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

net/publication/259221590

Comparison of nonlinear static methods for the assessment of asymmetric

buildings

Article  in  Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering · December 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10518-013-9516-6

CITATIONS

17

4 authors, including:

Melina Bosco Edoardo M. Marino

University of Catania University of Catania
49 PUBLICATIONS   397 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   511 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pier Paolo Rossi

University of Catania
58 PUBLICATIONS   512 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Simplifying and improving design criteria for concentrically braced frames View project

Seismic design of tied braced steel structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pier Paolo Rossi on 15 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COMPARISON OF NONLINEAR STATIC METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF

ASYMMETRIC BUILDINGS

Melina Bosco, Aurelio Ghersi, Edoardo M. Marino, Pier Paolo Rossi

University of Catania, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Catania, Italy

Corresponding Author: Edoardo M. Marino

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Catania
Viale Andrea Doria, 6
95125 Catania
ITALY

tel. +39-095-7382274
fax +39-095-7382249
email: emarino@dica.unict.it
Abstract

Traditional nonlinear static methods, e.g. the original version of the N2 method implemented in

Eurocode 8, are not always effective in the assessment of asymmetric structures because of the er-

rors committed in the evaluation of the torsional response. To overcome this shortcoming, two

methods have recently been suggested by Kreslin and Fajfar (2012) and Bosco et al. (2012). In par-

ticular, the method proposed by Kreslin and Fajfar adjusts the results of the nonlinear static analysis

by means of those of a standard modal response spectrum analysis. In the method proposed by

Bosco et al., the researchers suggested the use of two nonlinear static analyses, characterized by

lateral forces applied to different points of the deck.

In this paper, the two improved nonlinear static methods and the original N2 method are applied to

predict the maximum dynamic response of single- and multi-storey systems subjected to artificial

and recorded accelerograms. The results highlight that the improved nonlinear static methods pro-

vide estimates which are more accurate than those of the original N2 method. Further, the compari-

son of the results identifies the range of the structural properties within which the original N2 meth-

od is still reliable and the range within which one of the two improved methods should be preferred.

Keywords: inelastic seismic analysis, asymmetric structures, nonlinear static methods

2
1 INTRODUCTION

It is widely recognised in the scientific community that a proper seismic assessment of existing

structures requires the comparison between the displacement capacity, i.e. the displacement corre-

sponding to the achievement of a given limit state, and the displacement demand of the structure,

i.e. the displacement caused by the earthquake ground motion. Nonlinear static methods developed

in the recent past (Antoniou and Pinho 2004; Chopra and Goel 2002; Fajfar 1999; Freeman 1998)

constitute a valid response to this need. In fact, they represent a powerful tool for the evaluation of

the inelastic response of structures and do not require the computational effort of nonlinear time-

history analyses. Most seismic codes allow the use of these methods. In particular, Eurocode 8

(CEN 2004) has adopted the N2 method, hereinafter called original N2 method, developed by Fajfar

and his research team (Fajfar and Fishinger 1988; Fajfar 1999; Fajfar and Gaspersic 1996).

The original N2 method considers that the structure vibrates predominantly in a single mode. For

this reason, it is suitable for predicting the response of regular planar frames, particularly if these

structures are low-rise. The response of asymmetric structures, instead, always sees important con-

tributions from more than one mode of vibration and is characterised by the simultaneous transla-

tion and rotation of the decks. While the in-plan distribution of the actual maximum displacements

of asymmetric structures is nonlinear (because these displacements are reached at different times),

the distribution provided by a single nonlinear static analysis is linear. Therefore, the single nonlin-

ear static analysis is not able to predict properly the in-plan distribution of the maximum displace-

ments of asymmetric buildings (Bosco et al. 2012; Chopra and Goel 2004). This observation partic-

ularly applies to torsionally flexible systems where the nonlinearity of the in-plan distribution of the

lateral displacements is more pronounced.

To make the nonlinear static methods reliable for the estimation of the displacement demand of

plan-asymmetric structures, several researchers have proposed improvements to the standard proce-

dure (Bosco et al. 2012; Bento et al. 2010; Chopra and Goel 2004; Fajfar et al. 2005; Kreslin and

Fajfar 2012; Fujii 2011). These new procedures are called hereinafter improved nonlinear static

3
methods. Among those recently proposed, two improved nonlinear static methods are analysed here:

the extended N2 method (Fajfar et al. 2005; Kreslin and Fajfar 2012) and the corrective eccentricity

method (Bosco et al. 2012). Both these two nonlinear static methods require a computational effort

much lower than that required by nonlinear time-history analysis and do not need modelling of the

cyclic behaviour of the structural members.

The extended N2 method is based on the assumption that the results of the elastic analysis of an

asymmetric structure, properly normalised, represent the upper bound of the torsional amplification

of the inelastic response. Hence, the inelastic seismic response of asymmetric structures can be con-

servatively predicted by adjusting the results of the original N2 method by means of correction fac-

tors derived by a standard (elastic) modal response spectrum analysis. These correction factors can-

not be lower than unity because they consider that any favourable torsional effect arising from the

elastic analysis is reduced in the inelastic range of behaviour. It should be noted that the final ver-

sion of the method (Kreslin and Fajfar 2012) requires one nonlinear static analysis (pushover) for

each direction of the seismic action and considers the effects of higher modes in both plan and ele-

vation by two independent sets of correction factors.

According to the corrective eccentricity method (Bosco et al. 2012), two nonlinear static analyses

have to be performed for each direction of the seismic action. The lateral forces are applied to two

points of the deck which are generally different from the centre of mass (CM). The distances be-

tween the points where the lateral force is applied and CM are named corrective eccentricities (ei)

and are calculated by means of analytical expressions (Bosco et al. 2012). The envelope of the re-

sults obtained by the two pushover analyses provides the prediction of the displacement demands.

The effect of higher modes along the height of the building is not explicitly considered by the cor-

rective eccentricity method. However, it could be incorporated in the pushover analysis through the

adoption of a proper load pattern (e.g. Gupta and Kunnath 2000; Marino et al. 2003; Mwafy and

Elnashai 2001; Requena and Ayala 2000; Sasaki et al. 1998).

4
In this paper, the benefits of the two improved nonlinear static methods are assessed by comparing

the error produced by these methods in the prediction of the displacement demands with that pro-

duced through the use of the original version of the N2 method. Further, the results obtained by

means of the extended N2 method and those provided by the corrective eccentricity method are

compared in order to identify the cases in which one of the two methods should be preferred. The

benchmark response is obtained by nonlinear dynamic analysis which is the most advanced numeri-

cal method of analysis. A comparison with results of shaking table tests would be even more relia-

ble (SeismoStruct Verification Report 2012). However, the limited number of lab tests on asymmet-

ric structures would not allow an extensive validation of the considered nonlinear static methods.

The investigation is first conducted on single-storey asymmetric systems because these systems

allow an extensive parametric analysis. This part of the study investigates a large set of single-

storey systems and considers the variation of many structural parameters. These systems are repre-

sentative of the majority of existing buildings. However, it is well known that simplified single-

storey systems describe only the main aspects of the torsional behaviour of real asymmetric build-

ings and do not cover important peculiarities related to the heightwise distribution of some structur-

al properties (Anagnostopoulos et al. 2010; De Stefano et al. 2006; Ghersi et al. 2007). Hence, in a

second part of the study the investigated nonlinear static methods are applied to a set of multi-storey

structures.

2 IMPROVED NONLINEAR STATIC METHODS

2.1 The extended N2 method

The procedure for the application of the extended N2 method can be summarised in three steps.

First, the original N2 method is applied to evaluate the displacement demand of the building. Seis-

mic forces are applied to the mass centres CM and considered as acting separately along two hori-

zontal directions. According to Kreslin and Fajfar, the pushover analyses can be performed on ei-

ther two planar models (one for each direction of the seismic forces) or one 3-D model. In this pa-

5
per, the former option is adopted. The single pushover analysis is carried out until the displacement

of the centre of mass of the roof reaches the displacement demanded by the assigned peak ground

acceleration (target roof displacement).

Second, two modal response spectrum analyses of the 3-D model, one for each of the two horizontal

directions of the seismic action, are performed. While the effects of the modes of vibration of the

single modal response spectrum analysis are combined according to the CQC rule, those of the two

modal response spectrum analyses are combined by the SRSS rule. Further, the results of the modal

response spectrum analysis are scaled so that the roof displacement at CM equals that provided by

the pushover analysis. The two scaled modal response spectrum analyses are used to define two sets

of correction factors to be applied to the results of the pushover analyses. One of the sets of correc-

tion factors refers to the in-plan distribution of the displacements of the floors and the other to the

heightwise distribution of the storey drifts. In particular, the correction factor regarding the in-plan

distribution of the displacements is calculated at the roof level as the ratio of the displacement at an

arbitrary location to the displacement at the centre of mass CM. The correction factor referring to the

storey drifts is calculated at the centre of mass of each storey as the ratio of the storey drift obtained

by modal response spectrum analysis to the storey drift obtained by pushover analysis. If a correc-

tion factor (in plan or in elevation) is smaller than 1.0, the value 1.0 is used instead. This is because

no reduction of the response of the pushover analysis is allowed.

Third, the results of the pushover analysis are adjusted by means of the two sets of correction fac-

tors. The correction factor determined for displacements also applies to storey drifts. According to

the Authors, the in-plan correction factors should be calculated dividing the modal roof displace-

ments of the asymmetric system by the modal roof displacement of the system obtained by restrain-

ing the deck rotation of the 3-D scheme, hereinafter named corresponding planar system. However,

the displacements provided at the centre of mass CM by the planar and 3-D models are generally

close each other and thus these approaches provide similar values of the correction factors.

6
The effectiveness of the extended N2 method is based on the assumption that the torsional amplifi-

cation of the lateral displacements corresponding to an elastic structural behaviour is conservative

with respect to that achieved with nonlinear dynamic analysis (Marusic and Fajfar 2005; Perus and

Fajfar 2005). This is true in most cases; however, a recent study by De Stefano and Pintucchi

(2010) has shown that at the flexible side of structures characterized by very high torsional stiffness

the inelastic torsional response determines an amplification of the translational displacements which

is often greater than that corresponding to an elastic behaviour. The very limited number of applica-

tions present in the literature on multi-storey buildings (Bhatt and Bento 2011) confirms the poten-

tiality of the extended N2 method in predicting the torsional response of buildings. Nonetheless, the

Authors underline the importance of investigating this aspect further in order to consolidate this

nonlinear static approach.

2.2 The corrective eccentricity method

The method predicts the displacement demand of asymmetric buildings through the envelope of the

results of two nonlinear static analyses for each direction of the seismic action. The lateral forces

are applied to two points of the deck which are generally different from the centre of mass CM. The

difference between the abscissa of the point where the force F is applied and the abscissa of CM is

named corrective eccentricity ei. The corrective eccentricities are expressed as a function of four

parameters which affect the torsional response of asymmetric structures: the rigidity eccentricity er

(distance between the centre of rigidity CR and CM), the ratio Ωθ of the torsional to lateral frequen-

cies of the corresponding torsionally balanced system (i.e. of the system obtained by shifting CM

into CR), the strength eccentricity es (distance between the centre of strength CS and CM) and the

ratio Rμ of the elastic strength demand to the actual strength of the corresponding planar system.

While er and Ωθ influence the torsional response in both the elastic and inelastic range of behaviour

(Hejal and Chopra 1987; Goel and Chopra 1990; Palermo et al. 2013), es and Rμ influence only the

inelastic torsional response (Goel and Chopra 1990). The corrective eccentricities are linear func-

tions of er and es according to the following relation:

7
ei  ai es  bi er i = 1 or 2 (1)

where the coefficients ai and bi are functions of Ωθ and Rμ as reported by Bosco et al. (2012).

The rigidity eccentricity and the ratio of the uncoupled torsional to lateral frequencies can be evalu-

ated rigorously for single-storey systems and regularly asymmetric multi-storey systems (Hejal and

Chopra 1987). However, several approximated methods are available in the literature for the deter-

mination of er and  of non-regularly asymmetric systems (Makarios and Anastassiadis 1998a and

1998b; Bosco et al. 2013; Calderoni et al. 2002; Doudomis and Athanatopoulou 2008; Habibullah

1998; Makarios 2008; Marino and Rossi 2004; Moghadam and Tso 2000).

In multi-storey systems the heightwise distribution of the centres of strength can be obtained by a

pushover analysis of the building which is restrained to translate along one direction. At each step

of the pushover analysis, the centre of strength of the first storey is evaluated as the point in which

the base shear is applied. The position of CS changes as the pushover analysis progresses and the

roof displacement increases because of the gradual yielding of the resisting elements. Hence, the

strength eccentricity es is conventionally calculated as the distance between the centre of strength

corresponding to the target roof displacement and the centre of mass. The Rμ factor is evaluated as

the ratio of the required elastic base shear to the lateral strength of the structure. The elastic base

shear is calculated by modal response spectrum analysis of the corresponding planar system. The

lateral strength is calculated as the total base shear provided by the pushover analysis of the corre-

sponding planar system when the roof displacement equals the target value. A numerical example

of the calculation of es and Rμ can be found in Bosco et al. (2012).

3 APPLICATION OF THE NONLINEAR STATIC METHODS ON SINGLE-STOREY

SYSTEMS

In this section the effectiveness of the nonlinear static methods in estimating properly the maximum

dynamic displacements of single-storey asymmetric systems is verified. To this end, a large set of

single-storey systems is subjected to 10 pairs of ground motions and their seismic response is de-

8
termined by nonlinear dynamic analysis. The average of the displacement demands obtained for the

10 bidirectional ground motions is assumed as the benchmark for the nonlinear static methods. The

number of the accelerograms is a compromise between the minimum value (seven) suggested by

Eurocode 8 and larger values (twenty or more) suggested by other Authors (Bosco and Marino

2013; Kreslin and Fajfar 2012; Marino and Nakashima 2006) in order to have a better evaluation of

the average response of structures subjected to seismic actions which are represented by the as-

signed elastic response spectrum.

Then, the errors committed by the nonlinear static methods (original N2 method, extended N2

method and corrective eccentricity method) in the estimate of the distribution of the maximum dy-

namic displacements are determined and analysed. Two approximations may undermine the accura-

cy of the nonlinear static methods: one is related to the evaluation of the target displacement and the

other to the in-plan distribution of the displacement demand (Kreslin and Fajfar 2012). These two

approximations are independent and can be separately considered. As the object of this paper is to

test and compare the effectiveness of the analysed nonlinear static methods in predicting the in-plan

distribution of the displacement demand, the errors in the estimate of the target displacement of the

centre of mass of the roof (Bosco et al. 2009) are eliminated. To achieve this goal, the target dis-

placement of the centre of mass of the asymmetric system is set equal to the average of the 10 max-

imum (nonlinear) dynamic displacements of the corresponding planar system.

3.1 Analysed systems

The analysed single-storey systems are monosymmetric and can be categorised into 9 groups (see

Table 1). The systems belonging to the reference group (Sys01) are those adopted for the calibration

of the analytical equations of the corrective eccentricities (Bosco et al. 2012). These systems are

constituted by a rigid deck which is rectangular in plan. The deck has dimensions, denoted as B and

L in Figure 1a, equal to 12.5 m and 29.5 m, respectively. The mass m of the deck is equal to 1416 t,

while the mass radius of gyration rm about CM is equal to 0.312 L. The deck is supported by 4 resist-

ing elements arranged along the x-axis of the assumed reference system (Fig. 1) and by 8 resisting

9
elements arranged along the y-axis. All the resisting elements have lateral stiffness and strength in

their plane only. The force-displacement relationship of each vertical resisting element is assumed

to be bilinear with no strain hardening. The contribution γx of the resisting elements arranged along

the x-axis to the total torsional stiffness about CR is equal to 20%. The values adopted for rm and γx

are proper for systems with a rectangular plan. The systems are mass eccentric (MES) and the un-

coupled periods in the x- and y-directions, Tx and Ty, (i.e. the periods of the corresponding torsional-

ly balanced system) are equal to 1.0 s.

Systems belongings to groups Sys02 and Sys03 differ from the reference systems in the value of the

strain hardening ratio h of the resisting elements (ratio of the post-yield lateral stiffness to the elastic

one). In fact, the ratio h is set equal to 0.05 and 0.10 for systems belonging to groups Sys02 and

Sys03, respectively. Systems of groups Sys04-Sys07, instead, differ from the reference systems in

the values of the uncoupled periods, which are in the range from 0.3 s to 1.8 s. Unlike the reference

systems, those belonging to group Sys08 (Fig. 1b) are stiffness eccentric (SES). Finally, systems

Sys09 are different from the others because they have a deck which is squared in plan (Fig. 1c),

sustained by 8 resisting elements along the x-axis and by 8 resisting elements along the y-axis. Fur-

ther, in these latter systems the mass radius of gyration rm about CM is equal to 0.406 L and the con-

tribution γx of the resisting elements arranged along the x-axis to the total torsional stiffness about

CR is equal to 50%.

For each group of systems, different structural schemes are generated by modifying the position of

CM, the lateral stiffness and the lateral strength of the resisting elements according to the procedures

described in Ghersi and Rossi (2000) and Bosco et al. (2012), respectively. These procedures are

applied so as to obtain asymmetry with respect to the y-axis and to maintain symmetry with respect

to the x-axis. To analyse single-storey systems which are representative of the majority of real

buildings, the four parameters (Ωθ, er, Rμ and es) that mostly influence the torsional response have

been varied in a large range of values. In particular, the torsional to lateral uncoupled frequency

ratio Ωθ is assumed as ranging from 0.6 to 1.4 in steps of 0.05 so as to analyse both torsionally flex-

10
ible (Ωθ < 1) and torsionally rigid systems (Ωθ > 1). Values of er ranging from -0.10 L to 0 in steps

of 0.025 L are instead considered to include both systems with large to small rigidity eccentricity.

The total lateral strength of the systems is derived by assigning values of the parameter Rμ ranging

from 1.0 to 6.0 in steps of 1.0 so as to consider systems that may experience moderate to large plas-

tic deformations during the seismic event. As the value Rμ = 1.0 only ensures that the mean re-

sponse the planar systems is elastic, the value Rμ = 0.5 is also considered to analyse asymmetric

systems which are expected to behave elastically. Finally, the total lateral strength is distributed

among the resisting elements so as to return values of es ranging from -0.10 L to 0.10 L in steps of

0.025 L; 10 random distributions of the lateral strength have been considered for each value of es.

3.2 Dynamic analysis

The Newmark method is used to evaluate the dynamic response of the analysed systems. The pa-

rameters  and  are set equal to 0.25 and 0.5, respectively. The Rayleigh formulation is considered

for damping. In particular, the viscous damping factor is set equal to 5% for the first and the third

modes of vibration of the system. The seismic input consists of a set of 10 bidirectional ground mo-

tions. The x- and y-components of each ground motion are generated by the SIMQKE computer

program (SIMQKE 1976). Each accelerometric component is scaled by means of a trapezoidal en-

velope function with initial, central (stationary part) and final parts of 3, 22.5 and 5 s, respectively

(Bosco and Rossi 2009, 2013; Ghersi and Rossi 2001; Rossi and Lombardo 2007). The mean re-

sponse spectrum of the 10 x- and y-accelerometric components is compatible with the elastic spec-

trum proposed by EC8 for soil type C and characterized by 5% damping ratio and peak ground ac-

celeration ag equal to 0.35 g (Marino et al. 2005). Further, the mean of the zero period spectral re-

sponse acceleration values is not lower than the value stipulated by EC8.

3.3 Definition of errors

The effectiveness of the nonlinear static methods is assessed by comparing the maximum displace-

ments provided by the nonlinear dynamic analysis along the y-axis to those provided by the nonlin-

11
ear static methods. In particular, the percentage difference between the displacement evaluated by

the nonlinear static method and the corresponding value obtained by the dynamic analysis is calcu-

lated. Positive percentage differences indicate a conservative estimate provided by the nonlinear

static method while negative values correspond to an unconservative estimate.

Three types of errors are calculated with regard to the whole system: (i) the maximum unconserva-

tive error (indicated as max UCo error in figures), (ii) the maximum conservative error (max Co

error in figures), and (iii) the average absolute error, i.e. the average of the absolute values of the

errors committed for all the resisting elements (AAv error in figures).

To summarise the results obtained for the large number of structures analysed, each of the above

errors is processed and reported in a compact form. As an example, Figure 2 illustrates the main

steps of the process for the graphical representation of the maximum unconservative error. In par-

ticular, the error committed in the prediction of the dynamic displacement is first calculated in the

assigned system (identified by fixed values of Ωθ, Rμ es, er and by an assigned distribution of

strength among the resisting elements) with regard to each resisting element arranged along the

y-direction, as shown in Figure 2a. This error is conservative for some resisting elements and un-

conservative for some other elements. As the values of the errors corresponding to the 10 strength

distributions are always very close to one another, the average of the 10 values is considered as rep-

resentative of the results corresponding to the different strength distributions. This error is calculat-

ed for systems with fixed values of Ωθ and Rμ and different values of es and er and the results are

plotted as in Figure 2b. Then, the average value of the errors committed for the systems character-

ized by different values of es and er is determined (Fig. 2c). The procedure is repeated for all the

considered values of Ωθ and Rμ so as to obtain the graph plotted in Figure 2d which is representative

of a whole group of systems. The same procedure is adopted to summarise the results in terms of

conservative and average absolute errors.

12
3.4 Discussion of the results

The errors committed by the considered nonlinear static methods are shown and compared in Fig-

ures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Grey, dark and white surfaces represent the errors committed by the original

N2 method, the extended N2 method and the corrective eccentricity method, respectively.

Figure 3 shows the results obtained for the reference systems (Sys01) and highlights that the origi-

nal N2 method is able to predict accurately the displacements of torsionally rigid structures. In fact,

for systems with Ωθ larger than 1.2 the dynamic displacements are only slightly underestimated or

overestimated (up to 10%). Further, the average errors are modest because the in-plan distribution

of the displacements of torsionally rigid systems is almost linear and thus it can be well approxi-

mated by the results of a single pushover analysis. Conversely, significant errors are committed by

the original N2 method in the prediction of the displacements of very torsionally flexible structures.

Specifically, the displacements are likely to be underestimated up to -75% and overestimated up to

50%. Figure 3 also shows that the use of the improved nonlinear static methods enhances signifi-

cantly the prediction of the displacement demand. In fact, both the improved methods lead to small

unconservative and average errors. In the worst case, the dynamic displacements are underestimated

by the extended N2 method up to -21% and by the corrective eccentricity method up to -16%. Fur-

ther, the extended N2 method is generally more conservative for torsionally rigid structures (due to

the no-reduction rule) and for systems which are well excited into the inelastic range of behaviour

(high values of Rμ).

Similar results are obtained for single-storey systems sustained by resisting elements with strain

hardening (Sys02 and Sys03 systems). As an example, Figure 4 shows that the maximum uncon-

servative errors committed by the improved nonlinear static methods for the Sys03 systems are

slightly lower than those reported for the reference systems while the maximum conservative and

the average errors are virtually equal to those of the reference systems. Further, Figure 4 confirms

that the use of the original N2 method leads to significant errors in the prediction of the displace-

ment demand of asymmetric structures except for torsionally rigid systems (Ωθ > 1.2).

13
Figures 5 and 6 show the results for systems characterised by Tx=Ty=0.3 s (Sys04) and Tx=Ty=1.8 s

(Sys07), respectively. It is evident that the effectiveness of the extended N2 method in the predic-

tion of the in-plan distribution of displacements is almost independent of the period of vibration.

The effectiveness of the corrective eccentricity method is similar for systems with Tx=Ty ranging

from 0.6 s to 1.8 s. Figure 6 shows that the errors committed for Sys07 systems (Tx=Ty=1.8 s) are

generally close to those obtained for the reference systems (Tx=Ty=1.0 s) (compare with Fig. 3). The

corrective eccentricity method is instead less effective in very short period systems (Sys04) (Fig. 5).

For these systems, an increase of all the considered errors is observed. For instance, the unconserva-

tive errors increase up to -32% while they are, at most, equal to -20% for the reference systems.

However, also for Sys04 systems the corrective eccentricity method is generally more reliable than

the original N2 method.

Results obtained for SES systems (not reported in any figure) and systems characterised by a square

deck (Fig. 7) confirm the previously described findings. The benefit obtained by the improved non-

linear static methods is, however, less evident for systems characterised by a square deck.

4 EFFECTIVNESS OF THE NONLINEAR STATIC METHODS ON MULTI-STOREY

SYSTEMS

In this section the nonlinear static methods are applied to predict the seismic response of 12 r.c.

buildings and the results are compared to those of nonlinear dynamic analysis. The pushover analy-

sis is carried out assuming an adaptive load pattern which is able to match the maximum inelastic

displacements of the corresponding planar system. This choice is consistent with that made for sin-

gle-storey systems and is adopted for all the three nonlinear static methods analysed in the paper.

Beams and columns are modelled by elastic members with flexural plastic hinges at the two ends.

An elastic perfectly plastic moment-rotation relation is defined for each member based on a mo-

ment-curvature analysis. The moment curvature analysis of columns is performed assuming an axial

14
force equal to that resulting from the gravity loads of the seismic design situation. Both the pusho-

ver and nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed by the SAP computer program (CSI 2009).

4.1 Dynamic analysis

The nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed assuming a Rayleigh formulation for damping. In

the planar structures, the parameters  and  are calculated assuming a viscous damping factor

equal to 5% for the first and second translational modes in the direction under examination. The

same values of  and are used in the asymmetric systems.

A set of 22 natural bidirectional ground motions is used for the nonlinear dynamic analyses. This

set is the “Far Field” record set used in the FEMA-P695 project (FEMA 2009). The accelerograms

are scaled as described in the study by Kreslin and Fajfar (2012). The benchmark seismic response

to be predicted by the nonlinear static methods is the average of the seismic responses resulting

from 44 nonlinear dynamic analyses (the horizontal components of each ground motion are first

assigned to the x- and y-directions and then the analysis is repeated swapping the directions of the

two components).

4.2 Pushover analysis

In order to eliminate the errors in the estimate of the seismic response of planar structures, an adap-

tive pushover analysis (PO) is considered. As the seismic response is investigated in terms of the in-

plan distribution of displacements and storey drifts, two adaptive load patterns are used (one for

displacements and the other for storey drifts).

The first load pattern is defined in such a way as to obtain, at all the storeys of the corresponding

planar structure, horizontal displacements equal to those of the nonlinear dynamic analysis. To this

end, a displacement-controlled pushover analysis (named PO-D) of the corresponding planar struc-

ture is performed using a displacement load vector proportional to the maximum dynamic dis-

placements of this system, increased with a constant step . The lateral force distribution corre-

sponding to the incremental displacement distribution is then evaluated at each step of the PO-D.

15
The obtained force distributions are used in the successive adaptive pushover analysis PO of the

asymmetric structure. In the PO the single force distribution is applied until the incremental dis-

placement  is reached at the centre of mass of the storey under investigation.

The second adaptive load pattern, used for the prediction of storey drifts, is obtained by the de-

scribed procedure using the sum of the maximum storey drifts of the dynamic analysis as displace-

ment load vector.

4.3 Analysed buildings

The analysed buildings are obtained through slight modifications of the building analysed by Kres-

lin and Fajfar (2012) to test the extended N2 method. This is a r.c. mass eccentric 8-storey building

with a square deck (L × L) sustained by eight frames arranged along two orthogonal directions

(Fig. 8). Each frame has three spans with length equal to 8.0 m. The interstorey height is equal to

5.00 m at the first two storeys and is equal to 3.10 m at all the other storeys. All the columns have

dimensions 60 × 60 cm and longitudinal reinforcement equal to 8 Ø25. The beams have dimensions

40 × 60 cm and longitudinal reinforcement equal to 4 Ø20 in the lower part of the section and

4 Ø20 plus 3 Ø12 in the upper part. Concrete C25/30 and steel reinforcement B500 are used. The

floor masses are equal to 481 t for the two lower storeys and 453 t for the other storeys; the radii of

gyration of mass are equal to 9.8 m (0.408 L). The centres of mass are lined up along a vertical axis

and present an eccentricity with respect to the geometrical centre of the deck equal to 5% of the

plan dimensions in each of the horizontal directions. Because of the symmetry of the structure the

centres of rigidity are lined up along a vertical axis passing through the geometrical centre of the

deck. Similar consideration applies to the centres of strength CS because the steel reinforcement is

symmetric with respect to the geometrical centre of the deck. Details on the design of this building

may be found in Causevic and Mitrovic (2011).

This building has been modified to obtain asymmetric structural systems characterised by different

values of rigidity and strength eccentricities and uncoupled torsional to lateral frequency ratio.

Since the centres of rigidity and strength have equal position in plan, no distinction is made herein-
16
after between rigidity and strength eccentricities. Thus, the symbols ex and ey are adopted to repre-

sent the eccentricities of the rigidity and strength centres along the x- and y-axes, respectively.

The analysed buildings may be subdivided into two sets. The first set consists of 6 buildings which

are obtained by varying the coordinates of the centre of mass. In particular, three values of eccen-

tricity e (–0.05 L, –0.10 L and –0.15 L) are considered in order to analyse buildings with low (-L)

medium (-M) or high eccentricity (-H). Further, for each value of the eccentricity, both mono-

(ex=0, ey = e) and bi-eccentric (ex= ey = e) buildings are analysed. The bi-eccentric buildings with

low eccentricity (e = –0.05 L) is equal to that analysed by Kreslin and Fajfar. As allowed in EC8,

the cracked concrete elements are modelled reducing the elastic stiffness to one-half of the corre-

sponding stiffness of the uncracked elements.

The second set of buildings is obtained assuming that columns identified by symbol A in Figure 8

and beams AB, BB and BA are steel members. Further, the above-mentioned beams are linked to

the columns by pinned connections. The stiffness of the concrete members is assumed equal to the

stiffness of the uncracked elements. This choice allows the Authors to ensure that the lateral stiff-

ness of the buildings belonging to the second set be virtually the same as that of the buildings of the

first set. The 6 positions of the centre of mass considered for the first set of buildings are also con-

sidered for the buildings of the second set. The uncoupled torsional to lateral frequency ratio Ωθ of

the analysed buildings is calculated as the ratio of the average value (in elevation) of the radii of

gyration of the lateral stiffness rk to rm. The radii of gyration of the lateral stiffness are calculated at

each storey as suggested in Bosco et al. (2013) and the average value is equal to 12.85 m and

7.45 m for buildings belonging to the first and second sets, respectively. The buildings of the first

set are torsionally rigid (Ωθ = 1.31) while those of the second set are torsionally flexible (Ωθ = 0.76).

The Rμ factor calculated by the procedure described in Section 2.2 is equal to 2.38 and 3.49 for the

buildings of the first and second sets, respectively.

17
4.4 Discussion of the results

The comparison between the seismic responses obtained by the three considered nonlinear static

methods and the nonlinear dynamic analysis are expressed in terms of (i) in-plan distribution of the

floor displacements u at each story and (ii) heightwise distribution of the storey drift at the stiff (dr1)

and flexible sides (dr2) of the structures. When the corrective eccentricity method is used, the seis-

mic forces are applied to the considered buildings with the eccentricities listed in Table 2. It is

worth noting that the value of the corrective eccentricities is independent of the rigidity and strength

eccentricities in the orthogonal direction. When the extended N2 method is used, instead, the in-

plan correction factors listed in Table 3 are applied to adjust the results of the pushover analysis of

the corresponding planar structure. Note that no correction factors are considered along the height

of the building because an adaptive load pattern is used in the pushover analysis.

Figures 9 and 10 show the in-plan distribution of the displacements at the 8th storey of the torsion-

ally rigid structure with low eccentricity and that of the displacements of the torsionally flexible

structure with high eccentricity. Attention is focused on these structures because their seismic be-

haviour bounds that of the other analysed structures. In fact, the two structures are representative of

buildings with moderate and significant torsional response, respectively. The results of the mono-

eccentric buildings are plotted in Figures 9a and 10a, while those of the bi-eccentric buildings are

considered in Figures 9b and 10b.

Figure 9 shows that all the considered methods are able to predict the in-plan distribution of the

displacements of the structures with Ωθ = 1.31, Rμ = 2.38 and e = –0.05 L. In fact, at each storey the

dynamic displacements are never underestimated or overestimated more than ±10%. The worst un-

conservative estimate is determined by the application of the original N2 method at the stiff side of

the bi-eccentric building. The corrective eccentricity method provides results which are close to the

actual values. These results are conservative for the mono-eccentric building and slightly underes-

timated at the stiff side of the bi-eccentric building. The extended N2 method is always conserva-

tive.

18
Different considerations apply to the prediction of the in-plan distribution of the displacements of

the structures with Ωθ = 0.76, Rμ = 3.49 and e = –0.15 L (Fig. 10). In fact, the application of the

original N2 method provides large unconservative errors, up to -50%, in the case of both the mono-

and bi-eccentric buildings. The extended N2 method is generally conservative, but the displace-

ments can be seriously overestimated (up to 64%). Some slight unconservative errors can be found

at the flexible side of the mono-eccentric building. The corrective eccentricity method provides re-

sults which are closer to the actual values and determines only slight unconservative errors (-5%) at

the flexible side of the bi-eccentric building.

To discuss the results obtained for all the considered multi-storey buildings, a compact representa-

tion of the errors is reported. To this end, the percentage error committed in the estimate of the dis-

placements at the stiff or flexible side is first calculated at each storey. Then, the average value in

elevation is calculated and plotted as a function of the normalised eccentricity of the building e/L. In

each plot, a different type of line (dotted, dashed or dashed dotted line) is used to identify the adopt-

ed nonlinear static method; different symbols are adopted to pinpoint results obtained for mono-

eccentric (square symbols) or bi-eccentric (circle symbols) buildings. Figure 11a shows that, if the

original N2 method is applied (dotted lines) to the buildings of the first set (Ωθ = 1.31 and

Rμ = 2.38), the larger the rigidity eccentricity, the greater the underestimation of the displacements

at the stiff side. In particular, for bi-eccentric buildings with e equal to –0.15 L, the average error in

elevation is equal to –30%. The extended N2 method (dashed dotted line) matches almost exactly

the displacement at the stiff side of bi-eccentric buildings, independently of the eccentricity e; in-

stead, it is conservative for mono-eccentric buildings (average errors up to 17%). The corrective

eccentricity method (dashed line) is slightly unconservative for bi-eccentric buildings (errors up to –

14%). Figure 11b confirms the effectiveness of all the considered nonlinear static methods in the

prediction of the displacements at the flexible side: the original N2 and the corrective eccentricity

methods provide almost correct results, while the extended N2 method is slightly conservative (er-

rors up to 8%).

19
If buildings belonging to the second set are considered (Ωθ = 0.76 and Rμ = 3.49), the original N2

method appears to be ineffective in predicting the deck rotations (Fig. 12a, average unconservative

error up to –42% at the stiff side). Both the improved nonlinear static methods enhance the predic-

tion of the torsional response reducing the unconservative error significantly. Specifically, the ex-

tended N2 and the corrective eccentricity methods provide conservative results at the stiff side (con-

servative errors up to 62% and 20%, respectively); independently of the adopted method of analy-

sis, the unconservative and conservative errors committed in the estimate of the flexible side

(Fig. 12b) are generally much lower (from –10% to 13%).

The above-mentioned results are confirmed when the seismic response is expressed in terms of sto-

rey drift. In this regard, Figure 13 shows that the heightwise distribution of the storey drift at the

stiff side of the torsionally rigid structures with low eccentricity is well predicted by all the nonline-

ar static methods. Instead, the application of the original N2 method to torsionally flexible struc-

tures with high eccentricity (Fig. 14) leads to significant unconservative errors at all the storeys. In

these cases, the extended N2 method is conservative and the corrective eccentricity method pro-

vides results which are closer to the dynamic values even if slightly unconservative at the upper

stories of the bi-eccentric building.

The average percentage errors committed in elevation in the evaluation of the storey drift at the stiff

and flexible sides of the buildings are also calculated and plotted in Figures 15 and 16 as a function

of the normalised eccentricity e/L. The above-mentioned figures confirm the findings obtained by

the analysis of the storey displacements.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper the effectiveness of three nonlinear static methods (the original N2 method, the ex-

tended N2 method and the corrective eccentricity method) in the prediction of the seismic response

of asymmetric systems is compared. Specifically, the selected methods are applied to predict the

seismic response of a large set of asymmetric single-storey systems and that of 12 multi-storey

20
buildings. The prediction of the storey displacements and, in the case of the multi-storey buildings,

also that of the storey drifts is compared to the response obtained by nonlinear dynamic analyses.

The results show that the original N2 method is able to predict only the response of very torsionally

rigid systems. The use of the two improved nonlinear static methods always enhances the prediction

of the displacement demand of asymmetric structures and the obtained enhancement is remarkable

especially in the case of torsionally flexible structures. Based on the obtained results, the extended

N2 method distinguishes because it is always conservative and very easy to apply. However, it is

sometimes overly conservative. The corrective eccentricity method, instead, provides results which

are closer to those obtained by nonlinear dynamic analyses. This latter method requires a greater

computational effort than the extended N2 method, because three pushover analyses are needed

instead of one, but it remains conceptually simple, straightforward and transparent.

Finally, it is worth noting that the results obtained in this study should be further validated against

results of shaking table tests or models which are more refined than those used in this paper (e.g.,

fiber models could be used in order to take account of interaction phenomena arising in the nonline-

ar range of behaviour).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Authors wish to thank Dr. Annalisa Licandro for her contribution to the numerical analyses

performed in the context of her graduation thesis.

REFERENCES

Anagnostopoulos S.A., Alexopoulou C., Stathopoulos K.G. (2010) An answer to an important con-

troversy and the need for caution when using simple models to predict inelastic earthquake re-

sponse of buildings with torsion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 39: 521–

540.

21
Antoniou S., Pinho R. (2004). Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive

pushover procedure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8: 643–661.

Bento R., Bhatt C., Pinho R. (2010). Verification of nonlinear static procedures for a 3D irregular

SPEAR building. Earthquake Structures 1: 177–195.

Bhatt C., Bento R. (2011) Assessing the seismic response of existing RC buildings using the ex-

tended N2 method. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 9: 1183–1201.

Bosco M., Ghersi A., Marino E.M. (2009) On the Evaluation of Seismic Response of Structures by

Nonlinear Static Methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 38: 1465–1482.

Bosco M., Ghersi A., Marino E.M. (2012) Corrective Eccentricities for assessment by the nonlinear

static method of 3D structures subjected to bidirectional ground motions. Earthquake Engineer-

ing and Structural Dynamics 41: 1751-1773.

Bosco M., Marino E.M. (2013) Design method and behavior factor for steel frames with buckling

restrained braces. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42: 1243-1263.

Bosco M., Marino E.M., Rossi P.P. (2013) An analytical method for the evaluation of the in-plan

irregularity of non-regularly asymmetric buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering DOI:

10.1007/s10518-013-9438-3.

Bosco M., Rossi P.P. (2009) Seismic behaviour of eccentrically braced frames. Engineering Struc-

tures 31: 664-674.

Bosco M., Rossi P.P. (2013) A design procedure for dual eccentrically braced systems: numerical

investigation. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80: 453-464.

Calderoni B., D’Aveni A., Ghersi A. Rinaldi, Z. (2002) Static vs. modal analysis of asymmetric

buildings: effectiveness of dynamic eccentricity formulations. Earthquake Spectra 18(2): 219-

231.

Causevic M., Mitrovic S. (2011) Comparison between non-linear dynamic and static seismic analy-

sis of structures according to European and US provisions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

9: 467–489.

22
CEN. EN 1998-1. (2004) EuroCode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization,

Bruxelles.

Chopra A.K., Goel R.K. (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic de-

mands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31: 561–582.

Chopra A.K., Goel R.K. (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands

for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 33: 903–927.

CSI Analysis Reference Manual For SAP2000 (2009), ETABS, and SAFE, ISO# GEN062708M1

Rev.1, Berkeley, California, USA.

De Stefano M., Marino E.M., Rossi P.P. (2006) Effect of Overstrength on the seismic behaviour of

multi-storey regularly asymmetric buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 4(1): 23-42.

De Stefano M, Pintucchi B. (2010) Predicting torsion-induced lateral displacements for pushover

analysis: Influence of torsional system characteristics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics 39:1369–1394.

Doudomis I.N., Athanatopoulou A.M. (2008) Invariant torsion properties of multistorey asymmetric

buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 17(1): 79-97.

Fajfar P., Fishinger M. (1988) N2 – A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings.

Proc. of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.

Fajfar P., Gaspersic P. (1996) The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of rc buildings.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 25: 31–46.

Fajfar P. (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Engi-

neering and Structural Dynamics 28: 979–993.

Fajfar P., Marušic D., Peruš I. (2005) Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of

buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9(6): 831–854.

FEMA (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. FEMA—P695 report Federal

emergency management agency, Washington, DC.

23
Freeman S.A. (1998) The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. Proc. of the 11th

European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France.

Fujii K. (2011) Nonlinear static procedure for multi-story asymmetric frame buildings considering

bi-directional excitation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15(2): 245–273

Ghersi A., Marino E.M., Rossi P.P. (2007) Static versus modal analysis: influence on inelastic re-

sponse of multi-storey asymmetric buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 5(4): 511-532.

Ghersi A., Rossi P.P. (2000) Formulation of design eccentricity to reduce ductility demand in

asymmetric buildings. Engineering Structures, 22(7): 857-871.

Ghersi A, Rossi P.P. (2001). Influence of bi-directional ground motions on the inelastic response of

one-storey in-plan irregular systems. Engineering Structures; 23 (6); 579-591.

Goel R.K., Chopra A.K. (1990) Inelastic seismic response of one-story asymmetric-plan systems,

Report No. UCB/EERC-90/14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California,

USA.

Gupta B, Kunnath S.K. (2000) Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation

of structures. Earthquake Spectra 16: 367–391.

Habibullah A. (1998) Center of rigidity – a redefinition. Computers and Structures, Inc 3(1).

Hejal R., Chopra A.K. (1987) Earthquake response of torsionally-coupled buildings. Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, Report n° UBC/EERC-87/20, College of Engineering, University

of California at Berkeley.

Kreslin M., Fajfar P. (2012) The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan

and elevation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 10(2): 695-715.

Makarios T., Anastassiadis A. (1998a) Real and fictitious elastic axes of multi-storey buildings:

theory. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 7(1): 33-55.

Makarios T., Anastassiadis A. (1998b) Real and fictitious elastic axes of multi-storey buildings:

applications. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 7(1): 57-71.

24
Makarios T. (2008) Practical calculation of the torsional stiffness radius of multi-storey tall build-

ings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 17(1): 39-65.

Marino E.M., Muratore M., Rossi P.P. (2003) Pushover analysis in the evaluation of the seismic

response of steel frames. Proc. of 3rd International Workshop and Seminar on “Behaviour of

Steel Structures in Seismic Areas” STESSA 2003, Naples, Italy.

Marino E.M., Nakashima M., Mosalam K.M. (2005) Comparison of European and Japanese seismic

design of steel building structures. Engineering Structures 27: 827-840.

Marino E.M., Nakashima M. (2006) Seismic performance and new design procedure for chevron

braced frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 35: 433-452.

Marino E.M., Rossi P.P. (2004) Exact evaluation of the location of the optimum torsion axis. The

Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 13(4): 277-290.

Marusic D., Fajfar P. (2005) On the inelastic seismic response of asymmetric buildings under bi-

axial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34: 943–963.

Moghadam A.S., Tso W.K. (2000) Extension of Eurocode 8 torsional provisions to multi-storey

buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 4(1): 25-41.

Mwafy A.M., Elnashai A.S. (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC build-

ings. Engineering Structures 23: 407–424.

Palermo M., Silvestri S., Gasparini G., Trombetti T. (2013) Physically-based prediction of the max-

imum corner displacement magnification of one-storey eccentric systems. Bulletin of Earthquake

Engineering DOI 10.1007/s10518-013-9445-4.

Perus I., Fajfar P. (2005) On the inelastic torsional response of single-storey structures under bi-

axial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34: 931–941.

Requena M., Ayala A.G. (2000) Evaluation of a simplified method for the determination of the non-

linear seismic response of RC frames. Proc. of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-

neering, Auckland, New Zealand.

25
Rossi P.P., Lombardo A. (2007) Influence of the link overstrength factor on the seismic behaviour

of eccentrically braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63: 1529-1545.

Sasaki K.K., Freeman S.A., Paret T.F. (1998) Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP)—a method

to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. Proc. of the 6th U.S. National

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

SeismoStruct Verification Report (2012) http://www.seismosoft.com/en/News_Details.aspx?ID

_News=42.

SIMQKE (1976) A program for artificial motion generation, User’s manual and documentation,

Department of Civil Engineering MIT.

26
 Table 1. Main properties of the analysed single-storey systems.
Type of Uncoupled periods Strain hardening Deck dimensions Contribution
Label
Asymmetry (Tx, Ty) ratio h (B x L) x
Sys 01 MES 1.0 s 0.00 12.5 m x 29.5 m 20%
Sys 02 MES 1.0 s 0.05 12.5 m x 29.5 m 20%
Sys 03 MES 1.0 s 0.10 12.5 m x 29.5 m 20%
Sys 04 MES 0.3 s 0.00 12.5 m x 29.5 m 20%
Sys 05 MES 0.6 s 0.00 12.5 m x 29.5 m 20%
Sys 06 MES 1.4 s 0.00 12.5 m x 29.5 m 20%
Sys 07 MES 1.8 s 0.00 12.5 m x 29.5 m 20%
Sys 08 SES 1.0 s 0.00 12.5 m x 29.5 m 20%
Sys 09 MES 1.0 s 0.00 29.5 m x 29.5 m 50%
 Table 2. Adopted corrective eccentricities.
System er= es=e Ωθ Rμ e1 e2
Mono-01, Bi-01 -0.05 L 1.312 2.384 -0.025 L -0.005 L
Mono-02, Bi-02 -0.10 L 1.312 2.384 -0.050 L -0.010 L
Mono-03, Bi-03 -0.15 L 1.312 2.384 -0.074 L -0.015 L
Mono-04, Bi-04 -0.05 L 0.760 3.489 -0.063 L -0.036 L
Mono-05, Bi-05 -0.10 L 0.760 3.489 -0.125 L -0.072 L
Mono-06, Bi-06 -0.15 L 0.760 3.489 -0.226 L -0.130 L

Table 3. Adopted in-plan corrective factors for the extended N2 method.

System Frame y = 12 m Frame y = 4 m Frame y = -4 m Frame y = -12 m
Mono-01 1.159 1.026 1.000 1.000
Mono-02 1.222 1.000 1.000 1.000
Mono-03 1.225 1.000 1.000 1.000
Mono-04 1.000 1.000 1.059 1.269
Mono-05 1.000 1.000 1.046 1.424
Mono-06 1.000 1.000 1.013 1.493
Bi-01 1.168 1.026 1.000 1.000
Bi-02 1.226 1.002 1.000 1.000
Bi-03 1.225 1.000 1.000 1.000
Bi-04 1.000 1.000 1.060 1.304
Bi-05 1.085 1.000 1.053 1.464
Bi-06 1.196 1.000 1.052 1.540
(a) y (c)
y

Side 2 (flexible)
Side 1 (stiff)

B CR=G CS CM

Side 2 (flexible)
x

Side 1 (stiff)
es er

L B CR=G CS CM x
(b) es er
y

Side 2 (flexible)
Side 1 (stiff)

CR CS CM
B
x
es
er L
Figure 1. Plan layout of the analysed systems: (a) Sys01-07; (b) Sys08; (c) Sys09.
(a) (b)

Rμ = 3; Ωθ =1.0; er = -0.10; es = -0.075

max Co Err

max UCo Err uy

CR CS CM x

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Procedure for the compact representation of the errors.

Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

Figure 3. Maximum unconservative, conservative and average errors for Sys01 systems.
 Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

Figure 4. Maximum unconservative, conservative and average errors for Sys03 systems (h = 10%).
 Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

Figure 5. Maximum unconservative, conservative and average errors for Sys04 systems (Tx = Ty =0.3 s).
 Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

Figure 6. Maximum unconservative, conservative and average errors for Sys07 systems (Tx = Ty =1.8 s).
 Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

Figure 7. Maximum unconservative, conservative and average errors for Sys09 systems (x =50%).
 Y
3.1 m
A B B A
3.1 m
ex
3.1 m

B C CM C B 3.1 m
ey
L = 24 m 3.1 m
CR=CS X
3.1 m
B C C B
5.0 m
A B B A
5.0 m
8m 8m 8m
L = 24 m

Figure 8. Layout of the analysed multi-storey buildings.

 Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

(a) (b)
u u
(cm) 8th storey extended N2 (cm) 8th storey
method
30 30
nonlinear
dynamic
20 analyses 20
corrective
eccentricities
10 10
N2 method

0 0
- L /2 CR CM L /2 - L /2 CR CM L /2

Figure 9. Storey displacement of the buildings with Ωθ = 1.31, Rμ = 2.38, e = – 0.05 L:

(a) mono-eccentric building; (b) bi-eccentric building.
 Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method
(a) (b)
u u
(cm) extended N2 method (cm)

30 30
nonlinear
dynamic
20 corrective analyses 20
eccentricities
10 10
N2 method 8th storey 8th storey

0 0
- L /2 CR CM L /2 - L /2 CR CM L /2

Figure 10. Storey displacement of the buildings with Ωθ = 0.76, Rμ = 3.49, e = – 0.15 L:
(a) mono-eccentric building; (b) bi-eccentric building.
 Mono-eccentric buildings Bi-eccentric buildings

Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

(a) (b)
Err (%) Err (%)
50% 50%

25% 25%

0% 0%

-25% -25%

-50% -50%
Stiff Side Flexible Side
-75% -75%
-0.05 -0.10 e /L -0.15 -0.05 -0.10 e /L -0.15

Figure 11. Average error along the height in the prediction of the displacement of the buildings
with Ωθ = 1.31 and Rμ = 2.38 at the (a) stiff and (b) flexible side.
 Mono-eccentric buildings Bi-eccentric buildings

Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

(a) (b)
Err (%) Err (%)
50% 50%

25% 25%

0% 0%

-25% -25%

-50% -50%
Stiff Side Flexible Side
-75% -75%
-0.05 -0.10 e /L -0.15 -0.05 -0.10 e /L -0.15

Figure 12. Average error along the height in the prediction of the displacement of the buildings
with Ωθ = 0.76 and Rμ = 3.49 at the (a) stiff and (b) flexible side.
 Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

(a) (b)
ns ns
extended N2 method
7 7
6 corrective 6
eccentricities
5 5
4 nonlinear 4
dynamic
3 3
analyses
2 2
N2 method
1 1
0 0
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% d r1 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% d r1
Figure 13. Storey drift at the stiff side of the buildings with Ωθ = 1.31, Rμ = 2.38, e = – 0.05 L:
(a) mono-eccentric building; (b) bi-eccentric building.
 Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

ns corrective
ns
7 eccentricities 7
6 extended 6
N2 method
5 5
4 N2 4
method
3 3
2 nonlinear 2
dynamic
1 analyses 1
0 0
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% d r1 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% d r1
Figure 14. Storey drift at the stiff side of the buildings with Ωθ = 0.76, Rμ = 3.49 e = –0.15 L:
(a) mono-eccentric building; (b) bi-eccentric building.
 Mono-eccentric buildings Bi-eccentric buildings

Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

(a) (b)
Err (%) Err (%)
50% 50%

25% 25%

0% 0%

-25% -25%

-50% -50%
Stiff Side Flexible Side
-75% -75%
-0.05 -0.10 e /L -0.15 -0.05 -0.10 e /L -0.15

Figure 15. Average error along the height in the prediction of the storey drift of the buildings with
Ωθ = 1.31 and Rμ = 2.38 at the (a) stiff and (b) flexible side.
 Mono-eccentric buildings Bi-eccentric buildings

Original N2 method Extended N2 method Corrective eccentricity method

(a) (b)
Err (%) Err (%)
50% 50%

25% 25%

0% 0%

-25% -25%

-50% -50%
Stiff Side Flexible Side
-75% -75%
-0.05 -0.10 e /L -0.15 -0.05 -0.10 e /L -0.15

Figure 16. Average error along the height in the prediction of the storey drift of the buildings with
Ωθ = 0.76 and Rμ = 3.49 at the (a) stiff and (b) flexible side.

View publication stats