Simplified Pushover Analysis for Rapid Assessment of Shear-Type Frames
Source abstract
Abstract
A simplified pushover method for rapidly assessing the seismic capacity of shear-type frames is presented. The frame global force-displacement capacity is described as a trilinear curve passing through three limit states (LS): Damage LS (DLS), Life safety LS (LLS), and Collapse LS (CLS). The global LSs are obtained consequently to the attainment of story-level, element-level, and section-level LSs. All LS capacities are described through closed-form equations. The validity of the proposed method is verified by applying it on several reinforced concrete (RC) frames with a varying number of stories. The results obtained with such an analytical procedure show a good match with those obtained from pushover based on finite element method (FEM) analysis models, in terms of both global force-displacement capacity curves and story displacements at various LSs. The proposed method has the potential to be conveniently applied in large-scale vulnerability/risk assessment studies, where the quality and quantity of the available data call for the use of simplified yet accurate models. More refined models would in fact require significantly heavier computational efforts, not justified by the quality of the results that are usually obtained. The simplicity of the proposed method in such a context is demonstrated through the development of the fragility curves of a five-story shear-type reinforced concrete frame, starting from a predefined set of mechanical and geometrical features characterizing a building typology.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Structural Engineering and Geotechnics, Sapienza University of Rome, Via A. Gramsci 53, 00197 Roma, Italy
Department of Civil, Construction-Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of L’Aquila, Piazzale Ernesto Pontieri, Monteluco, Poggio di Roio, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
College of Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310058, China
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Chopra, A. (1995). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall.
2. The N2 Method for the Seismic Damage Analysis of RC Buildings10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199601)25:1<31::AID-EQE534>3.0.CO;2-V ↗
3. A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design10.1193/1.1586128 ↗
4. NTC (2018). Norme Tecniche Per Le Costruzioni, NTC.
5. Simple Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of R/C Structures10.1061/JSDEAG.0005714 ↗
6. Lawson, R.S., Vance, V., and Krawinkler, H. (1994, January 10–14). Nonlinear Static Push-Over Analysis-Why, When, and How?. Proceedings of the Fifth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, IL, USA.
7. How Safe Are Pre-Northridge WSMFs?
8. Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (1999). Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures, Stanford University.
9. Estimation of Seismic Drift Demands for Frame Structures10.1002/1096-9845(200009)29:9<1287::AID-EQE971>3.0.CO;2-B ↗
10. Skokan, M.J., and Hart, G.C. (2004, January 8–10). Reliability of Nonlinear Static Methods for the Seismic Prediction of Steel Frame Buildings. Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2000: Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering, Philadelphia, PA, USA.10.1061/40492(2000)108 ↗
11. Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8 ↗
12. Evaluation of Strength Reduction Factors for Earthquake-Resistant Design10.1193/1.1585778 ↗
13. Adaptive Spectra-Based Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures10.1193/1.1586117 ↗
14. Paret, T., Sasaki, K., Eilbeck, D., and Freeman, S. (1996, January 23–28). Approximate Inelastic Procedures to Identify Failure Mechanisms from Higher Mode Effects. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Emeryville, CA, USA.
15. Sasaki, K., Freeman, S., and Paret, T. (June, January 31). Multimode Pushover Procedure (MMP)—A Method to Identify the Effects of Higher Modes in a Pushover Analysis. Proceedings of the 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Washington, DC, USA.
16. Matsumori, T., Otani, S., and Shiohara, H. (1999, January 10–11). Earthquake Member Deformation Demands in Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures. Proceedings of the US-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for R/C Building Structures, Tokyo, Japan.
17. Freeman, S. (1975, January 18–20). Evaluations of Existing Buildings for Seismic Risk-A Case Study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Proceedings of the 1st US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Washington, DC, USA.
18. Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C10.1061/JSDEAG.0004250 ↗
19. Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. (1988, January 2–9). N2-A Method for Non-Linear Seismic Analysis of Regular Buildings. Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
20. Kappos, A., Paraskeva, T., and Sextos, A. (2004, January 6–8). Seismic Assessment of a Major Bridge Using Modal Pushover Analysis and Dynamic Time-History Analysis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational and Experimental Engineering and Sciences, Oxford, UK.
21. Aydenoglu, M. (July, January 28). An Improved Pushover Procedure for Engineering Practice: Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA). Proceedings of the Workshop Performance-Based Seismic Design. Concepts and Implementation, Bled, Slovenia.
22. Kappos, A., Paraskeva, T., and Sextos, A. (2005, January 26–27). Modal Pushover Analysis as a Means for the Seismic Assessment of Bridge Structures. Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures, Thessaloniki, Greece.
23. FEMA (2000). 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
24. On the Descending Branch of the Pushover Curve for Multistory Buildings10.1002/eqe.2990 ↗
25. New Zealand Standards (2004). Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions, New Zealand Standards.
26. ATC-40 (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council.
27. Vailati, M., Monti, G., Khazna, M., Napoli, A., and Realfonzo, R. (2015, January 15). Probabilistic Assessment of Masonry Building Clusters. Proceedings of the 15th WCEE-World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal.
28. Vailati, M., Monti, G., Khazna, M.J., Realfonzo, R., and De Iuliis, M. (2016). Probabilistic Seismic Response Analysis of Existing Masonry Structures. Brick Block Mason., 2489–2498.10.1201/b21889-307 ↗
29. Assessment of Masonry Building Clusters with a Dedicated NLA Software10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.847.191 ↗
30. Yield and Ultimate Moment and Curvature Closed-Form Equations for Reinforced Concrete Sections10.14359/51687747 ↗
31. Computers and Structures Inc (2000). Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design, Computers and Structures Inc.
32. Rossetto, T., Ioannou, I., and Grant, D. (2013). Existing Empirical Fragility and Vulnerability Functions: Compendium and Guide for Selection, GEM Foundation.
33. Rossetto, T., Ioannou, I., Grant, D., and Maqsood, T. (2014). Guidelines for Empirical Vulnerability Assessment, GEM Foundation.
34. Ioannou, I., Rossetto, T., and Grant, D. (2012, January 24–28). Use of Regression Analysis for the Construction of Empirical Fragility Curves. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal.
35. (2021, December 06). Palisade @Risk Palisade Decision Making Tool. Available online: https://www.palisade.com/.
36. FEMA (2009). P.695-Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors.