Parametric evaluation of pushover methods in irregular 3D RC structures under multicomponents seismic loading

Abstract

Because of its relative simplicity and less computing costs, Pushover analysis, gains a supremacy over nonlinear time history analysis in structural engineering communities. Researchers conducted several 2D pushover methods that their efficiency in real 3D structures should be evaluated. In this research the proficiency of common pushover analysis procedures to predict the response of 3D in-plan Irregular reinforced concrete frames has been evaluated. Several RC frames with different in-plan Irregularities and heights was analysed using conventional pushover analysis with rectangular and triangular loading scheme, modal pushover and forced-based adaptive pushover analysis. Comparing results with bi-directional nonlinear dynamics analysis using ordinary and near-fields seismograms indicate that although the multi-procedure approach can present a better picture of the structural response of 3D RC frames, the more advanced procedures in contrast to other procedures, on the average, have higher achievements on predicting nonlinear behaviour of such structures.

Keywords

References

[1] Krawinkler H, Seneviranta GDPK (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering structures 20: 452-464.
[2] Nuray Aydinoglu M, Gokturk Onem (2010) Evaluation of analysis procedures for seismic assessment and retrofit design, Erathquake Engineering in Europe Springer: Chapter 8: 171-198.
[3] American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads For Building and Other Structures. 2010.
[4] European Committee for Standardization. Euro Code 8, Design Of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, 2003.
[5] Spacone E, Camata G, Faggella M (2009) Nonlinear models and nonlinear procedures for seismic analysis of reinforced concrete frame structures. Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Taylor  & Francis Group, Chapter 21: 323-345.
[6] Reyes JC, Chopra AK (2011) Evaluation of three dimensional modal pushover analysis for unsymmetric-plan buildings subjected to two components of ground motion. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics. Volume 40, Issue 13, pages 1475–1494
[7] Faella G, Kilar V (1998) Asymmetric multistorey R/C frame structures: push-over versus nonlinear dynamic analysis. 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam.
[8] Moghadam AS, Tso WK (2000) 3-D Pushover analysis for damage assessment of buildings. JSEE 2(3): 23-31.
[9] Fajfar PA (2000) Nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra 16(3): 573-592.
[10] Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 31: 561-582.
[11] Elnashai AS (2001) Advanced inelastic static (Pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Structural Engineering and mechanics 12(1): 51-69.
[12] Fajfar P, Marusic Damjan, Perus Iztok (2005) Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings. Journal of Earthquake engineering 9: 831-854.
[13] Chopra AK, Goel RK (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 33: 903-927.
[14] Goel RK, Chopra AK (2005) Exension of modal pushover analysis to compute member forces. Earthquake Spectra 21(1): 125-140.
[15] Reyes JC, Chopra AK (2011) Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for tall buildings. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 40: 789-806.
[16] Antoniou S, Pinho R (2004) Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. Journal of earthquake engineering 8(5): 643-661.
[17] Papanikolaou VK, Elnashai AS, Pareja JF (2006) Evaluation of conventional  and adaptive  pushover analysis II: comparative  results. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 10: 127–151.
[18] American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, 2008.
[19] SismoStruct: Computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of frame structures, www.seismosoft.com, 2010.
[20] Fragiadakis M, Papadrakakis M (2008) Modeling, analysis and reliability of seismically excited structures: computational issues. International journal of computational methods 5(4): 483-511.
[21] Elnashai AS (2008) Fundamental of earthquake engineering, John wiley and sons.
[22] Applied Technology Council, Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, FEMA 440, 2005.
Journal of Solid and Fluid Mechanics
Volume 3, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
March and April 2013
Pages 95-104

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics