Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessment of pushover-based method to a building with bidirectional setback

  • Fujii, Kenji (Department of Architecture, Chiba Institute of Technology)
  • Received : 2016.03.03
  • Accepted : 2016.09.03
  • Published : 2016.09.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

When conducting seismic assessment of an asymmetric building, it is essential to carry out three-dimensional analysis considering all the possible directions of seismic input. For this purpose, the author proposed a simplified procedure is to predict the largest peak seismic response of an asymmetric building subjected to horizontal bidirectional ground motion acting in an arbitrary angle of incidence in previous study. This simplified procedure has been applied to torsionally stiff (TS) asymmetric buildings with regular elevation. However, the suitability of this procedure to estimate the peak response of an asymmetric building with vertical irregularity, such as an asymmetric building with setback, has not been assessed. In this article, the pushover-based simplified procedure is applied to estimate the peak response of asymmetric buildings with bidirectional setback. Nonlinear dynamic (time-history) analysis of two six-storey asymmetric buildings with bidirectional setback and designed according to strong-column weak beam concept is carried out considering various directions of seismic input, and the results compared with those estimated by the proposed method. The largest peak displacement estimated by the simplified method agrees well with the envelope of the dynamic analysis response. The suitability assessment of the simplified procedure to analysed building models is made as well based on pushover analysis results.

Keywords

References

  1. AIJ (1999), Design Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based on Inelastic Displacement Concept, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japanese)
  2. Anagnostopoulos, S.A., Kyrkos, M.T. and Stathopoulos, K.G. (2015), "Earthquake induced torsion in buildings: critical review and state of the art", Earthq. Struct., 8(2), 305-377. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.305
  3. Antoniou, S. and Pinho, R. (2004), "Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure", J. Earthq. Eng., 8(5), 643-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350504
  4. ATC-40 (1996), Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Vol. 1, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, USA.
  5. ASCE (2007), Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineering, Reston, Virginia, USA.
  6. BCJ (2010), "The Building Standard Law of Japan on CD-ROM", the Building Center of Japan, Tokyo.
  7. Belejo, A. and Bento, R. (2016), "Improved Modal Pushover Analysis in seismic assessment of asymmetric plan buildings under the influence of one and two horizontal components of ground motions", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 87, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.04.011
  8. Bhatt, C. and Bento, R. (2011), "Assessing the seismic response of existing RC buildings using the extended N2 method", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 9(4), 1183-1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9252-8
  9. Bhatt, C. and Bento, R. (2012), "Comparison of nonlinear static methods for the seismic assessment of plan irregular frame buildings with non seismic details", J. Earthq. Eng., 16(1), 15-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.586085
  10. Bhatt, C. and Bento, R. (2014), "The extended adaptive capacity spectrum method for the seismic assessment of plan-asymmetric buildings", Earthq. Spectra, 30(2), 683-703. https://doi.org/10.1193/022112EQS048M
  11. Bosco, M., Ghersi, A. and Marino, E.M. (2012), "Corrective eccentricities for assessment by nonlinear static method of 3D structures subjected to bidrectional ground motion", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 41(13), 1751-1773. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2155
  12. Bosco, M., Marino, E.M. and Ghersi, A. (2013), "An analytical method for evaluation of the in-plan irregularity of non-regularly asymmetric buildings", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 11(5), 1423-1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9438-3
  13. Bosco, M., Marino, E.M. and Ghersi, A. (2015), "Predicting displacement demand of multi-storey asymmetric buildings by nonlinear static analysis and corrective eccentricities", Eng. Struct., 99, 373-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.05.006
  14. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8 - design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European standard EN 1998-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
  15. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2002), "A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 561-582. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144
  16. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2004), "A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 33(8), 903-927. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.380
  17. Cimellaro, G.P., Giovine, T. and Lopez-Garcia, D. (2014), "Bidirectional pushover analysis of irregular structures", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 140(9), doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001032.
  18. D'Ambrisi, A., De Stefano, M. and Tanganelli, M. (2009), "Use of pushover analysis of predicting seismic response of irregular buildings: a case study", J. Earthq. Eng., 13(8), 1089-1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460902898308
  19. De Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B. (2008), "A review on seismic behaviour of irregular building structure since 2002", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 6(2), 285-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9052-3
  20. De Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B. (2010), "Predicting torsion-induced lateral displacements for pushover analysis: Influence of torsion system characteristics", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 39(12), 1369-1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1002
  21. Fajfar, P. and Fischinger, M. (1988), "N2-a method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings", Proceedings of ninth world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, August.
  22. Fajfar, P., Marusic, D. and Perus, I. (2005), "Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings", J. Earthq. Eng., 9(6), 831-854.
  23. FEMA (1997), NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA Publication 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  24. Fujii, K. (2011), "Nonlinear static procedure for multi-story asymmetric frame buildings considering bidirectional excitation", J. Earthq. Eng., 15(2), 245-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632461003702902
  25. Fujii, K. (2014), "Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear seismic response of asymmetric buildings under bi-directional excitation using pushover analyses", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 12(2), 909-938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9557-x
  26. Fujii, K. (2015), "Application of the pushover-based procedure to predict the largest peak response of asymmetric buildings with buckling-restrained braces", 5th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN 2015), Crete Island, Greece, May.
  27. Fujii, K. (2016), "Torsional index of an asymmetric building based on mode shape", Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures II, Springer, 99-109.
  28. Isakovic, T. and Fischinger, M. (2011), "Applicability of pushover methods to the seismic analysis of an RC bridge, experimentally tested on three shake tables", J. Earthq. Eng., 15(2), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632461003802009
  29. Kreslin, M. and Fajfar, P. (2010), "Seismic evaluation of an existing complex RC building", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 8(2), 363-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9155-0
  30. Kreslin, M. and Fajfar, P. (2012), "The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 10(2), 695-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9319-6
  31. Lavan, O. and De Stefano, M. (Eds.) (2013), Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures, Springer, Dordrecht, Nederland.
  32. Lopez, A., Hernandez, J.J., Bonilla, R. and Fernandez, A. (2006), "Response spectra for multicomponent structural analysis", Earthq. Spectra, 22(1), 85-113. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2162898
  33. Manoukas, G., Athanatopoulou, A. and Avramidis, I. (2012), "Multimode pushover analysis for asymmetric buildings under biaxial seismic excitation based on a new concept of the equivalent single degree of freedom system", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 38, 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.01.018
  34. Manoukas, G. and Avramidis, I. (2014), "Evaluation of a multimode pushover procedure for asymmetric in plan buildings under biaxial seismic excitation", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 12(6), 2607-2632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9600-6
  35. Moghadam, A.S. and Tso, W.K. (1996), "Damage assessment of eccentric multistorey buildings using 3-D pushover analysis", Proceedings of 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, June.
  36. Moghadam, A.S. and Tso, W.K. (2000), "Pushover analysis for asymmetric and set-back multi-story buildings", Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, February.
  37. Muto, K., Hisada, T., Tsugawa, T. and Bessho, S. (1974), "Earthquake resistant design of a 20 story reinforced concrete buildings", Proceedings of the 5th world conference on earthquake engineering, 1960-1969, Rome, Italy, June.
  38. Penzien, J. and Watabe, M. (1975), "Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3(4), 365-373. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290030407
  39. Perus, I. and Fajfar, P. (2005), "On the inelastic torsional response of single-storey structures under bi-axial excitation", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34(8), 931-941. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.462
  40. Reyes, J.C. and Chopra, A.K. (2011a), "Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for tall buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40(7), 789-806. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1060
  41. Reyes, J.C. and Chopra, A.K. (2011b), "Evaluation of three-dimensional modal pushover analysis for unsymmetric-plan buildings subjected to two components of ground motion", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40(13), 1475-1494. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1100
  42. Saiidi, M. and Sozen, M.A. (1981), "Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures", J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 107(5), 937-952.
  43. Zembaty, Z. and De Stefano, M. (Eds.) (2015), Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures II, Springer, Dordrecht, Nederland.

Cited by

  1. Prediction of the peak seismic response of asymmetric buildings under bidirectional horizontal ground motion using equivalent SDOF model vol.1, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-8876.1007
  2. Generalized corrective eccentricities for nonlinear static analysis of buildings with framed or braced structure vol.15, pp.11, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0159-x
  3. 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
  4. Fundamental periods of reinforced concrete building frames resting on sloping ground vol.14, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.4.305
  5. Pushover-Based Seismic Capacity Evaluation of Uto City Hall Damaged by the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake vol.9, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9060140
  6. 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
  7. Application of Mode-Adaptive Bidirectional Pushover Analysis to an Irregular Reinforced Concrete Building Retrofitted via Base Isolation vol.11, pp.21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219829
  8. Seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings with setback irregularity vol.13, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.05.001