Abstract
Nonlinear static methods are evaluated and compared with nonlinear dynamic methods for estimating the seismic performance of structures. Emphasis is given on assessing the applicability of nonlinear static methods for RC buildings, and on comparing the building’s capacity obtained using nonlinear static and nonlinear response history analysis. The first task refers to the ability of alternative static pushover-based methods to estimate the response at the level of a member or of a story. Plain as well as more elaborate pushover methods such as the Modal Pushover Analysis method and the Consecutive Modal Pushover method are included in our evaluation. The second task refers to the qualitative comparison at the global level between static pushover and nonlinear response history analysis when either the static pushover or the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) setting is adopted. When the static pushover setting is adopted, we show that nonlinear static methods can be compared with the IDA curve when the base shear instead of spectral acceleration is plotted on the ordinates, while the dispersion among the single-record IDAs is considerably reduced. Alternatively, the comparison can be performed within the IDA setting if appropriate R-C 1-T relationships, simplified or more advanced (e.g. SPO2IDA), are adopted. Each setting shows different qualitative characteristics of the two seismic performance estimation approaches and has different practical applications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Antoniou S, Pinho R (2004) Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. J Earthquake Eng 8(5):643–661
ASCE (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston
Aschheim M, Tjhin T, Comartin C, Hamburger R, Inel M (2007) The scaled nonlinear dynamic response. Eng Struct 29:1422–1441
Aydinoglou MN (2003) An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode performance evaluation. Bull Earthquake Eng 1:3–36
Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):561–582
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (2010) ATC 76-6: Improved nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures –multiple-degree-of-freedom modeling, Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
Dolsek M, Fajfar P (2005) Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 34(1):49–66
Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance — Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 28(9):979–993
Fajfar P, Fischinger M (1988) N2 – A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings. Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 5, Tokya, pp 111–116
FEMA (2009) Quantification of seismic performance factors. FEMA P-695 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D (2010) Fast performance uncertainty estimation via pushover and approximate IDA. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 39(6):683–703
Fragiadakis Μ, Ioannidou D, Papadrakakis M (2007) Assessment of nonlinear static analysis procedures in the framework of performance-based design. 8th National Congress on Mechanics (HSTAM2007), Patras, Greece, 12–17 June 2007
Goel RK, Chopra AK (2005) Extension of modal pushover analysis to compute member forces. Earthquake Spectra 21(1):125–139
Haselton C, Deierlein G (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, Stanford
Haselton CB, Liel AB, Deierlein GG, Dean BS, Chou JH (2010) Seismic Collapse Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: I. Assessment of Ductile Moment Frames. J Struct Eng. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000318
International Code Council (2002) 2003 International Building Code (IBC). International Code Council, Country Club Hills
Kunnath S, Erduran E (2008) Pushover procedures for seismic assessment of buildings: issues, limitations and future needs. Nonlinear static methods for design/assessment of 3D structures. IST press, Lisbon
Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2009) Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations, Report No. TB 172, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford
McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH, Jeremic B (2008) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, http://OpenSees.berkeley.edu
Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23:407–24
Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS (2009) A consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings. Eng Struct 31(2):591–599
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2005) Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation. J Struct Eng 131(4):589–599
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2006) Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1097–1117
Acknowledgments
This chapter relies, in part, on results obtained under Task Order 6 of the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering), under Contract SB134107CQ0019, Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the organizations represented above. The authors also want to acknowledge Dr. Curt Haselton for providing the OpenSees input files of the RC moment frames.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D., Aschheim, M. (2011). Static Versus Dynamic Methods of Analysis for Estimating Seismic Performance. In: Dolšek, M. (eds) Protection of Built Environment Against Earthquakes. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1448-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1448-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1447-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1448-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)