Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 1: 336, 2003.

2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

An Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis

Procedure Based on Inelastic Spectral
Displacements for Multi-Mode Seismic
Performance Evaluation

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazii University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake
Research Institute (KOERI), 81220 engelky, Istanbul, Turkey
Received 17 January 2003; accepted 30 January 2003
Abstract. The so-called Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) based on pushover analysis has been developed in the last decade as a practical engineering tool to estimate the inelastic response quantities
in the framework of performance-based seismic evaluation of structures. However NSP suffers from
a major drawback in that it is restricted with a single-mode response and therefore the procedure can
be reliably applied only to the two-dimensional response of low-rise, regular buildings. Recognizing
the continuously intensifying use of the pushover-based NSP in the engineering practice, the present
paper attempts to develop a new pushover analysis procedure to cater for the multi-mode response
in a practical and theoretically consistent manner. The proposed Incremental Response Spectrum
Analysis (IRSA) procedure is based on the approximate development of the so-called modal capacity
diagrams, which are defined as the backbone curves of the modal hysteresis loops. Modal capacity
diagrams are used for the estimation of instantaneous modal inelastic spectral displacements in a
piecewise linear process called pushover-history analysis. It is illustrated through an example analysis that the proposed IRSA procedure can estimate with a reasonable accuracy the peak inelastic
response quantities of interest, such as story drift ratios and plastic hinge rotations as well as the
story shears and overturning moments. A practical version of the procedure is also developed which
is based on the code-specified smooth response spectrum and the well-known equal displacement
rule.
Key words: incremental response spectrum analysis, inelastic spectral displacements, modal capacity diagrams, multi-mode pushover analysis, nonlinear static procedure, performance-based seismic
evaluation, piecewise linear mode-superposition

1. Introduction
It has been long recognized that the structural behavior and damageability of structures during earthquakes is essentially controlled by the inelastic deformation capacities of the ductile structural elements. This eventually led to a notion that the
seismic evaluation and design of structures should be based on displacements (or
more correctly on deformations) demanded by the earthquake action, not on the
stresses induced by the assumed equivalent seismic forces. In spite of this recognition the current seismic design practice is still governed by the force-based design

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

principles. Nevertheless significant attempts have been made in the last decade to
incorporate the displacement-based evaluation and design concept into the seismic
engineering practice. Those attempts are developed in two interrelated but different directions yielding the displacement-based design methods aiming at direct
design of new structures (e.g., Priestley, 2000) and the displacement-based evaluation methods dealing with the seismic performance evaluation of pre-designed or
existing structures.
The present paper is concerned with the displacement-based evaluation methods, which were formally introduced during the last decade within the framework
of the performance-based seismic engineering (ATC, 1996; FEMA, 19972000).
In this context, the Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) is primarily based on a static
nonlinear analysis called pushover analysis, which is performed for the monotonic
increments of equivalent seismic loads with prescribed-invariant or adaptive patterns. The outcome of the pushover analysis is the pushover curve, which represents the inelastic variation of the base shear with respect to the roof displacement.
The selection of the coordinates of the pushover curve is somewhat arbitrary; nevertheless they are indicative of the overall strength and deformation capacities of
a given structure. However the ultimate objective of NSP is the estimation of peak
inelastic deformations of individual structural elements, such as the plastic hinge
rotations, demanded by the seismic action. For this purpose use is made of the peak
inelastic displacement, i.e., inelastic spectral displacement of an equivalent singledegree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, the properties of which are defined from the
coordinates of the pushover curve.
Nonlinear static procedure based on pushover analysis rapidly became popular
in structural earthquake engineering community. The practicing engineers, who
are traditionally trained for the linear response under reduced equivalent seismic
forces, were given a new chance of gaining valuable insight to the nonlinear seismic behavior of structures at the system and element levels. At the same time,
successful applications made on relatively simple structural systems encouraged
the engineers for a wider use of the new procedure. However it should be admitted
that pushover-based NSP still remains intuitive rather than mathematical (Elnashai,
2002) and it suffers from a number of limitations and problems (Krawinkler and
Seneviratna, 1998) to be resolved. An ongoing project being conducted by the
Applied Technology Council (ATC, 2002) is expected to shed light to at least some
of those problems towards the improvement of NSP.
The major drawback of NSP in its existing form (ATC, 1996; FEMA, 1997
2000) lies in the fact that it is basically restricted with a single-mode response. It
means that the procedure can be reliably applied only to two-dimensional response
of low-rise structures regular in plan, where the response is effectively governed by
the first mode. Consequently, the application of NSP to a high-rise building regular
in plan or any building irregular in plan involving three-dimensional response is
prone to produce erroneous results. Thus, given the continuously intensifying use
and irreversible popularity of the pushover-based NSP in the engineering practice,

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

there is an urgent need for improvement of the procedure to cater for the multimode response in a practical and theoretically consistent manner. The objective of
the present paper is to contribute to the ongoing research efforts directed to achieve
this goal.
2. Critical Review of Current Procedures for Multi-mode Pushover Analysis
Given the challenge that displacement-based approach will provide the engineer
with a better understanding of the real nonlinear behavior of a structure compared
to the conventional force-based approach, advocating the use of NSP in its existing form for all types of buildings is unacceptable. However, the most recent
publication on NSP, i.e., FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000), which is now accepted as a
pre-standard by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), explicitly state
that NSP is not restricted with the low-rise buildings governed by a single-mode
response. In fact, FEMA 356 indicates that NSP is applicable to buildings with
more than 10 stories. This is rather surprising, because the invariant or adaptive
lateral load patterns specified in FEMA 356 are all associated with a single-mode
response with only one exception, which is defined as an invariant load pattern to
be obtained from the modal combination of story shears through an elastic response
spectrum analysis. Clearly implying the multi-mode response, FEMA 356 requires
that this load pattern should be used when the fundamental period exceeds 1.0 sec
and a sufficient number of modes are to be considered to capture at least 90%
of the total mass. The equivalent seismic loads are then applied to the structure
incrementally according to this invariant pattern and the pushover curve is plotted.
It should be pointed out that defining the seismic loads through elastic spectral
accelerations has no theoretical basis, as they are not consistent with the inelastic
deformation of the structure during the pushover process. However the major drawback in this procedure is that although the resulting pushover curve is assumed to
contain the effects of higher modes, eventually it has to be treated as the representative curve of a SDOF system to estimate the peak response quantities. It is
worth repeating that the pushover analysis as described in FEMA 356 is essentially
based on the representation of inelastic multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system
by an equivalent SDOF system. This is achieved by converting the coordinates
of the pushover curve to the modal pseudo-acceleration and displacement of the
equivalent SDOF system. The conversion parameters are the effective participating
mass and the participation factor times the roof displacement, respectively, which
are defined on the basis of either the elastic first mode shape or the displaced
configuration of the structure at the peak response (ATC, 1996; FEMA, 2000).
Therefore it is clear that the peak response quantities associated with the multimode effects cannot be correctly estimated with a conversion technique based on a
single-mode response.
Recognizing the fact that invariant load patterns are not compatible with the progressive yielding of the structure during pushover analysis, alternative procedures

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

based on adaptive load patterns have been proposed (Elnashai, 2002; Antoniou
et al., 2002). In these procedures, equivalent seismic loads are calculated at each
pushover step using the mode shapes based on instantaneous (tangent) stiffness
matrix and the corresponding elastic spectral pseudo-accelerations. The seismic
loads are then combined with a modal combination rule, normalized and applied
to the structure at each step to obtain the increments of the pushover curve coordinates. It may be argued that such an adaptive scheme better represents the
inelastic behavior compared to invariant load pattern, yet it suffers from the same
problems mentioned above for the FEMA 356 procedure, as the final output is still
the conventional pushover curve to be represented by an equivalent SDOF system.
The use of the instantaneous values of the elastic spectral pseudo-accelerations
appears at the first glance to be an improvement, but still they are not compatible
with the instantaneous inelastic response. Another pitfall inherent in this procedure
is the application of the modal combination in defining the equivalent seismic loads
instead of combining the response quantities induced by those loads in individual
modes (Chopra, 2001, p. 569).
Another adaptive procedure developed by Gupta and Kunnath (2000) starts with
a similar approach, i.e., the equivalent seismic loads are calculated at each pushover
step again using the instantaneous mode shapes, and the associated elastic spectral
pseudo-accelerations are used for scaling. However the above-mentioned pitfall
is avoided in this procedure where the seismic loads are not combined at each
step, instead they are applied to the structure in each mode independently and the
increments of the modal response quantities of interest including pushover curve
coordinates are calculated. They are then combined with SRSS (square-root-ofsum-of-squares) rule and added to the quantities calculated at the previous step.
This approach seems to be more meaningful, as the conventional response spectrum analysis (RSA) is actually being applied at each pushover step. However
the main problem remains: the elastic spectral accelerations associated with the
instantaneous free vibration periods are not consistent with the inelastic behavior
of the structure. Thus, as in the previously described procedures, it is not possible
with this procedure to correctly estimate the peak response quantities that are representative of the multi-mode inelastic response. It is for this reason that in the above
referenced paper Gupta and Kunnath had to compare the story drifts estimated
by their procedure with those obtained from the nonlinear time-history analysis
at a roof displacement equal to the peak roof displacement of the latter analysis.
In order to estimate the peak demand quantities by the proposed procedure itself,
it becomes inevitable again to resort to the equivalent SDOF system based on a
single-mode response.
Regarding the above-described multi-mode adaptive procedures, two critical
conclusions can be drawn:
(a) Loading characteristics based on elastic instantaneous spectral accelerations are
not compatible with the inelastic instantaneous response,

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

(b) The conventional pushover curve combining multi-mode effects is not an appropriate tool to estimate the peak response quantities.
Recently a notable contribution to the multi-mode pushover analysis is achieved
with the development of the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) procedure (Chopra
and Goel, 2001). The basic idea behind the procedure was in fact proposed in
earlier studies (Paret et al., 1996; Sasaki et al., 1998), which may essentially be
regarded as a simple extension of the conventional single-mode pushover analysis
to the multi-mode response with the following steps:
(1) Run pushover analysis and plot pushover curves independently for each mode
with invariant lateral load patterns associated with the linear (initial) mode shapes,
(2) Convert the pushover curve in each mode to a capacity diagram (capacity spectrum ATC, 1996) of the corresponding equivalent SDOF system using the modal
conversion parameters based on the same linear (initial) mode shapes,
(3) Calculate peak inelastic displacement of the equivalent SDOF system in each
mode for a given earthquake using the bilinear form of the capacity diagram as a
backbone curve (alternatively calculate inelastic spectral displacement using smooth
response spectrum FEMA, 2000),
(5) Calculate peak inelastic response quantities of interest, such as story drifts and
plastic hinge rotations independently in each mode,
(6) Apply SSRS rule to estimate the combined peak response quantities.
It is noticed at the first glance that running the pushover analysis independently
in each mode and neglecting the contribution of other modes in the plastic hinge
formation is the weakest point of MPA procedure. In fact in a frame analysis,
different sets of plastic hinges are developed at different locations independently
in each mode and generally linear behavior governs even in high-rise structures
except in the first few modes. This results in unacceptably large errors in plastic
hinge rotations, however errors are found relatively smaller in story drifts, thanks
to the participation of the elastic higher modes. This finding led to a questionable
suggestion that story drifts could be considered in lieu of the plastic hinge rotations
as the representative demand parameter in the acceptance criteria of NSP (Chopra
and Goel, 2001). Since the inelastic behavior in higher modes is poorly estimated,
a modified version of MPA may be proposed, in which the pushover analysis is run
only in the first mode and the resulting peak inelastic response quantities are combined with the peak elastic quantities developed in the higher modes (Aschheim,
personal communication, 2002).
In view of the above discussion, the aim of the present paper is to develop an
alternative multi-mode pushover analysis procedure in an attempt to better estimate
the main inelastic response quantities, i.e., the peak displacements, story drifts as
well as the plastic hinge rotations.

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

3. Piece-wise Linear Mode-Superposition for Nonlinear Time-History

Analysis: Definition of Modal Capacity Diagrams
In this section, the nonlinear time-history analysis is treated on the basis of a piecewise linear mode-superposition procedure. The aim is to establish a theoretical
basis for the multi-mode pushover analysis procedure to be proposed in this paper.
3.1. INCREMENTAL EQUATIONS OF MOTION
When multi-linear hysteretic models are used to represent the nonlinear behavior of
structural members, such as the plastic hinges, the dynamic response is essentially
linear in an incremental step (i) between a time t and a previous time station ti1
at which the response is already determined. Thus, piecewise linear incremental
equations of motion of a nonlinear 3-D structure subjected to a uni-directional
earthquake can be written for t > ti1 as









u(t
i1 ) + K(i) u(t) u(ti1 )
M u(t)
u(t
i1 ) + C(i) u(t)
(1)


g
g
= MIgx u x (t) u x (ti1 )
g

in which u(t) represents the relative displacement vector and u x (t) refers to the
g
ground acceleration of a given earthquake in x direction. Ix is a kinematic vector representing the pseudo-static transmission of the ground acceleration to the
structure, whose components associated with the degrees of freedom in x earthquake direction are unity and others are zero. In Eq. 1, M denotes the mass matrix
and K(i) represents the instantaneous (tangent) stiffness matrix in the incremental
step (i). The instantaneous damping matrix C(i) is generally expressed as a linear
combination of mass and stiffness matrices (Rayleigh damping).
3.2. PIECEWISE LINEAR MODE - SUPERPOSITION
Eq. 1 is solved by means of step-by-step integration methods, such as Newmarks
beta methods, details of which can be found in standard textbooks (Clough and
Penzien, 1993; Chopra, 2001). However, one can think that the conventional modesuperposition method may be equally applied to the piecewise linear solution of
Eq. 1. It may be argued that this method would be inefficient for nonlinear systems,
as it would require an eigenvalue analysis to be performed nearly at every solution
step. However it may be envisioned that the very rapid developments taking place
in the computer industry in terms of hardware speed and capacity may soon invalidate this argument. Note that mode-superposition method may be attractive
because of its two important advantages, namely, the freedom in assigning the
modal damping ratios in each mode and the superior accuracy obtained in the
solution of the modal SDOF systems.
The application of the mode-superposition method to the piecewise linear solution of nonlinear systems will be treated in this paper merely from a conceptual

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

point of view. The aim is to provide an analytical background to the multi-mode

pushover analysis to be proposed by introducing the approximate modal hysteresis
curves and their backbone curves called modal capacity diagrams. To this end, the
instantaneous displacement response during the piecewise linear incremental step
(i) can be expanded to the modal coordinates as
u(t) =

Ns


un (t)

(2a)

n=1
(i)
un (t) =
(i)
n
xn dn (t)

(2b)

where Ns refers to the sufficient number of modes to be considered in the modal

expansion,
(i)
n represents the instantaneous nth mode shape vector, dn (t) is the
(i)
denotes the instantaneous participamodal displacement in the nth mode and
xn
tion factor for an earthquake in x direction, which is defined as
(i)
=

xn

L(i)
xn
;
(i)T

n M
(i)
n

g
(i)T
L(i)
xn =
n MIx

(3)

Substituting Eq. 2 and time derivatives into Eq. 1, pre-multiplying with
(i)T
n ,
making use of the modal orthogonality conditions and considering Eq. 3 result
in an uncoupled instantaneous modal equation of motion in the nth mode:



dn (t) + 2n(i) n(i)dn (t) + (n(i) )2 dn (t) = u gx (t) u gx (ti1 ) + dn (ti1 )
+ 2n(i) n(i)dn (ti1 )
+ (n(i))2 dn (ti1 )

(4)

in which n(i) and n(i) represent the instantaneous natural frequency and modal
damping ratio, respectively, while dn (ti1 ) is expressed as

dn (ti1 ) =

(i)T
n Mu(ti1 )
L(i)
xn

(i)T
n M
=

Ns

m=1

(i1)

(i1)

xm
dm (ti1 )
m

L(i)
xn

(5)

which represents the initial modal displacement to be considered at t = ti1 for the
new, modified system at t > ti1 . Similar relationships can be written for the time
derivatives of dn (ti1 ).
Considering Eq. 5 and time derivatives, the single-step solution of Eq. 4 for
dn (t) is simple and it can be achieved by any integration method. In this respect,
superior accuracy can be obtained by the Piecewise Exact Method, which is recently reformulated in a unified format including the P-delta effect (Aydinoglu and

10

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Fahjan, 2003). In each step modal displacements are evaluated for ti = ti1 + t
followed by the determination of displacements and other response quantities of
interest at time station ti . To detect the yielding and unloading points in plastic
hinges, the regular time step t is appropriately reduced.
It is clear from Eq. 5 that dn (ti1 ) is different from the modal displacement
dn (ti1 ) as the former includes the effects of all modes belonging to the previous
step (i 1), which are different from those at step (i).
3.3. MODAL CAPACITY DIAGRAMS
Had it been actually implemented, the solution of Eq. 4 followed by the use of
Eq. 2b at each step would have provided a very valuable insight to the modal
nonlinear behavior of the MDOF system in different modes. In particular, it would
also be very instructive to observe the individual behavior of the modal SDOF
systems themselves. However the behavior of each modal SDOF system is discontinuous, because a different structural system is actually being considered at each
incremental step. As indicated above, it is for this reason that the initial modal
displacement dn (ti1 ) defined in Eq. 5 for step (i) is different from the modal displacement dn (ti1 ) calculated at the end of the previous step (i1). However it may
be assumed that this difference would not be very significant, because mode shapes
would change only slightly in consecutive incremental steps (especially in highly
redundant systems). Although such changes in mode shapes have been considered
in the piecewise modal transformation at time t, for the sake of simplicity they may
be ignored in determining dn (ti1 ). Applying modal orthogonality relationships in
Eq. 5 and considering Eq. 3, this approximation leads to
dn (ti1 )
= dn (ti1 )

(6)

Hence modal response in each mode is now assumed continuous and Eq. 4 can be
written in an incremental form as
dn(i) + 2n(i) n(i)dn(i) + (n(i))2 dn(i) = u g(i)
x

(7)

g(i)

where u x represents the ground acceleration increment, i.e., the first term on the
right-hand side of Eq. 4. Modal displacement increment at the (i)th incremental
step is expressed as
dn(i) = dn (t) dn (ti1 )

(8)

Eq. 7 can be appropriately rewritten as

dn(i) + 2n(i) n(i)dn(i) + an(i) = u g(i)
x

(9)

where the third term on the left-hand side represents the modal pseudo-acceleration
increment:
an(i) = (n(i))2 dn(i) .

(10)

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

11

Figure 1. Schematic representation of hypothetic modal hysteresis loops and modal capacity
diagrams (solid curves).

Now hypothetically it is possible to construct the continuous modal displacement

versus modal pseudo-acceleration diagrams governed by Eq. 9. Those diagrams
represent the modal hysteresis loops, which are schematically depicted in Figure 1.
The outer hysteresis loops are the fattest in the first mode as indicated in the figure
and get thinner and steeper as the mode number increases. According to Eq. 10, the
instantaneous slope of a given diagram is equal to the eigenvalue (natural frequency
squared) of the corresponding mode at the piecewise linear increment concerned.
The backbone curves of the hypothetical modal hysteresis loops in the first
quadrant may be appropriately called the modal capacity diagrams, which are
indicated by solid curves in Figure 1. Note that although those diagrams are representative of the structures strength capacity in each mode, they are also dependent
upon the seismic demand. It means that modal capacity diagrams would be different for each earthquake considered. The only exception is the case where the
first mode alone is assumed to represent the dynamic response. In this case modal
capacity diagram is demand-independent and by definition it is identical to the socalled capacity spectrum used in the Capacity Spectrum Method (ATC, 1996). The
term modal capacity diagram is preferably used in this paper by adding the word
modal to the terminology proposed by Chopra and Goel (1999).

12

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 2. Linear modal capacity diagrams associated with elastic response.

The multi-mode pushover analysis procedure proposed in this paper is based

on an approximate development of the modal capacity diagrams utilizing modal
inelastic spectral displacements. Note that the procedure does not require the conventional pushover curve be plotted. It is pointed out earlier that the pushover curve
is not an appropriate tool for estimating the peak response quantities of interest,
which is the ultimate goal of the pushover analysis.
In the remainder of the paper, the lumped plasticity approach is adopted for
the sake of simplicity, which means that the nonlinear behavior of the structural
elements is assumed to be represented by the plastic hinges. However the proposed
method is also applicable to distributed plasticity approach provided that reasonably small incremental steps are used in between the two consecutive configuration
of the nonlinear system. In each incremental step or in between the formation of
two consecutive hinges, a piecewise linear behavior is considered.
4. Development of Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA)
Procedure for Multi-Mode Pushover Analysis
The basic motive behind the proposed procedure stems from the question whether
the modal capacity diagrams defined above could be constructed in a practical manner. Admittedly this is a difficult task because, regardless of whether the response is
linear or nonlinear, different modes are randomly excited in MDOF systems due to
random nature of the seismic action. In linear systems, a practical answer has been
found by applying the approximate Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) procedure
where the relative magnitudes of modal displacements are estimated in each mode
with respect to spectral displacements, which actually represent the peak points of
the linear modal capacity diagrams, as shown in Figure 2. Peak response quantities
of interest are then estimated using an appropriate modal combination rule.

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

13

It is known that RSA is approximate, but it is the only practical procedure that
ever found to replace the linear MDOF time-history analysis. It is the authors
opinion that in a practical nonlinear analysis, i.e., in multi-mode pushover analysis,
the same concept is bound to be used in one way or the other in order to avoid
the tedious nonlinear MDOF time-history analysis. However, in nonlinear systems
RSA needs to be implemented in a piecewise linear fashion at each pushover step
in between the formation of two consecutive plastic hinges.
In such an Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA) procedure, the first
task is the scaling of the modal response increments in each mode in such a way that
the progressive development of the inelastic behavior is appropriately represented.
Then the increments of the response quantities of interest including the plastic
hinge moments can be combined with an appropriate modal combination rule to
estimate the response at the next plastic hinge formation. The square-root-of-sumof-squares (SRSS) rule appears to be the obvious choice for modal combination,
although complete quadratic combination (CQC) rule (Chopra, 2001) may be more
appropriate when close modes are present as in the case of coupled lateral-torsional
response of three-dimensional systems.
In fact incremental response spectrum analysis approach was the basic idea
behind the adaptive procedure developed by Gupta and Kunnath (2000). However
the most critical issue in a spectral approach is the scaling procedure to be applied
and the selection of the modal response quantity to be scaled. Gupta and Kunnath
used the elastic instantaneous spectral accelerations to scale the modal pseudoaccelerations, which in turn are used to define the modal seismic load patterns.
However, as pointed out earlier, elastic instantaneous spectral accelerations are
not consistent with the inelastic response. Therefore in the present development
of IRSA, modal displacement increments are scaled at each pushover step using
inelastic spectral displacements associated with the instantaneous configuration
of the system. Such a scaling also permits the consistent estimation of the peak
response quantities at the last pushover step, which is not possible in other adaptive
procedures.
The proposed procedure traces the development of inelastic response as the
plastic hinges yield sequentially in a process called pushover-history analysis, which
is based on the approximate construction of the modal capacity diagrams of all
modes simultaneously, as described in the following. It is important to note that
IRSA is not restricted to two-dimensional response and it is applicable to threedimensional (3-D) response of any structure.
4.1. AN APPROXIMATE PROCEDURE FOR PUSHOVER - HISTORY ANALYSIS
WITH SIMULTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT OF MODAL CAPACITY DIAGRAMS

Based on the approximation made in Eq. 6 leading to the incremental form of

modal equations of motion given in Eq. 9, the participation of the nth mode to the
displacement vector defined in Eq. 2b can also be expressed in an incremental form

14

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

as
(i) (i)
(i)
u(i)
n =
n
xn dn

(11)

dn(i) = dn(i) dn(i1)

(12)

where the superscript (i), which represented the instantaneous incremental step
in the time-history analysis formulation now indicates the static pushover step in
between the formation of two consecutive plastic hinges at (i 1) and (i) during a pushover-history analysis. For the sake of completeness, the corresponding
equivalent seismic load increments in the same mode can be written as
(i)
(i)
(i) (i)
(i)
f(i)
Sn = K un = M
n
xn an

(13)

in which modal pseudo-acceleration increment, an(i) , is already defined in Eq. 10.

The displacement increment given in Eq. 11 can be appropriately expressed as
(i)
(i)
u(i)
n =u
n dn

(14)

where u (i)
n represents the displacement vector due to unit modal displacement increment in the nth mode:
(i) (i)
u (i)
n =
n
xn

(15)

Accordingly, participation of the nth mode to the increment of any response quantity of interest, such as a story drift or the plastic rotation of a previously developed
hinge may be written as
rn(i) = rn(i) dn(i)

(16)

in which rn(i) refers to the response quantity obtained from u (i)

n .
As mentioned above, the increments of the response quantities can be reasonably estimated by an appropriate modal combination rule. Utilizing for example
SRSS rule, the increment of the combined response quantity can be estimated as


 Ns
 Ns

 (i) (i)
(i) 2
(i)

(rn ) = 
(rn dn )2
(17)
r =
n=1

n=1

At this point a critical assumption is to be made to scale the modal displacement

increments, dn(i) . The scaling should be such that it must reflect the progressive
development of the inelastic behavior in the system, but at the same time it must
be applicable to the piecewise linear pushover steps. Accordingly, referring to the
modal capacity diagram of the nth mode shown in Figure 3, it is assumed that the
following relationship holds for all modes at the ith pushover step:
(i)
dn(i1) )
dn(i) = F (i) (Sdin

(18)

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

15

Figure 3. Scaling procedure for a modal displacement increment at the ith pushover step.

where F (i) is a constant scale factor applicable to all modes at the ith pushover step
and dn(i1) denotes the nth modal displacement obtained at the end of the previous
pushover step.
(i)
refers to the peak inelastic modal displacement, i.e., inelastic
In Eq. 18, Sdin
spectral displacement obtained from the solution of Eq. 7 where the hysteretic
behavior is represented by the modal capacity diagram corresponding to the instantaneous configuration of the plastic hinges at the beginning of the ith pushover
(i)
represents the peak inelastic modal displacement as if the
step. In other words, Sdin
previous hinge at (i 1) were the final hinge yielded in the system, thus reflecting
approximately the progressive development of inelastic behavior in the structure.
The approximate scaling procedure defined in Eq. 18 assumes that at the first
pushover step (i = 1) where dn(0) = 0, modal displacement increments are scaled
with respect to elastic spectral displacements and the scale factor (F (1) < 1) is
determined at the first plastic hinge formation (Note that in a fully elastic RSA,
F (1) = 1). At a typical pushover step (i) after the first step, the origins of the
capacity diagrams may be assumed shifted to (i 1), which corresponds to the
previous hinge, and again the same scaling procedure is actually applied, where
the modal displacement increments are scaled with respect to the inelastic spectral
(i)
dn(i1) .
displacements measured from the shifted origins, i.e., Sdin
(i)
In computing Sdin, the modal capacity diagram at the ith pushover step is idealized as a bilinear diagram for mathematical convenience. As shown in Figure 4,
the post-yield slope is taken equal to the eigenvalue, (n(i))2 , which is calculated for

16

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 4. Bi-linearization of a modal capacity diagram at the ith pushover step.

the ith pushover step after the formation of the last hinge at (i 1). The effective
(i)
(i)
and ayn
, are then obtained by equating the areas under
yield point coordinates, dyn
the original and bilinear diagrams, which also define the effective initial slope to
(i) 2
(i)
(i)
) = ayn
/dyn
. Note that this process
be considered in the solution of Eq. 7 as (En
does not apply to the first two pushover steps, as the modal capacity diagrams are
linear in the first step and already bilinear in the second step.
Instead of using Eq. 18 directly for scaling, it is preferred to express the modal
displacement increment in a given mode in terms of a reference modal displacement increment. Appropriately selecting the first mode as the reference mode,
Eq. 18 may be alternatively expressed as
(i)
dn(i) = (i)
n d1

(19)

where (i)
n , which may be called inter-modal scale factor, is defined as
(i)
n =

(i)
Sdin
dn(i1)
(i)
Sdi1
d1(i1)

(20)

It is clear that at every pushover step inter-modal scale factor associated with the
first mode is unity:
(i)
1 =1

(21)

while those of the higher modes are likely to be smaller, however exceptions are
possible.

17

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

Now Eq. 19 can be substituted in Eq. 17 to obtain the increment of the combined
response quantity of interest in terms of the first modal displacement increment
only:
r (i) = r (i) d1(i)
in which r (i) is defined as
r (i)


 Ns
 (i) (i)
=
(r )2
n

(22)

(23)

n=1

It is worth noting that Eq. 23 is actually analogous to the estimation of a response

quantity of interest through a standard response spectrum analysis applied at each
pushover step based on a fictitious pseudo-acceleration spectrum, the ordinate of
which is given for the nth mode as
(i)
= (n(i))2 (i)
San,fict
n

(24)

In order to locate the next hinge to develop at the end of the ith pushover step,
the general expression given in Eq. 22 is specialized for the bending moment of a
potential plastic hinge at joint j:
Mj(i) = M j(i) d1(i)
in which M j(i) is defined through Eq. 23 as

 Ns

(i)
2

(M jn(i) (i)
Mj = 
n )

(25)

(26)

n=1

where M jn(i) is the bending moment obtained from u (i)

n defined by Eq. 15. At the end
of ith pushover step, the bending moment at the potential hinge location j can be
calculated as
Mj(i) = Mj(i1) + Mj(i) = Mj(i1) + M j(i) d1(i)

(27)

where Mj(i1) represents the bending moment obtained at the end of the previous
step (in the first step it is equal to the bending moment due to gravity loads).
(y)
When Mj(i) reaches the yield moment, Mj , of the plastic hinge, the first modal
displacement increment can be extracted from Eq. 27 as
(y)

d1(i)

Mj

Mj(i1)
M j(i)

(28)

Since which plastic hinge will develop at the end of the pushover step is not known
a priori, in practical applications d1(i) is calculated from Eq. 28 for all potential

18

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

hinge locations and their minimum value determines the yielding hinge. Note that
the effect of axial forces on yield moments is omitted in the above derivation for
the sake of simplicity. However, the bending moment-axial force interaction can be
readily considered through a piecewise linear representation of the yield surfaces
with planes in biaxial bending and lines in uni-axial bending. Since the signs of the
bending moments and axial forces are lost in the modal combination, in the case
of unsymmetrical yield surfaces, such as in reinforced concrete sections, the signs
may be assumed to be the same as those in the first mode response.
Once d1(i) is determined, the increment of any response quantity of interest can
be obtained from the general expression given in Eq. 22 and added to the response
quantity obtained at the end of the previous step, i.e.,
r (i) = r (i1) + r (i) d1(i)

(29)

Subsequently, modal displacement increments of other modes are obtained from

Eq. 19 and the increments of modal pseudo-accelerations are then calculated from
Eq. 10. Adding to those calculated at the end of the previous step, the coordinates
of all modal capacity diagrams at the end of the ith pushover step are determined
as
(i)
dn(i) = dn(i1) + dn(i) = dn(i1) + (i)
n d1

(30a)

(i)
(i) 2
an(i) = an(i1) + an(i) = an(i1) + (i)
n (n ) d1

(30b)

4.2. ESTIMATION OF PEAK RESPONSE QUANTITIES

The above-described procedure, which is termed the pushover-history analysis, is
repeated until any of the modal displacements, say, the first modal displacement obtained at the end of a pushover step exceeds the inelastic spectral displacement calculated for that step. It means that the peak response has been reached somewhere
within this step. When such a step is detected, which is indicated by superscript
(p), modal displacements are set equal to the inelastic spectral displacements:
(p)

dn(p) = Sdin

(31)

and their last increments are calculated from Eq. 30a as

(p)

dn(p) = Sdin dn(p1)

(32)

which means that modal displacements reach their peaks in all modes simultaneously with a scale factor of F (p) = 1 (see Eq. 18). Finally the peak response
quantities of interest are obtained from Eq. 29 as
(p)

r (p) = r (p1) + r (p) d1

(33)

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

19

4.3. SINGLE - MODE ADAPTIVE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS : A SPECIAL CASE OF

IRSA

It is known that in low-rise structures regular in plan where the response is effectively governed by the first mode, the single-mode pushover analysis provides
satisfactory results (e.g., Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998).
The single-mode adaptive pushover analysis can be readily performed as a
special case of the Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA) procedure
developed in this paper. Although the response spectrum approach is not relevant
to a single-mode response, it is clear that the expressions given for multi-mode
IRSA in Eqs. 1133 are equally applicable to the single-mode case when they are
written for n = 1. Thanks to the selection of the first mode as a reference mode,
the inter-modal scale factor defined in Eq. 20 is always unity at all pushover steps
and the response is solely controlled by a single independent parameter, namely
the first modal displacement, d1(i) . It means that the course of development of the
modal capacity diagram, i.e., the pushover-history is independent of the earthquake
specified, which needs to be considered only at the last pushover step to estimate
the peak response quantities according to Eqs. 32, 33.
As in the multi-mode IRSA, the peak response quantities can be estimated in
the single-mode analysis for a given earthquake. The peak value of the first modal
displacement, i.e., the inelastic spectral displacement, Sdi1 , of the equivalent SDOF
system is obtained from the solution of Eq. 7 for n = 1 based on a bilinear capacity
diagram. When the seismic action is defined through the smooth elastic response
spectrum, which will be considered in the next section, the displacement modification factor, i.e., C1 coefficient of FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000) may be appropriately
used to estimate the inelastic spectral displacement.
As it is known, in the two different implementations of NSP (FEMA, 2000;
ATC, 1996), plotting the conventional pushover curve in terms of base shear versus
roof displacement is the essential requirement to start with the procedure. In the
Capacity Spectrum Method (ATC, 1996), the pushover curve is converted to the
so-called capacity spectrum, i.e., the modal capacity diagram of the first mode,
through modal conversion parameters already described above. On the other hand,
the Displacement Coefficient Method of FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000) works directly
with the pushover curve, but essentially the same conversion parameters are used to
define the coefficients of the method. On the contrary, the above-described singlemode pushover analysis procedure does not require the conventional pushover
curve be plotted. The modal capacity diagram is obtained directly and it is sufficient to estimate the peak response quantities of interest. However if required,
roof displacement and base shear increments may be obtained from the general
expression given in Eq. 22 to plot the conventional pushover curve.
In passing note that in the Capacity Spectrum Method (ATC, 1996) the peak
modal displacement is estimated with a different procedure, which is based on an
empirical response of a linear substitute SDOF system represented by its secant

20

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 5. Half-fishbone generic frame.

stiffness and an equivalent viscous damping associated with the hysteretic energy
dissipation at the peak modal displacement. Although this procedure has been very
popular in the engineering community due to its graphical appeal, comparisons
with the inelastic response spectra have yielded contradictory results (Chopra and
Goel, 1999).
4.4. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
As mentioned earlier, the Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA) procedure developed in this paper is applicable to any structure including three-dimensional systems provided that appropriate hysteretic models are used. However at
the initial stage of development, the procedure is tested only on two-dimensional
systems. In the example presented below, a simple half-fishbone generic frame
shown in Figure 5 is considered. Such generic frames are occasionally used to
approximate the lateral response of multi-story, multi-bay frames with equal spans
(e.g., Nakashima et al., 2002).
The generic frame shown in Figure 5 is derived from the nine-story benchmark steel building designed for the Los Angeles area as part of the SAC project
(Gupta and Krawinkler, 1999). In the present analysis, the basement of the frame
is not considered and the first story column is fixed at its base. Beam cross-section
characteristics of the generic frame are the same as the perimeter frames of the
SAC building while the story masses are taken equal to one tenth of the total story
masses. In the analysis model, centerline-to-centerline dimensions are considered
for beams and columns. Rigid-plastic point hinges with an elastic-ideal plastic
hysteretic behavior are used to represent the nonlinear behavior. Gravity loads and

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

21

P-delta effects are neglected in the analysis. The first three elastic natural periods
of the generic frame are calculated as 2.191 s, 0.832 s and 0.484 s.
The analysis is performed for the N-S component of El Centro record of Imperial Valley earthquake (1940), which is amplified by a factor of 1.5 to augment the
inelastic deformations. Four modes are considered in the analysis with IRSA. Nonlinear time-history analysis is also performed using the recently developed analysis
module of SAP 2000 software incorporating the plastic hinge element (CSI, 2002).
Rayleigh damping model is used in both types of analysis with 2% damping in the
first and second linear (initial) modes. Since the damping matrix is updated in SAP
2000 according to the instantaneous stiffness matrix, compatible modal damping
ratios are calculated for IRSA according to the instantaneous frequencies.
It must be emphasized that the performance of any approximate procedure
including IRSA under a given individual earthquake heavily depends on the selection of earthquake record itself. In this respect the classical El Centro record
is intentionally selected in this paper because of its broad frequency band, leading
to a balanced excitation in different modes. Note that same individual record is
also used by Chopra and Goel (2001) in introducing the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) procedure. The overall performance of a given procedure can only be
verified by statistical studies based on a suite of representative structures and appropriately selected earthquake records (e.g., Chopra and Chintanapakdee, 2002).
Figure 6 shows the modal capacity diagrams developed by IRSA for 1.5 times
the El Centro record. Circles on the diagrams denote the plastic hinges and triangles
indicate the peak modal response points in each mode. For this particular example,
the beam plastic hinges are sequentially developed at stories 7, 8, 1, 3, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9.
Peak floor displacements, story drift ratios, beam plastic hinge rotations, story
shears and story overturning moments estimated by IRSA are shown in Figure 7.
Plotted on the same graphs are the results obtained from the nonlinear time-history
analysis (NLTHA). Figure 7 indicates that in this particular example IRSA estimates all response quantities of interest with a reasonable accuracy and the errors
are within the acceptable limits for an approximate method. It appears that the
main source of error is the application of RSA at each pushover step, which leads
to the errors of similar magnitude or even greater in the purely elastic response. In
fact such errors can be seen in Figure 8 where the response quantities obtained for
the same earthquake record from the elastic RSA and linear time-history analysis
(LTHA) are compared with those shown in Figure 7. Since no plastic hinge occurs in the linear response, the elastic rotations of the rigid beam-column joints
are shown together with the plastic hinge rotations. Note that errors obtained in
the elastic response are implicitly accepted by the engineering profession in the
standard code applications based on RSA.
In Figure 9, the modal capacity diagrams obtained from IRSA are plotted together with those obtained from the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) procedure
(Chopra and Goel, 2001) using again four modes and the same damping model.
Note that in MPA the beam plastic hinges develop in the first mode at stories 3, 1, 4,

22

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 6. Modal capacity diagrams developed by IRSA for 1.5 times the 1940 El Centro (N-S)
record.

2, 5, however those hinges do not affect the independent formation of hinges at 8th
and 7th stories in the second mode, as indicated by asterisks in Figure 9 (in the first
mode hinges at 4th and 2nd stories are almost coincident and the asterisks overlap).
Fully elastic behavior is observed in the third and fourth modes. Peak response
quantities obtained by both procedures are shown in Figure 10 together with the
nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) results. For this particular example, the
superior performance of IRSA is clearly observed, especially in the estimation of
plastic hinge rotations. Also plotted in Figure 10 are the peak response quantities
estimated by a single-mode adaptive pushover analysis (single-mode IRSA), which
demonstrate the significance of the higher modes particularly in the story drift
ratios and plastic hinge rotations of a nine-story structure.
5. Practical Version of IRSA Using Smooth Elastic Response Spectrum
In the preceding section the Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA) procedure is developed and preliminarily tested for a given earthquake ground motion.
However the new method is ultimately intended for the practical applications where
the seismic input is defined through smooth elastic response spectra. In fact the direct use of real or simulated ground motion time-histories is still impractical in the

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

23

Figure 7. Peak response quantities including floor displacements, story drift ratios, beam
plastic hinge rotations, story shears and story overturning moments estimated by IRSA and
nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) for 1.5 times the 1940 El Centro (N-S) record.

earthquake engineering practice because of several reasons, such as the difficulties

in specifying the appropriate ground motions, scaling problems, large scatter in
results, difficulties in interpreting the design response quantities, etc. Therefore, a
standardized elastic response spectrum is preferable in identifying the earthquake
input, which ideally suits to the response spectrum analysis (RSA) procedure recommended in all current seismic codes. Since the proposed procedure is essentially
based on an incremental application of the same approach, a practical version of
IRSA based on smooth response spectrum can be readily developed as explained
in the following.

24

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 8. Peak response quantities obtained from elastic response spectrum analysis (RSA)
and linear time-history analysis (LTHA) with their inelastic counterparts obtained from IRSA
and NLTHA for 1.5 times the 1940 El Centro (N-S) record (elastic rotations of the rigid
beam-column joints are shown together with the plastic hinge rotations).

5.1. IRSA BASED ON EQUAL DISPLACEMENT RULE

It is well known that inelastic spectral displacements may be estimated by appropriately modifying the elastic spectral displacements defined through code-based
smooth response spectrum. In fact this is the practical approach adopted in FEMA
356 (FEMA, 2000) as well as by others (e.g., Fajfar, 19992002). The approach is
essentially based on the well-known equal displacement rule, which means that the
spectral displacement of an inelastic SDOF system and that of the corresponding
elastic system are practically equal to each other provided that the effective initial
(i)
(i)
= 2/En
(see Figure 4), is longer than the characteristic period of
period, TEn
the elastic response spectrum. The characteristic period is approximately defined as
the transition period from the constant acceleration segment to the constant velocity
segment of the pseudo-acceleration spectrum. For periods shorter than the charac-

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

25

Figure 9. Comparison of modal capacity diagrams of four-mode IRSA and Modal Pushover
Analysis (MPA) for 1.5 times the 1940 El Centro (N-S) record.

teristic period, the elastic spectral displacement is amplified using a displacement

modification factor, i.e., C1 coefficient given in FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000). In short
period range, C1 coefficient is a function of the effective initial period and the
yield reduction factor, R, the latter of which is defined as the ratio of the elastic
(i)
in
spectral pseudo-acceleration and the effective yield pseudo-acceleration, i.e. ayn
Figure 4.
However it is worth reminding that the equal displacement rule may not be
valid in the case of near-fault records with forward directivity where high amplifications may be observed in inelastic spectral displacements at certain pulse periods.
Note that the standard elastic response spectrum defined in FEMA 356 is also not
applicable to the near-fault earthquakes.
With the exception of near-fault records with forward directivity, the equal
displacement rule may be efficiently exploited in the practical implementation of
IRSA. It is clear that in mid- to high-rise structures, the effective initial periods
of the first few modes are likely to be longer than the above-defined characteristic
period of the elastic spectrum and therefore those modes automatically qualify for
the equal displacement rule. On the other hand, effective post-yield slopes of the
bilinear modal capacity diagrams get steeper and steeper in the higher modes with
gradually diminishing inelastic behavior see Figure 6 (Note that in those stiff
modes C1 coefficient of FEMA 356 would not be applicable, since it is based on
zero or very small values of post-yield slopes). Therefore it can be comfortably

26

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 10. Comparison of peak response quantities estimated by four-mode IRSA, four-mode
MPA, single-mode IRSA and NLTHA for 1.5 times the 1940 El Centro (N-S) record.

assumed that the peak modal displacement response in higher modes would not
be different from the peak elastic response. Hence, the smooth elastic response
spectrum as a whole may be effectively used in IRSA without modification for the
inelastic behavior. Accordingly, the inter-modal scale factor, (i)
n , defined by Eq. 20
can now be modified as
(i)
n =

(i)
Sden
dn(i1)
(i)
Sde1
d1(i1)

(34)

where instantaneous inelastic spectral displacement in Eq. 20 is now replaced with

(i)
, which represents the elastic spectral displacement of the nth mode based on
Sden
the above-defined effective initial period. The same spectral displacements are used
(p)
in Eqs. 31, 32 in place of Sdin to estimate the peak response quantities of interest.
The rest of the implementation of IRSA is the same as described in the previous
section for a given earthquake record.

27

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

With the near-fault records excluded, it can be concluded that the equal displacement rule and hence the code-specified smooth elastic response spectrum may
be effectively used for the practical version of IRSA, as illustrated in the example
presented below.
5.2. MONOTONIC SCALING OF THE SMOOTH RESPONSE SPECTRUM
In the above development of the practical version of IRSA, the effective initial
periods are used in estimating the inelastic spectral displacements according to
the equal displacement rule. It has to be admitted that the exact definition of an
effective initial period is always problematic, since bi-linearization is not a welldefined process. As an engineering approach, a further simplification can be made
in IRSA where the initial elastic periods obtained at the first pushover step may be
used instead of the effective initial periods. In this case the spectral displacements
calculated at the first pushover step can be constantly used in all subsequent steps,
i.e.,
(i)
(1)
= Sden
Sden

(i = 2, 3, . . . )

(35)

Accordingly, the basic scaling expression given by Eq. 18 can now be simplified as
(1)
dn(i) = F (i) Sden

(36)

where F (i) is a constant scale factor replacing F (i) in Eq. 18, which is again applicable to all modes at the ith pushover step. Consequently, the inter-modal scale
factor (Eq. 20) of each mode becomes constant for all pushover steps throughout
the pushover-history analysis:
(1)
(i)
n = n =

(1)
Sden
(1)
Sde1

(i = 2, 3, . . . )

(37)

Thus it is seen that the use of the initial elastic periods greatly simplifies the application of the practical version of IRSA. Following Eq. 36, it is further possible
to write a general scaling expression, which is applicable to the cumulative modal
displacement at the end of the ith pushover step as
(1)
dn(i) = F (i) Sden

(38)

where F (i) refers to the cumulative scale factor. Note that Eq. 38 actually represents
the monotonic scaling of the entire smooth response spectrum at each pushover step
as illustrated in the following example.
It is worth noting that the monotonic spectral scaling defined in Eq. 38 may
be regarded analogous to the scaling of an individual earthquake record as applied
in the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) procedure (Vamvatsikos and Cornell,
2002). In other words, when the initial elastic periods are used in the implementation of the equal displacement rule, IRSA can be looked upon as the spectral

28

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 11. Smooth elastic response spectrum with 2% damping.

analog of IDA. Hence it is possible to plot IRSA intensity/demand curves that are
analogous to the IDA curves as illustrated in the following example.
5.3. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE WITH SMOOTH ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM
The nine-story generic frame shown in Figure 5 is again considered to illustrate
the application of the practical version of IRSA based on smooth elastic response
spectrum. The standard FEMA spectrum with 5% damping is considered where
the short period and one-second spectral accelerations are taken as SS = 1.1 g and
S1 = 0.64 g, respectively. For an application to a steel building, this spectrum is
then modified to a spectrum with 2% damping according to FEMA 356 (FEMA,
2000) and plotted in Figure 11.
Figure 12 shows the modal capacity diagrams of the first four modes considered,
where the initial elastic periods are used instead of the effective periods in the
implementation of the equal displacement rule. Plastic hinges are again denoted
with circles and the peak modal response points with triangles. Comparison of
Figure 12 with Figure 6 reveals the significant effect of the seismic input on the
development of modal capacity diagrams. In this particular example, all beamends yield in sequence at stories 1, 3, 2, 4, 7, 8, 5, 6, 9 and the final yielding occurs
at the column base, indicating that the system has reached the global mechanism
configuration. Consequently, the slope of the first-mode capacity diagram in the last
pushover step, i.e., in between the last circle and the triangle in Figure 12 is zero,
which is actually equal to the first-mode eigenvalue of the system represented by a
singular stiffness matrix. It is interesting to note that the well-known Jacobi method
based on matrix transformation (Bathe, 1996), which is used in the implementation
of IRSA, is able to handle a singular stiffness matrix on a regular basis, resulting in
a zero eigenvalue in the first mode. The corresponding rigid mode shape is obtained

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

29

Figure 12. Modal capacity diagrams developed by the practical version of IRSA based on
smooth elastic response spectrum.

as a straight-line shape for the half-fishbone system considered. Other deformation

mode shapes and the corresponding eigenvalues are calculated as usual.
The application of the equal displacement rule is illustrated in Figure 13. The
above-defined smooth response spectrum is plotted in Acceleration-Displacement
Response Spectrum (ADRS) format together with the modal capacity diagrams previously given in Figure 12. The estimation of the modal spectral displacements at
the peak response according to the given spectrum as well the estimations at the
formation of the beam plastic hinge at 5th story with a monotonically scaled-down
spectrum are shown on the same figure.
Figure 14 shows the profiles of the pushover-histories (dashed lines) and the
peak values (solid lines) of the floor displacements, story drift ratios, beam plastic
hinge rotations, story shears and overturning moments estimated by IRSA using
the above-defined elastic response spectrum. Note that the amplifications of story
drifts and plastic hinge rotations at 7th and 8th stories due to higher mode effects
exhibit the same trend observed in Figure 7. Those amplifications disappear in
the single-mode response as shown in Figure 15 where peak response quantities
given in Figure 14 are compared with those obtained from the single-mode adaptive
pushover analysis (single-mode IRSA).
Finally, two intensity/demand curves are plotted in Figure 16, which may be
interpreted as the spectral analogs of the IDA curves of the Incremental Dynamic

30

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 13. Illustration of equal displacement rule based on initial elastic periods to estimate
modal displacements associated with peak response and those at the formation of beam plastic
hinge at 5th story from smooth elastic response spectrum plotted in ADRS format.

Analysis (Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002). The vertical axis in both curves indicates the so-called ground motion intensity measure (IM), which is defined here
as the monotonic scale factor applied to the smooth response spectrum shown in
Figure 11, while the horizontal axes refer to the damage measures (DM), which
are selected as the maximum story drift ratio and the maximum beam plastic hinge
rotation developed in the structure. These curves can be efficiently used in estimating the allowable ground motion intensity level corresponding to an acceptable
level of a damage measure for a selected performance objective. For example, if
0.02 radian maximum plastic hinge rotation is accepted as a performance limit for
beams, the allowable spectrum scale factor is read from the figure as 1.24. However
if the performance limit for the maximum story drift is specified as 2%, then the
allowable spectrum scale factor is obtained as 0.90.
6. Summary of IRSA
Before concluding the paper it is deemed useful to summarize the analysis stages
of the Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA) procedure to be applied
at each pushover step during the pushover-history process. Notes for single-mode
analysis are written in italics.

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

31

Figure 14. Pushover-histories and peak values of response quantities including floor displacements, story drift ratios, beam plastic hinge rotations, story shears and story overturning
moments estimated by the practical version of IRSA based on smooth response spectrum.

(1) Condense out massless degrees of freedom from the instantaneous (tangent)
stiffness matrix modified at the end of the previous pushover step.
(2) Run free vibration analysis (preferably use the Jacobi method to handle global
or local mechanisms). Obtain instantaneous eigenvalues with the corresponding
eigenvectors and calculate the participation factors for the number of modes considered (Eq. 3). In the case of single-mode analysis, consider the first mode only.
(3) In each mode, calculate unit modal response quantities of interest, rn(i) , including
the bending moments of the potential plastic hinges, M jn(i) , induced by u (i)
n defined
in Eq. 15.
(4) Convert each modal capacity diagram to a bilinear diagram according to Figure 4 and calculate the initial effective period. Skip this stage in the first and second
pushover steps (in the first step modal capacity diagrams are linear while in the
second they are already bilinear). In the case of single-mode analysis both this

32

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Figure 15. Comparison of peak response quantities estimated by four-mode IRSA and
single-mode IRSA based on smooth response spectrum.

stage and the next stage are optional, which are required only to estimate the peak
response quantities, see Stage (9). In the practical version of IRSA based on smooth
response spectrum with initial elastic periods, skip this stage.
(5) For each mode calculate spectral displacement either from the solution of Eq. 7
for a given earthquake using the bilinear modal capacity diagram or from the specified smooth elastic response spectrum using the initial effective period obtained at
Stage (4). If the initial elastic period is used in the latter case for simplicity, spectral
displacements are calculated only once at the first pushover step.
(6) Calculate inter-modal scale factors for all modes considered from Eq. 20 or
Eq. 34 as appropriate. In the practical version of IRSA with initial elastic periods,
inter-modal scale factors are calculated from Eq. 37 only once at the first pushover
step and thereafter constantly used in all steps. In the case of single-mode analysis
skip this stage, as the inter-modal scale factor is always unity.

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

33

Figure 16. Intensity/demand curves associated with maximum story drift ratio and maximum
beam plastic hinge rotation.

(7) Using the information obtained at Stage (3) and Stage (6) calculate combined
unit response quantities of interest, r (i) , including the bending moments of the
potential plastic hinges, M j(i) , from Eq. 23 and Eq. 26, respectively. In the case
of single-mode analysis skip this stage, as these quantities are equal to those
calculated at Stage (3).
(8) Calculate the first modal displacement increment from Eq. 28 and locate the
plastic hinge yielded at the end of this pushover step. Then obtain the response
quantities of interest from Eq. 29 and the new coordinates of modal capacity diagram(s) from Eq. 30.
(9) Check if the first modal displacement exceeded the first-mode spectral displacement obtained at Stage (5). If exceeded, calculate the peak response quantities from
Eqs. 32, 33 and terminate the analysis. If not, continue with the next stage.
(10) Considering the last yielded hinge determined at Stage (8), modify the current
stiffness matrix and return to Stage (1) for the next pushover step.
7. Conclusions
In this paper an attempt was made to develop a new pushover analysis procedure,
which is able to consider the multi-mode effects in a practical and theoretically consistent manner. In this direction, first the nonlinear time-history response of MDOF
systems was treated through the conventional mode-superposition procedure in a
piecewise linear fashion. The aim of this treatment was to show that the uncoupled
modal equations of motion actually exhibit a hysteretic behavior represented by
modal hysteresis loops. Making a reasonable approximation, it was further shown
that the backbone curves of those hysteresis loops could be defined as the modal
capacity diagrams. Those diagrams can be looked upon as the generalization of

34

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

first-mode capacity diagram, which is essentially identical to the capacity spectrum

defined in ATC-40 document (ATC, 1996).
The practical construction of the modal capacity diagrams was the basic motive
behind the development of IRSA. This required two critical approximations to be
made. First, the conventional Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) procedure applicable to linear systems was extended to the nonlinear systems as an incremental
procedure to be implemented at each pushover step in between the two consecutive
configuration of the nonlinear system, or more specifically in between the formation of the two consecutive plastic hinges. The second critical approximation was
on the estimation of the relative magnitudes of the modal displacement increments
at each pushover step. The novel scaling procedure proposed for this purpose incorporated the inelastic spectral displacements associated with the instantaneous
configuration of the nonlinear system.
It is important to note that the proposed multi-mode pushover procedure is
essentially applicable to three-dimensional response of any structural system. However at the present stage of development the application of IRSA is illustrated
on a simple two-dimensional system under a specific earthquake ground motion.
The preliminary results appear to be promising in terms of accuracy obtained in
estimating the peak values of the main inelastic response quantities, such as lateral
displacements, story drifts, plastic hinge rotations as well as the peak values of the
story shears and overturning moments. It is clear that the fidelity of the procedure
should be evaluated through statistical studies using different structural systems
and earthquake ground motions.
It needs to be emphasized that the ultimate objective of IRSA was its practical
application based on code-specified smooth response spectrum. This was achieved
in the last section of the paper, where the well-known equal displacement rule was
effectively utilized to estimate the inelastic spectral displacements. An illustrative
example was presented for the practical application. It was further shown that
if the initial elastic periods were used instead of the effective initial periods in
the implementation of the equal displacement rule, the practical version of IRSA
could be greatly simplified. In this particular case, the smooth response spectrum
is monotonically scalable and IRSA effectively becomes the spectral analog of the
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) procedure.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the further development of IRSA is underway, in which the procedure is being extended to include the P-delta effects.
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to Professor Mustafa Erdik, chairman of Earthquake Engineering Department of KOERI, for his continuous support and encouragement
during the course of development of the analysis procedure presented in this paper.
The author is also thankful to his students Levent zden and Gktrk nem for
their help in preparing figures and running time-history analysis.

INCREMENTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

35

References
Antoniou S., Rovithakis A., Pinho R. (2002) Development and verification of a fully adaptive
pushover procedure. Paper No.822, Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, London.
ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (ATC-40). Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California.
ATC (2002) Evaluation and improvement of inelastic seismic analysis procedures (ATC-55). Applied
Technology Council, www.atcouncil.org.
Aydnoglu M.N., Fahjan Y.M. (2003) A unified formulation of the piecewise exact method for inelastic seismic demand analysis including the P-delta effect. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 32(6), 871890.
Bathe K-J. (1996) Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Chopra A.K. (2001) Dynamics of Structures, second edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Chopra A.K., Chintanapakdee C. (2002) Modal pushover analysis on generic frames. Proceedings of
7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts.
Chopra A.K., Goel R.K. (1999) Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design
spectrum. Earthquake Spectra 15(4), 637656.
Chopra A.K., Goel R.K. (2001) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands
for buildings. PEER Report 2001/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of
California Berkeley.
Clough R.W., Penzien J. (1993) Dynamics of Structures, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
CSI (2002) SAP 2000 Version 8, Analysis reference manual. Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, California.
Elnashai A.S. (2002) Do we really need inelastic dynamic analysis? Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 6, 123130.
Fajfar P. (1999) Capacity Spectrum Method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28, 979993.
Fajfar P. (2002) Structural analysis in earthquake engineering A breakthrough of simplified
non-linear methods. Paper No. 843, Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, London.
FEMA (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 273). Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
FEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
Gupta A., Krawinkler H. (1999) Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures. Report No. 132, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,
Stanford University, California.
Gupta B., Kunnath S.K. (2000) Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of
structures. Earthquake Spectra 16(2), 367391.
Krawinkler H., Seneviratna G.D.P.K. (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic
performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 20(46), 452464.
Nakashima M., Ogawa K., Inoue K. (2002) Generic frame model for simulation of earthquake
responses of steel moment frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31,
671692.
Paret T.F., Sasaki K.K., Eilbeck D.H. and Freeman S.A. (1996) Approximate inelastic procedures to
identify failure mechanisms from higher mode effects. Paper No. 966, Proceedings of 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.
Priestley M.J.N. (2000) Performance based seismic design. Paper No. 2831, Proceedings of 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand.

36

M. NURAY AYDINOGLU

Sasaki K.K., Freeman S.A., Paret T.F. (1998) Multimode pushover procedure (MMP) A method
to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. Proceedings of 6th U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington.
Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A. (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 31, 491514.