Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for tall buildings

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 789-806

  Reyes, Juan C ^a   Chopra, Anil K ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES   (Colombia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Multi component; Pushover; Tall buildings; Two components

Indexed keywords

APARTMENT HOUSES; LINEAR SYSTEMS; MODAL ANALYSIS; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMOLOGY; TALL BUILDINGS; THREE DIMENSIONAL;

DESIGN SPECTRUM; EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE; GROUND MOTIONS; ITS EVALUATION; MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS; MULTICOMPONENTS; NONLINEAR RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS; PUSHOVER; RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS; SEISMIC DEMANDS; THREE-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS; TWO COMPONENTS; TWO-COMPONENT;

SPECTRUM ANALYSIS;

BUILDING; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; GROUND MOTION; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC RESPONSE; THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING;

EID: 79955512494     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1060     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance and retrofitt evaluation for reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1997; 123:3-10.
2. Sasaki KK, Freeman SA, Paret TF. Multimode pushover procedure (MMP)-a method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. Proceedings of the Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, 1998.
3. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Adaptative modal combination for nonlinear static analysis of building structures. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2006; 132:1721-1731.
4. Aydinoglu MN. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2003; 1:3-36.
5. Kunnath SK. Identification of modal combinations for nonlinear static analysis of building structures. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 2004; 19:282-295.
6. Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. A consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings. Journal of Engineering Structures 2009; 31:591-599.
7. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31:561-582.
8. Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: SAC buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20:225-254.
9. Bobadilla H, Chopra AK. Evaluation of the MPA procedure for estimating seismic demands: RC-SMRF buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(4):827-845.
10. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:903-927.
11. Moehle JP. The tall buildings initiative for alternative seismic design. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2007; 16:559-567.
12. Reyes JC. Estimating seismic demands for performance-based engineering of buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2009.
13. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering (3rd edn). Prentice-Hall: NJ, 2007.
14. Newmark NM. Vibration of structures induced by ground motion. Shock and Vibration Handbook (2nd edn). McGraw Hill: New York, 1976.
15. Rosenblueth E, Contreras H. Approximate design for multicomponent earthquakes. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division (ASCE) 1977; 103:881-893.
16. Menun C, Der Kiureghian AD. A replacement for the 30%, 40% and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthquake Spectra 1998; 14(1):153-163.
17. Smeby W, Der Kiureghian AD. Modal combination rules for multicomponent earthquake excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1985; 13:1-12.
18. Goel AK, Chopra AK. Extension of modal pushover analysis to compute member forces. Earthquake Spectra 2005; 21(1):125-139.
19. Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanapakdee C. Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(3):757-778.
20. FEMA. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356, Washington, DC, 2000.
21. Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2004; 130:1309-1319.
22. Ruiz-Gracia J, Miranda E. Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 32:1237-1258.
23. FEMA. Improvement of non-linear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA-440, Washington, DC, 2005.
24. ASCE. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA, 2007.
25. Post NM. A sleek skyscraper in San Francisco raises the profile of performance-based design. Continuing Education Center, McGraw-Hill Construction, 2008.
26. Computers and Structures (CSI), Inc. PERFORM 3D. User Guide v4, Non-linear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA, 2006.
27. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):139-171.
28. Boore DM, Atkinson GM. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):99-138.
29. Abrahamson N, Silva W. Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):67-97.
30. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998; 20(4-6):452-464.