Would you like to sign out?

Select Country

  • Afghanistan English
  • Albania English
  • Algeria English
  • American Samoa English
  • Andorra English
  • Angola English
  • Anguilla English
  • Antarctica English
  • Antigua and Barbuda English
  • Argentina Español
  • Armenia English
  • Aruba English
  • Australia English
  • Austria English
  • Azerbaijan English
  • Bahamas English
  • Bahrain English
  • Bangladesh English
  • Barbados English
  • Belarus English
  • Belgium English
  • Belize English
  • Benin English
  • Bermuda English
  • Bhutan English
  • Bolivia Español
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina English
  • Botswana English
  • Bouvet Island English
  • Brazil Español
  • British Indian Ocean Territory English
  • British Virgin Islands English
  • Brunei English
  • Bulgaria English
  • Burkina Faso English
  • Burundi English
  • Cambodia English
  • Cameroon English
  • Canada English
  • Cape Verde English
  • Caribbean Netherlands English
  • Cayman Islands English
  • Central African Republic English
  • Chad English
  • Chile Español
  • Christmas Island English
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands English
  • Colombia Español
  • Comoros English
  • Congo English
  • Cook Islands English
  • Costa Rica Español
  • Côte d’Ivoire English
  • Croatia English
  • Cuba Español
  • Curaçao English
  • Cyprus English
  • Czech Republic English
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo English
  • Denmark English
  • Djibouti English
  • Dominica English
  • Dominican Republic Español
  • Ecuador Español
  • Egypt English
  • El Salvador Español
  • Equatorial Guinea English
  • Eritrea English
  • Estonia English
  • Ethiopia English
  • Falkland Islands English
  • Faroe Islands English
  • Fiji English
  • Finland English
  • France English
  • French Guiana Español
  • French Polynesia English
  • French Southern Territories English
  • Gabon English
  • Gambia English
  • Georgia English
  • Germany English
  • Ghana English
  • Gibraltar English
  • Greece English
  • Greenland English
  • Grenada English
  • Guadeloupe Español
  • Guam English
  • Guatemala Español
  • Guernsey English
  • Guinea English
  • Guinea-Bissau English
  • Guyana English
  • Haiti Español
  • Heard Island and McDonald Islands English
  • Honduras Español
  • Hong Kong English
  • Hungary English
  • Iceland English
  • India English
  • Indonesia English
  • Iran English
  • Iraq English
  • Ireland English
  • Isle of Man English
  • Israel English
  • Italy English
  • Jamaica English
  • Japan 日本語
  • Jersey English
  • Jordan English
  • Kazakhstan English
  • Kenya English
  • Kiribati English
  • South Korea 한국어
  • Kuwait English
  • Kyrgyzstan English
  • Laos English
  • Latvia English
  • Lebanon English
  • Lesotho English
  • Liberia English
  • Libya English
  • Liechtenstein English
  • Lithuania English
  • Luxembourg English
  • Macau English
  • Madagascar English
  • Malawi English
  • Malaysia English
  • Maldives English
  • Mali English
  • Malta English
  • Marshall Islands English
  • Martinique Español
  • Mauritania English
  • Mauritius English
  • Mayotte English
  • Mexico Español
  • Micronesia English
  • Moldova English
  • Monaco English
  • Mongolia English
  • Montenegro English
  • Montserrat English
  • Morocco English
  • Mozambique English
  • Myanmar English
  • Namibia English
  • Nauru English
  • Nepal English
  • Netherlands English
  • New Caledonia English
  • New Zealand English
  • Nicaragua Español
  • Niger English
  • Nigeria English
  • Niue English
  • Norfolk Island English
  • Northern Mariana Islands English
  • Norway English
  • Oman English
  • Pakistan English
  • Palau English
  • Palestine English
  • Panama Español
  • Papua New Guinea English
  • Paraguay Español
  • Peru Español
  • Philippines English
  • Pitcairn Islands English
  • Poland English
  • Portugal Español
  • Puerto Rico Español
  • Qatar English
  • Réunion English
  • Romania English
  • Russia English
  • Rwanda English
  • Saint Barthélemy Español
  • Saint Helena English
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis English
  • Saint Lucia English
  • Saint Martin Español
  • Saint Pierre and Miquelon English
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines English
  • Samoa English
  • San Marino English
  • Sao Tome and Principe English
  • Saudi Arabia English
  • Senegal English
  • Serbia English
  • Seychelles English
  • Sierra Leone English
  • Singapore English
  • Sint Maarten English
  • Slovakia English
  • Slovenia English
  • Solomon Islands English
  • Somalia English
  • South Africa English
  • South Georgia English
  • South Sudan English
  • Spain Español
  • Sri Lanka English
  • Sudan English
  • Suriname English
  • Svalbard and Jan Mayen English
  • Eswatini English
  • Sweden English
  • Switzerland English
  • Syria English
  • Taiwan English
  • Tajikistan English
  • Tanzania English
  • Thailand English
  • Togo English
  • Tokelau English
  • Tonga English
  • Trinidad and Tobago English
  • Tunisia English
  • Turkey English
  • Turkmenistan English
  • Turks and Caicos Islands English
  • Tuvalu English
  • U.S. Virgin Islands English
  • Uganda English
  • Ukraine English
  • United Arab Emirates English
  • United Kingdom English
  • United States of America English
  • U.S. Minor Outlying Islands English
  • Uruguay Español
  • Uzbekistan English
  • Vanuatu English
  • Vatican City English
  • Venezuela Español
  • Vietnam English
  • Wallis and Futuna English
  • Western Sahara English
  • Yemen English
  • Zambia English
  • Zimbabwe English
  • Åland Islands English
  • East Timor English
  • Netherlands Antilles English
  • Serbia and Montenegro English
  • North Macedonia English
  • Timor-Leste English
Bridge

Decoding Pushover Analysis: Insights on Seismic Design

Table of Contents Click the table of contents for details.

With more users asking us questions regarding pushover analysis and its applications in midas Civil, we want to share the answers to some of these common questions to our user community. Hopefully, this would help you understand pushover analysis in midas Civil environment a little more, and we want you to be more confident when using midas Civil to perform seismic design and analysis. We invited one of our Midas experts Yong Yang, principal structural engineer from Jacobs, to share some of his experience regarding those questions.



Q: What is the difference between pushover analysis and modal response spectrum analysis in midas Civil?

 

Yong: One basic difference is response spectrum analysis (RSA) is performed as elastic analysis in midas Civil, while pushover analysis incorporates inelastic analysis for displacement capacity. To evaluate a structure, you need to compare the “demand” and “capacity”, which is obtained from RSA and pushover separately. RSA tells you how much the structure would displace under a seismic load, hence the demand; pushover analysis tells you the structural capacity by “pushing” the structure from elastic stage to failure stage.

 

Q: When is pushover analysis better than alternative modeling options? 

 

Yong: Pushover analysis is a nonlinear static analysis. If the hinge can be pre-located or if a failure mechanism pattern can be predicted, pushover analysis can be a good tool to perform seismic analysis because its model is relatively simple to develop. For example in the California highspeed rail bridge model shown below, plastic hinges almost happen at the top and the bottom of the columns. And the driver force is coming from the superstructure (the seismic load). With the above conditions given, we are able to use pushover analysis for the bridge design. 

 

When is pushover analysis better than alternative modeling options

 

 Q: What is the difference between the Displacement-Based and Force-Based approach in seismic design? 

 

Yong: Let's start by talking about the types of seismic analysis methods out there. Seismic analysis techniques include equivalent static analysis (ESA), response spectrum analysis (RSA), equivalent linear time history analysis(ELTHA), and nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA).  The image below shows the ground motion used for NLTHA.

 

What is the difference between the Displacement-Based and Force-Based approach in seismic design


Yong: Putting the ground motion into NLTHA enables us to get seismic demand, hence the displacement at the center of the superstructure due to the ground motion. This is tabulated in midas Civil shown in the image below, 

 

Putting the ground motion into NLTHA enables us to get seismic demand

 

Yong: For NCL/MCE design, the global displacement demand ?D (equals to 5.89 in for this case) at the center of mass of the superstructure for each bent is determined, and compared versus the displacement capacity ?C. (11.7.3.2 Displacement Demands ?D for NCL/MCE). ?C is defined as the displacement capacity determined by inelastic static analysis (ISA), which is commonly referred to as "pushover" analysis.  And this describes the displacement-based seismic design that can be used in midas Civil. 

 

Yong: Force based seismic design, however, analyzes the structure elastically. To consider structural inelastic behavior during an earthquake, the engineers apply appropriate response force modification factor (R) to compute the loads for seismic design. The design method is relative to loads, therefore it is called "force based design method". (For Seismic Design Category C, D, reduction factor R is 4. from  AASHTO GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR LRFD SEISMIC BRIDGE DESIGN, section 7.5)  

 

Q: Why is displacement based method (pushover analysis) preferred in seismic design? 

 

Yong: Firstly, the displacement-based method is better to describe the structural damage than the force-based method. Secondly, It allows engineers to see clearly where yield occurs, and where ultimate failure occurs. However, for force based method you are not able to see that. Thirdly, the force based method reduction factor R is a value that is based on judgement. Its value often times has a little to do with the geometry and size of the structure. However, for displacement based method, its displacement ductility demand value μD is more based on the bridge type and geometry, as shown in the figure below.  

Why is displacement based method (pushover analysis) preferred in seismic design

 

 

About the Editor
Yong Yang P.E.
Bridge Engineer & Principal Structural Engineer at Jacobs(Chicago, IL)

He is an experienced bridge engineer with more than 15 years of professional experience. He has worked for some big engineering organizations like STV, T.Y. Lin & G.H. Li Consultants Shanghai Ltd and currently working as a Principal Structural Engineer at Jacobs. He is skilled in bridge design, bridge construction, pushover analysis, load rating, and bridge analysis.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Catch the weekly engineer news!

What you may
also like