Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings

Abstract Owing to the simplicity of inelastic static pushover analysis compared to inelastic dynamic analysis, the study of this technique has been the subject of many investigations in recent years. In this paper, the validity and the applicability of this technique are assessed by comparison with ‘dynamic pushover’ idealised envelopes obtained from incremental dynamic collapse analysis. This is undertaken using natural and artificial earthquake records imposed on 12 RC buildings of different characteristics. This involves successive scaling and application of each accelerogram followed by assessment of the maximum response, up to the achievement of the structural collapse. The results of over one hundred inelastic dynamic analyses using a detailed 2D modelling approach for each of the twelve RC buildings have been utilised to develop the dynamic pushover envelopes and compare these with the static pushover results with different load patterns. Good correlation is obtained between the calculated idealised envelopes of the dynamic analyses and static pushover results for a defined class of structure. Where discrepancies were observed, extensive investigations based on Fourier amplitude analysis of the response were undertaken and conservative assumptions were recommended.

[1]  Yan Xiao,et al.  Seismic Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns , 1994 .

[2]  Michael N. Fardis,et al.  EFFECT OF COLUMN CAPACITY DESIGN ON EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS , 1998 .

[3]  Rui Pinho,et al.  REPAIR AND RETROFITTING OF RC WALLS USING SELECTIVE TECHNIQUES , 1998 .

[4]  George W. Housner,et al.  Spectrum Intensities of Strong-Motion Earthquakes , 1952 .

[5]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Seismic resistance of composite beam-columns in multi-storey structures. Part 2: Analytical model and discussion of results , 1994 .

[6]  Aman Mwafy.  Seismic performance of code designed RC buildings , 2001 .

[7]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  THE N2 METHOD FOR THE SEISMIC DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS , 1996 .

[8]  Abdolreza S. Moghadam,et al.  Pushover procedure for seismic analysis of buildings , 1998 .

[9]  A. Elnashai,et al.  ANALYTICAL AND FIELD EVIDENCE OF THE DAMAGING EFFECT OF VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION , 1996 .

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

[11]  A. S. Elnashai,et al.  Confined concrete model under cyclic load , 1997 .

[12]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Modelling of material non‐linearities in steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading , 1993 .

[13]  Mehdi Saiidi,et al.  SIMPLE NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF R/C STRUCTURES , 1981 .

[14]  Juan Martinez-Rueda.  Scaling Procedure for Natural Accelerograms Based on a System of Spectrum Intensity Scales , 1998 .

[15]  H Krawinkler,et al.  NEW TRENDS IN SEISMIC DESIGN METHODOLOGY , 1995 .

[16]  Patrick Paultre,et al.  Ductility and overstrength in seismic design of reinforced concrete structures , 1994 .

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

[18]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings , 1992 .

[19]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  COLLAPSE ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE (RC) STRUCTURES INCLUDING SHEAR , 1999 .

[20]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Performance of composite steel/concrete members under earthquake loading. Part I: Analytical model , 1993 .

[21]  Juan Enrique Martinez Rueda.  Energy dissipation devices for seismic upgrading of RC structures , 1997 .