Keywords: 3D Pushover Analysis, Incremental Dynamic Analysis, RC frame structures.

ABSTRACT
In the present study, a new pushover procedure for the seismic static analysis of plan irregular 3D frame structures
is proposed, based on the application of a set of horizontal force and torque distributions at each floor level. In
order to predict the most severe configurations of an irregular structure subjected to an earthquake, more than one
pushover analysis has to be performed. The proposed method is validated by a consistent comparison of results
from static pushover and dynamic simulations in terms of different response parameters, such as displacements,
rotations, floor shears and floor torques. Starting from the linear analysis, the procedure is subsequently extended to
the nonlinear case. The results confirm that, in order to predict the structural behaviour in the most severe
configurations, different force distributions must be defined.

1 INTRODUCTION
In the recent years, nonlinear static analyses
received a great deal of research attention within
the earthquake engineering community. Their
main goal is to describe the nonlinear capacity of
the structure when subjected to horizontal
loading, with a reduced computational effort with
respect to nonlinear dynamic analyses.
For 2D frame structures, many studies have
been performed in order to validate different
pushover techniques by comparison with results
from dynamic analyses (see Ferracuti et al. 2007,
amongst many others). On the contrary, few
methods to perform pushover analyses for
irregular 3D frame structures have been proposed
(Chopra and Goel, 2004; Fajfar et al., 2005;
Moghadam and Tso, 2000; Penelis and Kappos,
2002). These methods are usually extensions to
the 3D case of techniques proposed for planar
structures, taking due consideration of the fact
that the approaches prescribed in current design
codes or guidelines proposals (e.g. ATC, 2005),
involving the relatively straightforward
application of force distributions proportional to
the floor masses or linearly varying along the
building height, are not able to take proper
account of the dynamic torsional amplification
effect for plan-irregular structures.
The methods for static pushover analysis of
plan-irregular frame structures can perhaps be
sub-divided into two main categories. The
majority of them are based on a prescribed
loading pattern that is defined a-priori according
to the modal characteristics of the structure in the
linear range. For instance, FEMA-440 (ATC,
2005) suggests the use of a loading pattern
proportional to the fundamental vibration mode.
Moghadam and Tso (2000) showed that this
loading pattern gives results closer to dynamic
simulation results with respect to mass
proportional or linearly varying force
distributions. Penelis and Kappos (2002) used a
set of storey forces related with the elastic
spectral modal displacements (combined via
SRSS method). Also in this case, a single
pushover analysis is performed.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the
Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA), originally
proposed for 2D frame structures (Chopra and
Goel (2002)), has been extended to 3D structures
by Chopra and Goel (2004). Independent
pushover runs are performed, adopting load
distributions proportional to various modes of the
structure. Results in terms of capacity curves for
3D Pushover Analysis for Evaluating Torsional Effect of
RC Structures
Barbara Ferracuti, Marco Savoia
DISTART Structural Engineering. Universit di Bologna. Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna.
Rui Pinho
Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia.

A
N
I
D
I
S
2
0
0
9
B
O
L
O
G
N
A

various modal shapes are transformed in a
capacity curve for an equivalent SDOF. Seismic
demands are separately evaluated for each system
SDOF and a-posteriori combination of results is
performed for storey shears, interstorey drifts,
etc., typical by means of the SRSS method. Even
though the a-posteriori mode combination
introduces some approximations in the nonlinear
range, the main advantage of MPA is to combine
the effects of various modes occurring not
simultaneously during the dynamic event, so
being able to estimate the most severe
configurations the structure may be subject to.
Recently, a different set of approaches
whereby different loading patterns, corresponding
to varying worst-case configurations that must be
predicted by static pushover analyses, have been
recently proposed by Bosco et al. (2008) and
Lucchini et al. (2008).
In spatial analysis, the assessment of pushover
methods through comparison with dynamic
results is also more complex than for planar
structures. In fact, the number of parameters to be
predicted by the static analysis is much greater
than in the planar case (maximum displacements,
rotations, storey shears, storey torques, etc), and
they typically occur in different time instants
during the dynamic event.
The fundamental point in 3D pushover
analyses is the selection of the distribution of the
horizontal forces along the frame height and over
the individual floors. If the building floors are
sufficiently rigid, the horizontal forces at the floor
level can be divided into translational and
torsional contributions. By analyzing the dynamic
response of an irregular structure subjected to the
earthquake excitation, it can be observed that
maximum displacement and maximum rotation
do not occur at the same time step. Therefore, a
unique pushover force distribution giving the
most severe conditions for all the structural
elements of the frame cannot really be defined.
In the present work, a new pushover procedure
for 3D RC structures, named Force/Torque
pushover (FTP) is proposed; a set of force and
torque distributions is selected, in order to predict
the most severe configurations the structure may
undergo during the earthquake. Three different
worst-case performance conditions for the
structure have been selected, corresponding to the
attainment of i) the maximum displacement
max, ii) the maximum rotation max, iii) the
maximum strain in concrete core cu. In the
present work, the latter of these conditions has
been chosen as the limit state, since it may
represent the failure condition for a given
structural element.
As will be shown in Section 2, the method
requires a coefficient () to be defined,
representing the weight of translational and
torsional force contributions. This weighting
coefficient must be calibrated through and
extensive numerical campaign, and depends on
the structural response parameter to be predicted,
as well as on the nonlinear behaviour of the
structure.
Evidently, the complete definition of the
method requires a full numerical study to be
performed, involving the analysis of a set of
different plan irregular structures, in order to
obtain/calibrate a series of regression expressions
that yield the weight coefficient as a function of
the most important structural parameters (e.g.
mass eccentricity, stiffness and strength centre
positions, etc.). In the present paper, the weight
coefficient has been calibrated with reference to
a simple three-floor frame structure with variable
eccentricity. The comparison between the results
from a series of incremental dynamic analyses
and pushover analyses has been carried out,
considering different representative parameters of
the structural response. In particular, both global
parameters (capacity curves, horizontal
displacement versus rotation of the centre of mass
of the roof) and local parameters such as floor
shears, interstorey drifts, floor rotations have
been considered. A good agreement between the
results with the proposed pushover method and
dynamic analyses has been found.
2 PROPOSED METHOD: FORCE/TORQUE
PUSHOVER(FTP)
The fundamental point in 3D pushover
analyses is to define the distribution of horizontal
force over the frame height and on the individual
floors. At the floor level, horizontal forces can be
divided into translational and torsional
contributions. By analyzing the dynamic response
of an irregular structure subjected to earthquake
excitation, it can be observed maximum
displacement and maximum rotation do not occur
at the same timing step. On the contrary, in a
static pushover analysis the maximum rotation
and the maximum displacement occur at the same
force level. Therefore, a unique pushover force
distribution giving the worst conditions for the
structure cannot be defined.
In the present work, a new pushover procedure
for 3D irregular RC frame structure, called
Force/Torque Pushover (FTP), is proposed. First
of all, a rigid diaphragm constraint is introduced
for the individual floors of the structure. Then,

the method is based on the two following
assumptions:
For plan-irregular structures, 2 modes are
dominant, and higher order modes can be
neglected.
Displacement and rotation profiles of first and
second mode along the frame height are related
as:
) ( ) ( , ) ( ) ( , ) ( ) (
1 2 1 2 1 2
z K z z z z z
R y y x x

(1)
The modes have been normalized by setting to
unity the top displacement in the dominant
direction (e.g., the direction of the earthquake
motion).
Eqn (1) states displacement profiles of first
two modes are approximately proportional to
each other along the frame height, and the same
can be said for rotation components, being K
R
the
scale coefficient.
Therefore, the force distribution proportional
only to the fundamental mode of the structure
with the highest participant factor for the selected
ground motion direction is considered. The floor
force resultant of the i-th floor level is divided
into lateral forces
i x
F
,
,
i y
F
,
and torque
i
T with
respect to the centre of mass. In the proposed
procedure, a weight coefficient for the two
components is then introduced, so defining a
class of force distributions with variable
translational and torsional configurations. The
forces applied at i-th floor are then written as (see
Figure 1):

=
=
=
i i
i y i y
i x i x
T T
F F
F F
, ,
, ,
) 1 (
) 1 (
(2)



Figure 1. Proposed FTP technique: force distribution at
each floor and two limit cases.
The weight coefficient can vary from zero
to one. Therefore, translational forces only and
torque only are applied, for the two limit cases,
=0 and =1, respectively, as depicted in Figure
1. For =0.5, the force system reported in Eq. (2)
corresponds to the force distribution proportional
to the selected fundamental mode.
3 CASE STUDIES
Two simple multi-storey RC frame structures
with floor plans symmetric about the y-axis but
asymmetric about the x-axis are considered (see
Figure 2). Column cross-sections and
eccentricities of the Centre of Rigidity (CR) with
respect to the Centre of Mass (CM) are reported
in Figure 2; elastic modulus of concrete is 25000
MPa, whilst the distributed mass is 6.60 kN/m
2
.
For case n. 1, the frame structure is slightly
irregular, whilst case n. 2 features a significant
eccentricity. The periods of the first three
vibration modes are also reported in Figure 2,
together with the mass participation factors for a
ground motion acting in x-direction.
The two structures have been modelled by a
fibre finite element code (Seismosoft 2007).





Figure 2. Geometry of case studies, column cross-section
dimensions (cm), eccentricity e
y
, first three periods T and
mass participation factor of the two structures with small
eccentricity (case n. 1) and large eccentricity (case n. 2).
Case n.1 Case n.2
Cross Section Cross Section
Col. 1 30x25 60x25
Col. 2 30x25 60x25
Col. 3 25x25 25x25
Col. 4 25x25 25x25

e
y
/L 0.133 0.433
T
1
-
1
0.97 s 0% 0.90 s 0%
T
2
-
2
0.94 s 76.7% 0.86 s 45.3%
T
3
-
3
0.80 s 7.5% 0.59 s 33.1%
Proposed Force
Distribution
Limit Force Distributions

4 COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM
DYNAMIC AND PUSHOVER ANALYSES
4.1 Linear range
The aim of the present work is to validate the
proposed FTP procedure through comparison
with results from dynamic analyses. The
comparison has been made at a given limit state,
corresponding to the attainment of the ultimate
strain in concrete core (
cu
=0.35%) in a column.
For the case studies, the pushover procedure
proposed in Section 2, has been performed by
selecting a set of values of weight coefficient .
For the two cases, two selected response
parameters, i.e., the maximum displacement and
the maximum rotation of the centre of mass (CM)
of the three floors, adopting different values of
the weight coefficient , are reported in Figs. 3,4.
By increasing , i.e. reducing forces and
increasing the torsional component, the
displacement of CM decreases and rotation
increases. It is interesting to observe that for case
n. 2, by increasing , displacement of CM
decreases and rotation increases according to an
almost linear law.


0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x

[
m
]
CM3 CM2 CM1
(a)


-0.04
-0.035
-0.03
-0.025
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

[
r
a
d
]
CM3 CM2 CM1

(b)

Figure 3. Case n. 1 - (a) Max. displacement and (b) max. rotation
of centre of mass (CM) of the three floors obtained by proposed
pushover method with different values of the weight coefficient .

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x

[
m
]
CM3 CM2 CM1
(a)

-0.035
-0.025
-0.015
-0.005
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

[
r
a
d
]
CM3 CM2 CM1

(b)

Figure 4. Case n. 2 - (a) Max. displacement and (b) max. rotation
of centre of mass (CM) of the three floors obtained by proposed
pushover method with different values of the weight coefficient .


The results obtained from the static analyses
have been compared with results from linear
dynamic analyses performed by adopting 12
artificial time-histories compatible with Eurocode
8 response spectrum (seismic zone 2 and type B
ground). Artificial ground-motions have been
preferred here over natural records in order to
reduce the variability of the structural response
and to obtain a homogeneous statistical sample.
The artificial records have been scaled up to the
achievement of the limit state (
cu
=0.35%) for the
structure under study.
As an example, the response in terms of
displacement versus rotation of CM3 obtained
from one time history analysis (Ag1) with scaling
factor SF=1.69 and SF=1.89 (corresponding to
the attainment of the limit state), for case n. 1 and
n. 2, respectively, is compared with results from
pushover procedures in Figs. 5a, 6a. In particular,
from the dynamic analyses, the points
corresponding to the maximum values of
displacement
x
, rotation and concrete
deformation
cu
(the limit state condition) are
indicated with markers on the cyclic curve.

-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
Dyn

x,max

max

cu
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.75
=0.90
=1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.66
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 5. Case n. 1 - Displacement versus rotation of CM3:
(a) results from time history Ag1 with SF=1.69 and
maximum values from static analyses with different values
of ; (b) maximum values of response parameters from 12
dynamic analyses, their mean values, and results from static
analyses with different values of .

For pushover analyses, only the ultimate values
corresponding to the limit state condition are reported.
The ultimate points from FTP, obtained for different
values of the coefficient are located along the
dashed line between limit cases =0 and =1.
Moreover, the points from dynamic analysis
corresponding to the maximum values of
response parameters are inside the area described
by the two limit cases ( =0 and =1) and the
line of ultimate points from static analyses. The
same behaviour can be observed when static
results are compared with all the results from 12
time histories analyses. These results are
summarized in Figs. 5b,6b, where all the
maximum values of response parameters from 12
dynamic analyses have been compared with
results from linear static analyses (red points
corresponding to limit state conditions). It is
worth noting that mean values (black markers) of
dynamic results corresponding to maximum
displacement, rotation and the limit state
condition are inside the area delimited by =0
and =1 lines.
It is observed that dynamic results
corresponding to maximum displacement and
rotation occur at different time steps with respect
to that corresponding to the achievement of the
limit state (
cu
=0.35%). In order to perform a
consistent comparison between static and
dynamic analyses, scaling coefficients have been
then introduced:
) (
max ,
x

=
t
Coef
c
cu
;
) (
-
max ,

=
t
Coef
c
cu
(3)
where t

and

t

are the timing steps of dynamic
analysis corresponding to maximum displacement
and maximum rotation of third floor,
respectively,
c
,max(t

) and
c
,max(t

) are
maximum concrete strains corresponding to
timing steps t

and t

, respectively. For the 12

dynamic analyses the mean values of 12
coefficients
x
Coef and - Coef are 1.10 and
1.27, respectively for case n. 1, whilst for case n.
2 they are 1.3 and 1.09, respectively.
The results of linear dynamic analyses at time
instant t

and

t

are then multiplied by the above

coefficients in order to compare the results from
the static and dynamic analyses in the same
conditions (the attainment of the ultimate limit
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
Dyn

x,max

max

cu
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.75
=0.90
=1

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 6. Case n. 2 - Displacement versus rotation of CM3:
(a) results from time history Ag1 with SF=1.86 and
maximum values from static analyses with different values
of ; (b) maximum values of response parameters from 12
dynamic analyses, their mean values, and results from static
analyses with different values of .
(a)
=0

=
1
=0

=
1
(b)
(a)

=
0

=
1

=
0

=
1
(b)

state). In Figure 7a, the maximum values of those
response parameters from 12 dynamic analyses
are reported and compared with the failure states
predicted by FTP for different values of .
For case n. 1, the results, in terms of
displacement-rotation couples corresponding to
the attainment of the maximum rotation or
maximum displacement, are quite close to each
other, due to the relatively small irregularity of
the structure (small eccentricity). Indeed, for this
case pushover analyses with weight coefficients
=0.30 and 0.66 give results close to the mean
values of failure conditions, corresponding to the
attainment of the maximum displacement and
maximum rotation of the structure, respectively,
whereas =0.42 corresponds to the mean value of
dynamic states when the limit state is attained.


0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.66
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)



0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.50
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)


Figure 7. Displacement versus rotation of CM3 with
amplified values of dynamic results: (a) Case n. 1; (b) Case
n. 2.

For case n. 2, displacement-rotation couples
corresponding to the attainment of the maximum
rotation or the maximum displacement are very
distant from each other, due to the larger
eccentricity of the centre of mass of the second
structure (see Figure2). In this case, the static
analysis with =0 (
i x i x
F F
, ,
= and T
i
=0) turns to be
very close to the mean value of failure conditions
corresponding to the attainment of maximum
displacement from the 12 dynamic analyses;
analogously, the ultimate condition obtained from
static analysis with =0.9 (i.e.,
i x i x
F F
, ,
1 . 0 = and
i i
T T = 9 . 0 ) coincides with the mean value of
failure conditions corresponding to the attainment
of the maximum rotation.
These results show that, for regular structure,
the most severe conditions in the linear range can
be predicted adopting force/torque distributions
quite close to the first mode distribution (=0.3
and 0.6 instead of =0.5). On the contrary, for
irregular structures, such as case n. 2,
force/torque distributions similar to the limit
distributions =0 and =1 are required.
In the following a comprehensive comparison
of results from static and dynamic analyses at
time steps corresponding to maximum
displacement and maximum rotation is
performed.
For case n. 1, displacements, interstorey drifts,
floor shears in x direction, and floor torques have been
reported in Figures 8 a,b,c,d. Results from static
analysis with =0.66 are reported with red line,
whereas the mean value of results from 12 dynamic
analyses, corresponding to the time instant where
maximum rotation
max
has been attained, is
depicted as black line. A good matching between
results can be observed. Displacements and forces
over the structures height have been correctly
predicted. In order to compare the deformed
configurations of the frame structure under
seismic action and predicted by static analysis,
displacement versus rotation of the three floors is
reported in Figure 8e.
Although dynamic results are significantly
spread, the static analysis (red points) predicts
very well the mean value of dynamic results
(black points). Moreover, good agreement
between the results can be observed by
comparing results from static analysis with
=0.30 and the mean values of the 12 dynamic
analyses at the time instant corresponding to the
max displacement
max
(Figures 9 a,b,c). A very
close match between results from static and mean
value of dynamic analyses is observed.
Therefore, the proposed FTP procedure is able
to predict different structural dynamic
configurations corresponding to maximum
rotation and maximum displacement in terms of
floor shear, floor torque, floor displacement and
floor rotation.

=
0

=
1

=
1
=0
=0.66
=0.3
=0.9
(b)
(a)





0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

x
/H [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interstorey drift ratio
x
/h [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)




0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Shear [kN]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 500 1000 1500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Torque [kNm]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)




-0.04 -0.035 -0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
[Rad]
|

|

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)


Figure 8. Case n. 1 - Linear FTP analysis with = 0.66 and results from 12 dynamic analyses at time instant corresponding to
maximum rotation: (a) Displacement in x direction; (b) interstorey drift in x direction; (c) Storey shear in x direction; (d)
Storey torque; (e) Displacement versus rotation of three floors.



(a)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(b)
1st floor
2nd floor
Dynamic Analyses corresponding to
max
and Static analysis with =0.66
3rd floor


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

x
/H [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interstorey drift ratio
x
/h [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

-0.04 -0.035 -0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
[Rad]
|

|

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

Figure 9. Case n. 1- Linear FTP analysis with = 0.30 and results from 12 linear dynamic analyses at the time instant
corresponding to maximum displacement: (a) Displacement in x direction; (b) interstorey drift in x direction; (c) Displacement
vs rotation of three floors.


4.2 Nonlinear range
In order to investigate the efficiency of the
proposed procedure in the nonlinear range,
nonlinear material models for concrete and steel
bar have been introduced. For the case n. 2,
preliminary results in terms of displacement
versus rotation and capacity curve giving base
shear vs top displacement in x direction are
reported in Figure 10. In the nonlinear range,
mean value of failure conditions corresponding to
the attainment of the maximum displacement and
maximum rotation of the structure are closer to
each other than in the linear case. The weight
coefficients giving the force distributions able
to predict the mean values corresponding to the
attainment of the
max
and
max
of the structure,
are 0.13 and 0.55 instead of 0 and 0.9 of the
linear range. Therefore, in the nonlinear range,
the interval of coefficient for predicting the
worst configurations of the structure is smaller
than the case of linear analyses, as shown in
Table 2 for the two case studies. This result
seems to confirm that in the nonlinear range the
effect of mass eccentricity tends to reduce.
Three different severe conditions for the structure
have been selected: i) maximum displacement max,
ii) maximum rotation max, iii) maximum strain in
concrete core
cu
. In the present work, the last
condition has been chosen as limit state, because
it represents the failure condition for one
structural element. It is worth noting that, for this
limit state condition, dynamic simulations exhibit
smaller values of maximum displacement max
and maximum rotation
max
with respect static
analysis. However, as shown in Figure 10, the
pushover curve with =0.38 matches very well
displacement and rotation corresponding to the
mean value of the 12 dynamic results. Therefore,
such force distribution predicts well the worst
configuration of the structure. The comparison
between results along the building height from
FTP analysis with =0.38 and non linear dynamic
Dynamic Analyses corresponding to
max
and Static analysis with =0.30
(a) (b)
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
(c)

results corresponding to the attainment of the
limit state
c,max
=
cu
is reported in Figure 11.
Good agreement in terms of displacements,
interstorey drift, shear and torque along the height
of the structure is shown.

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025

x
[m]

[
R
a
d
]
=0
=0.13
=0.25
=0.30
=0.38
=0.50
=0.55
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200

x
[m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

V
x

[
k
N
]
=0
=0.25
=0.30
=0.38
=0.50
=0.75
=0.90
=1

cu
static

x,max

x,max
(mean)

max

max
(mean)

cu
dyn

cu
(mean)

Figure 10. Case n. 2 - Nonlinear dynamics and FTP
analysis results: (a) Displacement versus rotation; (b) Base
shear displacement capacity curve in x direction.

Table 2. Values of coefficient in FTP analyses giving the
closest results to the mean values of dynamic results
corresponding to the attainment of the maximum
displacement
max
, maximum rotation
max
and maximum
strain in concrete core
cu
.
CONCLUSIONS
A new procedure, called Force/Torque
Pushover (FTP) analysis, to select storey force
distributions for 3D pushover analysis of plan-
irregular RC frame structures has been proposed
here. According to the proposed procedure, the
most severe configurations in terms of maximum
top displacement or maximum rotation are
captured by a weighted distribution of force
resultant and torque distributions. In order to
validate the proposed procedure, two different
cases (small and large stiffness eccentricities with
respect to the center of mass) have been studied
in the linear range. Good agreement has been
found between static and dynamic results in terms
of displacement and rotation of the center of mass
of the top floor, interstorey drift, floor shear and
floor torque. Moreover, the proposed technique
has been adopted for RC structure in nonlinear
range for both concrete and steel reinforcement. It
is observed that, in order to predict the most
severe deformation states for a plan - irregular
structure different force distributions must be
selected, in order to capture the behaviour
corresponding to maximum rotation or
alternatively the maximum displacement or the
attainment of the limit state (ultimate stain in
concrete core). The values of coefficient
required to capture those severe configurations
depend on the degree of irregularity of the
structure. Further studies are necessary to obtain
intervals of coefficient as a function of the
center of mass eccentricity and other
geometrical/mechanical parameters. The work is
therefore on-going.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support of the Italian Department
of Civil Protection, through the two 2005-2008
framework programmes established with the
Italian National Network of Earthquake
Engineering University Laboratories (RELUIS,
Task 7) and the European Centre for Training and
Research in Earthquake Engineering
(EUCENTRE), is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
ATC 2005. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic
analysis procedures, FEMA 440 Report, Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
Bosco M. Ghersi A., Marino E.M. 2008. Eccentricities for
the evaluation of the seismic response of asymmetric
buildings by nonlinear static analysis, Fifth European
Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and
Complex Structures, September 16-17 2008, Catania,
Italy.
Chopra A. K., Goel R. K. 2002. A modal pushover analysis
procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol.
31(3), 561-582.
Chopra A. K., Goel R. K., 2004. A modal pushover analysis
procedure to estimate seismic demands for
unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 33, 903-927.

Case n. 1 Case n. 2
Linear Nonlinear Linear Nonlinear

max
0.3 0.15 0 0.13

max
0.66 0.50 0.90 0.55
-
cu
0.42 0.25 0.67 0.38
(a)
(b)

=
0

=
1

=
0
=1
=0.55
=0.13
=0.38


Eurocode 8 2003. Design for structures for earthquakes
resistance Part 1 General rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings, Final Draft prEN 1998-1.
Fajfar P., Marusic D., Perus I., 2005. Torsional effects in
the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(6), 831-854.
Ferracuti B., Pinho R., Savoia M., Francia R. 2007.
Validation of nonlinear pushover analyses by Statistical
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (S-IDA), in Proceedings
COMPDYN, 13-16 June 2007.
Lucchini A., Monti G., Kunnath S. 2008. Investigation on
the inelastic torsional response of asymmetric-plan
buildings, Fifth European Workshop on the Seismic
Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures,
September 16-17 2008, Catania, Italy.
Marusic D., Fajfar P., 2005. On the inelastic response of
asymmetric buildings under bi-axial excitation,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34,
943-963.
Moghadam A.S., Tso W.K., 2000. Pushover analysis for
asymmetric and set-back multistorey buildings, in
Proceedings, WCEE, 12
th
, Upper Hutt, paper 1093.
Penelis G. G., Kappos A. J., 2002. 3D Pushover analysis:
The issue of torsion, in Proceedings, European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12
th
, London,
paper 015.
SeismoSoft 2007. SeismoStruct - A computer program for
static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed
structures, Available from URL:
http://www.seismosoft.com.
Stathopoulos K. G., Anagnostopoulos S. A., 2005. Inelastic
torsion of multi-storey buildings under earthquake
excitations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 34, 1449-1465.
Vamvatsikos D. and Cornell C. A. 2002. Incremental
Dynamic Analysis, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 31, 491-514.



0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

x
/H [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interstorey drift ratio
x
/h [%]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)


0 50 100 150 200 250
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Shear [kN]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Storey Torque [kNm]
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)


-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
[Rad]
|

|

[
m
]

Pushover
A1a
A1b
A1c
A2a
A2b
A2c
A3a
A3b
A3c
A4a
A4b
A4c
Dyn (mean)

Figure 11: Case n. 2 - Non linear static analysis with = 0.38 and results from 12 linear dynamic analyses at the time instant corresponding
to the attainment of the limit state
cu
: (a) Displacement in the x-direction, (b) interstorey drift in the x-direction, (c) Storey shear in the x-
direction, (d) Storey torque, (e) Displacement versus rotation of three floors.
(a)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(b)
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
Dynamic Analyses corresponding to
cu
and Static analysis with =0.38