Energy-Based Modal Pushover Procedure for

Asymmetric Structures

Ning Li1, Changhai Zhai2,*, Zhongxian Li 1, Jinjun Hu 3 and Lili Xie2,3

1School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
2School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
3Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China

(Received: 20 July 2009; Received revised form: 19 April 2010; Accepted: 13 May 2010)

Abstract: Energy-based seismic evaluations of structures can give clear illustrations

of seismic demands made upon structures. This paper presents a 3-dimensional
energy-based modal pushover analysis (3D EMPA) method with equivalent three
degree of freedom (ETDOF) system and equal-displacement rule. The lateral-
rotational coupled effect on structures asymmetric in plan is considered using the
energy-based modal pushover analysis (EMPA), which is more robust than the
traditional Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) procedure. The proposed procedure was
validated against a nonlinear time history analysis of a 5-storey structure. The results
show that the method is able to take higher mode effects into account and that the
instability of capacity spectra will be avoided. The maximum deformation obtained
from EMPA shows good agreement with a nonlinear time history analysis results of
the original system. The proposed EMPA procedure appears to be reliable and
effective for evaluating the seismic response of asymmetric-plan structures.

Key words: torsion, energy-based, modal pushover analysis, nonlinear static analysis, performance assessment.

1. INTRODUCTION
For asymmetric buildings subjected to ground motions,
an uneven lateral deformation demand will be made
upon structural members. Investigations have shown
that the inadequate torsional response of structures is
one of the main reasons for structural damage during
severe earthquakes. During the Mexico earthquake in
1985, over 20% of the structural damage was due to
torsional effects (Rosenblueth 2002). Significant damage
attributed to torsional effects was also observed during
the Kobe earthquake of 1995, Chi-Chi earthquake of
1999 and Wenchuan earthquake of 2008.
Two reasons can be identified as the main sources of
torsional damage and collapse of a structure. One is the
asymmetric characteristics of a structure, and another is
the torsional component of the ground motions. In this
study, the first of these reasons is investigated in detail.
A significant research effort has been applied to this
topic since the 1970s. However, few attempts have been
made to consider the coupled horizontal and torsional
displacement effects of the structural response under
multi-directional excitations. A recent review of
research between 1998 and 2007 can be found in the
literatures (Rutenberg 2002; De Stefano and Pintucchi
2008; Li and Huo 2008). Nowadays, most of the
approximate analysis methods for the assessment (ATC
1996; NEHRP 1997) of asymmetric structures are based
on simplified planar models. Tso and Myslimaj (2002)
presented the balance coefficient-β to define the
strength-stiffness balance system. By selecting a proper
value of β, the system can be considered balanced in
terms of strength and stiffness, and this balance reduce
the torsional response. Fujii et al. (2004) proposed a
modified single degree of freedom (SDOF) model for
shear-type structures. Chopra and Goel (2002) developed
the modal pushover analysis (MPA) procedure to

*Corresponding author. Email address: neallee@tju.edu.cn; Fax: +86-(0)22-2740-7177; Tel: +86-(0)22-2740-3768.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010 1129

 Energy-Based Modal Pushover Procedure for Asymmetric Structures

12
6
10
4

8 2

Sa /m · s−2

Sa /m · s2
6 0

−2
4

−4 MPA(x)
2
MPA(y)
MPA −6
MPA(Rz)
0
−0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8
Sd/m Sd/m
(a) Plane model (b) Three-dimensional model

Figure 1. Instability in the MPA procedure capacity curves

include the higher modal contributions when assessing
the seismic response of structures. This method has been
widely used in the performance analyses of high-rise
buildings. Chopra and Goel (2004) developed a 3D
modal pushover analysis (MPA) procedure, which
partially considered the coupling effects between
different modes. Results indicate that this approach is
not appropriate for systems where mode effects are
strongly coupled. An improved MPA procedure was
proposed (Mao et al. 2008) by allowing for the
redistribution of inertia forces after structural yielding.
Lin and Tsai (2008) proposed a 3-degree of freedom
model and 3D MPA method, which were used to evaluate
the deformation demand of asymmetric buildings. This
method adopted an iterative procedure for the
determination of the target deformation, which is hard to
use for 3D asymmetric buildings. The authors also
indicated that instability might occur in the capacity
curves of asymmetric systems based on the top nodal
deformations (Hernández-Montes et al. 2004). This is
illustrated in Figure 1(a) for a two-dimensional model.
This figure shows that the displacements spectra of a
structure are not increasing monotonically with the
acceleration spectra. The rational target displacement will
not be obtained easily for this capacity curve. Moreover,
for three-dimensional problems, the capacity curves will
be much more complex than for two-dimensional
problems, as shown in Figure 1(b). The instability was
eliminated in the energy-based capacity spectrum
approach (Hernández-Montes et al. 2004; Kalkan and
Kunnath 2006). However, the energy-based deformation
approach has only been used to address planar
problems so far. This study extends the energy-based
MPA approach into the performance evaluation of
asymmetric structures subject to multi-directional
earthquake excitation. The equivalent three-degree of
freedom system (ETDOF) and the equal-displacement
rule are employed to simplify the analysis process. The
proposed EMPA procedure was validated making use of
the nonlinear time history analysis of a 5-storey structure.
2. DEFINITION OF AN EQUIVALENT THREE
DEGREE OF FREEDOM (ETDOF) MODEL
The kinetic equilibrium equation of a structure subjected
to ground motion excitation is given by


+ Cu
+ Ku = − Mι x u

gx − Mι y u

gy
Mu
(1)
= p eff , x (t ) + p eff , y (t )
where M, C and K are mass, damping and stiffness
matrixes of the structure, respectively. h is the loading
position vector, the value of which depends on the
loading distribution pattern. The loading vector hx is
equal to [1T 0T 0T ] and hy is equal to [0T 1T 0T], where 0
and 1 are N × 1 column vectors with all elements equal
to 0 and 1, respectively.
Based on the modal analysis theory (Chopra 2004),
Eqn 1 can be written in the format
&& + 2ξ ω D& + F = − Γ u&& (t ) − Γ u&& (t )
D (2)
n n n n n xn gx yn gy
where Dn is the modal coordinate, and Fn is the nth
modal restoring force. ξn and ωn are the damping ratio

1130 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010

Ning Li, Changhai Zhai, Zhongxian Li, Jinjun Hu and Lili Xie

and natural frequency of the nth mode. Γxn and Γyn are  ϕT k ϕ ϕ Txn k xy ϕ yn ϕ Txn k xθ ϕθ n 
the modal participation coefficients corresponding to  xn xx xn 
the nth mode for the x and y axis, respectively. K n =  ϕ Tyn k yx ϕ xn ϕ Tyn k yy ϕ yn ϕ Tyn k yθ ϕθ n  .
  ϕ xn, ϕ yn
In the 3D MPA procedure proposed by Lin and Tsai  ϕθTn kθ x ϕ xn ϕθTn kθ y ϕ yn ϕθ n kθθ ϕθ n
T

(2008), the spectral displacements are obtained as,   3× 3
and ϕ θn are the nth modal vectors with respect to the x-,
urxn uryn u y- and z-axis. The matrices Mn, Cn and Kn, are the
Dxn = , Dyn = , Dθ n = rθ n (3) modal mass, damping and stiffness matrices. With Eqn
Γ xnϕ rxn Γ ynϕ ryn Γθ nϕ rθ n
1 and Eqn 5, the kinetic equilibrium equation (Eqn 6)
can be simplified to
where urxn, uryn and urθn are the maximum roof lateral
and torsional displacements of the nth mode. ϕrxn, ϕryn
 mx 0 0   x&&  cxx cxy cxθ   x& 
and ϕrθn are the values of the nth modal vector at the 0  
my 0   &&y + c cyy cyθ   y& 
roof, respectively. The spectra accelerations are      yx  
obtained from the base-shear forces and base-  0 0 I   θ&& cθ x cθ y cθθ   θ&
torque relations (7)
 k xx k xy k xθ   x   mx 0 0   1
  
Vbxn Vbyn Tbn +  k yx k yy k yθ  y = −  0 my 0   1
Axn = , Ayn = , Aθ n = (4)     
M n Γ xn M n Γ yn M n Γθ n  kθ x
 kθ y kθθ   θ   0 0 I   1

where Vbxn, Vbyn and Tbn are the shear forces and torque
( Γ u&&
x gx (t ) + Γ y u&&gy (t ) )
at the basement. Mn is the modal mass of the nth
mode and Γθn is the modal participation coefficient of The response of a three-degree-of-freedom system
the torsional response corresponding to the nth mode. under ground motions can be obtained using Eqn 7 (Lin
For an asymmetric structure subjected to bidirectional and Tsai 2008). By offsetting distance ey and ex for the
seismic excitation, M, C and K, specified in Eqn 1, can center of mass of the SDOF model on the x and y axes,
be written as and using springs present the force-deformation
relationship of the three DOFs, the equivalent three-
degree of freedom system (ETDOF) can be obtained,
u x  m 0 0
  which is shown in Figure 2. In this figure, mx and my are
u = u y  , M =  0 m 0  ,
  the components of masses along the x and y axes,
 uθ   0 0 I  respectively. I is the rotational moment of inertia at
(5) the mass centre. The terms kx , ky and kθ represent the
 c xx c xy c xθ   k xx k xy k xθ 
    stiffness of the springs at the top and bottom of the
C =  c yx c yy c yθ  , K =  k yx k yy k yθ  model, which are used to represent the lateral and
 cθ x cθ y cθθ   kθ x kθ y kθθ  rotational resisting stiffnesses. The DOFs of this model
 

By substituting Eqn 5 into Eqn 1, and multiplying

..
both side by the nth modal vector of Eqn 1, the following kθ
z u gx
equation is given x

+ C D
Mn D
+ K D = − M ι u

(t ) − M ι u

(t ) (6) mx,my,I
n n n nx gx n ny gy
..
u gy
 ϕ mϕ T  ..
 Dxn   xnxn 0 0
 u gx
=   Mn =  ϕ Tyn mϕ yn  ,
ky
kx
where n  Dyn  ,
D

0 0

x
 Dθ n 3×1  0 0 ϕθTn Iϕθ n  y
  3× 3 ..
u gy

 ϕT c ϕ ϕ Txn c xy ϕ yn ϕ Txn c xθ ϕθ n  e(ex,ey)

 xn xx xn 
C n =  ϕ Tyn c yx ϕ xn ϕ c ϕ yn
T
ϕ Tyn c yθ ϕθ n  , y
 yn yy

 ϕθTn cθ x ϕ xn ϕθTn cθ y ϕ yn ϕθTn cθθ ϕθ n  Figure 2. The ETDOF model scheme
  3× 3

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010 1131

 Energy-Based Modal Pushover Procedure for Asymmetric Structures

are condensed using the Lagrange Algorithm, obtained From Eqns 11 and 12, the following equation can be
using finite element software developed under the obtained
OpenSees framework (2006).
∆Ean = Rbn ∆Dn (t ) (13)
3. THE ENERGY-BASED DEFORMATION
Eqn 13 can be used to calculate the elastic deformation
ASSESSMENT
energy as well as the input energy. The incremental
For a plane structure subjected to earthquake excitation,
deformation is expressed as
the deformation energy can be calculated by integrating
the product of restoring forces and deformations ∆Dn = ∆Ean Rbn (14)

Ea = ∫ f T d u (8) The energy-based deformation, for the generic mode

n, is defined as the summation of the incremental
deformations
where f is the restoring forces vector, Ea is the total
absorption energy of a structure which includes both the
Dn = ∑ ∆Dn = ∑ ∆Ean Rbn (15)
elastic strain energy and the nonlinear hysteretic energy.
u is the horizontal displacement vector, along the height
of structure. For the generic nth mode, the displacement The corresponding spectral accelerations, Sa, are
vector, un, and the restoring force, fn, have the following calculated as
relationship Rbn R R
An = ω n2 Dn = = bn = bn (16)
Γ n ϕ n Mι Γ n Ln α n M n
T
fn = Ku n = Kϕ n qn = ω Mϕ n Γ n Dn = s n An
2
n (9)

where K is the structure stiffness, qn are the modal 4. THE 3D ENERGY-BASED MODAL
coordinates, and An = ω n2 Dn gives the pseudo- PUSHOVER ANALYSIS METHOD
acceleration spectra. The lateral forces vector of the nth The 3D EMPA procedure is described through the
mode is indicated as sn. The restoring forces acting on following steps.
the structure are equal to the sum of each modal 1) Set up the structure model, and calculate the
restoring force, fn. modal displacements (inx , iny and inθ) for each
mode. The modal distribution lateral load is set as
f ( t ) = ∑ fn (t ) = ∑ ω n2 Mϕ n Γ n Dn (t ) (10)
 m 0 0   ϕ nx 
  
Because of the modal orthogonality of deformation, the s a = Mϕ n =  0 m 0   ϕ ny  (17)
work done by the nth restoring forces, fn , in going  0 0 I   ϕ 
 nθ 
through the r th modal displacement (r ≠ n) is zero.
Thus, the deformation energy absorbed by the nth modal 2) For a generic nth mode, carry out the following
deformation is only associated with the modal pushover sub steps.
load pattern, fn, and the incremental modal displacement, i) Apply the modal load pattern to the structural
∆un is given by, model and perform the modal pushover
analysis. The relationship between modal
∆Ean = fnT ∆u n = ω n2 ϕ Tn MΓ n Dn ϕ n Γ n ∆Dn maximum deformations and base resistance
(11) force can be obtained. And the target
= ω n2 M n Γ 2n Dn ∆Dn
displacement is determined by the equal
displacement rule, which is equal to the peak
and the corresponding modal resisting force is described elastic response of step 1).
by, ii) Calculating the energy-based deformation of
the structure with the equations,
Rbn = fnT ι = ω n2 ϕ Tn MΓ n Dn ι = ω n2 M n Γ n2 Dn (12)
D = ∑ ∆Dn = ∑ ∆En Rb ,n
where Rbn represents the resisting force, which could be (18)
   
base-shears, Vx or Vy , and base-torque, T. = ∑   ∑ Fn , j ∆d n , j   ∑ Fn , j  
 j  j 

1132 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010

Ning Li, Changhai Zhai, Zhongxian Li, Jinjun Hu and Lili Xie

The energy-based spectral displacements can be 5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

obtained from A 5-storey steel structure was employed as a case study
of the proposed procedure. The structure was used as a

Sdx =
Dx
=
∑ ∆D xn
=
∑ ∆E xn Vbx ,n model for the 2nd blind test of E-Defence 2009 (Suita K
et al. 2007). The centre of mass of the top level, CM5,
ϕ nx,max ϕ nx,max ϕ nx,max
(19) is at the geometrical centre of the floor plan. The CMs
1     of the other floors are offset 3 m along the x-axis. The
=
ϕ nx,max
∑   ∑j Fxn, j ∆d xn, j   ∑ Fxn , j  
j 
CMs of the 2nd and 3rd floor are also offset 3 m along the
positive direction of the y-axis and in the case of the 1st
and 4th floors 3 m along the negative direction of the
y-axis, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Sdy =
Dy
=
∑ ∆D yn
=
∑ ∆E yn Vby ,n
This building has an asymmetric distribution of
ϕ ny,max ϕ ny,max ϕ ny,max both stiffness and strength. The mass distribution of
(20) the structure is also a irregular with vertical direction.
1    
=
ϕ ny,max
∑   ∑j Fyn, j ∆d yn, j   ∑ Fyn , j  

The floor diaphragm has the three degree of freedoms
j of horizontal displacements ux and uy, and torsional
rotation uθ about the z-axis. The steel material used in
this structure is SN490B for the columns and BCR295
Sdθ =
Dθ
=
∑ ∆D θn
=
∑ ∆E θn Tb ,n for the beams. The mean strength of SN490B is
ϕ nθ ,max ϕ nθ ,max ϕ nθ ,max 374.9 MPa, and the ultimate strength 530.2 MPa. The
(21) mean strength of BCR295 is 376.3 MPa, and the
1    
=
ϕ nθ ,max
∑   ∑j Tn, j ∆θn, j   ∑ Tn , j  
j 
ultimate strength 451.5 MPa. The mass of the structure
is concentrated at floor levels, i.e., 844 kN, 824 kN,
820 kN, 783 kN and 1451 kN for the 1st to 5th floor,
where ϕnx,max, ϕnx,max and ϕnx,max are the nth modal vector respectively. A damping ratio ξ = 2% was assumed
terms at the point of largest displacement. Fxn,j is the for the model. More details of the structure can be
load at the jth floor in the x-axis direction, ∆dxn,j is the found on the web page of the Hyogo Earthquake
deformation of the j th floor, and ∆θn,j is the angle of Engineering Research Center (2009). In order to
rotation of the j th floor. conduct the time-history nonlinear dynamic analysis
Having obtained the spectral displacements, the by modification of the source code of the OpenSees
corresponding spectral accelerations, Sa, are calculated framework, the stiffness and mass matrices of the
using Eqn 17. structure were obtained. The analysis procedure
iii) Determine the nonlinear properties of the described bellows was compiled using Tcl script, which
ETDOF model from the energy-based is a toolkit command script language implemented in
capacity curves obtained from step ii), OpenSees.
allowing for the post-yield stiffness and the An initial modal analysis and elastic time history
hysteretic rule. An approximate bilinear analysis was conducted using the El Centro record as
model can be adopted. input. The modal information obtained and modal
iv) Calculate the response of the ETDOF model participation mass ratios are listed in Table 1. Table 2
subjected to three dimensional excitation, presents the modal displacements of the first six
including the x, y and torsional components. structural modes. Each modal displacement is used in
The maximum response of the ETDOF the determination of the target deformation for the
system is obtained using a nonlinear time cyclic pushover analysis. It is hard to use a rotation
history analysis. angle in a displacement control pushover analysis, so
v) Repeat steps i) to iv) for the first significant the maximum lateral displacements along x and y axes
modes. are employed. It can be seen that the displacements for
3) Combine the nonlinear responses of the first each mode are quite irregular. Figure 4 shows the
significant n modal ETDOF systems and capacity curves for the 2nd mode using both the MPA
calculate the maximum deformation demands. and EMPA procedures. It can be seen that the capacity
Algebraic summation of modal responses is curves are nearly identical for the two methods, and
employed here. instability is not visible. But instability is evident in the

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010 1133

 Energy-Based Modal Pushover Procedure for Asymmetric Structures

CM5

2.985m x
CM4

5m
3m
CM3
CM5,CS

3m
CM2 ux
CM1,CM4 ex y
5m
3m u uy
CM1 θ ey

3.875m
7m 5m

(a) Elevation view along direction x (b) Plan layout of 1st and 4th floor

CM5

2.985m x
CM4

ey
3m 5m
CM3
CS,CM5
3m
CM2 ux
ex uy
5m
3m u y
θ
CM1
CM2,CM3

3.875m
7m 5m

(c) Elevation view along direction y (d) Plan layout of 2nd and 3th floor

Figure 3. Model of E-Defence blind-test 2009

capacity curves for the 6th mode in the case of the MPA
procedure, as shown in Figure 5(a). In the EMPA
procedure, the instability is not visible in the capacity
curves for the 6th mode as shown in Figure 5(b).
Capacity curves are difficult to construct using the
equivalent ETDOF system. The characteristic ETDOF
parameters in the elastic state are listed in Table 3.
The comparison between the seismic response
obtained using the EMPA procedure and the nonlinear
time history analysis (NTHA) for the original system
subjected to bi-directional El-Centro records is shown in
Figure 6. The peak acceleration of the records was
scaled to 800 gal in the x direction and 640 gal in the y
direction. The lateral and rotational responses were

1134 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010

Ning Li, Changhai Zhai, Zhongxian Li, Jinjun Hu and Lili Xie

Table 1. The modal properties of the building

Mode no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period(s) 1.005 0.817 0.589 0.302 0.265 0.168
ϕx1 0.198 1.0 0.564 − 0.393 − 0.620 − 0.265
ϕx2 0.010 0.513 1.0 0.269 0.042 0.175
ϕx3 0.282 0.981 − 0.126 0.350 − 0.064 0.226
ϕx4 0.194 0.666 − 0.113 0.602 1.0 − 0.006
ϕx5 0.002 0.122 0.224 0.074 0.314 1.0
ϕy1 1.0 − 0.489 0.375 − 0.515 0.520 − 0.328
ϕy2 0.993 − 0.137 − 0.140 − 0.143 − 0.196 0.516
ϕy3 0.775 − 0.078 − 0.160 0.707 − 0.595 0.509
ϕy4 0.513 − 0.037 − 0.131 1.0 − 0.667 − 0.174
ϕy5 0.235 − 0.014 − 0.072 0.638 − 0.422 − 0.473
ϕθ1 − 0.045 − 0.100 0.151 0.146 0.065 − 0.039
ϕθ 2 − 0.042 − 0.089 0.136 0.073 0.007 − 0.004
ϕθ 3 − 0.034 − 0.073 0.107 − 0.014 − 0.052 0.063
ϕθ 4 − 0.024 − 0.051 0.072 − 0.055 − 0.064 0.138
ϕθ 5 − 0.011 − 0.024 0.035 − 0.039 − 0.032 0.127
Participation Mass 0.307 7.26 65.6 10.9 0.052 11.8
Ratio (%)

Table 2. The maximum elastic displacement of the building

Modes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement (m) 0.643 0.465 0.275 0.246 0.162 0.123
Location (nth floor) 5 5 5 5 2 1
Direction y x x y x y

12 12
MPA(x) EMPA(x)
MPA(y) EMPA(y)
8 MPA(Rz) 8 EMPA(Rz)

4 4
Sa /m · s2

Sa /m · s2

0 0

−4 −4

−8 −8

−12 −12
−0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Sd /m Sd /m
(a) MPA procedure (b) EMPA procedure

Figure 4. MPA and EMPA procedure capacity curves for the 2nd mode

calculated and are presented in Figures 6(a), 6(b) and
6(c), respectively. It can be seen that EMPA procedure
responses are in good agreement with the nonlinear time
history results in all three directions. The maximum
responses had a maximum error of 14.6% over all three
dimensions. It can be concluded that the ETDOF system
and the energy-based MPA method can be used as
valuable alternatives an evaluating the inelastic
response of asymmetric structures subjected to bi-
directional excitation.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010 1135

 Energy-Based Modal Pushover Procedure for Asymmetric Structures

60 MPA(x) 60 EMPA(x)
MPA(y) EMPA(y)
40 MPA(Rz) 40 EMPA(Rz)

20 20

Sa /m · s2
Sa /m · s2

0 0

−20 −20

−40 −40

−60 −60

−0.15 −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 −0.15 −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Sd /m Sd /m
(a) MPA procedure (b) EMPA procedure

Figure 5. MPA and EMPA procedure capacity curves for the 6th mode

Table 3. The properties of the ETDOF system

Mode Kn(× 107) Mn(× 105) ex ey

 3.0 −0.01 −2.97   0.16 0 0 

I  −0.01 1.45 −2.68   0 3.04 0  −0.980 0.184
   
 −2.97 −2.68 0.33   0 0 0.12 

 15.7 0.02 −14.0   2.88 0 0 

II  0.02 1.07 −0.85   0 0.38 0  −0.892 0.796
   
 −14.0 −0.85 2.03   0 0 0.58 

 31.4 −0.02 −29.9  1.33 0 0 

III  −0.02 2.51 −2.21  0 0.26 0  −0.952 0.880
   
 −29.9 −2.21 3.18   0 0 1.29 

 14.1 0.02 −11.1  0.70 0 0 

IV  0.02 11.6 −2.87   0 2.02 0  −0.786 −0.247
   
 −11.1 −2.87 8.02   0 0 0.81

 20.5 0.004 −9.0   2.05 0 0 

V  0.004 6.39 0.67   0 1.25 0  −0.438 0.105
   
 −9.0 0.67 5.77   0 0 0.26 

 57.3 0.003 −42.9  1.03 0 0 

VI  0.003 15.5 −4.2   0 0.81 0  −0.749 −0.272
   
 −42.9 −4.2 23.8   0 0 0.71

It should be noted that the yield strength and
post-yield stiffness of the ETDOF system can be
determined through nonlinear static analysis. The
target and the maximum top displacements (including
torsional angle) are calculated based on the
equal-displacement rule. For this reason, there is no
iteration procedure in the determination of target
displacement, which is more efficient than the
traditional MPA method. The modal responses are
combined using algebraic summation.

1136 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010

Ning Li, Changhai Zhai, Zhongxian Li, Jinjun Hu and Lili Xie

0.4 Response of EMPA procedure is reliable for evaluating the seismic response
Response of NTHA
0.3 of asymmetric-plan structures subjected to bi-directional
x Displacement/m

0.2
0.1
earthquake excitations, at a satisfactory cost of
0.0 computation.
−0.1
−0.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
−0.3
The careful review and comments of Dr. Benzoni
−0.4
0 10 20 30 40 Gianmario, at the University of California, San Diego, is
Time/s greatly appreciated. The support provided by National
(a) Displacement response on direction x Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 90815014
and No. 90715021) for this study is also gratefully
Response of EMPA acknowledged.
0.4 Response of NTHA
y Displacement/m

0.2 REFERENCES
0.0 Applied Technology Council (1996). Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC-40), Redwood City.
−0.2
Chopra, A.K. and Geol, R.K. (2002). “A modal pushover analysis
−0.4 procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings”,
0 10 20 30 40
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3,
Time/s pp. 561–582.
(b) Displacement response on direction y Chopra, A.K. and Geol, R.K. (2004). “A modal pushover analysis
procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan
0.04 Response of EMPA
buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Response of NTHA Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 903–927.
Rotational angle/rad

0.02 Chopra, A.K. (2004). Dynamic of Structures: Theory and

0.00
−0.02
−0.04
0 10 20
Time/s
(c) Rotational response about direction z
Figure 6. Comparison between EMPA procedure seismic response
and nonlinear time-history analysis results
6. CONCLUSION
A 3-dimensional energy-based modal pushover analysis
(3D EMPA) procedure is proposed in this study for the
evaluation of the seismic response of asymmetric
structures. An equivalent three-degrees of freedom
system (ETDOF) and the equal-displacement rule are
employed to simplify the analysis process. The ETDOF
system can take into account the lateral and torsional
coupled effects present in asymmetric-plan structures.
The proposed EMPA procedure can include higher
mode effects and avoids instability in the calculation of
the capacity curves for an asymmetric system. A
numerical case study shows that the maximum
displacement obtained with the EMPA approach is in an
actual earthquake time history analysis of the original
structural model. It can be concluded that the EMPA
Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd Edition, Press of
Tsinghua University, China.
Chopra, A.K. and Chintanapakdee, C. (2004). “Inelastic deformation
ratios for design and evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-
30 40
freedom bilinear systems”, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 9, pp. 1309–1319.
De Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B. (2008). “A review of research on
seismic behavior of irregular building structures since 2002”,
Bulleting of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 285–308.
E-Defence (2007). Hyogo Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, http://www.bosai.go.jp/hyogo/ehyogo /index.html.
Fujii, K., Nakano, Y. and Sanada, Y. (2004). “Simplified nonlinear
analysis procedure for asymmetric buildings”, Proceedings of
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (13WCEE).
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August.
Hernández-Montes, E., Kwon, O. and Aschheim, M. (2004). “An
energy-based formulation for first-and multiple-mode nonlinear
static (pushover) analyses”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 69–88.
Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S.K. (2006). “Adaptive modal combination
procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 11,
pp. 1721–1731.
Li, H. and Huo, L. (2008). Multi-Dimensional Control and
Reduction of Earthquake Response of Structures, Science Press,
Beijing, China.
Lin, J.L. and Tsai, K.C. (2008). “Seismic analysis of two-way
asymmetric building systems under bidirectional seismic ground

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010 1137


motions”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 305–328.
Mao, J., Zhai, C. and Xie, L. (2008). “An improved modal pushover
analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands of structures”,
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 7,
No. 1, pp. 25–31.
Myslimaj, B. and Tso, W.K. (2002). “A strength distribution
criterion for minimizing torsional response of asymmetric wall-
type systems”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 99–120.
NEHRP (1997). Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings (FEMA-273), Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
1138
Energy-Based Modal Pushover Procedure for Asymmetric Structures
OpenSees (2006). Open System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation, http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Rosenblueth, E. and Meli, R. (1986). “The 1985 earthquake: causes
and effects in Mexico city”, Concrete International, Vol. 8, No. 5,
pp. 23–24.
Rutenberg, A. (2002). “EAEE TASK GROUP (TG) 8: Behaviour of
irregular and complex structures asymmetric structures-progress
since 1998”, 12th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Barbican Centre, London, UK.
Suita, K., Yamada, S., Tada, M., Kasai, K., Matsupka, Y. and Sato,
E. (2007). “E-Defence tests on full-scale steel buildings: Part 2
collapse experiments on moment frames”, Structural Engineering
Research Frontiers, Long Beach, C.A., USA.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 6 2010