Performance Evaluation of a New NSP for Estimation of Seismic Demands of Nonlinear Irregular BRB Frames

  • Hosein Sangtarash
  • Mohammad Reza BananEmail author
  • Mahmoud Reza Banan
Research Paper


Nonlinear static procedures are commonly used to compute seismic demands of structural systems. This paper combines the modified capacity spectrum method (MCSM) and modal pushover analysis (MPA) and proposes a new nonlinear static method called MPA–MCSM. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed method, 30 different buckling-restrained braced (BRB) structures which consist of 3-, 9- and 20-story BRB frames with irregularities in plan and in elevation are selected. Each structure was analyzed subjected to seven pairs of ground motions. As a measure for the performance assessment of the proposed method, four structural seismic demands: (1) peak roof displacement, (2) story drift, (3) story shear and (4) base shear, are computed for each considered structure. The accuracy of MPA–MCSM responses is checked against the results obtained from nonlinear time-history analysis (NL-THA). The results reveal that MPA–MCSM provides conservative seismic demands for BRB frames.


Buckling-restrained braced frames BRB Equivalent nonlinear static procedure Modal pushover analysis Capacity spectrum method 3D steel structure 


  1. ATC-40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  2. Balic I, Trogrlic B, Mihanovic A (2017) Simplified multimodal pushover target acceleration method for seismic resistance analysis of medium-rise RC structures. KSCE J Civ Eng 21(1):378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belejo A, Bento R (2016) Improved modal pushover analysis in seismic assessment of asymmetric plan buildings under the influence of one and two horizontal components of ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 87(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavdar O, Bayraktar A (2015) Nonlinear earthquake performance evaluation of a structure collapsed during the Van, Turkey Earthquake on October 23, 2011. J Perform Constr Facil 30(4):04015092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(8):903–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dutta SC, Chakroborty S, Raychaudhuri A (2009) Efficacy of pushover analysis methodologies: a critical evaluation. Struct Eng Mech 31(3):265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA-355c (2000) State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. FEMA-440 (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghahari SF, Moradnejad HR, Rouhanimanesh MS, Moghadam AS (2013) Studying higher mode effects on the performance of nonlinear static analysis methods considering near-fault effects. KSCE J Civ Eng 17(2):426–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goel RK, Chopra AK (2004) Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: sac buildings. Earthq Spectra 20(1):225–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jianmeng M, Changhai Z, Lili X (2008) An improved modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands of structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 7(1):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE (2008) Estimation of seismic inelastic deformation demands in plane steel MRF with vertical mass irregularities. Eng Struct 30(11):3265–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kashkooli NA, Banan MR (2012) Effect of frame irregularity on accuracy of modal equivalent nonlinear static seismic analysis. KSCE J Civ Eng 17(5):1064–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keykhosravi A, Aghayari R (2016) Evaluating response modification factor (R) of reinforced concrete frames with chevron brace equipped with steel slit damper. KSCE J Civ Eng 21:1–7Google Scholar
  17. Khoshnoudi HR, Marsono K (2012) Assessment of FEMA356 nonlinear static procedure and modal pushover analysis for seismic evaluation of buildings. Struct Eng Mech 41(2):243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li S, Zuo Z, Zhai C, Xie L (2017) Comparison of static pushover and dynamic analyses using RC building shaking table experiment. Eng Struct 136(1):430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moehle JP, Alarcon LF (1986) Seismic analysis methods for irregular buildings. J Struct Eng 112(1):35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morad B, Sabah M (2015) Comparison between static nonlinear and time history analysis using flexibility-based model for an existing structure and effect of taking into account soil using domain reduction method for a single media. KSCE J Civ Eng 19(3):651–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. NEEShub (2009). Accessed 2009
  22. OpenSees (2006) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. University of California at Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  23. Sangtarash H, Banan MR, Banan MR (2017) Error estimation of nonlinear equivalent static analysis for 3D-BRB frames. KSCE J Civ Eng. Google Scholar
  24. Shayanfar MA, Ashoory M, Bakhshpoori T, Farhadi B (2013) Optimization of modal load pattern for pushover analysis of building structures. Struct Eng Mech 47(1):119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood SL (1992) Seismic response of R/C frames with irregular profiles. J Struct Eng 118(2):545–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringShiraz UniversityShirazIran
  2. 2.Sistan and Baluchestan UniversityZahedanIran

Personalised recommendations