Pushover Analysis

an
Inelastic Static Analysis Methods

courtesy of Barış Binici

 Target Performance
Dictated by codes (DBYBHY 2007, Section 1.2.1):
“....The objective of seismic resistant design is
to have no structural/nonstructural damage
in low magnitude earthquakes, limited and
repairable damage in moderate earthquakes
and life safety for extreme earthquakes...”
 Current Status
• Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
- Assume global ductility (Ra)
- Detail accordingly
• Modal Superposition Procedure
- Include higher mode effects
• Time History Analysis
- Rarely used
W A(T1 )
- Tedious and requires hysteretic models Vt 
Ra (T1 )
 Critique of Current Practice
Advantages :
- Simple to use
- Have proven to work
- Became a tradition all over the world
- Uncertainty is lumped and easier to deal with
Disadvantages :
- No clear connection between capacity and demand
- No option for interfering with the target performance
- No possibility of having the owner involved in the decision
process
- Not easily applicable to seismic assessment of existing
structures
 DBYBHY 2007 (Chapter 7)
- Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Buildings
is based on structural performances.

- Steps:
• Collect information from an existing structure
• Assess whether info is dependable and penalize accordingly
• Conduct structural analysis
- Linear static analysis
- Nonlinear static analysis (Pushover analysis)
- Incremental pushover analysis
- Time history analysis
• Identify for each member the damage level
• Decision based on number of elements at certain damage levels
 Time History?
- Actual earthquake response is hard to predict anyways.
- Closest estimate can be found using inelastic time-history analysis.
- Difficulties with inelastic time history analysis:
- Suitable set of ground motion (Description of demand)
- hysteretic behavior models (Description of capacity)
- Computation time (Time)
- Post processing (Time and understanding)
Alternative approach is pushover analysis.

Düzce Ground Motion

0.6

0.4
Acceleration (g)

0.2

0 Sec.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
 Pushover Analysis
• Definition: Inelastic static analysis of a
structure using a specified (constant or
variable) force pattern from zero load to a
prescribed ultimate displacement.
• Use of it dates back to 1960s to1970s to
investigate stability of steel frames.
• Many computer programs were developed
since then with many features and limitations.
Available Computer Programs
• Design Oriented:
SAP 2000, GTSTRUDL, RAM etc.
• Research Oriented:
Opensees, IDARC, SeismoStrut etc.

What is different?
• User interface capabilities
• Analysis options
• Member behavior options
 Section Damage Levels

Damage levels are established based on concrete outermost

compressive fiber strain and steel strain (for nonlinear analysis
procedure).
 Section Damage Levels

How should these values be decided?

- Construction practice
- Experience of engineers
- Input of academicians
Curvature demand at target curvatures
600

500

AK
400
GV GÇ

Moment
(kN.m)
Φp = θp / Lp 300

Φt = Φy + Φp 200

100

0
(Φy) (Φt)
0.0000 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 0.1200

Eğrilik
(rad/m)
 How do we estimate strains from
a structural analysis?
Moment Moment
My

Curvature Strain
øy øu

Moment
θpu =(øu – øy) Lp OR
My Utilize this idealized
θp =(ø – øy) Lp moment-rotation
Where Lp = 0.5h response in inelastic
structural analysis
Plastic
θpu Rotations
Definition of Potential Plastic Hinges
• End regions of columns and beams (center for gravity loads)
are the potential plastic hinges
• Plastic hinges are hinges capable of resisting My (not
significantly more, hardening allowed) undergoing plastic
rotations
Rigid End
zones

Elastic
h Beam- Plastic
Column Hinges
Element

Lp
 Elastic Parts
For regions other than plastic hinging occurs, cracking is expected therefore
use of cracked stiffness is customary (0.4-0.8) EIo

0.4-0.8EIo
Moment

EIo

Eğrilik
Curvature
Pushover Analysis
 Steps of Pushover Analysis:
A Simple Incremental Procedure
1. Build a computational model of the structure
 Steps of Pushover Analysis

2. Define member behavior

– Beams: Moment-rotation relations
– Columns: Moment-rotation and Interaction Diagrams
– Beam-column joints: Assume rigid (DBYBHY 2007 )
– Walls: Model as beam columns but introduce a shear
spring to model shear deformations
– Use cracked rigidities for elastic portions
Steps of Pushover Analysis
3. Apply gravity loads
1.0 G + n Q n=0.3 (live load reduction factor)
(if the interaction diagrams will not be used a good
estimate of the moment capacity of column hinges
needs to be made)
Possibilities:
- Based on initial gravity load analysis
- Based on a beam hinging mechanism
- Based on elastic lateral force analysis with an
assumed reasonable Ra value.
 Steps of Pushover Analysis
4. Specify a Lateral Load Profile:
(Inverted triangular, constant, first mode shape are some of the
possibilities)
It is a good idea to have a spreadsheet page ready
indicating all members, current load increment
5. Lateral Load Incrementing:
Step 1:
Elastic analysis is valid up to the formation of the first hinge,
i.e. when the first critical location reaches its moment
capacity.
• Find the lateral loads that cause first hinge formation (V1).
• Record all member forces and deformations (F1, d1).
 Steps of Pushover Analysis
Step 2:
Beyond Step 1, yielded element’s critical location cannot
take any further moment. Therefore place an actual
hinge at that location. Conduct an analysis increment for
this modified structure. This load increment should be
selected such that upon summing the force resultant
from this incremental step and previous step, second
hinge formation is reached.
V2 = V1 + ΔV
Results from Step 1 + Results from an
F2 = F1 + ΔF incremental analysis with a hinge placed at
first yield location = Second Hinge formation
d2 = d1 + Δd
 Steps of Pushover Analysis
.
.
Step i:
Similar to step 2 but additional hinges form and
incremental analysis steps are conducted for systems
with more hinges. Results are added to those from the
previous step

Vi = Vi-1 + ΔV
Results from Step i-1 + Results from an
Fi = Fi-1 + ΔF incremental analysis with a hinge placed at i-1th
yield location = ith hinge formation
di = di-1 + Δd
 Steps of Pushover Analysis
Step n:
Sufficient number of plastic hinges have formed and
system has reached a plastic mechanism. Note that this
could be a partial collapse mechanism as well. Beyond
this point system rotates as a rigid body.

ANALYSIS DONE
- Plot Base Shear- Roof Displacement
- Check member rotations and identify performance levels
Example Application: 3 Story- 2 Bay
RC Frame (Courtesy of Ahmet Yakut)
MODEL

12 J8 15
J4 J12

3 6 9
3m

11 J7 14
J3 J11

2 5 8 3m

10 J6 13
J2 J10

4 3m
1 7

J1 J5 J9

6m 6m
 Assumptions
Assume
• Constant Axial Load on Columns for Analysis Steps
• Rigid-plastic with no hardening or softening moment-rotation behavior for
columns and beams
• plastic hinging occurs when moment capacity is within 5% tolerance
• Load combinations 1.0 DL + 0.3 LL and 1.0 DL + 0.3 LL+1.0EQ to compute
axial load levels

SABİT YÜK HAREKETLİ YÜK YATAY YÜK

DL=10kN/m LL=2kN/m
EQ=60kN

DL=15kN/m LL=2kN/m
EQ=40kN

DL=15kN/m LL=2kN/m
EQ=20kN
 DATA
Columns Beams
10-f10
3-f10
60cm 50cm

3-f10

60cm 25cm

Steel (fyd=495 Mpa) M+ is the same as M-

Concrete (fcd=25 Mpa)
Clear cover=5 cm
E=2.779E+4 MPa

Note that if this is a seismic evaluation problem strength values obtained

at site should be used!
 Section Capacities
Elemnaların Moment-eğrilik ilişkileri
Idealized member moment curvature
elasto-plastik, pekleşmesiz
relations for estimated axial load level Φ

Φy
u l t

Eleman
Member N My
kN kNm rad/m rad/m
1 -83,786 124 0,0055 0,111
2 -51,347 115,5 0,0056 0,115
3 -19,872 107,5 0,0056 0,119 My
4 -253,392 166 0,0059 0,085
5 -158,905 143 0,0060 0,099
6 -64,797 119 0,0060 0,113

Moment
7 -124,104 133,5 0,0056 0,105
8 -77,747 122 0,0057 0,112
9 -31,201 110 0,0054 0,118
10 5,606 49 0,0073 0,103
11 1,421 50 0,0069 0,102
12 -17,233 53 0,0069 0,099 fy Eğrilik f ult
13 5,606 49 0,0073 0,103
14 1,421 50 0,0069 0,102
15 -17,233 53 0,0069 0,099

To be conservative smaller axial load from two load

combinations can be selected (as long as N<Nb)
Effect of Axial Force

• Compute the moment

capacity by accounting for
axial force variation
• Always remain on the yield
surface
 Step 1 First yielding stage
Total Base Shear (kN)=
Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
6
0.2947
Frame Joint Myield M
Condition
J4 (monitored node ) Element Label kNm kNm
J1 124.0 -4.33
1 J2 124.0 20.60
J2 115.5 -22.14
COMBO2: 1.0 DL + 0.3 LL + 1.0 EQ 2 J3 115.5 21.00
J3 107.5 -22.23
DL=10kN/m 3 J4 107.5 27.35
EQ=3kN
LL=2kN/m J5 166.0 6.23
4 J6 166.0 -0.60
J6 143.0 3.50
DL=15kN/m 5 J7 143.0 -2.94
EQ=2kN J7 119.0 1.52
LL=2kN/m
6 J8 119.0 -3.29
J9 133.5 16.03
7 J10 133.5 -20.07
DL=15kN/m
EQ=1kN J10 122.0 26.88
LL=2kN/m 8 J11 122.0 -24.83
J11 110.0 22.95
9 J12 110.0 -30.82
J2 49.0 -42.74
10 J6 49.0 -49.58 YIELDED
J3 50.0 -43.24
11 J7 50.0 -49.28
J4 53.0 -27.35
12
Detection of first yield (moment J8 53.0 -34.34
J6 49.0 -45.48
reaches My±5%My ) 13 J10 49.0 -46.95
J7 50.0 -44.83
14 J11 50.0 -47.79
J8 53.0 -31.05
15 J12 53.0 -30.82
 Total Incremental Load (kN)= 6
Total Base Shear (kN) = 12
Inc. Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)= 0.2865
Step 2 (Incremental) Frame
Total Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
M ΔM M + ∆M
0.5812
Condition
Element kNm kNm (kNm)
-4.33 6.39 2.06
1 20.60 0.76 21.36
-22.14 2.05 -20.10
2 21.00 -2.18 18.82
-22.23 0.24 -21.99
3 27.35 -1.82 25.53
ΔEQ=3kN
6.23 6.47 12.71
4 -0.60 0.39 -0.21
3.50 2.79 6.29
5 -2.94 -3.15 -6.09
ΔEQ=2kN
1.52 1.56 3.08
6 -3.29 -3.43 -6.72
New 16.03 6.48 22.51
7 -20.07 0.20 -19.87
ΔEQ=1kN locations at 26.88 2.57 29.45
which yield 8 -24.83 -2.26 -27.09
moments 9
22.95 0.15 23.10
within -30.82 -1.80 -32.62
-42.74 1.29 -41.46
tolerance are 10 -49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
reached -43.24 2.42 -40.82
11 -49.28 -2.36 -51.64 YIELDED
-27.35 1.82 -25.53
12 -34.34 -1.73 -36.07
Actual hinge at previously yielded 13
-45.48 2.40 -43.08
-46.95 -2.38 -49.33 YIELDED
location for the incremental analysis -44.83 2.35 -42.48
14 -47.79 -2.41 -50.19 YIELDED
-31.05 1.71 -29.34
15 -30.82 -1.80 -32.62
 Total Incremental Load (kN)= 42
Total Base Shear (kN) = 54
Inc. Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)= 2.94

Step 3 (Incremental) Frame

Total Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
M ΔM M + ∆M
3.5212
Condition
Element kNm kNm (kNm)
2.06 57.79 59.85
1 21.36 12.12 33.48
-20.10 24.68 4.58
2 18.82 -16.19 2.64
-21.99 -2.12 -24.11
3 25.53 -18.94 6.58
ΔEQ=21kN 12.71 56.85 69.56
4 -0.21 12.18 11.97
6.29 24.58 30.87
5 -6.09 -13.41 -19.49
ΔEQ=14kN 3.08 0.99 4.07
6 -6.72 -34.94 -41.67
New location 22.51 53.65 76.16
7 -19.87 18.00 -1.88
ΔEQ=7kN at which yield 29.45 18.00 47.45
moment within 8 -27.09 -8.15 -35.24
tolerance are 23.10 -8.15 14.95
9 -32.62 -18.38 -51.00
reached
-41.46 12.56 -28.90
10 -49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
-40.82 14.07 -26.75
11 -51.64 0.00 -51.64 YIELDED
-25.53 18.94 -6.58
12 -36.07 -17.61 -53.68 YIELDED
Actual hinges at previously yielded -43.08 12.40 -30.68
13 -49.33 0.00 -49.33 YIELDED
location for the incremental analysis -42.48 14.40 -28.08
14 -50.19 0.00 -50.19 YIELDED
-29.34 17.33 -12.01
15 -32.62 -18.38 -51.00
 Total Incremental Load (kN)= 6
Total Base Shear (kN) = 60
Inc. Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)= 0.4692
Step 4 (Incremental) Frame
Total Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
M ΔM M + ∆M
3.9904
Condition
Element kNm kNm (kNm)
59.85 8.59 68.44
1 33.48 2.00 35.48
4.58 3.91 8.49
2 2.64 -1.96 0.67
-24.11 0.29 -23.82
3 6.58 -1.96 4.63
ΔEQ=3kN 69.56 8.43 77.99
4 11.97 2.07 14.04
30.87 3.95 34.82
5 -19.49 -1.77 -21.26
ΔEQ=2kN 4.07 0.50 4.57
6 -41.67 -3.40 -45.07
New location 7
76.16 7.95 84.12
at which yield -1.88 2.90 1.02
ΔEQ=1kN 47.45 2.90 50.35
moment within 8 -35.24 -0.50 -35.74
tolerance are 14.95 -0.50 14.45
9
reached -51.00 -3.35 -54.36
-28.90 1.91 -26.99
10 -49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
-26.75 2.26 -24.49
11 -51.64 0.00 -51.64 YIELDED
-6.58 1.96 -4.63
12 -53.68 0.00 -53.68 YIELDED
Actual hinges at previously yielded -30.68 1.88 -28.79
13 -49.33 0.00 -49.33 YIELDED
location for the incremental analysis -28.08 2.27 -25.81
14 -50.19 0.00 -50.19 YIELDED
-12.01 3.40 -8.61
15 -51.00 -3.35 -54.36 YIELDED
 Total Incremental Load (kN)= 36
Total Base Shear (kN) = 96

Step 5 (Incremental) Frame

Inc. Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
Total Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
M ΔM M + ∆M
3.41
7.4004
Condition
Element kNm kNm (kNm)
68.44 55.34 123.78
1 35.48 15.86 51.34
8.49 28.66 37.15
2 0.67 -6.38 -5.71
-23.82 10.42 -13.40
3
ΔEQ=18kN 4.63 -15.82 -11.19
77.99 54.50 132.49
4 14.04 16.03 30.06
34.82 28.70 63.52
5 -21.26 -6.00 -27.26
ΔEQ=12kN 4.57 10.75 15.33
6 -45.07 -15.83 -60.90
84.12 51.48 135.60 YIELDED
7 1.02 21.43 22.45
ΔEQ=6kN 8
50.35 21.43 71.78
-35.74 1.18 -34.57
14.45 1.18 15.62
9 -54.36 0.00 -54.36
-26.99 12.80 -14.19
10 -49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
-24.49 16.80 -7.69
11 -51.64 0.00 -51.64 YIELDED
-4.63 15.82 11.19
12 -53.68 0.00 -53.68 YIELDED
-28.79 12.68 -16.12
13 -49.33 0.00 -49.33 YIELDED
-25.81 16.75 -9.05
14 -50.19 0.00 -50.19 YIELDED
-8.61 15.83 7.22
15 -54.36 0.00 -54.36 YIELDED
 Total Incremental Load (kN)= 0.12
Total Base Shear (kN) = 96.12
Inc. Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)= 0.01277
Step 6 (Incremental) Frame
Total Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
M ΔM M + ∆M
7.41317
Condition
Element kNm kNm (kNm)
123.78 0.25 124.03 YIELDED
1 51.34 0.03 51.38
37.15 0.08 37.23
2 -5.71 -0.03 -5.74
-13.40 0.03 -13.37
3 -11.19 -0.06 -11.25
ΔEQ=0.06kN 132.49 0.26 132.75
4 30.06 0.02 30.09
63.52 0.07 63.60
5 -27.26 -0.02 -27.29
ΔEQ=0.04kN 6
15.33 0.04 15.36
-60.90 -0.06 -60.96
135.60 0.00 135.60 YIELDED
7 22.45 0.09 22.54
71.78 0.09 71.87
ΔEQ=0.02kN 8 -34.57 0.00 -34.57
15.62 0.00 15.63
9 -54.36 0.00 -54.36
-14.19 0.05 -14.14
10 -49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
-7.69 0.06 -7.63
11 -51.64 0.00 -51.64 YIELDED
11.19 0.06 11.25
12 -53.68 0.00 -53.68 YIELDED
-16.12 0.05 -16.07
13 -49.33 0.00 -49.33 YIELDED
-9.05 0.06 -8.99
14 -50.19 0.00 -50.19 YIELDED
7.22 0.06 7.28
15 -54.36 0.00 -54.36 YIELDED
 Total Incremental Load (kN)= 9.6
Total Base Shear (kN) = 105.72

Step 7 (Incremental) Frame

Inc. Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
Total Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
M ΔM M + ∆M
1.3
8.71317
Condition
Element kNm kNm (kNm)
124.03 0.00 124.03 YIELDED
1 51.38 4.04 55.42
37.23 8.81 46.05
2 -5.74 -3.63 -9.37
-13.37 2.07 -11.30
3 -11.25 -5.15 -16.40
ΔEQ=4.8kN 4
132.75 35.16 167.90 YIELDED
30.09 -3.63 26.45
63.60 2.03 65.63
5 -27.29 -2.56 -29.84
15.36 3.01 18.38
ΔEQ=3.2kN 6 -60.96 -5.18 -66.14
135.60 0.00 135.60 YIELDED
7 22.54 5.95 28.49
71.87 5.95 77.82
8
ΔEQ=1.6kN -34.57 -1.02 -35.58
15.63 -1.02 14.61
9 -54.36 0.00 -54.36
-14.14 4.77 -9.37
10 -49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
-7.63 5.70 -1.93
11 -51.64 0.00 -51.64 YIELDED
11.25 5.15 16.40
12 -53.68 0.00 -53.68 YIELDED
-16.07 5.67 -10.40
13 -49.33 0.00 -49.33 YIELDED
-8.99 5.57 -3.42
14 -50.19 0.00 -50.19 YIELDED
7.28 5.18 12.46
15 -54.36 0.00 -54.36 YIELDED
 Total Incremental Load (kN)= 39
Total Base Shear (kN) = 144.72

Step 9 (Incremental) Inc. Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=

Total Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
M ΔM M + ∆M
12.69
21.40317
Condition
kNm kNm (kNm)
124.03 0.00 124.03 YIELDED
55.42 -46.64 8.78
46.05 5.74 51.79
-9.37 -44.15 -53.51
-11.30 1.29 -10.01
-16.40 -38.69 -55.09
ΔEQ=19.5kN 167.90 0.00 167.90 YIELDED
26.45 -46.22 -19.76
65.63 6.05 71.68
-29.84 -43.74 -73.58
ΔEQ=13kN 18.38 1.72 20.10
-66.14 -38.78 -104.91
135.60 0.00 135.60 YIELDED
28.49 -24.15 4.35
77.82 -24.15 53.68
ΔEQ=6.5kN -35.58 -21.98 -57.57
14.61 -21.98 -7.37
-54.36 0.00 -54.36
-9.37 52.37 43.00
-49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
-1.93 45.43 43.51
-51.64 0.00 -51.64 YIELDED
16.40 38.69 55.09 YIELDED
-53.68 0.00 -53.68 YIELDED
-10.40 52.27 41.87
-49.33 0.00 -49.33 YIELDED
-3.42 45.46 42.03
-50.19 0.00 -50.19 YIELDED
12.46 38.78 51.24
-54.36 0.00 -54.36 YIELDED
 Frame M ΔM M + ∆M
Step 9 (Incremental) Element
1
kNm
124.03
kNm
0.00
(kNm)
124.03
Condition
YIELDED
8.78 -1.83 6.95
51.79 0.44 52.22
2 -53.51 -1.74 -55.25
-10.01 0.30 -9.71
3 -55.09 0.00 -55.09
167.90 0.00 167.90 YIELDED
4 -19.76 -1.82 -21.59
ΔEQ=0.75kN 5
71.68 0.44 72.12
-73.58 -1.44 -75.02
20.10 0.64 20.74
6 -104.91 -1.86 -106.77
ΔEQ=0.50kN 135.60 0.00 135.60 YIELDED
7 4.35 -0.84 3.50
53.68 -0.84 52.83
8 -57.57 -0.54 -58.11
ΔEQ=0.25kN -7.37 -0.54 -7.91
9 -54.36 0.00 -54.36
43.00 2.27 45.27
10 -49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
43.51 2.03 45.54
11 -51.64 0.00 -51.64 YIELDED
55.09 0.00 55.09 YIELDED
12 -53.68 0.00 -53.68 YIELDED
41.87 2.26 44.13
13 -49.33 0.00 -49.33 YIELDED
42.03 2.08 44.11
14 -50.19 0.00 -50.19 YIELDED
51.24 1.86 53.10 YIELDED
15 -54.36 0.00 -54.36 YIELDED
 Total Incremental Load (kN)= 4.2
Total Base Shear (kN) = 150.42
Inc. Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)= 1.94
Step 10 (Incremental) Frame
Total Lateral Disp. at J4 (mm)=
M ΔM M + ∆M
23.90917
Condition
Element kNm kNm (kNm)
124.03 0.00 124.03 YIELDED
1 6.95 -5.34 1.61
52.22 2.18 54.40
2 -55.25 -4.04 -59.29
-9.71 3.14 -6.57
3 -55.09 0.00 -55.09
ΔEQ=2.1kN 4
167.90 0.00 167.90 YIELDED
-21.59 -5.17 -26.76
72.12 2.35 74.47
5 -75.02 -4.19 -79.21
20.74 3.00 23.73
ΔEQ=1.4kN 6 -106.77 0.00 -106.77
135.60 0.00 135.60 YIELDED
7 3.50 -2.09 1.41
52.83 -2.09 50.74
ΔEQ=0.7kN 8 -58.11 0.16 -57.95
-7.91 0.16 -7.75
9 -54.36 0.00 -54.36
45.27 7.52 52.79 YIELDED
10 -49.58 0.00 -49.58 YIELDED
45.54 7.18 52.72 YIELDED
11 -51.64 0.00 -51.64 YIELDED
55.09 0.00 55.09 YIELDED
12 -53.68 0.00 -53.68 YIELDED
44.13 7.52 51.65 YIELDED
13 -49.33 0.00 -49.33 YIELDED
44.11 7.18 51.30 YIELDED
14 -50.19 0.00 -50.19 YIELDED
53.10 0.00 53.10 YIELDED
15 -54.36 0.00 -54.36 YIELDED
 Collapse Mechanism

160
SYSTEM IS UNSTABLE
140

120

Base Shear (kN)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Roof Displacement (mm)

Beam sway mechanism is observed

No further lateral load incrementing
possible (only rigid body motion)
 What did we obtain?
• A simple representation of the capacity curve
• Plastic mechanism and sequence of hinge formation
• Lateral load and displacement capacity
• Ductility and plastic rotation demand
160

140

120 SAP 2000 built in pushover

Incremental analysis options include:
Total Base Shear(kN)

100
SAP2000
80 • hardening/loss of strength
• P-M interaction
60

40

20
• Systematic stiffness approach
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Top Displacement (mm)

 Concluding Remarks
• Nonlinear analysis is becoming a part of
the profession
• It gives us information on displacements
which are indicators of damage
• Never forget that estimating deformations
is harder compared to estimating strength
• Never replace engineering judgment with
any analysis procedure