponding to maximum rotation: (a) Displacement in x direction; (b) interstorey drift in x direction;
(c)Storey shear in x direction; (d) Storey torque; (e) Displacement versus rotation of three floors.
Dynamic Analyses corresponding to
max
and Static analysis with =0.66
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
(e)
(b)
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
M. Savoia et al.




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

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

[
m
]

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

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

[
m
]

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

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

[
m
]

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

[
m
]

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

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

|

[
m
]

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

Figure 10: Case n. 1- Linear static analysis with = 0 and results from 12 linear dynamic analyses at time
instant corresponding to maximum displacement: (a) Displacement in x direction; (b) interstorey drift in x
direction; (c)Storey shear in x direction; (d) Storey torque; (e) Displacement vs rotation of three floors.
Dynamic Analyses corresponding to
max
and Static analysis with =0.30
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
M. Savoia et al.

4.2 Non Linear range
In order to investigate the efficiency of the proposed procedure in the nonlinear range, nonlinear
material behaviors for concrete and steel bar have been introduced. For the case n. 2, some preliminary
results in terms of displacement versus rotation and capacity curve giving base shear vs top displacement
in x direction are reported in Figure 11.
It is worth noting that, in the nonlinear range, the mean value of failure conditions corresponding to
the attainment of the maximum displacement and maximum rotation of the structure are closer to each
other with respect to the linear case. The values of coefficient giving the force distributions for the
FTP pushover analyses able to predict the mean values corresponding to the attainment of the maximum
displacement and maximum rotation of the structure, are 0.13 and 0.55, respectively. Therefore, in the
nonlinear range, the interval of coefficient for predicting the worst configurations of the structure is
smaller than the case of linear analyses, as shown in Table 2 for the two case studies.

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025

x
[m]

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

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

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

x
[m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

V
x

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

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 11: Case n. 2 - Nonlinear dynamic and pushover analysis: (a) Displacement versus rotation; (b)
Base shear displacement capacity curve in x direction.

Table 2: Values of coefficient in FTP analyses giving the closest results to the mean values of
dynamic results corresponding to the attainment of the maximum displacement
max
, maximum rotation

max
and maximum strain in concrete core
cu
.

Case n.1 Case n.2
Linear Non linear Linear Non linear

max
0.3 0.18 0 0.13

max
0.66 0.50 0.90 0.55
-
cu
0.42 0.25 0.67 0.38

Three different severe conditions for the structure have been selected: i) maximum displacement
max
,
ii) maximum rotation
max
, iii) maximum strain in concrete core
cu
. In the present work, the last
condition has been chosen as limit state, because it represent the failure condition for one structural
element.
It is worth noting that, for this limit state condition, dynamic simulations exhibit smaller values of
maximum displacement
max
and maximum rotation
max
with respect static analysis. However, as shown
in Figure 11, the pushover curve with =0.38 matches very well displacement and rotation corresponding
to the mean value of the 12 dynamic results. Therefore, such force distribution predicts well the worst
configuration of the structure. The comparison between results from FTP analysis with =0.38 and non
linear dynamic results corresponding to the attainment of
cu
is reported in Figure 12. Good agreement in
terms of displacements, interstorey drift, shear and torque along the height of the structure is shown.
(a)
(b)

=
0

=
1

=
0
=1
=0.55
=0.13
=0.38
M. Savoia et al.



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

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

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interstorey drift ratio
x
/h [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

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

0 50 100 150 200 250
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Shear [kN]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Torque [kNm]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

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

-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
[Rad]
|

|

[
m
]

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

Figure 12: Case n. 2 - Non linear static analysis with = 0.38 and results from 12 linear dynamic
analyses at time instant corresponding to the achievement of limit state
cu
: (a) Displacement in x
direction; (b) interstorey drift in x direction; (c) Storey shear in x direction; (d) Storey torque; (e)
Displacement versus rotation of three floors.

(a)
(c) (d)
(e)
(b)
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
Dynamic Analyses corresponding to
cu
and Static analysis with =0.38
M. Savoia et al.

CONCLUSIONS
A new procedure, called Force/Torque Pushover (FTP) analysis, to select storey force distributions
for 3D pushover analysis of plan-irregular RC frame structures has been proposed here. According to the
proposed procedure, the most severe configurations in terms of maximum top displacement or maximum
rotation are captured by a weighted distribution of force resultant and torque distributions. In order to
validate the proposed procedure, two different cases (small and large stiffness eccentricities with respect
to the center of mass) have been studied in the linear range. Good agreement has been found between
static and dynamic results in terms of displacement and rotation of the center of mass of the top floor,
interstorey drift, floor shear and floor torque.
Moreover, the proposed technique has been adopted for RC structure in non linear range for both
concrete and steel reinforcement. It is observed that, in order to predict the most severe deformation
states for a plan - irregular structure different force distributions must be selected, in order to capture the
behaviour corresponding to maximum rotation or alternatively the maximum displacement or the
attainment of the limit state (ultimate stain in concrete core). The values of coefficient required to
capture those severe configurations depend on the degree of irregularity of the structure. Further studies
are necessary to obtain intervals of coefficient as a function of the center of mass eccentricity or other
parameters. The work is therefore on-going.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support of the Italian Department of Civil Protection, through the two 2005-2008
framework programmes established with the Italian National Network of Earthquake Engineering
University Laboratories (RELUIS, Task 7) and the European Centre for Training and Research in
Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Chopra A. K., Goel R. K., [2004]: A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands
for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Eng, and Struct.Dyn., 33, pp. 903-927.
Eurocode 8 [2003]: Design for structures for earthquakes resistance Part 1 General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings, Final Draft prEN 1998-1.
Fajfar P., Marusic D., Perus I., [2005]: Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of
buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9(6), pp. 831-854.
Ferracuti B., Savoia M., Pinho R., Francia R. [2007]: Validation of non-linear pushover analyses by
Statistical Incremental Dynamic Analysis (S-IDA), in Proceedings COMPDYN, 13-16 June 2007.
Marusic D., Fajfar P., [2005]: On the inelastic response of asymmetric buildings under bi-axial
excitation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34, pp. 943-963.
Moghadam A.S., Tso W.K., [2000]: Pushover analysis for asymmetric and set-back multistorey
buildings, in Proceedings, WCEE, 12
th
, Upper Hutt, paper 1093.
Penelis G. G., Kappos A. J., [2002]: 3D Pushover analysis: The issue of torsion, in Proceedings,
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12
th
, London, paper 015.
SeismoSoft [2007]: "SeismoStruct - A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of
framed structures" [online], URL: http://www.seismosoft.com.
Stathopoulos K. G., Anagnostopoulos S. A., [2005]:Inelastic torsion of multi-storey buildings under
earthquake excitations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34, pp. 1449-1465.
Vamvatsikos D. and Cornell C. A. [2002]: Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 31, pp. 491-514.