Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Abstract
An essential and critical component of evolving performance-based design methodologies is the accurate estimation of seismic demand
parameters. Nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) are now widely used in engineering practice to predict seismic demands in building structures.
While seismic demands using NSPs can be computed directly from a site-specific hazard spectrum, nonlinear time-history (NTH) analyses
require an ensemble of ground motions and an associated probabilistic assessment to account for aleatoric variability in earthquake recordings.
Despite this advantage, simplified versions of NSP based on invariant load patterns such as those recommended in ATC-40 and FEMA-356
have well-documented limitations in terms of their inability to account for higher mode effects and the modal variations resulting from inelastic
behavior. Consequently, a number of enhanced pushover procedures that overcome many of these drawbacks have also been proposed. This
paper investigates the effectiveness of several NSPs in predicting the salient response characteristics of typical steel and reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings through comparison with benchmark responses obtained from a comprehensive set of NTH analyses. More importantly, to consider
diverse ground motion characteristics, an array of time-series from ordinary far-fault records to near-fault motions having fling and forward
directivity effects was employed. Results from the analytical study indicate that the Adaptive Modal Combination procedure predicted peak
response measures such as inter-story drift and component plastic rotations more consistently than the other NSPs investigated in the study.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Adaptive pushover; Nonlinear static analysis; Near-fault records; Seismic evaluation
1. Introduction
In performance assessment and design verification of
building structures, approximate nonlinear static procedures
(NSPs) are becoming commonplace in engineering practice
to estimate seismic demands. In fact, some seismic codes
have begun to include them to aid in performance assessment
of structural systems (e.g., Eurocode 8 [1]; Japanese Design
Code [2]). Although seismic demands are best estimated using
nonlinear time-history (NTH) analyses, NSPs are frequently
used in ordinary engineering applications to avoid the intrinsic
complexity and additional computational effort required by
the former. As a result, simplified NSPs recommended in
ATC-40 [3] and FEMA-356 [4] have become popular. These
procedures are based on monotonically increasing predefined
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 530 754 6428; fax: +1 530 752 4833.
306
(1)
(2)
307
308
Table 1
Details of ground motion ensemble
No
Year
Earthquake
Mech.a
Recording station
Dist.
(km)b
Site
Classc
Data
Sourced
Comp.
PGA
(g)
PGV (cm/s)
EC Meloland Overpass
Coyote Lake Dam
Saratoga Aloha Ave.
Lexington Dam
Erzincan
Petrolia, General Store
Rinaldi Receiver Stn.
Jensen Filtration Plant
JMA
Takatori
3.1
1.5
4.1
6.3
2.0
15.9
8.6
6.2
0.6
4.3
D
B
D
C
C
C
D
D
C
D
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
270
285
090
090
EW
090
S49W
292
000
090
0.30
1.16
0.32
0.41
0.50
0.66
0.84
0.59
0.82
0.62
90.5
80.3
44.8
94.3
64.3
90.2
174.8
99.2
81.6
120.8
SS
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
Sakarya
TCU068
TCU072
TCU074
TCU084
TCU129
TCU082
TCU078
TCU076
TCU079
3.20
3.01
7.87
13.8
11.4
2.2
4.5
8.3
3.2
10.95
C
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
EW
EW
EW
EW
NS
EW
EW
EW
NS
EW
0.41
0.50
0.46
0.59
0.42
0.98
0.22
0.43
0.41
0.57
82.1
277.6
83.6
68.9
42.6
66.9
50.5
41.9
61.8
68.1
TH/REV
OB
SS
TH
TH
TH
SS
OB
TH
TH
Taft
Cliff House
Desert Hot Spr. (New Fire Stn.)
Moorpark (Ventura Fire Stn.)
Saturn Street School
Castaic, Old Ridge Route
Boron Fire Stn.
Presidio
Terminal Island Fire Stn. 111
Montebello
36.2
68.5
40.1
26.4
26.9
23.5
99.3
67.4
57.5
44.2
D
D
D
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
111
090
090
180
S70E
291
000
090
330
206
0.18
0.11
0.23
0.29
0.43
0.27
0.12
0.19
0.19
0.18
17.5
19.8
19.1
21.0
43.5
25.9
13.0
32.4
12.1
9.4
MW
7.5
7.0
6.4
6.7
6.7
6.6
7.3
7.0
6.7
6.7
a
b
c
d
Faulting mechanism = TH: Thrust; REV: Reverse; SS: Strike-slip; OB: Oblique.
Closest distance to fault.
NEHRP Site Class = B for VS (Shear-wave velocity) = 7601500 m/s; C for VS = 360760 m/s; D for VS = 180 to 360 m/s.
Data source = 1: PEER (http://peer.berkeley. edu/smcat); 2: Cosmos (http://db.cosmos-eq.org) 3: ERD (http://angora.deprem.gov.tr/);
4: http://scman.cwb.gov.tw/eqv5/special/19990921/pgadata-asci0704.htm.
Table 1 were scaled so that a peak roof drift ratio of 1.5% was
achieved for the two steel buildings and the 7-story RC building
while a roof drift of 1% was obtained for the 20-story RC
building. Fig. 1 displays the elastic mean pseudo-acceleration
spectra (five percent damped) of the building-specific scaled
records. Also marked on this figure with vertical lines are the
first three elastic fundamental periods of the buildings.
The target displacements used for the FEMA-356 and UBPA
procedures are the predetermined peak roof displacements for
each building. For the MMPA, this target displacement was
used to calculate the first mode contribution. For the second
and third mode contributions, the mean spectra computed
for each building and ground motion set were used together
with the elastic modal periods to determine the peak roof
displacement levels. For AMC, the target point for the first
mode was constrained to the predetermined peak roof drift, and
the target point for the higher modes (i.e., 2nd and 3rd) were
309
310
Fig. 2. Predicted peak displacement demands by NSPs compared to NTH analyses for steel buildings.
311
Fig. 3. Predicted peak displacement demands by NSPs compared to NTH analyses for RC buildings.
312
Fig. 4. Predicted peak interstory drift demands by NSPs compared to NTH analyses for steel buildings.
313
Fig. 5. Predicted peak interstory drift demands by NSPs compared to NTH analyses for RC buildings.
Fig. 6. Predicted maximum column plastic rotations by AMC and MMPA compared to NTH analyses for 6-story steel building subjected to (scaled) JMA, TCU074
and Taft records.
314
Fig. 7. Predicted maximum column plastic rotations by AMC and MMPA compared to NTH analyses for 7-story RC building subjected to (scaled) JMA, TCU074
and Taft records.
Fig. 8. (a) Velocitytime series of JMA motion; (b) variation of 6-story building modal periods and nth-mode participation factor (n ); (c) interstory drift history;
(d) peak interstory drift profile (note that the number in parentheses at the top indicates the specific story that has the peak interstory drift at the time instant
indicated by vertical line).
315
Fig. 9. Instantaneous inertia profiles when the story maxima take place (6-story building subjected to JMA motion, T indicates the time instance in the time-history,
filled square marker indicates the critical story at the specific time instant, T).
Fig. 10. Instantaneous modal shapes at the time instances when the story maxima take place (6-story building subjected to JMA motion; St in legend indicates
story level).
References
[1] The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Design example and
commentary for the calculation of response and limit strength 2001 [in
Japanese].
[2] CEN. Eurocode 8 Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part
-1. European Standard prEN 1998-1. Draft no. 4. Brussels: European
Committee for Standardization; December 2001.
[3] Applied Technology Council (ATC). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings. Volumes 1 and 2. Report no. ATC-40, Redwood City
(CA), 1996.
[4] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Prestandard and
commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356.
Washington DC; 2000.
[5] Gupta B, Kunnath SK. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for
seismic evaluation of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(2):36791.
[6] Kunnath SK, Kalkan E. Evaluation of seismic deformation demands using
nonlinear procedures in multistory steel and concrete moment frames.
ISET, Journal of Earthquake Technology 2004;41(1):15982.
316
[13] Antonio S, Pinho R. Development and verification of a displacementbased adaptive pushover procedure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
2004;8(5):64361.
[14] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Adaptive modal combination procedure for
nonlinear static analysis of building structures. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering 2006 [in press].
[15] Kunnath SK, Nghiem Q, El-Tawil S. Modeling and response prediction in
performance-based seismic evaluation: Case studies of instrumented steel
moment-frame buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2004;20(3):883915.
[16] OpenSees 2005. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation.
Available online: http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
[17] Cheng FY. Matrix analysis of structural dynamics applications and
earthquake engineering. Marcel Dekker; 2001. p. 997.
[18] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Effects of fling-step and forward-rupture
directivity on the seismic response of buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2006;
22(2):36790.