Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analyses of RC Buildings

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to compare pushover and nonlinear time history analyses for existing low- and mid-rise RC buildings to better understand the applicability limits, advantages and disadvantages of nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. The 4- and 7-story buildings designed according to the pre-modern and modern Turkish Earthquake Codes represent the existing low- and mid-rise RC buildings based on inventory results of more than 475 real residential buildings located in Turkey. Eight different ground motion records were used during nonlinear time history analyses selected from destructive earthquakes over past several decades. The outcomes show that the displacement demands obtained from time history analyses differ over a wide range of values, emphasizing the importance of ground motion record selection. The pushover analysis may cause underestimation of the maximum interstory drift ratio for the mid-rise buildings. Besides, it definitely misses the beam damages at the first story. In conclusion, the pushover analysis seems to reflect the nonlinear time history analysis confidently at moderate level earthquakes. However, the results start to deviate as the ground motions get stronger. It is hard to specify a single value for the safe use of pushover analysis considering all parameters in the study. The outcomes of the current study indicate that the pushover analysis provides reasonably well estimates up to 1 and 0.75% roof drift ratios which approximately correspond to 1.5 and 1% interstory drift ratios for low- and mid-rise buildings, respectively. Beyond these limits, the pushover analysis may give misleading demand estimates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Priestley MJN (1993) Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering—conflicts between design and reality. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 26(3):329–341

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krawinkler H (1996) Pushover analysis: why how when, and when not to use it. In: Proceedings of 1996 convention, structural engineers association of California, p. 17–36, Maui, Hawaii

  3. Mwafy A, Elnashai A (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23(5):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Papanikolaou VK, Elnashai AS, Pareja JF (2006) Evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis II: comparative results. J Earthq Eng 10(1):127–151

    Google Scholar 

  5. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis for seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 20(4):452–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2007) Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings. Eng Struct 29(3):305–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cavdar O, Bayraktar A (2014) Pushover and nonlinear time history analysis evaluation of a RC building collapsed during the Van (Turkey) earthquake on October 23, 2011. Nat Hazards 70(1):657–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goel RK, Chopra AK (2005) Role of higher-“mode” pushover analyses in seismic analysis of buildings. Earthq Spectra 21(4):1027–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liao W, Loh C-H, Wan S (2001) Earthquake responses of RC moment frames subjected to near-fault ground motions. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 10(3):219–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim S, D’Amore E (1999) Push-over analysis procedure in earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 15(6):417–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM (1997) Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. J Struct Eng 123(1):3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gupta B, Kunnath SK (2000) Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures. Earthq Spectra 16(2):367–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):561–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Elnashai AS (2001) Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Struct Eng Mech 12(1):51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Inel M, Ozmen HB, Senel MS, Meral E, Palanci M (2010) Evaluation of factors affecting seismic performance of low and mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings. In: 9th international congress on advances in civil engineering, Paper No. ACE2010-SEE-132, September 27–30, 2010, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

  16. Krawinkler H (2006) Importance of good nonlinear analysis. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 15:515–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK (2003) Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using generic frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(3):417–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krawinkler H (2006) Importance of good nonlinear analysis. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 15(5):515–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fajfar P (2002) Structural analysis in earthquake engineering—a breakthrough of simplified non-linear methods. In: 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 843, London

  20. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (1975) Turkish Earthquake Code 1975 (TEC-1975), Specifications for structures to be built in disaster areas, Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish)

  21. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (1997) Turkish Earthquake Code 1997 (TEC-1997), Specifications for structures to be built in disaster areas, Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish)

  22. Ozmen HB, Inel M, Senel SM, Kayhan AH (2015) Load carrying system characteristics of existing Turkish RC building stock. Int J Civ Eng 13(1):76–91

    Google Scholar 

  23. Arslan G, Borekci M, Sahin B, Denizer MI, Duman KS (2016) Performance evaluation of in-plan irregular RC frame buildings based on Turkish seismic code. Int J Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0131-1

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nazri FM, Tan C, Saruddin SNA (2017) Fragility curves of regular and irregular moment-resisting concrete and steel frames. Int J Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0237-0

    Google Scholar 

  25. Homaei F, Shakib H, Soltani M (2017) Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of vertically irregular steel building considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Civ Eng 15(4):611–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356. Washington DC

  27. SAP2000 (2010) Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual (V.14.2). Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  28. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Volumes 1 and 2. Report no. ATC-40, Redwood City (CA)

  29. Inel M, Ozmen HB (2006) Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Eng Struct 28(11):1494–1502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 114(8), 1804–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (2007) Turkish Earthquake Code 2007 (TEC-2007) “Specifications for buildings to be built in seismic areas”, Ankara

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey

    Mehmet Inel & Bayram Tanik Cayci

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Korkut Ata University, Osmaniye, Turkey

    Emrah Meral

Authors
  1. Mehmet Inel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bayram Tanik Cayci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emrah Meral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Inel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Inel, M., Cayci, B.T. & Meral, E. Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analyses of RC Buildings. Int J Civ Eng 16, 1241–1259 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0285-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0285-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation