Assessment of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures in FEMA-440
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 133, Issue 9
Abstract
Nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) presented in the FEMA-440 document are evaluated for nondegrading three- to nine-story reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame systems. Evaluations are based on peak single-degree-of-freedom displacement, peak roof, and interstory drifts estimations. A total of 78 soil site records and 24 buildings with fundamental periods varying between are used in 2,832 linear and nonlinear response-history analyses to derive the descriptive statistics. The moment magnitude of the ground motions varies between 5.7 and 7.6. All records are within of the causative fault representing near-fault ground motions with and without pulse signals. The statistics presented suggest that lateral loading patterns used in pushover analysis to idealize the building systems play a role in the accuracy of NSPs investigated. Both procedures yield fairly good deformation demand estimations on the median. Displacement coefficient method (DCM) tends to overestimate the global deformation demands with respect to the capacity spectrum method (CSM). The conservative deformation demand estimations of DCM are correlated with the normalized lateral strength ratio, . The CSM tends to overestimate the deformation demands for the increasing displacement ductility, .
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey under Award No. 104M567. The comments of three anonymous reviewers significantly improved the technical essence and presentation quality of this article. Records used in this study were downloaded from the COSMOS website. Professors A. Erberik and G. Özcebe gave valuable information about the influence of lateral loading patterns on global capacity envelopes.
References
Akkar, S., and Özen, Ö. (2005). “Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands for SDOF systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34, 1551–1571.
Akkar, S. D., and Miranda, E. (2005). “Statistical evaluation of approximate methods for estimating maximum deformation demands on existing structures.” J. Struct. Eng., 131(1), 160–172.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2000). “Prestandard and commentary on the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. No. FEMA 356, Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1996). “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings.” Rep. No. ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, Calif.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (2005). “Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures.” Rep. No. FEMA-440, Washington, D.C.
Bray, J. D., and Rodriguez-Marek, A. (2004). “Characterization of forward directivity ground motions in the near-fault region.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 24, 815–828.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). (1997). “NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. FEMA-273 (Guidelines) and Rep. FEMA-274 (Commentary), Washington, D.C.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). (2003). “NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures.” Rep. No. FEMA-450, Washington, D.C.
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., 130(9), 1309–1319.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K. (2000a). “Building period formulas for estimating seismic displacements.” Earthquake Spectra, 16(2), 533–536.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K. (2000b). “Evaluation of NSP to estimate seismic deformation: SDF systems.” J. Struct. Eng., 126(4), 482–490.
Giovenale, P., Cornell, C. A., and Esteva, L. (2004). “Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 33, 951–975.
Guyader, A. C., and Iwan, W. D. (2006). “Determining equivalent linear parameters for use in a capacity spectrum method of analysis.” J. Struct. Eng., 132(1), 59–67.
Kazaz, İ., Yakut, A., and Gülkan, P. (2006). “Seismic response assessment of a stiff structure.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35, 737–759.
Kent, D. C., and Park, R. (1971). “Flexural members with confined concrete.” J. Struct. Div., 97(7), 1969–1990.
Miranda, E., and Akkar, S. D. (2002). “Evaluation of approximate methods to estimate target displacements in nonlinear static procedures.” Proc., 4th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Rep. No. PEER-2002/21, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, 75–86.
Mwafy, A. M. (2001). “Seismic performance of code designed RC buildings.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London.
Ruiz-García, J., and Miranda, E. (2003). “Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 32, 1237–1258.
Valles, R. E., Reinhorn, A. M., Kunnath, S. K., Li, C., and Madan, A. (1996). “IDARC-2D version 4.0: A program for the inelastic damage analysis of buildings.” Rep. No. NCEER 96-0010, State University of New York at Buffalo, N.Y.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 133 • Issue 9 • September 2007
Pages: 1237 - 1246
Copyright
© 2007 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 12, 2006
Accepted: Feb 27, 2007
Published online: Sep 1, 2007
Published in print: Sep 2007
Notes
Note. Associate Editor: Rakesh K. Goel
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.