10NCEE

Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska

THE DEGREE OF ACCURACY OF MODAL

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS ON DUAL SYSTEM
STRUCTURE INCORPORATING SHEAR
WALL INELASTICITY
B. Budiono1 and A.A. Suselo2
ABSTRACT
Modal pushover analysis procedure is applied on 10 floor reinforced concrete space structure
(medium-rise building) with dual system (shear wall on buildings parameter) as lateral resisting
system. Structure design is based on Indonesian earthquake resistant building code namely SNI
1726:2012 and element detail design is based on RSNI3.
Shear wall inelasticity is represented in concentrated hinge and distributed (fiber) inelasticity.
Shear wall element, which dominates 60% structures elastic stiffness, also contributes to overall
structures inelastic stiffness significantly. Lateral dominated structures undergo 50-60% average
stiffness degradation in hinge model relative to fiber model; whereas torsion dominated
structures undergo 70% stiffness degradation.
The degree of accuracy for modal pushover analysis result compared to non linear time history
analysis is determined for symmetric-plan, U1 (torsionally stiff), U2 (torsionally similarly stiff),
and U3 (torsionally flexible) with fiber element model (100%DL). Error given by the modal
pushover analysis is within 30% in displacement, 60% in story drift, and 10% in bending
moment using CQC modal combination rule. Anomaly behavior is detected in U2 structure
which has coupled modal characteristic. For design purpose, this anomaly can be estimated with
ABSSUM modal combination rule (error 15%).
Keywords: Fiber Element Model, 3D Structure, Modal Pushover Analysis, The Degree of
Accuracy for Regular-Plan Structure & Irregular-Plan Structure (U1, U2, U3)

Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia 40132
Graduate Student Researcher, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia 40132

B. Budiono, A.A. Suselo. The Degree of Accuracy of Modal Pushover Analysis on Dual System Structure
Incorporating Shear Wall Inelasticity. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

The Degree of Accuracy of Modal Pushover Analysis on Dual System

Structure Incorporating Shear Wall Inelasticity
B. Budiono1 and A.A. Suselo2

ABSTRACT
Modal pushover analysis procedure is applied on 10 floor reinforced concrete space structure
(medium-rise building) with dual system (shear wall on buildings parameter) as lateral resisting
system. Structure design is based on Indonesian earthquake resistant building code namely SNI
1726:2012 and element detail design is based on RSNI3.
Shear wall inelasticity is represented in concentrated hinge and distributed (fiber) inelasticity.
Shear wall element, which dominates 60% structures elastic stiffness, also contributes to overall
structures inelastic stiffness significantly. Lateral dominated structures undergo 50-60% average
stiffness degradation in hinge model relative to fiber model; whereas torsion dominated structures
undergo 70% stiffness degradation.
The degree of accuracy for modal pushover analysis result compared to non linear time history
analysis is determined for symmetric-plan, U1 (torsionally stiff), U2 (torsionally similarly stiff),
and U3 (torsionally flexible) with fiber element model (100%DL). Error given by the modal
pushover analysis is within 30% in displacement, 60% in story drift, and 10% in bending
moment using CQC modal combination rule. Anomaly behavior is detected in U2 structure which
has coupled modal characteristic. For design purpose, this anomaly can be estimated with
ABSSUM modal combination rule (error 15%).
Keywords: Fiber Element Model, 3D Structure, Modal Pushover Analysis, The Degree Of
Accuracy For Regular-Plan Structure & Irregular-Plan Structure (U1, U2, U3).

Introduction
Indonesian archipelagos are mostly located at the intersection of tectonic plate (IndoAustralian & Pacific Plate). This geographical condition requires its human resources to
understand the (inelastic) behavior of infrastructure, especially building, under strong
earthquake.
Non linear analysis and performance-based design has been developed (and still under
continuous research) as a tool to modeling structural (inelastic) behavior under earthquake
ground motions. Modal Pushover (static) Analysis (MPA) procedure [1] simplifies dynamic time
history analysis with characterizes its analysis through buildings modal properties. Further
improvement for MPA procedure is presented with P- effect [2], unsymmetric-plan structure
[3], and extension to compute member forces [4]. This modified MPA procedure may be useful
1

Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia 40132
Graduate Student Researcher, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia 40132

B. Budiono, A.A. Suselo. The Degree of Accuracy of Modal Pushover Analysis on Dual System Structure
Incorporating Shear Wall Inelasticity. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

to estimate buildings responses in which dominated by higher mode [4].

Fiber element model was introduced in 2010 [6]. This model divides structural section
into concrete and steel fibers. Each fiber could develop its inelasticity through its material level
behavior. Fiber element is mainly used for modeling shear wall as 4-node (in plane) panel with 8
degree of freedom (Perform 3D [7] element).
This study will focus on the accuracy of MPA (static) procedure to dynamic time history
analysis. Each of procedure will be applied on 10 floor RC space structure which could develop
inelastic behavior, especially on shear wall, through distributed (fibers) and concentrated
(hinges) inelasticity.
Structural Design Properties
Structural System Description
Hypothetical office building is designed to have dual system (RC shear wall & open
frame) as lateral-gravity resisting structure. Overall structure has 10 typical (25 x 35 m) floor
with total height (30 m). Planar shear wall is located at building perimeter (0/C-D, 7/C-D, A/3-4,
F/3-4) as shown in Fig. 1 (left).

Figure 1. Typical floor framing plan (left), typical framing elevation at axis A and F (right).
Gravity & Earthquake Load Demand
Gravity load is adapted from building function as office building. Dead loads consist of
self weight, super imposed (architectural load), mechanical, and electrical. Live load (include
room furnishing and light partition walls) is defined at 250 kg/m2 for first-ninth floors and 100
kg/m2 for tenth (roof) floor. Building mass (W) source for dynamic (earthquake) analysis
consists of combination from 1.0 dead load + 0.25 live load and is estimated at 84,091 kN (8,409
ton).
Earthquake demand is adapted from Indonesian local code [8] which is in accordance
with FEMA P-750 (2009), IBC 2009, and ASCE/SEI 7-10. Importance factor is taken at 1.0
(office building) and reduction factor 7.0 (special RC shear wall and frame resisting system).
Earthquake demand is assumed for Jakarta with medium soil condition. PGA is estimated

at 0.36 g with MCER (T: 0.2 s) at 0.63 g and MCER (T: 1 s) at 0.28 g. Maximum considered
earthquake-MCE (2,475 years) is estimated: SMS = 0.81 g, SM1 = 0.51 g, SM0 = 0.21 g. Design
earthquake spectrum (475 years) is estimated at two-third from MCE.
Static and Dynamic Analysis for Earthquake Demand
Static (equivalent) and dynamic (response spectrum) analysis procedure is based on
Indonesian local code [8]. Both analyses include accidental eccentricity and torsion 5% on
building dimension perpendicular to earthquake forces. Static analysis requires design base shear
4,631 kN (0.055W), whereas dynamic analysis only produces 2,134 kN (0.025W). In this case,
dynamic analysis will be used for ultimate load combination (gravity & earthquake), but with
scale factor (1.84) which requires dynamic analysis to have design base shear no less than 85%
static base shear (0.047W).
Ultimate load combinations (gravity & earthquake) are checked against each element
stress capacity and code-permitted story drift (2% story height). Furthermore, P- effect is
insignificant because stability coefficient in each story is less than 0.1. In this case, P- effect is
automatically considered in analysis software.
Element Detailing Design
Longitudinal and transversal rebar area for flexural component (beams) and axial-flexural
component (columns and shear walls) could be automatically calculated from available software
based on ultimate load combinations. Detailing process, which include rounding-off design
rebar area into actual rebar area (diameter) and detailing checking (shear capacity design,
beam-column joint shear ratio, strong column-weak beam, etc.) is conducted manually based on
Chapter 21 Indonesian local code [9] which in accordance with ACI 318M-11.
Horizontal Irregularities
Irregular-plan structures are obtained from regular/symmetric-plan structure with
additional eccentricities from structural centre of rigidity (CR) to floors centre of mass (CM).
This modification represents un-balanced loads in each floor. Irregularities in this study are
defined from Chopra, et al [3], which use both lateral and torsion dominant modes to represent
coupling behavior between them. Torsionally stiff structure (U1) is obtained at 7% eccentricities
at the longest plan width (35 m), which has 69.8% lateral mode & 46.8% torsion mode.
Torsionally similarly stiff (U2) is obtained at 36% eccentricities, which has 60.8% lateral mode
& 60.9% torsion mode. Torsionally flexible (U3) is obtained at 36% eccentricities and additional
4 times rotational inertia mass in each floor, which has 30.1% lateral mode & 60.2% torsion
mode.
Element Modeling & Acceptance Criteria
Beam & column element is modeled as quasi-static element, which only could develop its
inelastic behavior on both hinge length at end of element. In other hand, (shear) wall is modeled
by both beam-column element and fiber model. In this case, beam-column model is similar with
quasi-static element, whereas fiber model could develop its inelastic behavior through each of its

panel partition.
Hinges and Fibers Model
Force-deformation (F-D) relation is used to define each hinge behavior (at different
elements end) of beam & column model. Backbone (F-D) curves for beam & column element
are derived from couple reference: empirical (experimental data) value from Chapter 3 ATC-72
[6], section finite element (FE) with Response-2000 [10], and code-based value from FEMA-356
[11].
In beam hinges model, empirical estimation seems to be in accordance with FE analysis
in counter-clockwise moment, whereas code-based estimation rather under-estimates FE
analysis. In clockwise moment, code-based estimation is preferable. Therefore, beam hinge
models use empirical value for counter-clockwise moment and code-based value in clockwise
moment.
Column hinge model is derived from interaction between nominal working axial forces
(P) with biaxial moment capacity (M-M). Hinge with P-MM interaction needs yield surface
interaction to define yielding and post-yielding occurrences. The P-M and M-M yield surface is
based on Perform-3D plasticity theory equation (Eq. 2.1 & Eq. 2.2 on Chapter 2 [7]). Empirical
estimation, section FE, and code-based value are also conducted to verify the results.
(Shear) Wall fiber model is based from Perform-3D shear wall element model on Chapter
9 [7]. This element uses both inelastic behavior from its material (concrete and rebar steel). Each
element has 4 nodal and 24 degrees of freedom, which only 8 DOFs are incorporated with
element in plane important deformations (stiffness). This element doesnt have rotational
stiffness, so imbedded beams are needed to transfer rotational deformations (moments) from
structural beams or coupling beams connected to it. Therefore, Perform-3D shear element model
could be in accordance to rectangular plate element with plane stress distribution (practical
application for wall with relatively small thickness compared to its length and height).
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for hinges are defined mainly from FEMA-356 [11] and ATC-72 [6].
ATC-72 only defines Service and MCE criteria, while FEMA-356 defines acceptance criteria as
Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). ATC-72, which is
the newer code, almost has larger acceptance criteria for MCE rather than CP (FEMA) criteria.
But in other hand, ATC has more strict criteria for Service rather than IO (FEMA).
Fibers acceptance criteria are determined from its material strain-stress relationship.
These limitations are based on material standard specification, experimental test, or field
adaptation. Code-based limitations for material strain [12] define 0.002 for unconfined concrete
compression strain and 0.005 for other conditions. Strain limitations for rebar steel are defined at
0.02 (compression) and 0.05 (tension). These values are believed to be maximum strain
considered for each material (without over-strength consideration). Therefore, acceptance criteria
for Service condition (assumed to be still in elastic region) are considered to be half from
maximum condition for concrete and 4% for rebar tension capacity.

Results
Lateral Stiffness Degradation (Beam-Column & Fiber Element Model)
Shear wall inelastic behavior is represented as hinges (beam-column element) and fibers.
In this case, shear wall hinges are modeled with SAP v.15 whereas fibers are modeled with
Perform-3D v.5. Fig. 2 (left) shows space structural model for beam-column model and (right)
fiber model.

Figure 2.

Space structure with beam-column element (left) and fiber element to represent shear
wall inelasticity (right).

Lateral stiffness degradation is calculated from first mode pushover analysis for both
models. Each step in pushover analysis represents inelastic occurrence for both hinges and fibers
(beam, column, or shear wall). Thus, overall post-yield strength for fiber element is greater than
beam-column model, especially on torsion dominated structure. This condition is represented as
lateral stiffness degradation.
First 3-modes dynamic properties for each model are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.

Structure first 3-modes dynamic properties for SAP and Perform-3D symmetric
models.

Modes
1
2
3

Period (s) Modal Mass Participation Factor (%)

Perform-3D
SAP*
1.373
73.75
1.423
71.0
1.349
73.95
1.408
71.1
1.089
0.992
-

Vibration
Direction
Y-dir
X-dir
Torsion**

*The elastic period (stiffness) which is slightly different for SAP model is mainly caused
by beam insertion point
**Torsion direction MMPF information could not provided by Perform-3D

In this study, direction interest is chosen at the weaker/more flexible mode (Y-dir). In
symmetric structure, elastic shear wall section has to resist about 61.4% design earthquake base
shear in Y-direction. Each other structure (U1, U2, and U3) resist the same value at elastic
condition. After first yielding occurs at shear wall element, the shear capacity for hinges model
are greatly reduced, because of limited inelastic capacity provided by hinges relative to fibers.
These conditions are shown in Fig. 3. Reduction ratios are relatively compared to fiber
models.
Symmetric
Reduction for:
Max. Shear capacity = 13%
Av. Inelastic stiffness = 54%

U2
Reduction for:
Max. Shear capacity = 30%
Av. Inelastic stiffness = 51%

Figure 3.

U1
Reduction for:
Max. Shear capacity = 10%
Av. Inelastic stiffness = 60%

U3
Reduction for:
Max. Shear capacity = 51%
Av. Inelastic stiffness = 69%

Lateral stiffness degradation curve for symmetric structure (top left), U1 (top right),
U2 (bottom left), and U3 (bottom right).

These curves show that building mass eccentricities (torsion) in structure with perimeter
shear wall will cause its capacity and stiffness significantly reduced (hinges relatively to fiber).
This condition is probably caused by perimeter shear wall in torsion dominated structure
undergoes severe damage (flexural) so the hinges reach its maximum rotation before it could
redistribute forces to frames. In this case, fiber element is recommended to be used, especially
for torsion dominated structure, for further modal pushover and time history analysis.
Modal Pushover & Time History Analysis
Modal pushover is applied to both symmetric and unsymmetrical structures (U1, U2, &
U3). Differential equation which represents multi-story building to horizontal earthquake, u

excitation is shown below.

mu

cu

f u, sign u

mu t

(1)

Where u, u, and u correspond to structural lateral displacement, velocity, and

acceleration. Lateral force, fs at nth floor depends on lateral displacement history. Spatial
distribution for effective force at floors height is defined by vector s = ml and earthquake
history u t . Complete MPA procedure is provided in original paper [1] by Chopra, et al.
Peak/maximum responses given by pushover analysis for each characterized (SDF)
structure should be modally combined to obtain total structure responses. In this study, modal
combination CQC and ABSSUM is used to compare total responses obtained by MPA. SRSS is
proven to have typical value with CQC combination rule at well-separated frequencies and has
poor estimation for coupled/close-spaced frequencies.
One (1) scaled earthquake history excitation is used for time history analysis. El-Centro
1940 N-S direction with 1.3 scale factor is used as benchmark to compare MPA responses results
to exact responses from dynamic analysis.
The Degree of Accuracy of MPA
The degree of accuracy of MPA is determined for structural level (story deflections and
drifts) and member/element level (flexural forces) with additional procedures [4] suggested by
Chopra, et al. Fig. 4-6 show MPA accuracy in each story (with upper-lower bound error
suggested by this study). Beams frame 5/C-D is chosen for MPA accuracy on member/element
level.
Structural Level

Symmetric

U1

Figure 4a. MPA accuracy on story deflection for symmetric (left) and U1 (right) structure.

U3
U2

Figure 4b. MPA accuracy on story deflection for U2 (left) and U3 (right) structure.

Figure 5.

Symmetric

U1

U2

U3

MPA accuracy on story drift for symmetric (top left), U1 (top right), U2 (bottom left)
and U3 (bottom right) structure.

Member/Element Level

Figure 6.

Symmetric

U1

U2

U3

MPA accuracy on story drift for symmetric (top left), U1 (top right), U2 (bottom left)
and U3 (bottom right) structure.
Conclusions

Fiber element model is proven to have better inelastic behavior than hinges and also contributes
to overall structure stiffness degradation. This study recommends the use of fiber element for
shear wall structure, especially for non linear analysis.
MPA accuracy in this study is proven to have moderate error (up to 30%) on story deflection,
large error (up to 60%) on story drift, small error (up to 10%) on beam flexural force. This error
decreases simultaneously with additional plan-eccentricity on structure. However, this condition
also means that structure lateral movement begins to be replaced with rotational movement. In
this case, shear and torsion behavior is assumed to be elastic, so this phenomenon is needed to be
added as design consideration, especially on torsion-dominated structure.
Coupled behavior on U2 (torsionally similarly stiff) structure is against the principle of MPA
theory. MPA require each modal to be well-separated in order to get each modes characterized
behavior and combined by modal combination rules. In this case, CQC rule couldnt give

structural response for this coupled condition. In other hand, ABSSUM rule, which usually give
over-estimated response, could give reasonable responses because it gives absolute value (not
considering responses vector).
This study is only conducted in medium-rise building (10 floors), which has about 70% modal
mass participation factor on its first mode. This means that there is no significant difference in
lower story drift compared to upper story, which usually observed in high-rise buildings.
Acknowledgement
This study is partially funded by IMHERE Project B.2C FTSL-ITB RGR 2-1.2.1 Program
Contribution of Research Outcomes to Courses. This financial support is greatly acknowledged,
especially on purchasing the Perform-3D software.
CSI Perform-3D v.5 S/N: C1FB FBY21526JER licensed to Prof. Bambang Budiono (ITB).
References
1.

Chopra AK, Goel RK. A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands for Buildings.
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31 (3): 561-582.

2.

Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover analyses: SAC Buildings. Earthquake Spectra
2004; 20 (1): 225-254.

3.

Chopra AK, Goel RK. A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands for
Unsymmetric-Plan Buildings. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2005; 33 (1): 903-927.

4.

Goel RK, Chopra AK. Extension of Modal Pushover Analysis to Compute Member Forces. Earthquake Spectra
2005; 21 (1): 125-139.

5.

Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project). FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
Procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, 2005.

6.

Applied Technology Council, BSSC, NIBS, FEMA. PEER/ATC-72-1 Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for
Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings. ATC: California, 2010.

7.

Computer and Structure Inc. (CSI). Component and Elements for Perform-3DTM and Perform-Collapse . CSI:
California, 2011.

8.

Sub Panitia Teknis 91-01-S4 Bahan, Sains, Struktur, dan Konstruksi Bangunan. SNI 1726:2012 Tata Cara
Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk Struktur Bangunan Gedung dan Non Gedung. Badan Standardisasi
Nasional: Jakarta, 2012.

9.

Sub Panitia Teknis (SPT) Bahan, Sains, Struktur, dan Konstruksi Bangunan. RSNI3 Persyaratan Beton
Struktural untuk Bangunan Gedung. Badan Standardisasi Nasional: Jakarta, 2002.

10. Bentz E, Collins MP. User Manual for Response-2000, Shell-2000, Triax-2000, Membrane-2000. University of
Toronto: Toronto, 2001.
11. American Society of Civil Engineer. FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for The Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, 2000.
12. ASCE 41-06. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineer: Virginia, 2006.