Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessment of FEMA356 nonlinear static procedure and modal pushover analysis for seismic evaluation of buildings

  • Khoshnoud, Hamid Reza (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Technology of Malaysia) ;
  • Marsono, Kadir (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Technology of Malaysia)
  • Received : 2010.08.13
  • Accepted : 2012.01.03
  • Published : 2012.01.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Nonlinear static analysis as an essential part of performance based design is now widely used especially at design offices because of its simplicity and ability to predict seismic demands on inelastic response of buildings. Since the accuracy of nonlinear static procedures (NSP) to predict seismic demands of buildings affects directly on the entire performance based design procedure, therefore lots of research has been performed on the area of evaluation of these procedures. In this paper, one of the popular NSP, FEMA356, is evaluated and compared with modal pushover analysis. The ability of these procedures to simulate seismic demands in a set of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings is explored with two level of base acceleration through a comparison with benchmark results determined from a set of nonlinear time history analyses. According to the results of this study, the modal pushover analysis procedure estimates seismic demands of buildings like inter story drifts and hinges plastic rotations more accurate than FEMA356 procedure.

Keywords

References

  1. American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2005), "Building code requirements for structural concrete (Committee 318, ACI 318-05)", American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, MI.
  2. American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) (2000), "Prestandard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings", FEMA356, Washington D.C.
  3. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1996), "Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings", Rep. No. ATC40, Volume 1 and 2, Redwood City, California.
  4. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2005), "Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures", Rep. No. FEMA440, Redwood City, California.
  5. Building and Housing Research Center (2007), Iranian Code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (CODE2800), (Standard No. 2800), 3rd Edition.
  6. CEN (2004), European Standard EN 1998-1-2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1:General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Bruxelles, Belgium.
  7. CEN (2005), European Standard EN 1998-3-2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, Bruxelles, Belgium
  8. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2002), "A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31, 561-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144
  9. Chopra, A.K., Goel, R.K. and Chintanapakdee, C. (2004), "Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands", Earthq. Struct., 20(3), 757-78.
  10. Chopra, A.K. (2007), Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  11. CSI Analysis Reference Manual (2009), SAP2000, Ver. 14, integrated finite element analysis and design of structures, Computers and Structures ING, Berkeley.
  12. Fajfar, P. (2000), "A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design", Earthq. Spectra, 16, 573- 592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128
  13. FEMA368 (2000), NERPH Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
  14. Gupta, B. and Kunnath, S.K. (2000), "Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures", Earthq. Spectra, 16(2), 367-91. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586117
  15. Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S.K. (2006), "Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures", ASCE J. Struct. Eng., 132(11), 0733-9445. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:5(733)
  16. Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S.K. (2006), "Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings", Eng. Struct., 29(3), 305-316.
  17. Krawilklar, H. and Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. (1998), "Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation", J. Eng. Struct., 20(4-6), 452-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8
  18. Marsono, A.K. and Khoshnoud, H.R. (2010), "Evaluating equivalent static analysis of Iranian code with nonlinear static pushover analysis", Proceedings of the First Makassar International Conference on Civil Engineering (MICCE2010), Makassar, Indonesia.
  19. Poursha, M., Khoshnoudian, F. and Moghadam, A. (2008), "Assessment of conventional ststic procedures with FEMA load distribution and modal analysis for high-rise buildings", J. Civil Eng., 6(2), 142-157.

Cited by

  1. A parametric study on seismic fragility analysis of RC buildings vol.10, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.3.629
  2. Optimization of modal load pattern for pushover analysis of building structures vol.47, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.47.1.119
  3. Error estimation of nonlinear equivalent static analysis for 3D-BRB frames 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-0142-8
  4. Effect of design spectral shape on inelastic response of RC frames subjected to spectrum matched ground motions vol.69, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.69.3.293
  5. Developing a method for multi-modal shear-based pushover analysis vol.22, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-020-00308-1
  6. An energy-based approach to determine the yield force coefficient of RC frame structures vol.21, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.21.1.037