Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The conventional procedure for pushover or non-linear static analysis (NSA) has some drawbacks in predicting the inelastic seismic demands of buildings which are asymmetric in plan. In this research, fifteen asymmetric buildings comprising of steel moment frames have been designed and their seismic responses have been studied by pushover analysis. Using methods proposed in FEMA-356, ATC-40, and FEMA-440, the target displacements for these structures have been obtained. Subsequently pushover analyses have been repeated using lateral forces corresponding to 100% of target displacement in principal direction and 30% of target displacement in perpendicular direction. Results of this study indicate that target displacements results from FEMA-440 methods for the roof center of mass (CM) are closest to the NTHA results but displacements obtained for the stiff side of structure in all NSA methods are underestimated. Therefore a correction factor has been derived using the Least Squares Method to modify the demand displacements obtained from pushover analysis for the stiff side of asymmetric buildings.

Keywords

pushover asymmetric building nonlinear static analysis target displacement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AISC (2001). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA.

Antoniou

and Pinho

(2004a). “Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non adaptive force-based pushover procedures”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 497–522.

Antoniou

and Pinho

(2004b). “Development and verification of a displacement based adaptive pushover procedure”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 643–61.

ATC-40 (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, USA.

Chopra

A.K.

and Goel

R.K.

(2002). “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 561–582.

Chopra

A.K.

and Goel

R.K.

(2004). “A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetrical-plan buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 903–927.

Chopra

A.K.

and Goel

R.K.

(2005). “Role of higher-mode pushover analyses in seismic analysis of buildings”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 1027–1041.

CSI (2006), Perform-3D User Guide, Computers and Structure Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA.

Fajfar

and Fischinger

(1988). “N2-a method for nonlinear seismic analysis of regular structures”, Proceedings of the 9^th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 5, pp. 111–116.

10.

Fajfar

Marusic

and Prus

(2005). “Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of building”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 831–854.

11.

FEMA-356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.

12.

FEMA 440 (2005). Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC., USA.

13.

Kalkan

and Kunnath

S.K.

(2007). “Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 305–316.

14.

Kilar

and Fajfar

(1997). “Simple push-over analysis of asymmetric buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 233–249.

15.

Krawinkler

and Seneviratna

G.D.P.K.

(1998). “Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 452–464.

16.

Leea

D.G.

Choib

W.H.

Cheongc

M.C.

and Kimd

D.K.

(2006). “Evaluation of seismic performance of multistory building structures base on the equivalent responses”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 837–856.

17.

Lin

J.L.

and Tsai

K.C.

(2008). “Seismic analysis of two-way asymmetric building systems under bi-directional seismic ground motions”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 305–328.

18.

Moghadam

A.S.

and Tso

W.K.

(1998). “Pushover analysis for asymmetrical multistory buildings”, Proceedings of the 6^th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oakland, CA, USA.

19.

Moghaddam

and Hajirasouliha

(2006). “An investigation on the accuracy of pushover analysis for estimating the seismic deformation of braced steel frames”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 343–351.

20.

Papanikolaou

V.K.

Elnashai

A.S.

and Pareja

J.F.

(2005). Limits of Applicability of Conventional and Advanced Pushover Analysis for Seismic Response Assessment, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.

21.

Rutenburg

(2002). “Behavior of irregular and complex asymmetric structures”, Proceedings of the 12^th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK, pp. 825–832.

22.

UBC (1997). Structural Engineering Design Provisions 1997, Uniform Building Code/International Code Council, Washington D.C., USA.

23.

Zou

X.K.

and Chan

C.M.

(2005). “Optimal seismic performance-based design of reinforced concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover analysis”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 1289–1302.

Assessment of Nonlinear Static Procedures for Determination of Target Displacement in Asymmetric Buildings

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References