Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings

Mwafy, Aman; Elnashai, Amr S.

doi:10.1016/s0141-0296(00)00068-7

Cited by 311 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The representative dynamic pushover curves are defined separately for unidirectional and bidirectional earthquake excitation. In general, there are three different methods to plot the dynamic pushover curves (Mwafy et al 2001;Kappos & Paraskeva 2008) Starting from the unidirectional excitation in Figure 11a the δ ξ,max -V bξ (t maxδ ) pushover curves are shown for all selected ground motions, for a=30°. In all cases the δ ξ,max -V bξ (t maxδ ) pushover curves have a 'regular' shape, i.e.…”

Section: Derivation Of Multidirectional Pushover Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The increment in the base shear using its value in a time window t±Δt instead of its simultaneous value is significantly smaller than the observed strength drop, because of the small time step Δt that it is usually chosen for dynamic analysis, thus using V bξ (t±Δt) instead of V bξ (t maxδ ) cannot eliminate the 'strength drops'. The dynamic pushover curve is a diagram open to different interpretations, its main intended use being to provide a convenient way to compare results from static and dynamic analysis (Mwafy et al 2001;Kappos & Paraskeva 2008). As discussed previously, it is a realistic representation of the inelastic response when the latter is dominated by the prevailing translational mode, but when the prevailing mode is rotational (Kappos et al 2011) this is no more the case.…”

Section: Derivation Of Multidirectional Pushover Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach

Moschonas

Kappos

2012

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Derivation Of Multidirectional Pushover Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Derivation Of Multidirectional Pushover Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach

Moschonas

Kappos

2012

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2 (Kunnath et al, 1990). Failure criteria: Global failure was assumed to coincide with story failure; a dual criterion based on a limiting local drift of 2% and the simultaneous development of a sidesway collapse mechanism involving all vertical members was adopted for assessing story failure; regardless of mechanism formation, a structure was assumed to have collapse if the local drift at any location exceed a limit value of 3% (Elnashai and Mwafy, 2001). In this study the failure criteria was assumed to have collapsed if the local drift exceed of 3, 2.5, 2 and 1% for SDF, IDF, ODF and GLD, respectively.…”

Section: Hysteretic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames with Various Ductility in Low Seismic Zone

Choopool¹

2011

American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem statement: Bangkok, the capital of Thailand, is at moderate risk for distant earthquake due to the ability of soft soil to amplify ground motion about 3-4 times although it locates in low seismic zone. In addition, before the enforcement of seismic loading for buildings in the Ministerial Law in 2007, many existing reinforced concrete buildings in Bangkok may have been designed without consideration for seismic loading and did not incorporate the special detailing provisions that required for ductile concrete frames. Now, guidelines for seismic loading of buildings of Thailand (DPT 1302-52) have been recently improved by adopting ASCE7-05. Approach: This study is focused on the effects of the new guidelines on cost estimates and the seismic performance of a nine-story reinforced concrete apartment building with various ductility by the nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses compared with a Gravity Load Designed (GLD) building. Five selected ground motion records are investigated in the analyses. In order to examine the influence of design ductility classes, the seismic forces on moment resisting frame buildings are defined according to the newly proposed seismic specifications of Thailand with ductility from 8, 5 and 3, corresponding to Special Ductile (SDF), Intermediate Ductile (IDF) and Ordinary Ductile (ODF) frames, respectively. The various frames are assumed to have collapsed if the local drift exceed of 3, 2.5, 2 and 1% for SDF, IDF, ODF and GLD, respectively. Results: SDF is more ductile than that of ODF, however, the strength of SDF is less than ODF. For inelastic designs, SDF decreases stiffness and increases deflection of structures. As for the effect on cost estimates, ODF is the most expensive among ODF, IDF and SDF. Costs of SDF and IDF in Bangkok are quite similar. The study found that the average PGAs for the failure state for SDF, IDF, ODF and GLD are 0.76, 0.60, 0.50 and 0.29g, respectively. Moreover, for the failure state of GLD with volumetric ratio of horizontal confinement within joint panel less than 0.003, the average PGA is only 0.15g. Conclusion/Recommendations: These various frame designs are predicted to just achieve the Immediate Occupancy (IO) performance level. The results also indicate that all frames including GLD are able to withstand a design earthquake. The SDF and IDF are the two best options in consideration of cost and seismic performance.

show abstract

“…etkiler de göz önüne alınarak gerçeğe oldukça yakın davranışlar elde edilebilmektedir. Bununla birlikte yapılan çalışmalar, statik esaslı doğrusal elastik olmayan yöntemlerin de planda ve düşeyde önemli yapısal düzensizliği bulunmayan az ve orta katlı yapılarda deprem davranışının belirlenmesinde oldukça başarılı olduğunu göstermektedir [7]- [9]. Performans esaslı benzer yöntemlerin yer aldığı ASCE/SEI 41-06 [10] ve EUROCODE 8-Part 3 [11] gibi standartlarda doğrusal elastik teoriye dayanan basitleştirilmiş yöntemlerin kullanımının çeşitli parametrelere (bazı yapısal düzensizlik durumlarının bulunması, hasar düzeyini ifade eden talep/kapasite oranlarının maksimum değeri, sistemdeki maksimum ve minimum talep/kapasite oranlarının oranı gibi) sınırlandırıldığı görülmektedir.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Comparison of Performance Based Static Methods In Turkish Earthquake Code For Frames With Vertical Stiffness Irregularity

Türker¹

2014

Pamukkale J Eng Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings

Cited by 311 publications

References 15 publications

Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach

Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames with Various Ductility in Low Seismic Zone

Comparison of Performance Based Static Methods In Turkish Earthquake Code For Frames With Vertical Stiffness Irregularity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About