Assessment Of Different Pushover Methods to Estimate Seismic Inelastic Demands Of SMRF's

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

Earthquake Engineering Department, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

Abstract

Since the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) is one of the most prevalent and useful methods for the Performance-Based-Design (PBD) of buildings, it is considered by several researchers during past decades, so that the capability assessment of NSP in comparison with the nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP) and improving the NSP accuracy are the basic subject of previous studies. Therefore, in this paper several load patterns used in conventional and advanced NSP such as displacement-based adaptive NSP (DAP) and multi-mode interaction adaptive NSP (APAM) are evaluated and the results are compared with NDP responses. Based on modeling assumptions the results demonstrate that the CPA with elastic load patterns cannot predict displacement and story drift for high-rise models. The maximum differences between CPA and APA is almost 7.9%. In addition, the DAP adaptive method presents an almost accurate prediction of seismic demands and it can consider the effect of higher modes on inelastic responses. However, although the APAM adaptive method considers the interaction between modes, but it cannot predict the interstory drift angle at lower stories accurately. This behavior is intensified while the height of buildings increases.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] A. Moghadam, W. Tso, A pushover procedure for tall buildings, in: Proc. of the Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, United Kingdom, Paper, 2002.
[2] A.K. Chopra, R.K. Goel, A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3) (2002) 561-582.
[3] A.K. Chopra, R.K. Goel, A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for buildings: Summery and evalusation, in: Fifth National Conference on Earthquake, Istanbul, Turkeym Keynote Lecture, 2003.
[4] A.K. Chopra, R.K. Goel, C. Chintanapakdee, Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands, Earthquake Spectra, 20(3) (2004) 757-778.
[5] B. Gupta, S.K. Kunnath, Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures, Earthquake spectra, 16(2) (2000) 367-392.
[6] E. Kalkan, S.K. Kunnath, Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(11) (2006) 1721-1731.
[7] M.N. Aydinoğlu, An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1(1) (2003) 3-36.
[8] M. Izadinia, M.A. Rahgozar, O. Mohammadrezaei, Response modification factor for steel moment-resisting frames by different pushover analysis methods, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 79 (2012) 83-90.
[9] S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M. Scott, G. Fenves, OpenSees: open system for earthquake engineering simulation, OpenSees Command Language Manual, Berkeley, (2006).
[10] P. FEMA, Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, (2000).
[11] A. ATC, 40, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Applied Technology Council, report ATC-40. Redwood City, (1996).
[12] R. Pinho, S. Antoniou, A displacement-based adaptive pushover algorithm for assessment of vertically irregular frames, in: Proceedings of the Fourth European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures, 2005.
[13] R. Abbasnia, M. Tajik Davoudi, Capacity curve estimation of reinforced concrete frames with a novel adaptive pushover method, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Seismic Retrofitting, Tabriz, Iran, 2012.
[14] R. Abbasnia, A.T. Davoudi, M.M. Maddah, An adaptive pushover procedure based on effective modal mass combination rule, Engineering Structures, 52 (2013) 654-666.
[15] A. Gupta, Seismic Demands for steel Moment Resisting Frame Structure, Stanford university, Stanford, 1998.
[16] S. No, 2800, Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, 3 (2005).
[17] www.peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database.
[18] S. Antoniou, R. Pinho, SeismoSignal: a computer program for signal processing of strong-motion data, Technical Report 4.0. 0. Pavia, Italy: SeismoSoft, 2004.
Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 49, Issue 3
November 2017
Pages 419-430

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics