Comparison between non-linear dynamic and static seismic analysis of structures according to European and US provisions

Abstract

Several procedures for non-linear static and dynamic analysis of structures have been developed in recent years. This paper discusses those procedures that have been implemented into the latest European and US seismic provisions: non-linear dynamic time-history analysis; N2 non-linear static method (Eurocode 8); non-linear static procedure NSP (FEMA 356) and improved capacity spectrum method CSM (FEMA 440). The presented methods differ in respect to accuracy, simplicity, transparency and clarity of theoretical background. Non-linear static procedures were developed with the aim of overcoming the insufficiency and limitations of linear methods, whilst at the same time maintaining a relatively simple application. All procedures incorporate performance-based concepts paying more attention to damage control. Application of the presented procedures is illustrated by means of an example of an eight-storey reinforced concrete frame building. The results obtained by non-linear dynamic time-history analysis and non-linear static procedures are compared. It is concluded that these non-linear static procedures are sustainable for application. Additionally, this paper discusses a recommendation in the Eurocode 8/1 that the capacity curve should be determined by pushover analysis for values of the control displacement ranging between zero and 150% of the target displacement. Maximum top displacement of the analyzed structure obtained by using dynamic method with real time-history records corresponds to 145% of the target displacement obtained using the non-linear static N2 procedure.