This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois]

On: 19 July 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917353191]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t741771161

DO WE REALLY NEED INELASTIC DYNAMIC ANALYSIS?

Amr S. Elnashaia
a
Mid-America Earthquake Center, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

To cite this Article Elnashai, Amr S.(2002) 'DO WE REALLY NEED INELASTIC DYNAMIC ANALYSIS?', Journal of

Earthquake Engineering, 6: 1, 123 130

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13632460209350435
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460209350435

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, Special Issue 1 (2002) 123-130

@ Imperial College Press

DO WE REALLY NEED INELASTIC DYNAMIC ANALYSIS?

Downloaded By: [University of Illinois] At: 19:19 19 July 2010

AMR S. ELNASHAI
Mid-Amerim Earthquake Center,
Civil and Environmental Enpneering Department,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

The paper examines the requirements for inelastic static and dynamic analysis applied
to earthquake design and assessment. Conventional pushover, with various load distributions, as well as advanced adaptive concepts are examined and compared to incremental
dynamic analysis. Regions of applicability of each are discussed and suggestions on which
method is better suited under a given set of conditions are qualitatively made. I t is concluded t h a t there will always be a class of structure-input motion pairs where inelastic
dynamic analysis is necessary. Future developments should aim a t reducing the regions
where dynamic analysis is needed, hence static analysis may be used with confidence in
other cases.
Keywords: Pushover analysis; adaptive techniques; inelastic dynamic analysis.

1. Introduction

Whereas inelastic static analysis has become almost routine in the design office environment, its dynamic counterpart remains a challenge. This may be attributed to
the complexity of time-integration algorithms, difficulties in damping representation
and the effect of both of the above on the results, especially in terms of accelerationand force-related quantities. If static analysis is shown to give robust and reliable
.results that are representative of the dynamic response, with an acceptable level of
accuracy, more use of inelastic analysis will ensue, leading to better failure mode
control in seismic design. It would also lead to more accurate assessments of existing structures where multi-level acceptance criteria are increasingly demanded.
This has been the driving force behind concerted efforts to develop advanced static
pushover methods [e-g. Freeman et al., 1975; Kunnath et d , 1992; Bracci et al.,
1997; Krawinkler-and Seneviratna, 1998; Kim and D'Amore, 1999; Papanikolaou,
2000; Antoniou, 2002; amongst many others]. Notwithstanding its significance and
increasing use, pushover methods provide only a measure of "capacity" and have
to be combined with a "demand" measure to complete the "akssment" picture.
This limitation tends weight to the continuing use of inelastic dynamic analysis,
which indeed deals with both "demand" and "supply". In the context of comparing
methods of analysis using the yardstick of "supply" and "demand", it is noteworthy
that response spectrum and linear elastic dynamic analysis are on occasion used to
estimate the demand, whilst static pushover or even plastic limit analysis provide
estimates of "capacity".

In this paper, results from recent work on conventional and adaptive pushover
analysis are displayed and discussed. Comparisons with dynamic analysis, applied
incrementally to obtain a "dynamic pushover curven are also presented from previous work. Outstanding hurdles to the further utilisation of static analysis in earthquake engineering are highlighted. Finally,a qualitative assessment of the results
is given, leading to suggestions for application of advanced pushover methods and
where to employ dynamic analysis.

Downloaded By: [University of Illinois] At: 19:19 19 July 2010

2. Pushover Analysis

Many researchers and practitioners have contributed to advancing pushover analysis. The technique is more intuitive than mathematical. If a set of actions or
deformations can be found such that a particular response mode, or a combination of modes, is represented statically, then the response of the structure under
a monotonically increasing vector of actions or deformations may replace results
from dynamic analysis. This is notwithstanding the shortcoming of not knowing
the demand deformation under the earthquake motion record, but may be used in
conjunction with a demand spectrum [elastic, e.g. Freeman et d , 1975; or inelastic,
e.g. Fajfar, 1991 to assess the adequacy of the structure. The capacity curve-demand
spectrum comparison, referred to in the literature as Capacity Spectrum Method,
is powerful but is also not devoid of pitfalls and defects. For example, the transformation of the capacity curve from the force-displacement space to the spectral
acceleration-spectra1 displacement space is not trivial since more than one mode
may be contributing in the adaptive techniques. Moreover, the level of equivalent
damping for a given level of displacement on the capacity curve is normally ignored
in selecting the demand spectrum. Indeed, it is argued herein that the demand
spectrum is a moving target and should be treated as such.

3. Dynamic Time-Marching

Whereas dynamic time-marching is the most natural approach towards dynamic

response analysis, its application has been hampered until the past ten years or
so due to its large computational demands. The theoretical basis for accuracy and
stability analyses are also rather complex [Bathe, 19821, verging on.the inexplicable
for the case of inelastic response. Its requirements, reviewed in Table 1, have also
reduced its use in design offices.
The selection of the integration scheme and the value of integration operators
have a profound effect on the results. Manipulating algorithmic damping (intentionally) or falling victim of it (inadvertently) could lead to 50% or more variation
in force response. The selection of damping parameters in the presence of hysteretic
damping is also a serious consideration that affects the results obtained.

Do We Really Need Inelastic Dynamic Analysis? 125

Table 1. Comparison of requirements for static and dynamic analysis.
Static Analysis

Dynamic Analysis
Detailed models needed

Downloaded By: [University of Illinois] At: 19:19 19 July 2010

Detailed models needed

Stiffness and strength represented

Stiffness and strength represented

No mass representation required'

Mass representation required

No damping representation required

Damping required

No additional operators required

Time integration operators required

No input motion required

Input motion required

Target displacement required

Target displacement is an output

Action distribution fixed'

Actions vary in time

Usually faster than dynamic analysis

Usually slower than static analysis

'This may not be the

case for advanced adaptive pushover.

4. Fixed Distribution Pushover and Dynamic Analysis

Recent extensive work 1e.g. Mwafy, 2001; Mwafy and Elnashai, 20011 compared
capacity curves obtained from fixed distribution pushover analysis, using various
combinations of modes, and capacity curves obtained from running a large number
of dynamic analyses, under increasing earthquake intensity. A sample of results is
shown in Fig. 1.
It is interesting to note that in this case, there is not a single static curve that
traces the entire dynamic curve progression. The uniform distribution of actions
(distribution C) hits the target at very large deformations, an observation made
'

15000

s
h

2 loo00

tj

5000

200

400

600

800

1000

Top Disp. (mm)

Fig. 1. Comparison of static and dynamic pushover curves with different force distributions
(Mwafy and Elnashai, 2001).

Downloaded By: [University of Illinois] At: 19:19 19 July 2010

126 A. S. Elnashai

200

400
600
Top Disp. (mm)

800

1000

Fig. 2. Comparisons of static analysis with multimodal distribution and dynamic analysis [Mwafy
and Elnashai, 20011.

in several other cases not reported herein. This is due to the high 1eveI of damage
at lower floors, leading to a distribution of actions in the dynamic analysis close
to uniform. It is instructive at this stage to examine the individual dynamic analysis points, as opposed to the best-fit curve presented in Fig. 1, and to introduce
"spectrum scaling" and multimodal forces.
In Fig. 2, the response of an eight-storey RC structure to the Kobe University record, from the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake of 1995, with different levels of
ground motion scaling, is shown by the black triangles. The left most distribution
is for the design storey forces, whilst (a) and (b) are for design spectrum-elastic
period and Kobe spectrum-inelastic period 'distributions. This means that more
than one mode is used (in this case the first two), each scaled by the spectrum ordinate corresponding to the period of vibration. The proximity of the static results
to the dynamic points is rather reassuring. At large deformation levels the uniform
distribution gives better results though, as previously noted. Spectrum scaling not
only has no theoretical basis, but also violates basic principles since it utilises superposition concepts in conjunction with inelastic analysis. However, in many cases
it gives results superior to those obtained without due consideration to the input
motion frequency content, even when the force distribution is fixed.
5. Adaptive Force Distribution and Dynamic Analysis
Several attempts at adapting the force distribution to the state of inelasticity are
described in the literature. These have reported varying degrees of success. This
adaptive approach is also amenable to the application of spectrum scaling. In this
case, since the periods of vibration vary continuously, spectrum scaling may lead
to dramatic improvements in the static pushover curve. In Fig. 3, the first three

Downloaded By: [University of Illinois] At: 19:19 19 July 2010

Do We Really Need Inelastic Dynamic Analysis?

Interstorey Drift
Fig. 3.

Variations of periods of vibration during analysis [Antoniou, 20021.

Top Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4.

Fully adaptive analysis of a MDOF idealised system.

127

Downloaded By: [University of Illinois] At: 19:19 19 July 2010

periods of an idealised multi-degree of freedom (!vmOF) system are plotted, versus interstorey drift [htoniou, 20021. It is evident that period elongation is very
si,pnificant for the fundamental mode, and much less so for the Erst and second harmonics. The spectral ordinates corresponding to the shown periods will therefore
vary continuously.
The above was taken into account in a parametric study on idealised MDOF
systems with stifhess and strength irregularity. Sample results are shown in Fig. 4.
Whereas most force distributions result in good comparison with the dynamic
analysis points (solid circles), the curve corresponding to adaptive analysis with
spectrum scaling is spot-on. It is noted that this is the best result obtained in the
parametric study. There are cases where the adaptive analysis fails completely to
duplicate the dynamic results.
In a recent study extending the work presented above [Rovithakis, 20011 using
complex 5-, 8- and 12-storey RC structures [Mwafy and Elnashai, 20011, it was
confirmed that whereas the fully adaptive analysis using the newly developed program INDYAS [Elnashai et aL, 2000) gives excellent results in many cases, this is
by no means guaranteed and is dependent on the interaction between structure and
strong-motion characteristics. In cases where the response starts in a mode other
than the fundamental, even the initial stiffness is misrepresented by the adaptive
pushover [Antoniou, 20021. It is noteworthy that the additional complexity required
to perform fully adaptive pushover analysis is considerable, in terms of accessing
an efficient eignevalue solver, scaling forces by spectral ordinates, updating applied
force (or displacement) vectors and switching to fixed-distribution displacement
control past the peak point on the load-displacement curve. However, onus of these
complications is on the programmer and not the user. The only added complexity
of fully adaptive pushover is that a reasonable mass representation is required, as
indicated in Table 1 above.

6. The Model-Input Motion Application Domain

Experience gained by working on the developments previously mentioned and
taking stock of the experience reported in the technical literature, indicates that
there is a model-input motion domain that is shared by static and dynamic inelastic analysis. This is schematically represented in Fig. 5. The boundaries of the
dynamic analysis region are receding on two fronts: model complexity and strongmotion peculiarity. With regard to model complexity, uniform distribution of mass,
stiffness and strength (with variations less than 10-15%) lead to static results in
very close agreement with dynamics. This is conditional on the strong-motion be. ing "normal" or "usual", subject to the definition of the latter two characteristics.
On the other hand, if the strong-motion record is of average duration (between
about 10 and 30 s) and its spectrum 'has high amplifications (in the normal range
of 0.3-0.5 s) with no conspicuous near-source features (i.e. "normal" or "usual"),
the static results will be close to the dynamic analysis, provided the model is not

Downloaded By: [University of Illinois] At: 19:19 19 July 2010

Do We Really Need inelastic Dynamic Analysis?

129

Fig. 5. Effect of' development of advanced static analysis on model-input motion application
domain.

highly irregular. Viewing the inelastic earthquake analysis domain in the light of
this framework:, aids in determining which analysis is suited to which set of mo'del
and strong-motion record characteristics.

7 . The Answer

TOclose, we do need dynamic analysis, but the "necessity domain" is ever diminishing. The boundaries of this domain are receding under the attack of two distinct
developments. The horizontal boundary of "Structural Irregularity" in Fig. 5 is
receding due to the development of algorithms to update force distributions, t aking into account the level of irregularity of mass, stiffness and most importantly
strength. The vertical boundary of "St rong-motion Peculiarity" is more difficult to
push. It is slo~vlyreceding under the a t tack of spectrum scaling. This is where new
developments and ideas are most needed to take into account strong-motion characteristics, especially duration, frequency content and near-source features. Spectrum
scaling is the simplest approach, but it is unjustifiable and basically incorrect.
Application of "moving window discrete Fourier analysis" may improve the static
analysis, but by then there might not be a need for static analysis. Knowing a prior2
if a higher mode .will contribute from the start of the analysis would help, but investigating the structure a.ny further before analysis diminishes the benefits of static
analysis. Full:? adaptive pushover seems to have entered a phase controlled by the
"law of diminishing returns". A breakthrough is needed, otherwise the "dynamic
analysis necessity domadinnwill stand the test of time.

Acknowledgement
T h e author would like to thank a number of exceptionally talented researchers
who worked with him o n various aspects of inelastic static and dynamic analysis
over t h e past 15 years. Special recognition is given to Drs. B. Izzuddin, P. Madas,
B. Broderick, A. Elghazouli, E. Martinez-Rueda, A. Mwafy, R. Pinho and
D. Lee. With regard t o adaptive pushover, essential contributions are due to
Dr. R. Pinho, and Mr. V. Papanikolaou. However, the main contribution is due
t o Mr. S. Antoniou.

Downloaded By: [University of Illinois] At: 19:19 19 July 2010

References
Antoniou, S. (20021 "Pushover analysis for seismic design and assessment of RC structures," PhD Thesis, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section,
Imperial College, London, UK (to be submitted).
Bathe, K.-J. [I9821 Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice Hall.
Bracci, J. M., Kunnath, S. K. and Reinhorn, A. M. [I9971 "Seismic performance and
retrofit evaluation of RC structures," ASCE, ST Division, 123(1), 3-10.
Elnashai, A. S., Pinho, R. and Antoniou, S. [2000] lCINDYAS,a program for INelastic DYnamic Analysis of Structures, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering,"
Report no. ESEE 2/2000, Imperial College, University of London, London, UK.
Fajfar, P. (19991 "Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra," Earthq.
Engrg. Stmct. Dyn. 28, 974-93.
Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G. D. [1998] "Pros and cons of pushover analysis of
seismic performance evaluation," Engrg. Struct. 20(4-6), 452-64.
Freeman, S. A., Nicoletti, J. P. and Tyrell, J. V. (1975) "Evaluation of existing buildings for
seismic risk -A case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington,"
Proceedings of the United States National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Berkeley, pp. 113-22.
Kim, S. and DIAmore, E. [1999], "Pushover analysis procedures in earthquake
engineering," Earthq. Spectra 15(3), 417-434.
~ u n n a t h S.
, K., Reinhorn, A. M. and Lobo, R. F. [I9921 "IDARC Version 3.0 - A
program for inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete structures," National
Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research Technical Report No. NCEER-92-0022,
State University of New York at Buffalo.
Mwafy, A. A. [2001] lCSeismicPerformance of Code-Designed RC buildings," PhD Thesis,
ESEE Section, Imperial College, University of London, London, UK.
Mwafy A. A. and Elnashai, A. S. [2001] "Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis
of RC frames," Engrg. Stmct. 23, 407-424.
Rovithakis, A. [2001], ''Verification of Adaptive Pushover Analysis Procedures," MSc D i s
sertation, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section, Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department, Imperial College, University of London,
London, UK.