Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of BRBF buildings

Abstract Nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) are now standard in engineering practice to estimate seismic demands in the design and evaluation of buildings. This paper aims to investigate comparatively the bias and accuracy of modal, improved modal pushover analysis (MPA, IMPA) and mass proportional pushover (MPP) procedures when they are applied to buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) buildings which have become a favorable lateral-force resisting system for earthquake resistant buildings. Three-, 6-, 10-, and 14-storey concentrically BRBF buildings were analyzed due to two sets of strong ground motions having 2% and 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The assessment is based on comparing seismic displacement demands such as target roof displacements, peak floor/roof displacements and inter-storey drifts. The NSP estimates are compared to results from nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA). The response statistics presented show that the MPP procedure tends to inaccurately estimate seismic demands of lower stories of tall buildings considered in this study while MPA and IMPA procedures provide reasonably accurate results in estimating maximum inter-storey drift over all stories of studied BRBF systems.

[1]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Evaluation of a Modified MPA Procedure Assuming Higher Modes as Elastic to Estimate Seismic Demands , 2004 .

[2]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures , 1999 .

[3]  Erdal Irtem,et al.  Investigation of Effects of Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedures to Performance Evaluation on Low-Rise RC Buildings , 2009 .

[4]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Adaptive Modal Combination Procedure for Nonlinear Static Analysis of Building Structures , 2006 .

[5]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces , 2003 .

[6]  Lili Xie,et al.  An improved modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands of structures , 2008 .

[7]  Toshiro Hayashikawa,et al.  Assessment of modal pushover analysis procedure for seismic evaluation of buckling–restrained braced frames , 2009 .

[8]  Behrouz Asgarian,et al.  BRBF response modification factor , 2009 .

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

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

[11]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings , 2007 .

[12]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Steel Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames , 2004 .

[13]  G. Ravi Kumar,et al.  Behaviour of frames with Non-Buckling bracings under earthquake loading , 2007 .

[14]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover Analyses: Vertically “Regular” and Irregular Generic Frames , 2004 .

[15]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using generic frames , 2003 .

[16]  Yahya C. Kurama,et al.  An alternative pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic displacement demands , 2008 .

[17]  Johnny Sun,et al.  Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC Steel Project , 1997 .

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

[19]  Sinan Akkar,et al.  Assessment of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures in FEMA-440 , 2007 .

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