Comparison between non-linear dynamic and static seismic analysis of structures according to European and US provisions

Abstract

Several procedures for non-linear static and dynamic analysis of structures have been developed in recent years. This paper discusses those procedures that have been implemented into the latest European and US seismic provisions: non-linear dynamic time-history analysis; N2 non-linear static method (Eurocode 8); non-linear static procedure NSP (FEMA 356) and improved capacity spectrum method CSM (FEMA 440). The presented methods differ in respect to accuracy, simplicity, transparency and clarity of theoretical background. Non-linear static procedures were developed with the aim of overcoming the insufficiency and limitations of linear methods, whilst at the same time maintaining a relatively simple application. All procedures incorporate performance-based concepts paying more attention to damage control. Application of the presented procedures is illustrated by means of an example of an eight-storey reinforced concrete frame building. The results obtained by non-linear dynamic time-history analysis and non-linear static procedures are compared. It is concluded that these non-linear static procedures are sustainable for application. Additionally, this paper discusses a recommendation in the Eurocode 8/1 that the capacity curve should be determined by pushover analysis for values of the control displacement ranging between zero and 150% of the target displacement. Maximum top displacement of the analyzed structure obtained by using dynamic method with real time-history records corresponds to 145% of the target displacement obtained using the non-linear static N2 procedure.

Comparative Study of Nonlinear Static and Time-History Analyses of Typical Korean STS Container Cranes

“…e results showed a significant improvement in the accuracy of CSM as updating the bilinear idealization of the structural system based on the selected trial performance point on the capacity diagram. Recent studies also compared and verified methods proposed by Causevic and Mitrovic [21] and Ferraioli et al [22]. As discussed previously, the use of NSA for the design of STS crane is very limited.…”

Seismic assessment of a lab-tested two-storey unreinforced masonry Dutch terraced house

“…To define the capacity curve of the equivalent SDOF system, an effective mass equal to the total mass of the structure (36.9 t) was considered without any load factor. A unit participation factor Γ was assumed as assumed by Causevic and Mitrovic (2011) when uniform loading distribution is applied to the structure and in accordance with the recommendations of Appendix B in EN 1998-1 (CEN 2005. This represents in fact a small approximation of the real behaviour of the structure, since a failure mechanism close to a soft storey mechanism (especially in the negative loading direction) was observed.…”

Seismic Performance Evaluation of RC Frame Designed Using Ethiopian and Chinese Seismic Codes

“…In order to verify the results obtained by the nonlinear static pushover analysis (SPO, hereafter), dynamic nonlinear time-history analysis (NL-THA, hereafter) was conducted [51,52]. It is widely recognized that the NL-THA is more accurate than SPO analysis, but choosing the appropriate ground motions is not a simple task.…”