Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover Analyses: SAC Buildings

This paper comprehensively evaluates the Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) procedure against the ‘‘exact’’ nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) and investigates the accuracy of seismic demands determined by pushover analysis using FEMA-356 force distributions; the MPA procedure in this paper contains several improvements over the original version presented in Chopra and Goel (2002). Seismic demands are computed for six buildings, each analyzed for 20 ground motions. It is demonstrated that with increasing number of ‘‘modes’’ included, the height-wise distribution of story drifts and plastic rotations estimated by MPA becomes generally similar to trends noted from nonlinear RHA. The additional bias and dispersion introduced by ne­ glecting ‘‘modal’’ coupling and P-� effects due to gravity loads in MPA pro­ cedure is small unless the building is deformed far into the inelastic range with significant degradation in lateral capacity. A comparison of the seismic demands computed by FEMA-356 NSP and nonlinear RHA showed that FEMA-356 lateral force distributions lead to gross underestimation of story drifts and completely fail to identify plastic rotations in upper stories com­ pared to the values from the nonlinear RHA. The ‘‘Uniform’’ force distribu­ tion in FEMA-356 NSP seems unnecessary because it grossly overestimates drifts and plastic rotations in lower stories and grossly underestimates them in upper stories. The MPA procedure resulted in estimates of demand that were much better than from FEMA force distributions over a wide range of responses—from essentially elastic response of Boston buildings to strongly inelastic response of Los Angeles buildings. However, pushover analysis pro­ cedures cannot be expected to provide satisfactory estimates of seismic de­ mands for buildings deforming far into the inelastic range with significant degradation of the lateral capacity; for such cases, nonlinear RHA becomes necessary.