Nonlinear Static Methods vs. Experimental Shaking Table Test Results

Three different Nonlinear Static Methods (NSM's), based on pushover analysis, are applied to a 3-story, 2-bay, RC frame. They are (i) the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), described in ATC-40, (ii) the Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM), presented in FEMA-273 and further developed in FEMA 356, and (iii) the N2 Method, implemented in the Eurocode 8. Pushover analyses are conducted with DRAIN-3DX by using four different lateral force distributions, according to the acceleration profile assumed along the height of the structure: uniform, triangular, modal-proportional, and multimodal fully adaptive. In the numerical model, RC members are modeled as fiber elements. The numerical predictions of each method are compared to the experimental results of the shaking table tests carried out on two similar 1:3.3-scale structural models, with and without infilled masonry panels, respectively. The comparison is made in terms of maximum story displacements, interstory drifts, and shear forces. All the NSM's are found to predict with adequate accuracy the maximum seismic response of the structure, provided that the associated parameters are properly estimated. The lateral load pattern, instead, is found to little affect the accuracy of the results for the three-story model considered, even if collapse occurs with a soft story mechanism.

[1]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Earthquake Resistance of Infilled Frames , 1978 .

[2]  A W Beeby,et al.  CONCISE EUROCODE FOR THE DESIGN OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS. BASED ON BSI PUBLICATION DD ENV 1992-1-1: 1992. EUROCODE 2: DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES. PART 1: GENERAL RULES AND RULES FOR BUILDINGS , 1993 .

[3]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications , 2001 .

[4]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design , 2000 .

[5]  Simon Kim,et al.  Push-over Analysis Procedure in Earthquake Engineering , 1999 .

[6]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Adaptive Spectra-Based Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures , 2000 .

[7]  Kuo-Chun Chang,et al.  Comparison of displacement coefficient method and capacity spectrum method with experimental results of RC columns , 2004 .

[8]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  EVALUATION OF CONVENTIONAL AND ADAPTIVE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS II: COMPARATIVE RESULTS , 2006 .

[9]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings , 2001 .

[10]  Rui Pinho,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION OF A DISPLACEMENT-BASED ADAPTIVE PUSHOVER PROCEDURE , 2004 .

[11]  C. Valente,et al.  Shaking table tests on reinforced concrete frames without and with passive control systems , 2005 .

[12]  Rui Pinho,et al.  A DISPLACEMENT-BASED ADAPTIVE PUSHOVER FOR SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF STEEL AND REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS , 2006 .

[13]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Consistent inelastic design spectra: Strength and displacement , 1994 .

[14]  Rui Pinho,et al.  ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF ADAPTIVE AND NON-ADAPTIVE FORCE-BASED PUSHOVER PROCEDURES , 2004 .

[15]  Helmut Krawinkler,et al.  PROS AND CONS OF A PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION , 1998 .

[16]  R. Clough,et al.  Dynamics Of Structures , 1975 .

[17]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Seismic Performance and Retrofit Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structures , 1997 .

[18]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra , 1999 .

[19]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings , 2002 .

[20]  Sigmund A. Freeman,et al.  Prediction of Response of Concrete Buildings to Severe Earthquake Motion , 1978 .