New Seismic Pushover Procedures using either Floor Enforced-Displacements or Inelastic Dynamic Eccentricities on Irregular Single-Storey R/C Buildings

Document Type : Original Article


1 School of Civil Engineering, aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

2 School of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece


A numerical example of a torsionally-flexible, R/C, asymmetric single-storey building is presented here to clarify in detail the step by step application of two new documented pushover procedures on single-storey R/C buildings. In order to fully consider the coupling between torsional and translational vibrations of the floor-diaphragm under seismic action, the first pushover procedure uses floor enforced-displacements, while the second one uses lateral static floor forces applied with suitable inelastic design eccentricities (inelastic dynamic plus accidental ones) relative to CM. Both pushover procedures referred to the “Capable Near Collapse Principal reference system ” of the single-storey building. The floor enforced-translations/rotation and the appropriate inelastic dynamic eccentricities used in the two proposed procedures derive from extensive parametric analysis and are given by tables or suitable equations. The evaluation of both procedures relative to the results of non-linear response history analysis shows that both procedures predict with safety the in-plan displacements of the building.


Google Scholar


Main Subjects

[1]      EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Authority: The European Union Per Regulation 305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/18/EC; 2004. n.d.
[2]      Code P. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels Eur Comm Stand 2005.
[3]      Bakalis AP, Makarios TK. Dynamic eccentricities and the “capable near collapse centre of stiffness” of reinforced concrete single-storey buildings in pushover analysis. Eng Struct 2018;166:62–78. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.056.
[4]      Bakalis AP, Makarios TK. Seismic Assessment of Asymmetric Single-Story RC Buildings by Modified Pushover Analysis Using the “Capable Near Collapse Centre of Stiffness”: Validation of the Method. J Earthq Eng 2019:1–30. doi:10.1080/13632469.2019.1698477.
[5]      Bakalis AP, Makarios TK. Dynamic Eccentricities in Pushover Analysis of Asymmetric Single-Storey Buildings, 2020, p. 307–20. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33532-8_24.
[6]      A. B, T. M. Dynamic eccentricities in pushover analysis of asymmetric single-storey buildings. Proccedings of Eighth European Workshop on the seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Compex Structures, Bucharest, Romania 2017.
[7]      Makarios T, Bakalis A. Pushover analysis using suitable dynamic eccentricities on asymmetric single-storey buildings. Proc. 16th Eur. Conf. Earthq. Eng. Thessaloniki, Greece, 2018.
[8]      Bakalis AP, Makarios TK. Seismic Assessment of Asymmetric Single-storey R/C Buildings by Two New Methodologies: Enforced Displacement-Based and Forced-Based Pushover Procedures. J Civ Eng Constr 2020;9:93–108.
[9]      Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:903–27. doi:10.1002/eqe.380.
[10]    Reyes JC, Chopra AK. Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for tall buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40:789–806. doi:10.1002/eqe.1060.
[11]     Hernandez-Montes E, Kwon O-S, Aschheim MA. An energy-based formulation for first-and multiple-mode nonlinear static (pushover) analyses. J Earthq Eng 2004;8:69–88.
[12]    Belejo A, Bento R. Improved Modal Pushover Analysis in seismic assessment of asymmetric plan buildings under the influence of one and two horizontal components of ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2016;87:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.04.011.
[13]    Jiang Y, Li G, Yang D. A modified approach of energy balance concept based multimode pushover analysis to estimate seismic demands for buildings. Eng Struct 2010;32:1272–83. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.003.
[15]    Kreslin M, Fajfar P. The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation. Bull Earthq Eng 2012;10:695–715. doi:10.1007/s10518-011-9319-6.
[16]    Hsiao F-P, Oktavianus Y, Ou Y-C. A pushover seismic analysis method for asymmetric and tall buildings. J Chinese Inst Eng 2015;38:991–1001. doi:10.1080/02533839.2015.1056553.
[17]    Bhatt C, Bento R. Extension of the CSM-FEMA440 to plan-asymmetric real building structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40:1263–82. doi:10.1002/eqe.1087.
[18]    Rofooei FR, Mirjalili MR. Dynamic-based pushover analysis for one-way plan-asymmetric buildings. Eng Struct 2018;163:332–46. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.052.
[19]    Karimi M, Behnamfar F. A three-dimensional drift pushover method for unsymmetrical plan buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2018;16:5397–424. doi:10.1007/s10518-018-0322-z.
[20]    Bosco M, Ghersi A, Marino EM. Corrective eccentricities for assessment by the nonlinear static method of 3D structures subjected to bidirectional ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41:1751–73. doi:10.1002/eqe.2155.
[21]    Bosco M, Ferrara GAF, Ghersi A, Marino EM, Rossi PP. Predicting displacement demand of multi-storey asymmetric buildings by nonlinear static analysis and corrective eccentricities. Eng Struct 2015;99:373–87. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.05.006.
[22]    Bosco M, Ghersi A, Marino EM, Rossi PP. Generalized corrective eccentricities for nonlinear static analysis of buildings with framed or braced structure. Bull Earthq Eng 2017;15:4887–913. doi:10.1007/s10518-017-0159-x.
[23]    ANTONIOU S, PINHO R. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. J Earthq Eng 2004;8:497–522.
[25]    Abbasnia R, Tajik Davoudi A, Maddah MM. An Improved Displacement-Based Adaptive Pushover Procedure for the Analysis of Frame Buildings. J Earthq Eng 2014;18:987–1008. doi:10.1080/13632469.2014.919242.
[26]    Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. The extended consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of two-way unsymmetric-plan tall buildings under influence of two horizontal components of ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;63:162–73. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.02.001.
[27]    Makarios T, Anastassiadis K. Real and fictitious elastic axes of multi-storey buildings: theory. Struct Des Tall Build 1998;7:33–55. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1794(199803)7:13.0.CO;2-D.
[28]    Makarios T, Anastassiadis K. Real and fictitious elastic axes of multi-storey buildings: applications. Struct Des Tall Build 1998;7:57–71. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1794(199803)7:13.0.CO;2-0.
[29]    Makarios T. Practical calculation of the torsional stiffness radius of multistorey tall buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2008;17:39–65. doi:10.1002/tal.316.
[30]    Computers and Structures (2013), SAP2000 v.16.0. A Structural Analysis Program n.d.
[31]    Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical Stress‐Strain Model for Confined Concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114:1804–26. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
[32]    Seismosoft, SeismoArtif. A computer program for generating artificial earthquake accelerograms matched to a specific target response spectrum. Available online from URL: 2016.
[33]    Makarios T. Design characteristic value of the arias intensity magnitude for artificial accelerograms compatible with Hellenic seismic hazard zones. Int J Innov Res Adv Eng 2015;2:87–98.
[34]    Athanatopoulou AM, Doudoumis IN. Principal directions under lateral loading in multistorey asymmetric buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2008;17:773–94. doi:10.1002/tal.385.