Abstract
Daily development in civil engineering arena and the importance of economical aspects in the design of structures have motivated the engineers to shift their approaches from designing upon strength to designing upon performance. This is of more importance regarding the forces induced by earthquakes which have unpredicted and random nature. However, it is not possible to design or assess exactly the structural performance against strong ground motion using analytical methods which are applied for static loads and therefore precise dynamic analysis methods are needed. Despite significant progress in the analytical methods and engineering software, using nonlinear time history analysis is very difficult for engineers and designers due to unpredictable nature of future ground motions as well as complicated behaviour of structures. Consequently, the substituting methods are presented upon nonlinear static analysis. Coefficient method and capacity spectrum method, presented by FEMA356 and ATC40, respectively, are of this kind that have been used in the recent years and modified by newer documents such as FEMA440. Despite acceptable results, neglecting some important items, such as higher mode effects which can be decisive in tall and specific structures, made offering other procedures like Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA). In this study, the performance abilities of nonlinear static methods are studied in order to assess the dynamic response of structures under both far- and near-fault earthquake records. For this purpose, two reinforced concrete frames of 5 and 15 stories are analyzed by a series of nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. Analysis results show that conventional nonlinear static analysis methods cannot estimate accurately the deformation demands of tall building structures, particularly in the higher stories, due to the effects of higher modes. Although MPA method has almost improved the results, yet it has not high accuracy regarding near-fault earthquake records.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abrahamson, N. (1993). Non-stationary spectral matching program, RSPMatch.
American Concrete Institute (2002). Building code requirements for structural concrete, ACI 318-02.
Applied Technology Council (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC 40, Redwood City, CA.
Building and Housing Research Center (2005). Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, Standard 2800-05, Tehran, Iran.
Chopra, A. K. and Goel, R. K. (2001). A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for buildings, PEER Report 2001/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Chopra, A. K. and Goel, R. K. (2002). “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 561–582.
Chopra, A. K., Goel, R.K., and Chintanapakdee, C. (2004). “Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 757–778.
CSI, SAP 2000 (2009). V-12. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA.
Fajfar, P. (2000). “A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 573–592.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356, American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, FEMA 440, Applied Technology Council, Washington, D.C.
Gasparini, D. A. and Vanmarcke, E. H. (1976). Evaluation analysis of safety of buildings — simulated earthquake motions compatible with prescribed response spectra, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Report No. 2.
Ghahari, S. F., Jahankhah, H., and Ghannad, M. A. (2010). “Study on elastic response of structures to near-fault ground motions through record decomposition.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 536–546.
Ghahari, S. F. and Khaloo, A. R. (2010). Considering rupture directivity effects, which structures should be named “Long-period buildings”? The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings (accepted).
Goel, R. K. and Chopra, A. K. (2004). “Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analysis: SAC Buildings.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 225–224.
Kaul, M. K. (1978). “Spectrum consistent time history generation.” ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vo. 4, No. 104, pp. 781–788.
Kim, S. and D’Amore, E. (1999). “Pushover analysis procedure in earthquake engineering.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 417–434.
Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). “Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, Nos. 4–6, pp. 452–462.
Lilhanand, K. and Tseng, W. S. (1987). Generation of synthetic time histories compatible with multiple-damping response spectra, SMIRT-9, Lausanne, k2/10.
Lillhanand, K. and Tseng, W. S. (1988). “Development and application of realistic earthquake time histories compatible with multiple damping response spectra.” Proceedings of the Word Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 2, pp. 819–824.
Poursha, M., Khoshnoudian, F., and Moghadam A. (2008). “Assessment of modal pushover analysis and conventional nonlinear static procedure with load distributions of Federal Emergency Management Agency for high-rise buildings.” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 291–308.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ghahari, S.F., Moradnejad, H.R., Rouhanimanesh, M.S. et al. Studying higher mode effects on the performance of nonlinear static analysis methods considering near-fault effects. KSCE J Civ Eng 17, 426–437 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-1386-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-1386-6