A dynamic correction for the seismic analysis of structures

  • M. DhileepEmail author
  • P. D. Arumairaj
  • G. Hemalatha
Technical Paper


International seismic building codes of practice specify a simplified method based on the first mode for the seismic analysis of regular structures and dynamic analysis for irregular structures. The number of modes to be used in the dynamic analysis of structures should be such that the sum total of the modal masses of all the modes considered is at least 90% of the total structural mass. Previous studies show that the 90% criterion for the number of modes considered may not result in correct responses in all the structural members of an irregular structure. The present study examines the rationale for using the codal provisions for the number of modes to be used for dynamic analysis of irregular building structures using the response spectrum method. Results of this study show that fundamental mode approach for regular structures and 90% modal mass criterion, given by the seismic building codes of practice for the number of modes to be considered for the dynamic analysis of irregular structures, are not adequate. It is observed that the present criterion results in the underestimation of shear forces in the top and bottom storeys according to the numerical examples considered. A simplified method is given for the elastic seismic analysis of irregular and complex structures using a “dynamic correction”, which can be extended to the nonlinear pushover analysis of structures.


Missing mass Rigid frequency Residual mode Modal mass Response spectrum 


  1. 1.
    Dhileep M, Bose PR (2009) Seismic analysis of irregular buildings: missing mass effect. J Struct Eng SERC 35(5):359–365Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maniatakis CA, Psycharis IN, Spyrakos CC (2013) Effect of higher modes on the seismic response and design of moment-resisting RC frame structures. Eng Struct 56:417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shoujun W, Peng P, Dongbin Z (2016) Higher mode effects in frame pin-supported wall structure by using a distributed parameter model. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(14):2371–2387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guerrini G, Restrepo JI (2009) Higher-mode effects in performance-based seismic design of high-rise buildings. In: 78th annual convention of the structural engineers association of California, At San Diego, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sasaki F, Freeman S, Paret T (1998) Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP)—a method to identify the effect of higher modes in a pushover analysis. In: Proceedings of the 6th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Qin X, Chouw N (2018) Response of structure with controlled uplift using footing weight. Earthq Struct 15(5):555–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen Y, Qin X, Chouw N (2012) Effect of higher vibration modes on seismic response of a structure with uplift. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASCE, SEI 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    IS 1893(Part1) (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1 general provision and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Association for Earthquake Engineering (1996) Regulations for seismic design—a world list. Compiled by International Association for Earthquake Engineering, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Association for Earthquake Engineering (2000) Regulations for seismic design—a world list 1996-supplement. Compiled by International Association for Earthquake Engineering, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    UBC (1997) Structural design requirements. In: International conference of building officials, vol 2, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Standard No. 2800 (2007) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. BHRC publication no. S – 465, TehranGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Government of the Republic of Turkey (2007) Specification for buildings to be built in seismic zones. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Government of the Republic of TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    SNI-02-1726-2002 (2002) Seismic resistance design standard for buildings. Ministry of Public Work, Indonesian National Standardization AgencyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Caltrans (2013) Caltrans seismic design criteria version 1.7. California Department of Transportation, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Comite Europeen de Normalisation CEN (2004) Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part-1. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    FEMA 356 (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mehr M, Zaghi AE (2016) Seismic response of multi-frame bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 14(4):1219–1243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mehrraoufi M (2015) Seismic transverse response of multi-frame bridges. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.
  21. 21.
    Wood S, Stanton J, Hawkins N (2000) New seismic design provisions for diaphragms in precast concrete parking structures. PCI J 45(1):50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodriguez ME, Blandon JJ (2004) Analysis of diaphragm forces in a five-story miniature steel building during shaking table tests. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, paper no 2132Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoehler MS, Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI, Silva JF, Floriani L, Bourgund U, Gassner H (2009) Performance of suspended pipes and their anchorages during shake table testing of a seven-story building. Earthq Spectra 25(1):71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shooshtari M, Saatcioglu M, Naumoski N, Foo S (2010) Floor response spectra for seismic design of operational and functional components of concrete buildings in Canada. Can J Civil Eng 37(12):1590–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar R, Singh Y, Tripathi S (2011) Effect of building performance on floor response spectra. J Struct Eng SERC 37(6):422–426Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chao SH, Goel SC, Lee SS (2007) A seismic design lateral force distribution based on inelastic state of structures. Earthq Spectra 23(3):547–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Panagiotou M (2008) Seismic design, testing and analysis of reinforced concrete wall buildings. Ph.D. thesis, University Of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fox MJ, Sullivan TJ, Beyer K (2015) Evaluation of seismic assessment procedures for determining deformation demands in RC wall buildings. Earthq Struct 9(4):911–936. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    USNRC (2006) Combining modal responses and spatial components in seismic response analysis. Regulatory guide 1.92, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission R2Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gupta AK (1992) Response spectrum method in seismic analysis and design of structures. Blackwell Scientific Publications, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dhileep M, Bose PR (2007) Combination of high frequency modes in seismic analysis of irregular buildings. In: First international conference of European Asian civil engineering forum, Jakarta, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dhileep M, Nair SS (2012) Effect of rigid content on modal response combination. Proc ICE Struct Build 165:287–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dhileep M, Bose PR (2008) A comparative study of “missing mass” correction methods for response spectrum method of seismic analysis. Comput Struct 86(21–22):2087–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dickens JM, Nakagawa JM, Wittbrodt MJ (1997) A critique of mode acceleration and modal truncation augmentation methods for modal response analysis. Comput Struct 62(6):985–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dhileep M, Hameed S, Nagan S (2010) An alternate cut-off frequency for response spectrum method of seismic analysis. Asian J Civ Eng 11:321–334Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lopez OA, Cruz M (1996) Number of modes for the seismic design of buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(8):837–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chopra AK (1998) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dhileep M, Bose PR (2006) Effect of mode truncation in seismic analysis of structures: physical interpretation. In: Proceedings of the first European conference in earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Salmonte AJ (1982) Considerations on the residual contribution in modal analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 10(2):295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Villaverde R (1991) Explanation for the numerous upper floor collapses during the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20(3):223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Keintzel E (1984) Ductility requirements for shear wall structures in seismic areas. In: Proceedings of the 8th world conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, vol 5, pp 671–677Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Priestley MJN, Amaris AD (2002) Dynamic amplification of seismic moments and shears in cantilever walls. Research report no ROSE-2002/01. European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanapakdee C (2004) Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands. Earthq Spectra 20(3):757–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Calugaru V, Panagiotou M (2012) Response of tall cantilever wall buildings to strong pulse type seismic excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(9):1301–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rejec K, Isaković T, Fischinger M (2012) Seismic shear force magnification in RC cantilever structural walls, designed according to Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng 10(2):567–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringMuthoot Institute of Technology & ScienceErnakulamIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringKarunya Institute of Technology and SciencesCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations