The applicability of nonlinear static procedures for estimating the seismic demands of typical regular RC moment-resisting frames is evaluated. This work, conducted within the framework of the ATC-76-6 project, shows the degree to which nonlinear static methods can characterize global and local response demands vis-à–vis those determined by nonlinear dynamic analysis for three RC moment-frame buildings. The response quantities (engineering demand parameters) considered are peak story displacements, story drifts, story shears, and floor overturning moments. The single-mode pushover methods evaluated include the N2 and the ASCE-41 coefficient methods. Multi-modal pushover methods, such as modal pushover analysis and the consecutive modal pushover method, were also evaluated. The results indicate that the relatively good performance of the single-mode methods observed for low-rise buildings rapidly deteriorates as the number of stories increases. The multi-modal techniques generally extend the range of applicability of pushover methods, but at the cost of additional computation and without ensuring the reliability of the results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2003. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 31-03, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2007. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA.
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
4.
AntoniouS., and PinhoR., 2004. Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure, Journal of Earthquake Engineering8, 643–661.
5.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC 40 Report, Volumes 1 and 2, Redwood City, CA.
6.
AschheimM., TjhinT., ComartinC., HamburgerR., and InelM.2007. The scaled nonlinear dynamic response, Engineering Structures29, 1422–1441.
7.
AschheimM. A., BlackE. F., and CuestaI., 2002. Theory of principal components analysis and applications to multistory frame buildings responding to seismic excitation, Engineering Structures24, 1091–1103.
8.
AydınogluM. N., 2003. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode performance evaluation, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering1, 3–36.
9.
BenjaminJ., and CornellC. A., 1970. Probability, Statistics, and Decisions for Civil Engineers, McGraw Hill, New York, 640 pp.
10.
BhattC., and BentoR., 2012. Comparison of nonlinear static methods for the seismic assessment of plan irregular frame buildings with non seismic details, Journal of Earthquake Engineering16, 15–39.
11.
CausevicM., and MitrovicS., 2011. Comparison between non-linear dynamic and static seismic analysis of structures according to European and U.S. provision, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering9, 467–489.
12.
ChopraA. K., and GoelR. K., 2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics31, 561–582.
13.
DiotalleviP. P., LandisL., and PollioB., 2008. Evaluation of conventional and advanced push-over procedures for regular and irregular RC frames, Proceeding of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Innovation Practice and Safety, Beijing, China.
14.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Brussels, Belgium.
15.
FajfarP., 1999. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics28, 979–993.
16.
FajfarP., and FischingerM., 1988. N2—A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings, Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering5, 111–116.
17.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2005. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA 440 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C.
18.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009a. Quantification of Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P-695 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
19.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009b. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-750, Building Seismic Safety Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
20.
FragiadakisM., IoannidouD., and PapadrakakisM., 2007. Assessment of nonlinear static analysis procedures in the framework of performance-based design, in 8th National Congress on Mechanics (HSTAM2007), 12–17 June 2007, Patras, Greece.
21.
GoelR. K, and ChopraA. K., 2005. Extension of modal pushover analysis to compute member forces, Earthquake Spectra21, 125–139.
22.
GoelR. K., 2005. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover procedures using strong-motion records of buildings, Earthquake Spectra21, 653–684.
23.
HaseltonC., and DeierleinG., 2007. Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame Buildings, Report No. 156, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.
24.
HaseltonC. B., LielA. B., DeierleinG. G., DeanB. S., and ChouJ. H., 2011. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings: I. Assessment of ductile moment frames, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 481–492.
25.
Hernández-MontesE., KwonO-.S., and AschheimM., 2004. An energy-based formulation for first- and multiple-mode nonlinear static (pushover) analyses, Journal of Earthquake Engineering8, 69–88.
26.
International Code Council, 2002. 2003 International Building Code (IBC), International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL.
27.
IsakovićT., and FischingerM.2011. Applicability of pushover methods to the seismic analyses of an rc bridge, experimentally tested on three shake tables, Journal of Earthquake Engineering15, 303–320.
28.
KalkanE., and KunnathS. K., 2007. Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings, Engineering Structures29, 305–316.
29.
KrawinklerH., and SeneviratnaG. D. P. K., 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures20, 452–464.
30.
KreslinM., and FajfarP., 2011. The extended N2 method taking into account higher-mode effects in elevation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics40, 1571–1589.
31.
KunnathS. K., and ErduranE., 2008. Pushover procedures for seismic assessment of buildings: Issues, limitations and future needs, nonlinear static methods for design/assessment of 3-D structures, BentoR. and PinhoR. (Eds.), 5–6 May 2008, Lisbon, Portugal.
32.
KunnathS. K., 2004. Identification of modal combinations for nonlinear static analysis of building structures, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering19, 246–259.
33.
LagarosN. D., and FragiadakisM., 2011. Evaluation of static pushover methods for performance based seismic design, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering31, 77–90.
34.
LignosD. G., and KrawinklerH., 2009. Sideways Collapse of Deteriorating Structural Systems under Seismic Excitations, Rept. No. TR 172, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford University.
35.
McKennaF., and FenvesG. L., 2001. The OpenSees Command Language Manual(1.2. edn).
36.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2010. ATC-76-6: Applicability of Nonlinear Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Modeling for Design, Report No. NIST GCR 10-917-9, prepared for the National Institute of Standards and Technology by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, Gaithersburg, MD.
37.
ÖnemG., 2008. Evaluation of Practice-Oriented Nonlinear Analysis Methods for Seismic Performance Assessment, Ph.D. Thesis, Bogazici University, Instanbul, Turkey.
38.
PinhoR., CasarottiC., and AntoniouS., 2007. A comparison of single-run pushover analysis techniques for seismic assessment of bridges, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics36, 1347–1362.
39.
PinhoR., MonteiroR., CasarottiC., and DelgadoR., 2009. Assessment of continuous span bridges through nonlinear static procedures, Earthquake Spectra25, 143–159.
40.
PourshaM., KhoshnoudianF., and MoghadamA. S., 2009. A consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings, Engineering Structures31, 591–599.
