Excerpt (italics and bold highlights added) from:

FEMA 440, IMPROVEMENT OF NONLINEAR STATIC SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Sections 9.4.4 and 9.5

9.4.4 Limitation of Simplified Procedures

Nonlinear static pushover procedures appear to be reliable for the design and evaluation of low-rise
buildings. However, MDOF effects associated with the presence of significant higher-mode response
in relatively tall frame buildings, can cause interstory drift, story shear, overturning moment, and other
response quantities to deviate significantly from estimates made on the basis of single-mode
pushover analyses. Multimode pushover procedures appear capable of more reliable estimates
than do single-mode procedures; however, they cannot be deemed completely reliable based
on currently available data. The dividing line between buildings for which reliable results can
be obtained using NSPs and those for which the results cannot be relied upon is nebulous.
The sufficiency of nonlinear static procedures and the need for nonlinear dynamic analysis depend
on a number of related considerations.

• Response quantity of interest. As illustrated in the examples, current simplified procedures are
often adequate for estimating displacements. They seem to produce reasonable estimates of
interstory drift for low-rise frame buildings and wall buildings. However, for virtually all cases, the
simplified procedures produce unreliable estimates of story shear and overturning moments. If
required for evaluation or design, accurate estimates of these parameters require more detailed
analyses.

• Degree of inelasticity. The example buildings indicate that the importance of MDOF effects
increases with the amount of inelasticity in the structure. NSPs may be adequate for situations in
which the performance goals for a structure are such that only slight or moderate levels of
inelasticity are expected.

• Periods of vibration of the fundamental and higher modes relative to the spectral demands at these
periods. Higher-mode contributions become more significant for structures with fundamental
periods that fall in the constant-velocity portion of the response spectrum. It appears that accurate
estimates of the distribution of interstory drift over the height of moment-resisting frames cannot
be obtained with NSPs alone when the fundamental period of the structure exceeds approximately
twice the characteristic site period, Ts. A significantly lower limit applies to the determination of
story forces in both wall and frame structures, however.

• Structural system type. Shear walls and frames have different higher-mode periods relative to their
fundamental modal periods. These systems have characteristically different percentages of mass
participating in the first and higher modes and develop characteristically different types of
mechanisms. As noted previously, NSPs do not predict story forces reliably, and more
sophisticated analytical techniques may be required for systems sensitive to these parameters.

• Post-elastic strength. Both the studies on the response of SDOF oscillators (Chapter 3) and the
SDOF examples (Appendix F) demonstrate that systems with a critical level of negative
post-elastic strength degradation are prone to dynamic instability. This has been documented in
other recent research as well. As discussed in Chapter 4, the critical post-elastic stiffness should
be based on P-Delta effects and other types of in-cycle degradation. Systems with strength
values less than those specified in Chapter 4 require nonlinear response history analysis.

• Inelastic mechanism. Forces associated with response in other modes may influence the
development of an inelastic mechanism, and thus, pushover analyses may not always identify the
governing mechanism (Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998).
 • Multi-mode pushover analysis procedures. SRSS combinations of force quantities can exaggerate
the effects of gravity loads and can exceed the limits associated with the development of an
inelastic mechanism. Typically, algebraic signs of the modes can be expected to influence the
intensity of component demands. The use of uniform hazard spectra presents inconsistencies,
because different portions of the spectrum may be driven by vastly different events, rather than
representing a single event.

• FEMA 356 provisions. This document requires supplementary linear dynamic analysis if higher
mode effects are significant. Higher modes are considered significant if the SRSS of story shears
from modes that incorporate at least 90% of the mass exceeds 130% of story shear from a
first-mode response-spectrum analysis. It is important to note that all the example buildings, with
the minor exception of the upper floor of the 9-story frame, would have qualified for the nonlinear
static procedure alone without the linear dynamic procedure (LDP) for a NEHRP design spectrum
in an area of high seismicity and Site Class C site conditions. The potential for the NSP to
significantly underestimate response quantities for structures that satisfy this limitation indicates
that the current limitation is not adequate.

9.5 Potential Future Improvements

Based on the studies conducted in conjunction with this document and results from current research,
it is apparent that there is a need for improved inelastic analysis techniques that can be used
to reliably address MDOF effects. As noted previously, research on multimode pushover analysis
procedures is ongoing.