This paper evaluates the effectiveness of single and multi-mode nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) as well as the FEMA P58 simplified approach versus rigorous nonlinear response history analyses (NRHA) for estimating seismic demands of steel special moment frames (SMFs). This work was mostly conducted within the framework of the ATC-76-6 project and indicates the level to which simplified analysis procedures in combination with commonly used nonlinear component models can reliably predict story-level engineering demand parameters (EDPs) such as, story drift ratios, story shear forces, overturning moments, residual deformations and peak floor absolute accelerations. It is advisable to employ a combination of NSP and NRHA to understand the seismic performance of steel SMFs and quantify important EDPs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AntoniouS. and PinhoR.2004a. Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure, Journal of Earthquake Engineering8, 643–661.
2.
AntoniouS. and PinhoR.2004b. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering8, 497–522.
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2003. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, Reston, VA.
4.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Reston, VA.
5.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Reston, VA.
6.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Volumes 1 and 2, Redwood City, CA.
7.
AydinoğluM. N.2003. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering1, 3–36.
8.
BobadillaH. and ChopraA. K.2008. Evaluation of the MPA procedure for estimating seismic demands: RC-SMRF buildings, Earthquake Spectra24, 827–845.
9.
BracciJ.KunnathS. and ReinhornA.1997. Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures, Journal of Structural Engineering123, 3–10.
10.
ChopraA. K. and ChintanapakdeeC.2004. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: Vertically “regular” and irregular generic frames, Earthquake Spectra20, 255–271.
11.
ChopraA. K. and GoelR. K.2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics31, 561–582.
12.
ChopraA. K. and GoelR. K.2004. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics33, 903–927.
13.
DolšekM. and FajfarP.2007. Simplified probabilistic seismic performance assessment of plan-asymmetric buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics36, 2021–2041.
14.
ElnashaiA. S.2000. Advanced Inelastic Static (Pushover) Analysis for Seismic Design and Assessment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 23–34.
15.
FajfarP.2000. A nonlinear analysis method for performance3based seismic design, Earthquake Spectra16, 573–592.
16.
FajfarP. and FischingerM.1988. N2-A method for nonlinear seismic analysis of regular buildings, in Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference in Earthquake Engineering (Vol. 5), Science Council of Japan, Tokyo-Kyoto, Tokyo, 111–116.
17.
FajfarP. and GašperšičP.1996. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics25, 31–46.
18.
FajfarP.MarusicD. and PerusI.2005. Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering9, 831–854.
19.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2005. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Washington, D.C.
20.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009a. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Washington, D.C.
21.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009b. Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response, Washington, D.C.
22.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1 - Methodology, Washington, D.C.
23.
FragiadakisM.VamvatsikosD. and AschheimM.2014. Application of nonlinear static procedures for seismic assessment of regular RC moment frame buildings, Earthquake Spectra30, 767–794.
24.
GoelR. K. and ChopraA. K.2005a. Extension of modal pushover analysis to compute member forces, Earthquake Spectra21, 125–139.
25.
GoelR. K. and ChopraA. K.2005b. Role of higher-“mode” pushover analyses in seismic analysis of buildings, Earthquake Spectra21, 1027–1041.
26.
GuptaA. and KrawinklerH.2000. Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics29, 1287–1305.
27.
HamidiaM.FiliatraultA. and ArefA.2014. Simplified seismic sidesway collapse analysis of frame buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics43, 429–448.
28.
HanS. W.MoonK.-H. and ChopraA. K.2010. Application of MPA to estimate probability of collapse of structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics39, 1259–1278.
29.
Hernández-MontesE.KwonO.-S. and AschheimM. A.2004. An energy-based formulation for first- and multiple-mode nonlinear static (pushover) analyses, Journal of Earthquake Engineering8, 69–88.
30.
IbarraL. F.MedinaR. A. and KrawinklerH.2005. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34, 1489–1511.
31.
KrawinklerH. and SeneviratnaG. D. P. K.1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures, Innovations in Stability Concepts and Methods for Seismic Design in Structural Steel, 20, 452–464.
32.
LiQ. and EllingwoodB. R.2005. Structural response and damage assessment by enhanced uncoupled modal response history analysis, Journal of Earthquake Engineering9, 719–737.
33.
LignosD. G.2010. Interactive Interface for Incremental Dynamic Analysis: Theory and Example Applications Manual, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
34.
LignosD. G.HikinoT.MatsuokaY. and NakashimaM.2013. Collapse assessment of steel moment frames based on E-Defense full-scale shake table collapse tests, Journal of Structural Engineering139, 120–132.
35.
LignosD. G. and KrawinklerH.2011. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 1291–1302.
36.
LignosD. G. and KrawinklerH.2013. Development and utilization of structural component databases for performance-based earthquake engineering, Journal of Structural Engineering139, 1382–1394.
37.
LignosD. G.KrawinklerH. and GantesC. J.2006. Seismic Demands for Frames with Strength and Stiffness Irregularities Based on MPA, Taylor & Francis, London.
38.
LignosD. G.KrawinklerH. and WhittakerA. S.2011. Prediction and validation of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a 4-story steel moment frame, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics40, 807–825.
39.
LignosD. G.PutmanC.ZareianF. and KrawinklerH.2011. Seismic evaluation of steel moment frames and shear walls using nonlinear static analysis procedures, Structures Congress 2011, American Society of Civil Engineers, Las Vegas, NV, 2204–2215.
40.
NakashimaM.OgawaK. and InoueK.2002. Generic frame model for simulation of earthquake responses of steel moment frames, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics31, 671–692.
41.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2009. Evaluation of the FEMA P695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD.
42.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2010. Applicability of Nonlinear Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Modeling for Design, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD.
43.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center and Applied Technology Council (PEER/ATC), 2010. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Task 10 Final Report, University of California, Berkeley.
44.
PinhoR.MarquesM.MonteiroR.CasarottiC. and DelgadoR.2013. Evaluation of nonlinear static procedures in the assessment of building frames, Earthquake Spectra29, 1459–1476.
45.
PrakashV.GrahamH. P. and FilippouF. C.1992. DRAIN-2DX: Base Program User Guide, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
46.
RamirezC. M. and MirandaE.2012. Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41, 1477–1493.
47.
Ruiz-GarcíaJ. and MirandaE.2006. Evaluation of residual drift demands in regular multi-storey frames for performance-based seismic assessment, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics35, 1609–1629.
48.
SaiidiM. and SozenM. A.1981. Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures, Journal of the Structural Division107, 937–953.
49.
ShafeiB.ZareianF. and LignosD. G.2011. A simplified method for collapse capacity assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural systems, Engineering Structures33, 1107–1116.
