Direct Estimation of Seismic Demand and Capacity of Multidegree-of-Freedom Systems through Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Single Degree of Freedom Approximation1
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 131, Issue 4
Abstract
Introducing a fast and accurate method to estimate the seismic demand and capacity of first-mode-dominated multidegree-of-freedom systems in regions ranging from near-elastic to global collapse. This is made possible by exploiting the connection between the static pushover (SPO) and the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). While the computer-intensive IDA would require several nonlinear dynamic analyses under multiple suitably scaled ground motion records, the simpler SPO helps approximate the multidegree-of-freedom system with a single-degree-of-freedom oscillator whose backbone matches the structure’s SPO curve far beyond its peak. Similar methodologies exist but they usually employ oscillators with a bilinear backbone. In contrast, the empirical equations implemented in the static pushover 2 incremental dynamic analysis (SPO2IDA) software allow the use of a complex quadrilinear backbone shape. Thus, the entire summarized IDA curves of the resulting system are effortlessly generated, enabling an engineer-user to obtain accurate estimates of seismic demands and capacities for limit-states such as immediate occupancy or global dynamic instability. Using three multistory buildings as case studies, the methodology is favorably compared to the full IDA.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgment
Financial support for this research was provided by the sponsors of the Reliability of Marine Structures Affiliates Program of Stanford University.
References
Al-Sulaimani, G. J., and Roessett, J. M. (1985). “Design spectra for degrading systems.” J. Struct. Eng., 111(12), 2611–2623.
Antoniou, S., Pinho, R., and Rovithakis, A. (2002). “Development and verification of a fully adaptive pushover procedure.” Proc., 12th European Conf. Earthquake Engineering London, 1–10.
Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C. A. (1994). “Seismic hazard analysis for non-linear structures. II: Applications.” J. Struct. Eng., 120(11), 3345–3365.
Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., and Foutch, D. A. (2002). “The probabilistic basis for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines.” J. Struct. Eng., 128(4), 526–533.
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap, Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York.
Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. (1988). “N2—A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular structures.” Proc., 9th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, 111–116.
Fajfar, P., and Gaspersic, P. (1996). “The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis for RC buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25(1), 23–67.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1997). “NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. No. FEMA-273, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000). “Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings.” Rep. No. FEMA-350, SAC Joint Venture, Washington, D.C.
Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S. K. (2000). “Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures.” Earthquake Spectra, 16(2), 367–391.
Jalayer, F., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). “A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity factor (DCFD) seismic formats.” Rep. No. RMS-43, RMS Program, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). “Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evalation.” Eng. Struct.,20(4–6), 452–464.
Lee, K., and Foutch, D. A. (2002). “Performance evaluation of new steel frame buildings for seismic loads.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 653–670.
Luco, N., and Cornell, C. A. (2000). “Effects of connection fractures on SMRF seismic drift demands.” J. Struct. Eng., 126(1), 127–136.
Miranda, E. (2000). “Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites.” J. Struct. Eng., 126(10), 1150–1159.
Nassar, A. A., and Krawinkler, H. (1991). “Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems.” Rep. No. 95, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
Vamvatsikos, D. (2002). “SPO2IDA software for short, moderate and long periods.” ⟨http://tremble.stanford.edu/nausika/software/spo2ida-allt.xls⟩ (Feb. 12, 2004).
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). “Incremental dynamic analysis.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491–514.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2004). “Applied incremental dynamic analysis.” Earthquake Spectra, 20(2), 523–553.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2005). “Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through incremental dynamic analysis.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., to be published
Veletsos, A. S., and Newmark, N. M. (1960). “Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions.” Proc., 2nd World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, 895–912.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2005 ASCE.
History
Received: Dec 9, 2002
Accepted: Jun 10, 2004
Published online: Apr 1, 2005
Published in print: Apr 2005
Notes
Based on a short paper presented at the 5th European Conference on Structural Dynamics EURODYN 2002, Munich, Germany, 2002.
Note. Associate Editor: Andrei M. Reinhorn
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.