Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover Analyses: SAC Buildings

Earthquake Spectra

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 225-254

  Goel, Rakesh K ^a   Chopra, Anil K ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Berkeley   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUILDINGS; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; HINGES; ROTATION; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; VIBRATIONS (MECHANICAL);

MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS (MPA); PLASTIC ROTATIONS; RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS (RHA);

SEISMIC WAVES;

EID: 1842788696     PISSN: 87552930     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1193/1.1646390     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Benjamin, J. R., and Cornell, C. A., 1970. Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 684 pp.
2. Bracci, J. M., Kunnath, S. K., and Reinhorn, A. M., 1997. Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation for reinforced concrete structures, ASCE, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (1), 3-10.
3. Building Officials and Code Administration International Inc. (BOCA), 1993. National Building Code, 12th Edition, Country Club Hills, IL.
4. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
5. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
6. Chopra, A. K., 2001. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
7. Chopra, A. K., and Chintanapakdee, C., 2004. Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of Structures: Single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems, J. Struct. Eng., accepted for publication.
8. Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (3), 561-582.
9. Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H., 1999. Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures (SAC Task 5.4.3), Report No. 132, John A. Blume Earthq. Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
10. Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S. K., 2000. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures, Earthquake Spectra 16 (2), 367-392.
11. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1994. Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA.
12. Kunnath, S. K., and Gupta, B., 2000. Validity of deformation demand estimates using nonlinear static procedures, Proceedings, U.S. Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Engineering, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
13. Matsumori, T., Otani, S., Shiohara, H., and Kabeyasawa, T., 1999. Earthquake member deformation demands in reinforced concrete frame structures, Proceedings, U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Maui, Hawaii, pp. 79-94.
14. Miranda, E., 2001. Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems, J. Struct. Eng. 127 (9), 1005-1012.
15. Paret, T. F., Sasaki, K. K., Eilbekc, D. H., and Freeman, S. A., 1996. Approximate inelastic procedures to identify failure mechanisms from higher mode effects, Proceedings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 966, Acapulco, Mexico.
16. Sasaki, K. K., Freeman, S. A., and Paret, T. F., 1998. Multimode pushover procedure (MMP) - A method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis, Proceedings, 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington.
17. Somerville, P., Smith, N., Punyamurthula, S., and Sun, J., 1997. Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project, SAC Background Document Report No. SAC/BD-9/04, SAC Joint Venture, 555 University Ave., Sacramento, CA.