2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.07.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Applicability of pushover analysis-based seismic performance evaluation procedure for steel arch bridges

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the mathematical basis of the procedure is far from accurate; it is assumed that the nonlinear response of a multi degree-of-freedom structure can be related to the response of an equivalent single degree-of-freedom model (SDOF), which implies that the response is controlled by a single mode; furthermore it is assumed that this modal shape remains constant through the analysis [4]. Although these assumptions are clearly incorrect, if the structure response is dominated by the first mode of vibration the estimated results have been found to be generally accurate compared with rigorous NL-RHA [4,9,10]. Different proposals have been made to overcome the aforementioned shortcomings, briefly described in the following lines.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the mathematical basis of the procedure is far from accurate; it is assumed that the nonlinear response of a multi degree-of-freedom structure can be related to the response of an equivalent single degree-of-freedom model (SDOF), which implies that the response is controlled by a single mode; furthermore it is assumed that this modal shape remains constant through the analysis [4]. Although these assumptions are clearly incorrect, if the structure response is dominated by the first mode of vibration the estimated results have been found to be generally accurate compared with rigorous NL-RHA [4,9,10]. Different proposals have been made to overcome the aforementioned shortcomings, briefly described in the following lines.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…So far, most of the research is currently focused on buildings and few works address the problem of the applicability of pushover analysis to bridges [9,10,20]; the work of Paraskeva et al [21] proposed key issues to employ MPA to bridges, providing information about the selection of the control point (among other features), and applying the procedure to a strongly curved bridge, where transverse modes present displacements also in longitudinal direction. Nonetheless, no specific studies on this topic about cablestayed bridges have been found by the authors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The aim of the push-over analysis is to determine, statically, the resistant capacity, ductility, collapse mechanism and security level of the structure, without performing complex nonlinear seismic analysis [7,8]. The ultimate state considered was: ULS71 = 1.15PP + 1.5PN + 1IMP + 1.1QA + LF x VS+ 1VT.…”
Section: Messina Tower Longitudinal Push-over Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three methods are commonly employed to determine this: nonlinear time history, incremental dynamic, and capacity spectrum analyses, with time history analysis being the most commonly used tool (Banerjee and Shinozuka, 2007;Bignell et al, 2004;Shinozuka et al, 2000a;Mackie and Stojadinović, 2001;Kumar and Gardoni, 2014). Incremental dynamic analysis can also be used to determine the earthquake response of a structure and derive the fragility curve (Lu et al, 2004;Kurian et al, 2006;Liolios et al, 2011). Time history analysis gives more realistic results, but both time history and incremental dynamic analysis are time-consuming and computationally ex-pensive.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%