Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications

  • Elnashai, A.S. (Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Imperial College)
  • Published : 2001.07.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Whereas the potential of static inelastic analysis methods is recognised in earthquake design and assessment, especially in contrast with elastic analysis under scaled forces, they have inherent shortcomings. In this paper, critical issues in the application of inelastic static (pushover) analysis are discussed and their effect on the obtained results appraised. Areas of possible developments that would render the method more applicable to the prediction of dynamic response are explored. New developments towards a fully adaptive pushover method accounting for spread of inelasticity, geometric nonlinearity, full multi-modal, spectral amplification and period elongation, within a framework of fibre modelling of materials, are discussed and preliminary results are given. These developments lead to static analysis results that are closer than ever to inelastic time-history analysis. It is concluded that there is great scope for improvements of this simple and powerful technique that would increase confidence in its employment as the primary tool for seismic analysis in practice.

Keywords

References

  1. Antoniou, S. (2002), "Pushover analysis for seismic design and assessment of RC structures", PhD thesis,Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section, Imperial College, London, UK (to besubmitted).
  2. Bathe, K-J. (1982), Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice Hall.
  3. Bracci, J.M., Kunnath, S.K., and Reinhorn, A.M. (1997), "Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of RCstructures", ST Division, ASCE, 123(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:1(3)
  4. Broderick, B.M., Elnashai, A.S., and Izzuddin, B.A. (1992), "Observations on the effect of numerical dissipationon the nonlinear dynamic response of structural systems", J. Eng. Struct., 16(1), 51-62.
  5. Borzi, B., and Elnashai, A.S. (2000), "Assessment of inelastic response of buildings using force anddisplacement-based approaches", Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 9(4), 251-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1794(200009)9:4<251::AID-TAL151>3.0.CO;2-V
  6. Carvalho, E.C., and Coelho, E. (Eds.) (1997), "Numerical investigations on the seismic response of RC frames designed to EC8", ECOEST-PREC8 Rep. no. 7, September.
  7. Elnashai, A.S. (1997), "Seismic assessment of steel structures designed with NEHRP capacity reduction factors",Nuclear Electric Final Report Reference BB/G/40179, UK.
  8. Elnashai, A.S., Pinho, R., and Antoniou, S. (2000), "INDYAS, a program for INelastic DYnamic Analysis ofStructures", Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Report No ESEE 2/2000.
  9. Faella, G. (1996), "Evaluation of RC structures seismic response by means of nonlinear static pushoveranalyses", 11th World Conf. on Earthq. Eng., Acapulco, Mexico, Paper no. 1146, 8.
  10. Fajfar, P. (1999), "Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra", Earthq. Eng. and Struct. Dyn.,28, 979-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<979::AID-EQE850>3.0.CO;2-1
  11. Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. (1988), "N2 Method for nonlinear seismic analysis of regular structures", Proc. of9th World Conf. on Earthq. Eng., Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 5, 111-116.
  12. FEMA (1998), NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273, October.
  13. Freeman, S.A., Nicoletti, J.P., and Tyrell, J.V. (1975), "Evaluation of existing buildings for seismic risk - A casestudy of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Bremerton, Washington", Proc. of the United States Nat. Conf. onEarthq. Eng., Berkeley, 113-22.
  14. Gulkan, P., and Sozen, M.A. (1974), "Inelastic response of RC structures to earthquake motion", ACI, 71, 609-14.
  15. Izzuddin, B.A., and Elnashai, A.S. (1989), "ADAPTIC - a program for the adaptive static and dynamic analysisof frames structures", Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Report No. ESEE 7/89.
  16. Kim, S., and D'Amore, E. (1999), "Push-over analysis procedures in earthquake engineering", Earthq. Spectra,15(3), August, 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586051
  17. Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G.D. (1998), "Pros and cons of pushover analysis of seismic performanceevaluation", Eng. Struct., 20(4-6), 452-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8
  18. Kunnath, S.K., Reinhorn, A.M., and Lobo, R.F. (1992), "IDARC Version 3.0 - a program for inelastic damageanalysis of reinforced concrete structures", Tech. Rep. no. NCEER-92-0022, Nat. Centre for Earthq. Eng. Res.,State University of New York at Buffalo.
  19. Lawson, R.S., Vance, V., and Krawinkler, H. (1994), "Nonlinear static pushover analysis, why, when and how?",Proc. of 5th US Nat. Conf. on Earthq. Eng., Chicago, 1, 283-292.
  20. Lefort, T. (2000), "Advanced pushover analysis of RC multi-storey buildings", MSc dissertation, EngineeringSeismology and Earthquake Engineering Section, Imperial College, London, UK.
  21. Miranda, E. (1991), "Seismic evaluation and upgrading of existing buildings", PhD thesis, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.
  22. Mwafy, A.A., and Elnashai, A.S. (2001), "Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC frames", Eng.Struct., 23, 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00068-7
  23. Papanikolaou, V. (2000), "Developement and verification of adaptive pushover analysis procedures", MScdissertation, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section, Impeial College, London, UK.
  24. Priestly, J.M.N. (1998), "Displacement-based appraoches to rational limit state design of new structures", Proc.of 11th Europ. Conf. on Earthq. Eng., September, 317-335.
  25. Qi, X., and Moehle, J.P. (1991), "Displacement design approach for RC structures subjected to earthquakes",Report UCB/EERC-91/02, Earthq. Eng. Res. Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, January.
  26. Saiidi, M., and Sozen, M.A. (1981), "Simple nonlinear analysis of RC structures", ASCE, Struct. Div., 107(ST5),937-951.
  27. Sasaki, K.K, Freeman, S.A., and Paret, T.F. (1996), "Multi-modal pushover procedure (MMP) - A method toidentify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis", Proc. of 6th US Nat. Conf. on Earthq. Eng.,EERI, Oakland California, 12 pp.
  28. Tso W.K., and Moghadam A.S. (1998), "Pushover procedure for seismic analysis of buildings", Progress inStruct. Eng. and Mater., 1(3), 337-344. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.2260010317

Cited by

  1. Seismic Assessment of RC Building According to ATC 40, FEMA 356 and FEMA 440 vol.39, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1395-x
  2. A New Hybrid Method for Nonlinear Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis vol.7, pp.6, 2003, https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2003.7.6.001
  3. An alternative modal combination rule for adaptive pushover analysis vol.25, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1260
  4. Role of Higher-“Mode” Pushover Analyses in Seismic Analysis of Buildings vol.21, pp.4, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2085189
  5. Response modification factor for steel moment-resisting frames by different pushover analysis methods vol.79, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.07.010
  6. Ductility and inelastic deformation demands of structures vol.42, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.42.5.631
  7. Implications of Design Assumptions on Capacity Estimates and Demand Predictions of Multispan Curved Bridges vol.12, pp.6, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:6(710)
  8. A comparison of single-run pushover analysis techniques for seismic assessment of bridges vol.36, pp.10, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.684
  9. Modeling considerations in seismic assessment of RC bridges using state-of-practice structural analysis software tools 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0389-7
  10. An adaptive capacity spectrum method for assessment of bridges subjected to earthquake action vol.5, pp.3, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9031-8
  11. An Improved Displacement-Based Adaptive Pushover Procedure for the Analysis of Frame Buildings vol.18, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.919242
  12. Evaluation of nonlinear static analysis methods and software tools for seismic analysis of highway bridges vol.30, pp.5, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.021
  13. Application of Energy Dissipation Capacity to Earthquake Design vol.7, pp.6, 2003, https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2003.7.6.109
  14. Nonlinear Static Methods vs. Experimental Shaking Table Test Results vol.11, pp.6, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601173938
  15. Performance Assessment of Two Aseismically Designed RC School Buildings after the October 23, 2011, Van, Turkey Earthquake vol.31, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000938
  16. Effectiveness of different standard and advanced pushover procedures for regular and irregular RC frames vol.51, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.51.3.433
  17. Displacement limits and performance displacement profiles in support of direct displacement-based seismic assessment of bridges vol.43, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2396
  18. Evaluation of analytical methodologies used to derive vulnerability functions vol.43, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2337
  19. Influence of construction deficiencies on the seismic response of structures vol.34, pp.6, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.436
  20. Using multifiber beams to account for shear and torsion vol.195, pp.52, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2005.05.053
  21. A performance-based adaptive methodology for the seismic evaluation of multi-span simply supported deck bridges vol.9, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9260-8
  22. An adaptive modal pushover procedure for asymmetric-plan buildings vol.36, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.032
  23. Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-braced RC buildings vol.25, pp.12, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00117-2
  24. An adaptive modal pushover analysis procedure (VMPA-A) for buildings subjected to bi-directional ground motions 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0324-x
  25. Earthquake risk assessment of seismically isolated extradosed bridges with lead rubber bearings vol.29, pp.6, 2008, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2008.29.6.689
  26. Sensitivity of Pushover Curve to Material and Geometric Modelling—An Analytical Investigation vol.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.02.004
  27. Analytical investigation of response modification (behaviour) factor, R, for reinforced concrete frames rehabilitated by steel chevron bracing vol.9, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.575166
  28. Modified generalized pushover analysis for estimating longitudinal seismic demands of bridges with elevated pile foundation systems vol.11, pp.14, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-78252014001400008
  29. Seismic performance of RC school buildings after 2011 Van earthquakes vol.14, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9857-4
  30. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF ADAPTIVE AND NON-ADAPTIVE FORCE-BASED PUSHOVER PROCEDURES vol.8, pp.4, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350498
  31. A novel shell element for nonlinear pushover analysis of reinforced concrete shear walls vol.13, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9724-3
  32. A story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure for estimating seismic demands of buildings vol.32, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.09.004
  33. Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis vol.42, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2225
  34. Performance assessment of irregular RC buildings with shear walls after Earthquake vol.55, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.05.016
  35. Postearthquake Strength Assessment of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame with Multiple Beam-Column Fractures Using Local Monitoring Data vol.144, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001967
  36. Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analyses of RC Buildings 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0285-0
  37. Evaluation of the MPA Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands: RC-SMRF Buildings vol.24, pp.4, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2945295
  38. Nonlinear Static Pushover and Eigenvalue Modal Analyses of Quasi-Isolated Highway Bridges with Seat-Type Abutments vol.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.08.006
  39. Nonlinear analysis of out-of-plane masonry façades: full dynamic versus pushover methods by rigid body and spring model vol.42, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2224
  40. The extended N2 method taking into account higher mode effects in elevation vol.40, pp.14, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1104
  41. A Checking Method for Multiple Seismic Performance Objectives of Bridge Piers Designed According to Code Provisions vol.20, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1118709
  42. An adaptive pushover procedure based on effective modal mass combination rule vol.52, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.029
  43. Seismic Safety Analysis of the Old Portuguese Cathedral in Safi, Morocco vol.8, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2012.694966
  44. Investigation on the Accuracy of Pushover Procedures for SDOF vol.16, pp.11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.16.11.1957
  45. Equating incremental dynamic analysis with static nonlinear analysis at near-field excitation vol.14, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-015-0037-y
  46. Combined effects of axial load and concrete strength variation on the seismic performance of existing RC buildings vol.14, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9858-3
  47. A variant of modal pushover analyses (VMPA) based on a non-incremental procedure vol.13, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9785-3
  48. STRUCTURAL RESPONSE AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENT BY ENHANCED UNCOUPLED MODAL RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS vol.9, pp.5, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460509350563
  49. Impact of Plastic Hinge Properties on Capacity Curve of Reinforced Concrete Bridges vol.2017, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6310321
  50. Assessment of seismic vulnerability of structures vol.62, pp.11, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.06.024
  51. Simplified vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete circular piers in multi-span simply supported bridges vol.10, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.772642
  52. Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover Procedures Using Strong-Motion Records of Buildings vol.21, pp.3, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1979501
  53. Probabilistic Seismic Assessment of RC Bridges: Part II — Nonlinear Demand Prediction vol.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.08.001
  54. Seismic Behaviour of Different Bracing Systems in High Rise 2-D Steel Buildings vol.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.06.004
  55. Effectiveness of nonlinear static procedures for slender masonry towers vol.12, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9595-z
  56. Application of normal flow algorithm in modal adaptive Pushover analysis vol.65, pp.1, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.05.009
  57. Verification of displacement-based adaptive pushover through multi-ground motion incremental dynamic analyses vol.31, pp.8, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.035
  58. An improved modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands of structures vol.7, pp.1, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-008-0786-y
  59. An effective load increment method for multi modal adaptive pushover analysis of buildings vol.25, pp.1, 2007, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2007.25.1.053
  60. Evaluation of seismic response of soft-storey infilled frames vol.2, pp.6, 2005, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2005.2.6.423
  61. Effects in Conventional Nonlinear Static Analysis: Evaluation of Control Node Position vol.13, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.12.006
  62. Seismic Behavior of Single Layer Schwedler Domes vol.29, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1260/0266-3511.29.1.39
  63. FRACAS: A capacity spectrum approach for seismic fragility assessment including record-to-record variability vol.125, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.043
  64. A Drift Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating the Seismic Demands of Buildings vol.30, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1193/030811EQS038M
  65. A displacement-based strength reduction factor for high-rise steel moment-resisting frames vol.15, pp.3, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.293
  66. An improved displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure based on factor modal combination rule vol.13, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-014-0226-0
  67. The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation vol.10, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9319-6
  68. Modeling of lightly reinforced concrete walls subjected to near‐fault and far‐field earthquake ground motions vol.17, pp.2, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.354
  69. Effects of Axial Compression Ratio of Central Columns on Seismic Performance of a Multi-Story Underground Structure vol.13, pp.04, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219876216410140
  70. Effect of frame irregularity on accuracy of modal equivalent nonlinear static seismic analysis vol.17, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-0137-z
  71. Study of structural capacity and serviceability affecting the obstruction of residential door vol.11, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-78252014000300004
  72. Test Study on Seismic Performance of Cantilevered Vertical Irregular Model Frame Structure vol.1065-1069, pp.1662-8985, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1065-1069.1035
  73. Adaptive Force-Based Multimode Pushover Analysis for Seismic Evaluation of Midrise Buildings vol.144, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002070
  74. 등가 1자유도계를 이용한 철근콘크리트 골조건물의 층간변위 응답 산정 vol.8, pp.5, 2004, https://doi.org/10.5000/eesk.2004.8.5.025
  75. An improved pushover analysis procedure for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation of bridges : (1) Introduction to numerical model vol.33, pp.2, 2001, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2009.33.2.215
  76. A load increment method for ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures considering strain hardening effects vol.38, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2011.38.2.231
  77. Static Elasto-Plastic Analysis on Mega Steel Frame-Prestressed Composite Bracing Structure vol.446, pp.None, 2001, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.446-449.345
  78. Investigating Performance of Plastic Hinge in Steel Frames by Knee Bracing vol.12, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/623
  79. A multimodal adaptive evolution of the N1 method for assessment and design of r.c. framed structures vol.12, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.3.271
  80. A new approach for 3-D pushover based analysis of asymmetric buildings: development and initial evaluation vol.12, pp.5, 2001, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.5.543
  81. Dynamic-based pushover analysis for one-way plan-asymmetric buildings vol.163, pp.None, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.052
  82. A stochastic adaptive pushover procedure for seismic assessment of buildings vol.14, pp.5, 2001, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.5.477
  83. Adaptive Load Patterns Versus Non-adaptive Load Patterns for Pushover Analysis of Building vol.43, pp.suppl1, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-018-0119-y
  84. Nonlinear static analysis of a pile-supported wharf vol.12, pp.5, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952019000500003
  85. Performance assessment of steel structures with semi-rigid joints in seismic areas vol.11, pp.1, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijsi-02-2019-0007
  86. Dynamic-Based Pushover Analysis for Two-Way Plan-Asymmetric Buildings under Bidirectional Seismic Excitation vol.146, pp.3, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002501
  87. Accounting for the Spatial Variability of Seismic Motion in the Pushover Analysis of Regular and Irregular RC Buildings in the New Italian Building Code vol.10, pp.10, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10100177
  88. Effectiveness of the displacement-based seismic performance assessment for continuous RC bridges and proposed extensions vol.221, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110910
  89. The Effect of Site-Specific Design Spectrum on Earthquake-Building Parameters: A Case Study from the Marmara Region (NW Turkey) vol.10, pp.20, 2001, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207247
  90. Prediction of inelastic response of base-isolated building frame by pushover analysis vol.21, pp.7, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-020-00267-7
  91. Pushover analysis for flexible and semi‐flexible pile‐supported wharf structures accounting the dynamic magnification factors due to torsional effects vol.21, pp.6, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202000137
  92. Comparing pushover methods for irregular high-rise structures, partially infilled with masonry panels vol.28, pp.None, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.08.073
  93. Vulnerability of asymmetric multi-storey buildings in the context of performance-based seismic design vol.25, pp.5, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2018.1548380
  94. Higher Mode Effects in Pushover Analysis of Irregular Masonry Buildings vol.25, pp.8, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1579770
  95. Mixed probabilistic seismic demand models for fragility assessment vol.19, pp.15, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01163-4
  96. Seismic and Structural Analyses of the Eastern Anatolian Region (Turkey) Using Different Probabilities of Exceedance vol.4, pp.4, 2001, https://doi.org/10.3390/asi4040089
  97. State-of-the-art review: Reduction factor of traditional steel moment resisting, braced or eccentrically braced systems vol.35, pp.None, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.11.028