Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of monotonic and cyclic pushover analyses for the near-collapse point on a mid-rise reinforced concrete framed building

  • Received : 2020.06.22
  • Accepted : 2020.09.09
  • Published : 2020.09.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The near-collapse performance limit is defined as the deformation at the 20% drop of maximum base shear in the decreasing region of the pushover curve for ductile framed buildings. Although monotonic pushover analysis is preferred due to the simple application procedure, this analysis gives rise to overestimated results by neglecting the cumulative damage effects. In the present study, the acceptabilities of monotonic and cyclic pushover analysis results for the near-collapse performance limit state are determined by comparing with Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) results for a 5-story Reinforced Concrete framed building. IDA is performed to obtain the collapse point, and the near-collapse drift ratios for monotonic and cyclic pushover analysis methods are obtained separately. These two alternative drift ratios are compared with the collapse drift ratio. The correlations of the maximum tensile and compression strain at the base columns and beam plastic rotations with interstory drift ratios are acquired using the nonlinear time history analysis results by the simple linear regression analyses. It is seen that these parameters are highly correlated with the interstory drift ratios, and the results reveal that the near-collapse point acquired by monotonic pushover analysis causes unacceptably high tensile and compression strains at the base columns, as well as large plastic rotations at the beams. However, it is shown that the results of cyclic pushover analysis are acceptable for the near-collapse performance limit state.

Keywords

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineering (2017), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE 7-16, Virginia, U.S.A.
  2. Baker, J.W. and Cornell, C.A. (2006), "Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(9), 1077-1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.571.
  3. Berry, M.P. and Eberhard, M.O. (2008), Performance modeling strategies for modern reinforced concrete bridge columns performance modeling strategies for modern reinforced concrete bridge columns, PEER 2007/07, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley.
  4. CSI (2016), ETABS: Extended 3D Analysis of Building Systems Software, Nonlinear Version 16.0, Computers and Structures, Inc, Berkeley, C.A.
  5. CSI (2018), PERFORM-3D: Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures, Version 7. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley, C.A.
  6. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (2018), Turkish building and earthquake code, TBEC, Ankara, Turkey.
  7. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (2018), Turkish sesimic hazard map, TSHM, Ankara, Turkey.
  8. Dolsek, M. and Fajfar, P. (2007), "Simplified probabilistic seismic performance assessment of plan-asymmetric buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36, 2021-2041. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.697.
  9. Fardis. M.N. (2004), "A European perspective to performancebased seismic design, assessment and retrofitting", Proceedings of an international workshop on performance based seismic design concepts and implementation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Bled-Sloveni.
  10. FEMA (2007), Interim testing protocols for determining the seismic performance characteristics of structural and nonstructural components, FEMA 461, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
  11. FEMA (2009), Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
  12. Ghaemian, S., Muderrisoglu, Z. and Yazgan, U. (2020), "The effect of finite element modeling assumptions on collapse capacity of an RC frame building", Earthq. Struct., 18(5), 555-565. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.18.5.555.
  13. Goodnight, J.C., Kowalsky, M.J. and Nau, J.M. (2013), "Effect of load history on performance limit states of circular bridge columns effect of load history on performance limit states of circular bridge columns", J. Bridge Eng., 18(12), 1383-1396. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000495.
  14. Gorgulu, O. and Taskin, B. (2015), "Numerical simulation of rc infill walls under cyclic loading and calibration with widely used hysteretic models and experiments", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 13(9), 2591-2610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9739-9.
  15. Gunes, N. and Ulucan, Z.C. (2020), "Collapse probability of codebased design of a seismically isolated reinforced concrete buildings", Bull. Earthq. Eng.(under review)
  16. Haselton, C.B, Liel, A.B. and Deierlein, G.G. (2011), "Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames", ASCE J. Struct. Eng., 137(4), 492-502. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000275.
  17. Haselton, C.B., Baker, J.W., Liel, A.B. and Deierlein, G.G. (2011), "Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon", J. Struct. Eng., 137(3), 332-344. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000103.
  18. Haselton, C.B., Liel, A.B., Taylor-Lange, S.C. and Deierlein, G.G. (2016), "Calibration of model to simulate response of reinforced concrete beam-columns to collapse", ACI Struct. J., 113(6), 1141-1152. https://doi.org/10.14359/51689245.
  19. Jalilkhani, M. and Manafpour A.R. (2018), "Evaluation of seismic collapse capacity of regular RC frames using nonlinear static procedure", Struct. Eng. Mech., 68(6), 647-660. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2018.68.6.647.
  20. Khorami, M., Khorami, M., Motahar, H., Alvansazyazdi, M., Shariati, M., Jalali, A. and Tahir, M.M. (2017), "Evaluation of the seismic performance of special moment frames using incremental nonlinear dynamic analysis", Struct. Eng. Mech., 63(2), 259-268. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2017.63.2.25.
  21. Kircil, M.S. and Polat, Z. (2006), "Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings", Eng. Struct., 28(9), 1335-1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.01.004.
  22. Koutromanos, I., Stavridis, A., Shing, P.B. and Willam, K. (2011), "Numerical modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames subjected to seismic loads", Comput. Struct., 89(11-12), 1026-1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.01.006.
  23. Kowalsky, M.J. (2000), "Deformation limit states for circular reinforced concrete bridge columns", J. Struct. Eng., 126(8), 869-878. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:8(869).
  24. Liel, A.B., Haselton, C.B. and Deierlien, G.G. (2011), "Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames", J. Struct. Eng., 137(4), 492-502. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000275.
  25. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1989), "Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete", J. Struct. Eng, 114(8), 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
  26. Moyer, M.J. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2003), "Influence of tension strain on buckling of reinforcement in concrete columns", ACI Struct. J., 100(1), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.14359/12441.
  27. NIST (2010), NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4: Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers, NIST GCR 10-917-5, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium for Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
  28. Panagiotakos, T.B. and Fardis, M.N.F. (2003), "Performance of RC Frame Buildings designed for alternative ductility classes according to Eurocode 8", The Fifth U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures. Hakone, Japan, September.
  29. Panyakapo, P. (2014), "Cyclic pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for buildings", Eng. Struct., 66, 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.001.
  30. Park, R. (1988), "Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing". Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, August.
  31. PEER/ATC (2010), Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings, (PEER/ATC 72-1), Applied Technology Council, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, Berkeley.
  32. Poljan, K. and Fajfar, P. (2006), "Flexural deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns determined by the CAE method", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35, 1453-1470. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.584.
  33. Priestley, M.J.N. (2000), "Performance based seismic design", The 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zeland, February.
  34. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G.M. (1996), Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley and Sons, New York, U.S.A.
  35. Rejec, K. and Fajfar, P. (2014), "On the relation between the near collapse limit states at the element and structure level", The Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, August.
  36. TRC/Imbsen (2010), "XTRACT: Cross Section Analysis Software for Structural and Earthquake Engineering".
  37. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), "Incremental dynamic analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.
  38. Vidot-Vega, A.L. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2010), "Relationship between strain, curvature, and drift in reinforced concrete moment frames in support of performance-based seismic design", ACI Structural J., 107(3), 291-299. https://doi.org/10.14359/51663694.
  39. Zareian, F., Krawinkler, H., Ibarra, L. and Lignos, D. (2010), "Basic concepts and performance measures in prediction of collapse of buildings under earthquake ground motions", Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build., 19, 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.546.