Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 523-543

  De Luca, F ^a   Vamvatsikos, D ^b   Iervolino, I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

^b NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

Equivalent SDOF; Incremental dynamic analysis; Piecewise linear fit; Static pushover

Indexed keywords

PIECEWISE LINEAR TECHNIQUES; STIFFNESS;

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE; CAPACITY CURVES; EQUIVALENT SDOF; INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; MULTI DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM; NEAR-OPTIMAL; NEGATIVE STIFFNESS; NONLINEAR STATICS; PIECEWISE LINEAR; PIECEWISE LINEAR APPROXIMATIONS; PROGRESSIVE FAILURE; QUADRILINEAR; SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM; SPECTRAL ACCELERATION; STATIC PUSHOVER; STIFFNESS CHANGES; STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS; STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS;

CURVE FITTING;

CURVATURE; DEFORMATION MECHANISM; DEMAND ANALYSIS; DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; FAILURE MECHANISM; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PLASTIC DEFORMATION; STIFFNESS; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EID: 84874780299     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2225     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Fajfar P, Fischinger M. N2 - A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular structures. Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan; 1988; 111-116.
2. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GPDK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998; 20:452-464.
3. Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997; 123:3-10.
4. Elnashai AS. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2001; 12:51-69.
5. Antoniou S, Pinho R. Advantage and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2004; 8:497-522.
6. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31:561-582.
7. Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M. Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:507-521.
8. Miranda E, Bertero VV. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake Spectra 1994; 10(2):357-379.
9. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Applicability of Nonlinear Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Modeling for Design. Report No. NIST GCR 10-917-9, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, Gaithersburg, MD, 2010.
10. Aschheim M, Browning J. Influence of cracking on equivalent SDOF estimates of RC frame drift. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 2008; 134(3):511-517.
11. Comitè Europèen de Normalisation. Eurocode 8 - Design of Structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1, CEN, Brussels, 2003.
12. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report No. FEMA-356, Washington, DC, 2000.
13. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA, 2007.
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Report No. FEMA-440, Washington, DC, 2005.
15. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(9):1097-1117.
16. Dolsek M, Fajfar P. Inelastic spectra for infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:1395-1416.
17. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2002; 31:491-514.
18. CS LL PP Circolare 617. Istruzioni per l'applicazione delle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana 47, 2/2/2009 (in Italian).
19. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34:1489-1511.
20. Han SW, Moon K, Chopra AK. Application of MPA to estimate probability of collapse of structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2010; 39:1259-1278.
21. Vamvatsikos D and Cornell CA. Applied Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20:523-553.
22. PEER. PEER NGA Database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley. Available at: http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database 2011 [last access date June 2012].
23. Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D, Papadrakakis M. Evaluation of the influence of vertical irregularities on the seismic performance of a nine-storey steel frame. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35:1489-1509.
24. Vamvatsikos D. Some thoughts on methods to compare the seismic performance of alternate structural designs. In Protection of Built Environment Against Earthquakes, Dolsek M (ed.). Springer: Dordrecht, 2011.
25. Vamvatsikos D, De Luca F. Matlab software for near-optimal piecewise linear approximation of static pushover capacity curves. Available at: http://users.ntua.gr/divamva/software/bundle_fitSPO.zip [last access date June 2012].
26. Massey FJ. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1951; 46:68-78.