SUMMARY An envelope‐based pushover analysis procedure is presented that assumes that the seismic demand for each response parameter is controlled by a predominant system failure mode that may vary according to the ground motion. To be able to simulate the most important system failure modes, several pushover analyses need to be performed, as in a modal pushover analysis procedure, whereas the total seismic demand is determined by enveloping the results associated with each pushover analysis. The demand for the most common system failure mode resulting from the ‘first‐mode’ pushover analysis is obtained by response history analysis for the equivalent ‘modal‐based’ SDOF model, whereas demand for other failure modes is based on the ‘failure‐based’ SDOF models. This makes the envelope‐based pushover analysis procedure equivalent to the N2 method provided that it involves only ‘first‐mode’ pushover analysis and response history analysis of the corresponding ‘modal‐based’ SDOF model. It is shown that the accuracy of the approximate 16th, 50th and 84th percentile response expressed in terms of IDA curves does not decrease with the height of the building or with the intensity of ground motion. This is because the estimates of the roof displacement and the maximum storey drift due to individual ground motions were predicted with a sufficient degree of accuracy for almost all the ground motions from the analysed sets. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Summary The concept of intensity‐based assessment for risk‐based decision‐making is introduced. It is realized by means of the so‐called 3R method (response analysis, record selection and risk‐based decision‐making), which can be used to check the adequacy of design of a new building or of the strengthening of an existing building by performing conventional pushover analysis and dynamic analysis for only a few ground motions, which are termed characteristic ground motions. Because the objective of the method is not a precise assessment of the seismic risk, a simple decision model for risk acceptability can be introduced. The engineer can decide that the reliability of a no‐collapse requirement is sufficient when collapse is observed in the case of less than half of, for example, seven characteristic ground motions. From the theoretical point of view, it is shown that the accuracy of the method is acceptable if the non‐linear response history analyses are performed at a low percentile of limit‐state intensity, which is also proven by means of several examples of multi‐storey reinforced concrete frame buildings. The 3R method represents a compromise between the exclusive use of either pushover analysis or dynamic analysis and can be easily introduced into building codes provided that its applicability is further investigated (e.g. asymmetric structures and other performance objectives) and that the procedure for the selection of characteristic ground motions is automated and readily available to engineers (www.smartengineering.si).

Summary Risk‐based seismic design, as introduced in this paper, involves the use of different types of analysis in order to satisfy a risk‐based performance objective with a reasonable utilization rate and sufficient reliability. Differentiation of the reliability of design can be achieved by defining different design algorithms depending on the importance of a structure. In general, the proposed design is iterative, where the adjustment of a structure during iterations is the most challenging task. Rather than using automated design algorithms, an attempt has been made to introduce three simple guidelines for adjusting reinforced concrete frames in order to increase their strength and deformation capacity. It is shown that an engineer can design a reinforced concrete frame in a few iterations, for example, by adjusting the structure on the basis of pushover analysis and checking the final design by means of nonlinear dynamic analysis. A possible variant of the risk‐based design algorithm for the collapse safety of reinforced concrete frame buildings is proposed, and its application is demonstrated by means of an example of an eight‐storey reinforced concrete building. Four iterations were required in order to achieve the risk‐based performance objective with a reasonable utilization rate. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract