Advertisement

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURES BY A PRACTICE-ORIENTED METHOD

  • P. Fajfar
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Security through Science Series book series

Abstract

A relatively simple seismic analysis technique based on the pushover analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom model and the response spectrum analysis of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system, called the N2 method, has been developed at the University of Ljubljana and implemented in the European standard Eurocode 8. The method is formulated in the acceleration —displacement format, which enables the visual interpretation of the procedure and of the relations between the basic quantities controlling the seismic response. Its basic variant was restricted to planar structures. Recently the applicability of the method has been extended to plan-asymmetric buildings, which require a 3D structural model. In the paper, the N2 method is summarized and applied to two test examples.

Keywords

Ground Motion Pushover Analysis Seismic Demand Target Displacement Displacement Demand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayala, A. G., and Tavera, E. A., 2002, A new approach for the evaluation of the seismic performance of asymmetric buildings, Proc. 7th Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Boston.Google Scholar
  2. Aydinoglu, M. N., 2003, An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 1(1):3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertero, V.V., 1995, Tri-service manual methods, in Vision 2000, Part 2, Appendix J, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  4. CEN, 1994, Eurocode 8 – Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, European prestandard ENV 1998, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. CEN, 2004a, Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1, European standard EN 1998–1, December 2004, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.Google Scholar
  6. CEN, 2004b, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3: Strengthening and repair of buildings (Stage 49), prEN 1998–3. May 2004, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.Google Scholar
  7. Chai, Y. H., Fajfar, P., and Romstad, K. M, 1998, Formulation of duration-dependent inelastic seismic design spectrum, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 124:913–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 1999, Capacity-demand-diagram methods for estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDF systems, Report PEER-1999/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 2002, A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31:561–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 2004, A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 33(8):903–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cosenza, E., and Manfredi, G., 1992, Seismic analysis of degrading models by means of damage functions concept, in Nonlinear analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings, P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler, Eds., Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York, 77–93.Google Scholar
  12. Cuesta, I., Aschheim, M. A., and Fajfar, P., 2003, Simplified R-factor relationships for strong ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, 2003, 19, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolšek, M., and Fajfar, P., 2004, IN2 – A simple alternative for IDA, Proc. 13th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 3353, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  14. Dolšek, M., and Fajfar, P., 2005, Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(1):49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elnashai A.S., 2001, Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Structural engineering and mechanics 12(1):51–69.Google Scholar
  16. Fajfar, P., 1992, Equivalent ductility factors, taking into account low-cycle fatigue, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 21:837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fajfar, P., 1999, Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28:979–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fajfar, P., 2000, A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design, Earthquake Spectra 16(3):573–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fajfar, P., 2002, Structural analysis in earthquake engineering –a breakthrough of simplified nonlinear methods, Proc. 12th European Conf. Earthquake Engineering, London, UK, Keynote lecture.Google Scholar
  20. Fajfar, P., and Drobni, D., 1998, Nonlinear seismic analysis of the ELSA buildings, Proc. 11th European Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Paris, CD-ROM, Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M., 1987, Non-linear seismic analysis of RC buildings: Implications of a case study, European Earthquake Engineering 1: 31–43.Google Scholar
  22. Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M., 1989, N2 – A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings, Proc. 9th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Kyoto, 1988, Vol.5, 111–116.Google Scholar
  23. Fajfar, P., and Gašperši, P., 1996, The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 25:23–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fajfar, P., Gašperši, P., and Drobni, D., 1997, A simplified nonlinear method for seismic damage analysis of structures, in Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes, P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler, Eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, 183–194.Google Scholar
  25. Fajfar, P., Kilar, V., Maruši, D., Peruš, I., and Magliulo, G., 2002, The extension of the N2 method to asymmetric buildings, Proc. 4th forum on Implications of recent earthquakes on seismic risk, Technical report TIT/EERG, 02/1, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 291–308.Google Scholar
  26. Fajfar, P., Maruši, D., and Peruš, I., 2005, Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, in print.Google Scholar
  27. FEMA, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, S. A., Nicoletti, J. P., and Tyrell, J.V., 1975, Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk – A case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington, Proc. 1st U.S. National Conf. Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Berkeley, CA, 113–122.Google Scholar
  29. Freeman, S. A., 1998, Development and use of capacity spectrum method, Proc. 6th U.S. National Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, CD-ROM, EERI, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Fujii, K., Nakano, Y., and Sanada, Y., 2004, Simplified nonlinear analysis procedure for asymmetric buildings, Proc. 13th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 149.Google Scholar
  31. Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H., 2000, Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 29:1287–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Isakovi, T., Fischinger, M., and Kante P., 2003, Bridges: when a single mode seismic analysis is adequate?, Structures and Buildings 156:165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kilar, V., and Fajfar, P., 1997, Simple pushover analysis of asymmetric buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 26:233–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kilar, V., and Fajfar, P., 2001, On the applicability of pushover analysis to the seismic performance evaluation of asymmetric buildings, European Earthquake Engineering 15(1):20–31.Google Scholar
  35. Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., 1998, Pros and cons of a pushover analysis for seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures 20:452–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li, K. N., 2002, 3-dimensional nonlinear static and dynamic structural analysis computer program CANNY 99, CANNY Consultants Pte Ltd., Singapore.Google Scholar
  37. McCabe, S. L., and Hall, W.J., 1989, Assessment of seismic structural damage, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 115:2166–2183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moghadam, A. S., and Tso, W.K., 2000, 3-D pushover analysis for damage assessment of buildings, Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (Tehran) 2(3):23–31.Google Scholar
  39. Peruš, I., Poljanšek, K., and Fajfar, P., 2005, Flexural deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns determined by the CAE method, Submitted to Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.Google Scholar
  40. Prakash, V., Powell, G. H., and Campbell, S., 1993, DRAIN-2DX Base program description and user guide, Version 1.10, Report No.UCB/SEMM-93/17&18, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  41. Reinhorn, A. M., 1997, Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evaluations, in Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes, P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler, Eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, 277–287.Google Scholar
  42. Saiidi, M., and Sozen, M. A., 1981, Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 107:937–952.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Fajfar
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LjubljanaFaculty of Civil and Geodetic EngineeringLjubljanaSLOVENIA

Personalised recommendations