Professor Peter Fajfar

University of Ljubljana
Jamova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Peter.Fajfar@ikpir.fgg.uni-lj.si
Main research interests:
Linear and nonlinear analysis of structures, Performance-based
seismic design

It is an immense pleasure for me to be able to participate at the symposium to honor the person
and achievements of Professor Luis Esteva. He is truly a remarkable person. His contributions to
the general understanding of earthquake engineering are enormous. He has won the respect and
admiration of all for his excellent research work and wonderful personality.
I do not remember when exactly I met Luis for the first time. It was at one of the early
conferences on earthquake engineering. Since then, I have had not only the pleasure of listening
to many of his inspiring presentations, but also the privilege of having valuable personal
discussions. He has always impressed me with his energy and enthusiasm. Although my narrow
research field was different from his, I have benefited a lot from his important ideas and original
concepts. More recently, I was fortunate to have an opportunity to work under skillful Luis's
leadership in the International Association for Earthquake Engineering and to cooperate with
him on the topics related to the international journal Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics. Here I noticed Luis's diplomatic skills and ability to find smooth solutions of the
problems.
Luis, thank you for your friendship and your continuous support and best wishes for future
achievements in Earthquake Engineering and for many continued years of happiness.

Peter Fajfar
2. August 2005

THE EXTENSION OF THE N2 METHOD TO ASYMMETRIC BUILDINGS

Peter Fajfar, Damjan Marui and Iztok Peru
ABSTRACT
The paper deals with the extension of the N2 method to asymmetric building
structures, represented by a 3D structural model. The results of recent parametric
studies suggest that in the majority of cases an upper limit for torsional effects can
be estimated by a linear dynamic (spectral) analysis. Based on this observation, it
is proposed that the results obtained by pushover analysis of a 3D structural
model be combined with the results of a linear dynamic (spectral) analysis. The
former results control the target displacements and the distribution of
deformations along the height of the building, whereas the latter results define the
torsional amplifications. In the paper, first the theoretical background of the
transformation of a 3D MDOF model to an equivalent SDOF model is given.
Then, the proposed extended N2 method is summarized and applied to a test
example of an asymmetric three-storey reinforced concrete frame (SPEAR)
building. The results are compared with results of nonlinear dynamic time-history
analyses.
Introduction
Simplified methods for seismic analysis based on nonlinear static (pushover) analysis
represent a relatively simple and efficient tool for seismic assessment of structures. They have
become very popular in research and also in application. Originally, all methods were limited to
planar structural models. Recently, attempts have been made to extend the applicability of
simplified methods to asymmetric structures, which require a 3D analysis, e.g. (Ayala and
Tavera 2002), (Aydinoglu 2003), (Chopra and Goel 2004), (Fujii et al. 2004), (Yu et al. 2004)
and (Zrate and Ayala 2004).
One of simplified nonlinear methods is the N2 method (Fajfar and Fischinger 1988, Fajfar and
Gaperi 1996, Fajfar 2000), which has been implemented in Eurocode 8 (Annex B of Part 1).
In the N2 method, seismic demand is determined from inelastic spectra and depends on the
period of the idealized equivalent SDOF system. The transformation from the MDOF to an
equivalent SDOF system is based on the assumption of a time-invariant displacement shape.
This assumption represents the major limitation of the applicability of the method. It works well
in the case of planar structural models with small influence of higher modes. In the case of
asymmetric building structures, represented by a 3D structural model, several modes may
substantially contribute to the response and the torsional effects may not be properly taken into
account by a straightforward extension of the N2 method to 3D models, used in some earlier
publication by the authors (Fajfar 2002, Fajfar, Kilar et al. 2002, Fajfar, Magliulo et al. 2002,

Kilar and Fajfar 2002). The results of recent parametric studies suggest that in the majority of
cases an upper limit for torsional effects can be estimated by a linear dynamic (spectral) analysis
(Peru and Fajfar 2005, Marui and Fajfar 2005). Based on this observation, it has been
proposed that the results obtained by pushover analysis of a 3D structural model be combined
with the results of a linear dynamic (spectral) analysis (Fajfar et al. 2005). The former results
control the target displacements and the distribution of deformations along the height of the
building, whereas the latter results define the torsional amplifications. The same or a similar
approach for the estimation of torsional effects can be applied to other pushover-based methods.
A combination of linear dynamic and pushover analyses has also been used by Tso and
Moghadam (1997) and Moghadam and Tso (2000). However, in their method the target
displacements for different substructures (e.g. planar frames or walls) are determined by the 3D
elastic dynamic analysis of the model representing the whole structure. 2D pushover analyses of
most critical substructures are then performed.
In the paper, the proposed extended N2 method is summarized and applied to a test example of
an asymmetric three-storey reinforced concrete frame building (SPEAR building, pseudodynamically tested in full-scale in ELSA). The results are compared with results of nonlinear
dynamic time-history analyses.
Description of the N2 method
In this chapter, the steps of the simple version of the N2 method, extended to asymmetric
structures, are described. A simple version of the spectrum for the reduction factor is applied. It
should be noted, however, that the suggested procedures used in particular steps of the method
can be easily replaced by other available procedures. Additional information on the N2 method
can be found in (Fajfar 2000, planar version) and (Fajfar 2002, extended version).
Step 1: Data
A 3-D model of the building structure is used. The floor diaphragms are assumed to be rigid in
the horizontal plane. The number of degrees of freedom is three times the number of storeys N.
The degrees of freedom are grouped in three sub-vectors, representing displacements at the
storey levels in the horizontal directions x and y, and torsional rotations UT = [UxT, UyT, UzT].
In addition to the data needed for the usual elastic analysis, the non-linear force - deformation
relationships for structural elements under monotonic loading are also required. The most
common element model is the beam element with concentrated plasticity at both ends. A bilinear
or trilinear moment - rotation relationship is usually used.
Seismic demand is traditionally defined in the form of an elastic (pseudo)-acceleration spectrum
Sae (pseudo will be omitted in the following text), in which spectral accelerations are given as
a function of the natural period of the structure T. In principle, any spectrum can be used.
However, the most convenient is a spectrum of the Newmark-Hall type. The specified damping
coefficient is taken into account in the spectrum.
Step 2: Seismic Demand in AD Format

Starting from the usual acceleration spectrum (acceleration versus period), inelastic spectra in
acceleration displacement (AD) format can be determined. For an elastic SDOF system, the
following relation applies
S de =

T2
4 2

S ae
(1)

where Sae and Sde are the values in the elastic acceleration and displacement spectrum,
respectively, corresponding to the period T and a fixed viscous damping ratio.
For an inelastic SDOF system with a bilinear force - deformation relationship, the acceleration
spectrum (Sa) and the displacement spectrum (Sd) can be determined as

Sa =

S ae
R

(2)

T2
T2
Sd =
S de =
S ae =
Sa
R
R 4 2
4 2

(3)

where is the ductility factor defined as the ratio between the maximum displacement and the
yield displacement, and R is the reduction factor due to ductility, i.e., due to the hysteretic
energy dissipation of ductile structures. Note that R is not equivalent to the reduction factor R
used in seismic codes. The code reduction factor R, which is in Eurocode 8 called behaviour
factor q, takes into account both energy dissipation and the so-called overstrength Rs. It can be
defined as R = R Rs.
Several proposals have been made for the reduction factor R. In the simple version of the N2
method, we will make use of a bilinear spectrum for the reduction factor R

R = ( 1)

R =

T
+1
TC

T TC

T < TC

(4)
(5)

where TC is the characteristic period of the ground motion. It is typically (e.g. in Eurocode 8)
defined as the transition period where the constant acceleration segment of the response
spectrum (the short-period range) passes to the constant velocity segment of the spectrum (the
medium-period range). Eqs. 3 and 5 suggest that, in the medium- and long-period ranges, the
equal displacement rule applies, i.e., the displacement of the inelastic system is equal to the
displacement of the corresponding elastic system with the same period.
Starting from the elastic design spectrum, and using Eqs. 3 to 5, the demand spectra for the

constant ductility factors in AD format can be obtained. They represent inelastic demand
spectra. It should be noted that the construction of these spectra is in fact not needed in the
computational procedure. They just help for the visualisation of the procedure.
Step 3: Pushover Analysis
Using a pushover analysis, a characteristic non-linear force - displacement relationship of the
MDOF system can be determined. In principle, any force and displacement can be chosen.
Usually, base shear and roof (top) displacement are used as representative of force and
displacement, respectively. The selection of an appropriate lateral load distribution is an
important step within the pushover analysis. A unique solution does not exist. Fortunately, the
range of reasonable assumptions is usually relatively narrow and, within this range, different
assumptions produce similar results. One practical possibility is to use two different
displacement shapes (load patterns) and to envelope the results.
Lateral loads are applied in mass centres of different storeys. The vector of the lateral loads P,
which generally consists of components in three directions (forces in the x and y direction and
torsional moments) is determined as

P=p=pM

(6)

where M is the mass matrix. The magnitude of the lateral loads is controlled by p. The
distribution of lateral loads is related to the assumed displacement shape . (Note that the
displacement shape is needed only for the transformation from the MDOF to the equivalent
SDOF system in Step 4). Consequently, the assumed load and displacement shapes are not
mutually independent as in the majority of other pushover analysis approaches. The procedure
can start either by assuming displacement shape and determining lateral load distribution
according to Eq. 6, or by assuming lateral load distribution and determining displacement
shape from Eq. 6. Note that Eq. 6 does not present any restriction regarding the distribution of
lateral loads.
Generally, can consist of non-zero components in three directions (two horizontal directions
and of torsional rotation). In such a case (coupled displacement shape) lateral loads also consist
of components in three directions. The procedure can be substantially simplified if lateral loads
are applied in one direction only. This is a special case that requires that also the assumed
displacement shape has non-zero components in one direction only, e.g.

T = [xT, 0T, 0T]

(7)

This special case is used in the proposed extended version of the N2 method. It should be noted,
however, that even in this special case of uncoupled assumed displacement shape, the resulting
displacements, determined by a pushover analysis of an asymmetric structure, will be coupled,
i.e. they will have components in three directions.
From Eqs. 6 and 7 it follows that the lateral force in the x-direction at the i-th level is
proportional to the component x,i of the assumed displacement shape x, weighted by the
storey mass mi

Px,i = p mi x,i

(8)

Such a relation has a physical background: if the assumed displacement shape was equal to the
mode shape and constant during ground shaking, i.e. if the structural behaviour was elastic, then
the distribution of lateral forces would be equal to the distribution of effective earthquake forces
and Eq. 6 was exact. In inelastic range, the displacement shape changes with time and Eq. 6
represents an approximation. Nevertheless, by assuming related lateral forces and displacements
according to Eq. 6, the transformation from the MDOF to the equivalent SDOF system and viceversa (Steps 4 and 6) follows from simple mathematics not only in elastic but also in inelastic
range. No additional approximations are required, as in the case of some other simplified
procedures.
In the proposed method, lateral loading, determined according to Eqs. 6 and 7, is applied
independently in two horizontal directions, in each direction with + and - sign.
Step 4: Equivalent SDOF Model and Capacity Curve
In the N2 method, seismic demand is determined by using response spectra. Inelastic behaviour
is taken into account explicitly. Consequently, the structure should, in principle, be modelled as
a SDOF system. Different procedures have been used to determine the characteristics of an
equivalent SDOF system. One of them, used in the current version of the N2 method, is
summarized below.
The starting point is the equation of motion of a 3D structural model (with 3N degrees of
freedom) representing a multi-storey building (damping is not taken into account because it will
be included in the spectrum)

&& + R = M s a
MU

(9)

R is a vector representing internal forces, a is the ground acceleration as a function of time, and s
is a vector defining the direction of ground motion. In the case of uni-directional ground motion,
e.g. in the direction x, the vector s consists of one unit sub-vector and of two sub-vectors equal
to 0.
sT = [1T, 0T, 0T ]

(10)

In the N2 method, ground motion is applied independently in two horizontal directions.

Consequently, two separate analyses have to be performed with two different s vectors
(vector (10) and a similar vector that corresponds to the ground excitation in the y-direction). A
derivation, presented in (Fajfar 2002) yields the following formulas.
The displacement and force of the equivalent SDOF system D* and F* are defined as

D* =

Dt
,

F* =

(11), (12)

where Dt is the top displacement of the MDOF system and

V = p T M s = pm *

(13)

is the base shear of the MDOF model in the direction of ground motion. m* is the equivalent
mass of the SDOF system

m* = T M s

(14)

The constant controls the transformation from the MDOF to the SDOF model and vice- versa.
It is defined as

T M s m*
=
T M L*

(15)

Note that m* depends on the direction of ground motion. Consequently, , D*, and F* also
depend on the direction of ground motion. In the case of ground motion in one (x) direction
(Eq. 10) and assuming a simple uncoupled displacement shape (Eq. 7), the following equations
apply

m*x =

m
i

x ,i

Vx = pmi x ,i = Px ,i
=

m
m
i
i

x ,i
2
x ,i

(16)
(17)

(18)

Eq. 18 is the same equation as in the case of planar structures. Consequently, the transformation
from the MDOF to the SDOF system and vice versa is exactly the same as in the case of a planar
structure.
is usually called the modal participation factor. Note that the assumed displacement shape is
normalized the value at the top is equal to 1. Note also that any reasonable shape can be used
for . As a special case, the elastic first mode shape can be assumed.

The same constant applies for the transformation of both displacements and forces (Eqs. 11
and 12). As a consequence, the force - displacement relationship determined for the MDOF
system (the V - Dt diagram) applies also to the equivalent SDOF system (the F* - D* diagram),
provided that both force and displacement are divided by .
In order to determine a simplified (elastic - perfectly plastic) force displacement relationship

for the equivalent SDOF system, engineering judgement has to be used. In regulatory documents
some guidelines may be given. In Annex B of Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004) the bilinear idealization is
based on the equal energy principle. Note that the displacement demand depends on the
equivalent stiffness which, in the case of the equal energy approach, depends on the target
displacement. In principle, an iterative approach is needed, in which a target displacement is
assumed, the bilinear idealization is made and the target displacement is determined. This value
is then used then as the new approximation for target displacement. According to Eurocode 8,
the displacement at the formation of plastic mechanism can be used as the initial approximation
for target displacement. Iteration is allowed but not required.
The graphical procedure (visualization), used in the simple N2 method, requires that the postyield stiffness is equal to zero. This is because the reduction factor R is defined as the ratio of
the required elastic strength to the yield strength. The influence of a moderate strain hardening is
incorporated in the demand spectra. It should be emphasized that moderate strain hardening does
not have a significant influence on displacement demand, and that the proposed spectra
approximately apply for systems with zero or small strain-hardening.
The elastic period of the idealized bilinear system T* can be determined as
T* = 2

m* D *y
Fy*

(19)

where Fy* and D *y are the yield strength and displacement, respectively.
Note that, alternatively, first the bilinear idealization of the pushover curve can be made and then
the transformation to the equivalent SDOF system can be made. The same equations apply.
Finally, the capacity diagram in AD format is obtained by dividing the forces in the force deformation (F* - D*) diagram by the equivalent mass m*
Sa =

F
m*

(20)

The procedure is applied for both horizontal directions, in each direction with + and - sign.
Step 5: Seismic Demand for the Equivalent SDOF System
The determination of the seismic demand for the equivalent SDOF system is illustrated in Fig. 1
(for medium- and long-period structures, for which the equal displacement rule applies; for
short-period structures see e.g. (Fajfar 200)). Both the demand spectra and the capacity diagram
have been plotted in the same graph. The intersection of the radial line corresponding to the
elastic period T* of the idealized bilinear system with the elastic demand spectrum defines the
acceleration demand (strength), required for elastic behaviour Sae, and the corresponding elastic
displacement demand Sde. The yield acceleration Say represents both the acceleration demand and
the capacity of the inelastic system. The reduction factor R can be determined as the ratio

between the accelerations corresponding to the elastic and inelastic systems

R =

( )

S ae T
S ay

(21)

Note that R is not the same as the reduction (behaviour, response modification) factor R used in
seismic codes. The code reduction factor R takes into account both energy dissipation and the socalled overstrength. The design acceleration Sad is typically smaller than the yield acceleration
Say.
If the elastic period T* is larger than or equal to TC, the inelastic displacement demand Sd is equal
to the elastic displacement demand Sde (see Eqs. 3 and 5, and Fig. 1). From triangles in Fig. 1 it
follows that the ductility demand, defined as = Sd / D y , is equal to R
T* TC

Sd = Sde (T*)

(22)

= R

(23)
Sa
T*
Sae

= 1 (elastic)

Say
Sad
Dd* Dy*

Figure 1.

Sd = Sde

Sd

Elastic and inelastic demand spectra versus capacity curve.

If the elastic period of the system is smaller than TC, the ductility demand can be calculated from
the rearranged Eq. 4

= (R 1)

TC
+1
T

T* < TC

(24)

The displacement demand can be determined either from the definition of ductility or from
Eqs. 3 and 24 as
S d = D y =

S de
T
1 + (R 1) C
R
T

(25)

In both cases ( T < TC and T TC ) the inelastic demand in terms of accelerations and
displacements corresponds to the intersection point of the capacity diagram with the demand
spectrum corresponding to the ductility demand . At this point, the ductility factor determined
from the capacity diagram and the ductility factor associated with the intersecting demand
spectrum are equal.
All steps in the procedure can be performed numerically without using the graph. However,
visualization of the procedure may help in better understanding the relations between the basic
quantities. Two additional quantities are shown in Fig. 1. Sad represents a typical design strength,
i.e. strength required by codes for ductile structures, and Dd* is the corresponding displacement
obtained by linear analysis.
The procedure is applied in two horizontal directions, in each direction with + and - sign.
Usually, the results obtained for both signs are similar. In such a case, the larger value of two
values, obtained for + and sign, can used as the target displacement (displacement demand at
CM) in each horizontal direction. Alternatively, the complete analysis can be performed for both
signs and the envelopes of all relevant quantities can be taken as the end result.
Step 6: Global Seismic Demand for the MDOF Model
The displacement demand for the SDOF model Sd is transformed into the maximum top
displacement Dt of the MDOF system (target displacement) by using Eq. 11.
Step 7: Determination of Torsional Effects
Torsional effects are determined by a linear modal analysis of the 3D mathematical model,
independently for excitation in two horizontal directions and combining the results according to
the SRSS rule.
Step 8: Local Seismic Demand for the MDOF Model
Under monotonically increasing lateral loads with a fixed pattern (as in Step 3), the structure is
pushed to Dt. It is assumed that the distribution of deformations throughout the height of the
structure in the static (pushover) analysis approximately corresponds to that which would be
obtained in the dynamic analyses. Separate 3D pushover analyses are performed in two
horizontal directions.
The correction factors to be applied to the relevant results of pushover analyses are determined.
The correction factor is defined as the ratio between the normalized roof displacements obtained
by elastic modal analysis and by pushover analysis. The normalized roof displacement is the roof
displacement at an arbitrary location divided by the roof displacement at the CM. If the
normalized roof displacement obtained by elastic modal analysis is smaller than 1.0, the value
1.0 is used, i.e. no de-amplification due to torsion is taken into account. Correction factors are
defined for each horizontal direction separately. Note that the correction factor depends on the
location in the plan. All relevant quantities obtained by pushover analyses are multiplied with
appropriate correction factors. For example, in a perimeter frame parallel to the X-axis, all
quantities are multiplied with the correction factor determined with pushover results obtained
for loading in the X-direction and for the location of this frame. The relevant quantities are, for
example, deformations for the ductile elements, which are expected to yield, and the stresses for

brittle elements, which are expected to remain in the elastic range.

Step 9: Performance Evaluation (Damage Analysis)
Expected performance can be assessed by comparing the seismic demands, determined in Step 8,
with the capacities for the relevant performance level. The determination of seismic capacity is
not discussed in this paper. Global performance can be visualized by comparing displacement
capacity and demand.

Test example - SPEAR building

The test structure represents a typical older three-storey reinforced concrete frame
building (Fig. 2a). The storey heights amount to 3.0 meters. The structure was experimentally
and numerically investigated in the SPEAR project (www.strulab.civil.upatras.gr/spear/). In the
analyses, presented in this paper, a model developed before the tests (the final pre-test model,
the details of the model will be presented elsewhere) was used. The CANNY program (Li 2002)
was employed. The mathematical model consists of beam elements. Flexural behaviour of beams
was modelled by one-component lumped plasticity elements, composed of elastic beam and two
inelastic rotational hinges. Rotational hinges were defined with the tri-linear moment-rotation
envelope, which includes pre-crack, post-crack and post-yield parts, and Takedas hysteretic
rules (Cross-peak trilinear model CP3) in time-history analysis. The plastic hinge was used for
the major-axis bending only. For flexural behaviour of columns also a one-component lumped
plasticity model was used, with two independent plastic hinges for bending about the two
principal axes. The eccentricities between the mass centres and approximate stiffness centres
amount to about 10 % and 14 % in the X- and Y-directions, respectively. The total mass of the
structure amounts to 195 tons. The three fundamental periods of vibration of the building
(considering some inelastic deformations - cracks due to gravity load), amount to 0.63 s, 0.58 s,
and 0.45 s. The first mode is predominantly in the X-direction, the second predominantly in the
Y-direction, whereas the third mode is predominantly torsional.
X3

X2,2

Acceleration [g]

CM
X2,1

1.0

Spectrum
EC8
Mean XY
0.5

X1,2

X1,1

0.0
9.7

Figure 2a. Schematic plan of the

SPEAR building.

T [s]

Figure 2b. Mean of the elastic spectra for

5% damping and the elastic spectrum
according to EC8 Type 1 Soil C; ag = 0.3 g.

In dynamic analyses, bi-directional semi-artificial ground motion records were used. The
horizontal components of seven recorded ground motions were fitted to the EC8 elastic design
spectrum (Type 1, soil C, Fig. 2b). The ground motions were scaled to peak ground acceleration
ag = 0.3. For each record 8 different combinations of directions and signs of components were
applied. In modal analysis, which provides results needed for the determination of the torsional
influences in the N2 method, the same EC8 spectra were applied in both horizontal directions.
Five percent damping was used in all analyses. In time-history analysis Reyleigh damping (with
instantaneous stiffness matrix) was applied. The P- effect was not taken into account.
Analysis by the extended N2 Method
Pushover analyses were performed in two horizontal directions with lateral loads based on the
fundamental mode shapes in the relevant direction, i.e. x-components of the first mode shape
were used in X-direction, and y-components of the second mode shape were used in Y-direction.
Loading was applied with + and sign.

Base shear [kN]

X-direction

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Y-direction

10 12 14 16

Sa [g]

10 12 14 16

Pushover curves and bilinear idealizations for loading with + and - sign.
X-direction

Y-direction

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Figure 4.

Top displacement [cm]

Top displacement [cm]

Figure 3.

6 8
Sd [cm]

10 12 14 16 18 0

6 8
Sd [cm]

10 12 14 16 18

Elastic and inelastic demand spectra and capacity curves (for loading with +

and sign).
The results of pushover analyses are shown in Fig. 3. Iteration was used for determination of the
bilinear idealization of pushover curves, as described in Step 4 of the procedure. (Note that in the
test example the alternative with the idealization of the pushover curve for the MDOF system
was used.) The idealized force displacement relationships are plotted in Fig. 3.
X-direction

Y-direction

1.5

Time-history

u/uCM

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7

Mean
Mean +
Envelope
N2
Modal
Pushover
Stiff

CM

Flex.

Stiff

CM

Flex.

Figure 5. Torsional effects in terms of normalized top displacements obtained by the N2

method, by modal analysis, by time-history analysis (mean, mean + sigma values and envelope)
and by pushover analysis.

u [cm]

X-direction

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Y-direction

Time-history
Mean
Mean +
Envelope
N2
Stiff

CM

Flex.

Stiff

CM

Flex.

Figure 6. Displacement (in plane) at the top of the building obtained by N2 and time-history
analyses.
The capacity curves and the elastic and inelastic demand spectra are shown in Fig. 4. In both
horizontal directions, larger displacement demands apply to the loading with the + sign. For the
equivalent SDOF system they amount to 12.8 and 11.1 cm in X- and Y- direction, respectively,

whereas the corresponding top displacements of the MDOF system in CM amount to 15.8 and
14.2 cm. The displacement ductility demands (regarding the yield point of the idealized bilinear
systems) amount to about 2.5 in both directions.
Torsional effects in terms of normalized roof displacements determined by the proposed
extension of the N2 method are presented in Fig. 5. The N2 results are compared with the results
of elastic modal (spectral) analysis, non-linear time-history analysis for ag = 0.30 g, and
pushover analysis.
The static analysis suggested that some cracks (non-linear deformations) occurred already due to
gravity loads. This state was assumed as the initial (elastic) state of the building, and the
modes of vibration of the building in such a condition were taken into account for the modal
analysis. Modal analysis was performed independently for the loading in both horizontal
directions, using the CQC rule for the combination of different modes, which is considered
appropriate for structures with closely spaced modes. The results of analyses for both directions
were combined by the SRSS rule.
According to the proposed extension of the N2 method, the results of elastic modal analysis are
used to determine the torsional effect, provided that amplification due to torsion occurs.
Consequently, the N2 results coincide with the line obtained by elastic modal analysis on the
stiff side. No de-amplification due to torsion is allowed in the N2 method. So a constant value of
1.0 applies on the stiff side of the building. If compared with the mean results of nonlinear timehistory analyses, the proposed N2 approach is conservative. The N2 results are close to mean+
values. However, it should be noted that the torsional effects are in general higher if the ground
motion intensity is lower (see Fajfar et al 2005). Moreover, some particular ground motions can
produce very high torsional influences, as demonstrated by the envelope of results.
A pushover analysis with forces applied in the centre of masses at each floor at the same target
displacement yields very small torsional rotations. According to the proposed extension of the
N2 method, the results of pushover analysis are corrected by multiplying them by the ratio
between the N2 normalized displacements and normalized displacements obtained by pushover
analyses. The correction factors amount to 1.29, 1.22, 1.21 for columns and beams in the frames
Y3,1, Y3,2, and X3, respectively. For other frames the factors are small (from 1.00 to 1.05).
Absolute values of roof displacements are plotted in Fig. 6. The N2 displacements in CM are 34
% and 23 % larger than the mean values obtained by time-history analysis and are larger than the
mean +. Note, however, that the standard deviation of the sample of accelerograms is very
small because all accelerograms are fitted to the same spectrum. In the case of recorded
accelerograms, the coefficient of variation for displacements usually amounts to about 0.3. On
the other hand, the idealization of the pushover curve according to EC8 is conservative, i.e.
leading to a low effective stiffness and high effective period.
Storey drifts in different frames are shown in Fig. 7. The distribution of drifts along the height of
the building obtained by the N2 method is comparable with the distribution obtained by
nonlinear dynamic analysis. The N2 drift estimates are conservative with the exception of the top
storey in X-direction.

X-direction
Storey

Stiff edge(X1)

Centre (X2,2)

Flex. edge (X3)

Time-history

Mean
Mean +
Envelope

2
1

Y-direction
Stiff edge(Y1)

N2

Centre (Y2)

Flex. edge(Y3,1)

3
2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4

6 8 10

Storey drift [cm]

Figure 7.

Storey drifts obtained by the N2 method and time-history analysis.

The seismic assessment of the structure, which is made by comparing demand with capacity, is
not discussed in this paper.

Conclusions
Structural response to strong earthquake ground motion cannot be accurately predicted due to
large uncertainties and the randomness of structural properties and ground motion parameters.
Consequently, excessive sophistication in structural analysis is not warranted. The N2 method,
like some other simplified non-linear methods, provides a tool for a rational yet practical
evaluation procedure for building structures for multiple performance objectives. The
formulation of the method in the acceleration displacement format enables the visual
interpretation of the procedure and of the relations between the basic quantities controlling the
seismic response. This feature is attractive to designers. Of course, the N2 method is, like any
approximate method, subject to several limitations (see, e.g. Fajfar 2000).
In this paper, the extended N2 method, which can be used for analysis of plan-asymmetric
building structures, has been summarized and applied to a test example. The transformation of
the MDOF to the equivalent SDOF system can be performed by the same equation as in the case
of planar systems. The consideration of the torsional effects is based on two observations:
The torsional amplification of displacements determined by elastic dynamic analysis can be used
as a rough, mostly conservative estimate also in the inelastic range. Any favourable torsional
effect on the stiff side, i.e. any reduction of displacements compared to the counterpart
symmetric building, which may arise from elastic analysis, will probably decrease or may even
disappear in the inelastic range.

The results obtained by the proposed procedure are influenced both by nonlinear static
(pushover) and elastic dynamic analysis. Displacement demand (amplitude and the distribution
along the height) at the mass centres is determined by the usual N2 method, which is based on
pushover analysis. The amplification of demand due to torsion is determined by elastic dynamic
analysis, while reduction of demand due to torsion is not taken into account. Such an approach
yields in most cases a conservative estimate of torsional influences. Note, however, that inelastic
torsion is characterized by large inherent randomness and uncertainty.
In the case of the test structure analyzed in this paper, a comparison with results of dynamic
analyses suggests that the N2 results are conservative. The conservatism originates both from the
determination of the target displacement at the mass centre and from the determination of
torsional effects. Note that the accuracy of the estimated target displacement depends
considerably on the bilinear idealization of the pushover curve, which controls the initial period
of the idealized equivalent SDOF system.

References
Ayala, A. G., and E. A. Tavera (2002). A new approach for the evaluation of the seismic performance of
asymmetric buildings, Proc., 7th Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Boston.
Aydinoglu, M. N. (2003). An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic
spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation, Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, 1(1), 3-36.
CEN (2004). Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1, European standard EN
1998-1, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization, December 2004.
Chopra, A. K., and R. K. Goel (2004). A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands
for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 33(8), 903927.
Fajfar, P., and M. Fischinger (1988). N2 A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings,
Proc., 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Kyoto, Vol.5, 111-116.
Fajfar, P., and P. Gaperi (1996). The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25, 23-67.
Fajfar, P. (2000). A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design, Earthquake
Spectra, 16(3), 573-592.
Fajfar, P. (2002). Structural analysis in earthquake engineering - a breakthrough of simplified non-linear
methods, Proc., 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK, Keynote
lecture.
Fajfar, P., V. Kilar, D. Marui, I. Peru, and G. Magliulo (2002). The extension of the N2 method to
asymmetric buildings, Proc., 4th forum on Implications of recent earthquakes on seismic risk.
Technical report TIT/EERG, 02/1, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 291-308.
Fajfar, P., G. Magliulo, D. Marui, and I. Peru (2002). Simplified non-linear analysis of asymmetric
buildings, Proc., 3rd European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex
structures, De Stefano, M. and Rutenberg, A. (eds.), Florence, Italy.
Fajfar, P., D. Marui, and I. Peru (2005). Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of
buildings, J. Earthquake Engr., in print.
Fujii, K., Y. Nakano, and Y. Sanada (2004). Simplified nonlinear analysis procedure for asymmetric
buildings, Proc., 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper
No. 149.

Kilar, V., and P. Fajfar (2002), Seismic analysis of eccentric R/C buildings by the N2 method, Proc., 3rd
European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures, De Stefano,
M. and Rutenberg, A. (eds.), Florence, Italy.
Li, K. N. (2002). 3-dimensional nonlinear static and dynamic structural analysis computer program
CANNY 99, CANNY Consultants Pte Ltd., Singapore.
Marui, D., and P. Fajfar (2005). On the inelastic seismic response of asymmetric buildings under biaxial excitation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(8), 943-963.
Moghadam, A. S., and W. K. Tso (2000). 3-D pushover analysis for damage assessment of buildings,
Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (Tehran), 2(3), 23-31.
Peru, I., and P. Fajfar (2005). On the inelastic torsional response of single-storey structures under biaxial excitation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(8), 931-941.
Tso, W. K., and A. S. Moghadam (1997). Seismic response of asymmetrical buildings using pushover
analysis, Proc., International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next
Generation of Codes, Fajfar, P. and Krawinkler, H. (eds.), Bled, Slovenia, A.A. Balkema,
Roterdam, Brookfield, 311-321.
Yu, Q. S. K., R. Pugliesi, M. Allen, and C. Bischoff (2004). Assessment of modal pushover analysis
procedure and its application to seismic evaluation of existing building, Proc., 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 1104.
Zrate, A., and A. G. Ayala (2004). Validation of single storey models for the evaluation of seismic
performance of multi-storey asymmetric buildings, Proc.,13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 2213.