Pushover Analysis Methodologies: A Tool For Limited Damage Based Design Of Structure For Seismic Vibration

  • Sekhar Chandra DuttaEmail author
  • Suvonkar Chakroborty
  • Anusrita Raychaudhuri
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 126)

Vibration transmitted to the structure during earthquake may vary in magnitude over a wide range. Design methodology should, therefore, enumerates steps so that structures are able to survive in the event of even severe ground motion. However, on account of economic reason, the strengths can be provided to the structures in such a way that the structure remains in elastic range in low to moderate range earthquake and is allowed to undergo inelastic deformation in severe earthquake without collapse. To implement this design philosophy a rigorous nonlinear dynamic analysis is needed to be performed to estimate the inelastic demands. Furthermore, the same is time consuming and requires expertise to judge the results obtained from the same. In this context, the present paper discusses and demonstrates an alternative simple method known as Pushover method, which can be easily used by practicing engineers bypassing intricate nonlinear dynamic analysis and can be thought of as a substitute of the latter. This method is in the process of development and is increasingly becoming popular for its simplicity. The objective of this paper is to emphasize and demonstrate the basic concept, strength and ease of this state of the art methodology for regular use in design offices in performance based seismic design of structures.


seismic vibration non linear dynamic analysis pushover analysis dual design philosophy response reduction factor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Report ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California Seismic Safety Commission.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 1997. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report FEMA-273: October. Applied Technology Council (ATC-33 Project), Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Krawinkler, G. D. P. K. Seneviratna, 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures, 20, 452–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. K. Chopra, R. Goel, 2002. A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands for Buildings. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 31, 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. K. Chopra, R. Goel, 2003. A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure to estimate Seismic Demands for Buildings: Summary and evaluation. Fifth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 26–30, May. Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Chintanapakadee, A. K. Chopra, 2004. Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular Frames: Response History and Modal Pushover Analyses, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130, 1177–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. S. Jan, M. W. Liu, Y. C. Kao, 2004. An Upper Bound Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating the Seismic Demands of High-Rise Buildings, Engineering Structures, 26, 117– 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Inel, T. Tjhin, M. A. Aschheim, 2003. The Significance of Lateral Load Pattern in Pushover Analysis, Fifth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, Paper No. AE-009, 26–30, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Vamvatsikos, C. A. Cornell, 2004. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 20, 523–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Indian standard code of practice for earthquake resistant design of structures. IS: 1893 (Part 1):1984. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. R. Khan, 1987. Improved method of generation of artificial time-histories, rich in all frequencies. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 15, 985–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. W. Housner, 1959. Behaviour of structures during earthquakes. Proc. Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 85(EM-4), 109–129.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. C. Dutta, K. Bhattacharya, R. Roy, 2004. Response of low-rise buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24, 893–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. C. Dutta, P. K. Das, R. Roy, 2005. Seismic behavior of code-designed bidirectionally eccentric systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131, 1497–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. K. Chopra, 1995. Dynamic of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sekhar Chandra Dutta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Suvonkar Chakroborty
    • 2
  • Anusrita Raychaudhuri
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringBengal Eng. and Science UniversityShibpur, HowrahIndia
  2. 2.SMS DEMAG Private LimitedIndia

Personalised recommendations