A Critical Evaluation of the Coefficient Method, Capacity Spectrum Method and Modal Pushover Analysis for Irregular Steel Buildings in Seismic Zones

Öz

Classical design procedures are less advantageous than performance-based seismic design (PBSD) of buildings, which is included in existing standards such as ASCE 41-23 for new buildings or retrofitting. PBSD requires accurate assessment of building seismic responses. Such assessments can be done using either faster nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) or more time-intensive nonlinear time-history analyses (NTHAs). However, the reliability of NSPs can be questionable, as shown by previous research. Practitioners need to conduct further investigations to determine safety margins and the applicability scope of these methods. This is especially important for irregular buildings and near-fault zones. This problem is investigated in this paper by first using 1250 single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems to evaluate the ASCE 41-23’s coefficient method and performing 25000 NTHAs for near- and far-fault records. Second, the responses obtained from two alternative approaches, the modal pushover analysis (MPA) and FEMA 440’s capacity spectrum method (CSM), are compared with NTHA responses for buildings with significant higher-mode effects. American standards are used to design 96 3D symmetric and asymmetric steel moment-resisting frame (MRF) buildings with different characteristics such as lateral, lateral-torsional, and torsional modes of vibration dominance as well as different stability conditions, which are considered in this paper. The MPA and CSM are compared with NTHAs in this paper. The results show that the ASCE 41-23’s coefficient method is unreliable for near-fault zones and that the MPA and CSM are unreliable for seismic evaluation of buildings with dominant lateral-torsional modes of vibration or significant P-Δ effects. The results also revealed that MPA is a conservative approach for seismic evaluation of torsionally dominant buildings while CSM is not.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nonlinear static procedure
• modal pushover analysis
• capacity spectrum method
• performance-based seismic design
• irregular buildings
• near-fault earthquakes

Kaynakça

1. V. Mokarram, A novel PSO-based multi-objective optimization methodology toward NTH analysis-based design of steel structures, PhD Dissertation, Shiraz University, 2018.
2. V. Mokarram, M.R. Banan, An improved multi-objective optimization approach for performance-based design of structures using nonlinear time-history analyses, Appl Soft Comput 73 (2018) 647–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2018.08.048.
3. FEMA 356, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington, D.C., 2000.
4. FEMA 440, Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Washington, D.C., 2005.
5. ASCE/SEI 41-23, ASCE standard ASCE/SEI 41-23 Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2023.
6. FEMA 273, NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington, D.C., 1997.
7. P. Fajfar, A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design, Earthquake Spectra 16 (2000) 573–592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128.
8. P. Fajfar, M. Fischinger, N2-A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings, in: Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, 1988: pp. 111–116.

9. A.K. Chopra, R.K. Goel, A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33 (2004) 903–927. https://doi.org/10.1002/EQE.380.
10. A.K. Chopra, R.K. Goel, A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31 (2002) 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/EQE.144.
11. T.S. Jan, M.W. Liu, C. Kao Ying Chieh, An upper-bound pushover analysis procedure for estimating the seismic demands of high-rise buildings, Eng Struct 26 (2004) 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2003.09.003.
12. E. Kalkan, S.K. Kunnath, Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures, Journal of Structural Engineering 132 (2006) 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:11(1721).
13. C. Casarotti, R. Pinho, An adaptive capacity spectrum method for assessment of bridges subjected to earthquake action, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 5 (2007) 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-007-9031-8/METRICS.
14. M. Poursha, F. Khoshnoudian, A.S. Moghadam, A consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings, Eng Struct 31 (2009) 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2008.10.009.
15. H. Sucuoǧlu, M.S. Günay, Generalized force vectors for multi-mode pushover analysis, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40 (2011) 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/EQE.1020.
16. M. Zarrin, A. Daei, T. Heydary, A simplified normalized multi-mode nonlinear static procedure (NMP) for seismic performance evaluation of building structures, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19 (2021) 5711–5741. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-021-01185-Y/METRICS.
17. E. Kalkan, S.K. Kunnath, Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings, Eng Struct 29 (2007) 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2006.04.012.
18. R. Bento, C. Bhatt, R. Pinho, Using nonlinear static procedures for seismic assessment of the 3D irregular SPEAR building, Earthquakes and Structures 1 (2010) 177–195.
19. R. Pinho, M. Marques, R. Monteiro, C. Casarotti, R. Delgado, Evaluation of nonlinear static procedures in the assessment of building frames, Earthquake Spectra 29 (2013) 1459–1476. https://doi.org/10.1193/100910EQS169M.
20. M. Fragiadakis, D. Vamvatsikos, M. Aschheim, Application of nonlinear static procedures for the seismic assessment of regular RC moment frame buildings, Earthquake Spectra 30 (2014) 767–794. https://doi.org/10.1193/111511EQS281M.
21. R. Allahvirdizadeh, Y. Gholipour, Reliability evaluation of predicted structural performances using nonlinear static analysis, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15 (2017) 2129–2148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0062-x.
22. R. Gonzalez-Drigo, J. Avila-Haro, L.G. Pujades, A.H. Barbat, Non-linear static procedures applied to high-rise residential URM buildings, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15 (2017) 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9951-2.
23. S. Marino, S. Cattari, S. Lagomarsino, Are the nonlinear static procedures feasible for the seismic assessment of irregular existing masonry buildings?, Eng Struct 200 (2019) 109700. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2019.109700.
24. S. Ruggieri, G. Uva, Accounting for the spatial variability of seismic motion in the pushover analysis of regular and irregular RC buildings in the new Italian building code, Buildings 2020, Vol. 10, Page 177 10 (2020) 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/BUILDINGS10100177.
25. A. Daei, M. Poursha, On the accuracy of enhanced pushover procedures for seismic performance evaluation of code-conforming RC moment-resisting frame buildings subjected to pulse-like and non-pulse-like excitations, Structures 32 (2021) 929–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISTRUC.2021.03.035.
26. M. Ferraioli, Dynamic increase factor for nonlinear static analysis of RC frame buildings against progressive collapse, International Journal of Civil Engineering 17 (2019) 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0253-0.
27. K. Ke, F. Wang, M.C.H. Yam, L. Deng, Y. He, A multi-stage-based nonlinear static procedure for estimating seismic demands of steel MRFs equipped with steel slit walls, Eng Struct 183 (2019) 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2019.01.029.
28. R. Couto, M. V. Requena-García-Cruz, R. Bento, A. Morales-Esteban, Seismic capacity and vulnerability assessment considering ageing effects: case study—three local Portuguese RC buildings, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19 (2021) 6591–6614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00955-4.
29. J. Wang, X. Wang, A. Ye, Z. Guan, Deformation-based pushover analysis method for transverse seismic assessment of inverted Y-shaped pylons in kilometer-span cable-stayed bridges: Formulation and application to a case study, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 169 (2023) 107874. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2023.107874.
30. T. Rossetto, C. De la Barra, C. Petrone, J.C. De la Llera, J. Vásquez, M. Baiguera, Comparative assessment of nonlinear static and dynamic methods for analysing building response under sequential earthquake and tsunami, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48 (2019) 867–887. https://doi.org/10.1002/EQE.3167.
31. M. Bhandari, S.D. Bharti, M.K. Shrimali, T.K. Datta, Seismic fragility analysis of base-isolated building frames excited by near- and far-field earthquakes, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 33 (2019) 04019029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001298.
32. V. Mokarram, M.R. Banan, M.R. Banan, Reliability of the maximum displacement ratio in nonlinear static procedure for near-fault sites, in: International Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Management in Iran, Tehran, Iran, 2018: pp. 1–6. https://civilica.com/doc/846835/ (accessed August 25, 2023).
33. H. Bilgin, M. Hysenlliu, Comparison of near and far-fault ground motion effects on low and mid-rise masonry buildings, Journal of Building Engineering 30 (2020) 101248. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2020.101248.
34. A. Mortezaei, H.R. Ronagh, A. Kheyroddin, G.G. Amiri, Effectiveness of modified pushover analysis procedure for the estimation of seismic demands of buildings subjected to near-fault earthquakes having forward directivity, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 20 (2011) 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1002/TAL.553.
35. A.V. Bergami, G. Fiorentino, D. Lavorato, B. Briseghella, C. Nuti, Application of the incremental modal pushover analysis to bridges subjected to near-fault ground motions, Applied Sciences 2020, Vol. 10, Page 6738 10 (2020) 6738. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP10196738.
36. A. Asıkoğlu, G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço, Overview on the nonlinear static procedures and performance-based approach on modern unreinforced masonry buildings with structural irregularity, Buildings 2021, Vol. 11, Page 147 11 (2021) 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/BUILDINGS11040147.
37. P.K. Das, S.C. Dutta, T.K. Datta, Seismic behavior of plan and vertically irregular structures: state of art and future challenges, Nat Hazards Rev 22 (2020) 04020062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000440.
38. F.A. Najam, Nonlinear static analysis procedures for seismic performance evaluation of existing buildings – evolution and issues, Sustainable Civil Infrastructures (2018) 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61914-9_15/FIGURES/9.
39. W.M. Hassan, J.C. Reyes, Assessment of modal pushover analysis for mid-rise concrete buildings with and without viscous dampers, Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2019.101103.
40. D.G. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading, Journal of Structural Engineering 137 (2011) 1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000376.
41. F. Zareian, R.A. Medina, A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems, Comput Struct 88 (2010) 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.08.001.
42. S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, The open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees) user command-language manual, (2006).
43. D.G. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, A steel database for component deterioration of tubular hollow square steel columns under varying axial load for collapse assessment of steel structures under earthquakes, in: 7th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering (7CUEE) & 5th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering (5ICEE) Conf. on Urban Earthquake Engineering (7CUEE), Tokyo: Center for Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology., 2010.
44. D.G. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations, Report No. 177, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2012.
45. J.F. Hall, Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35 (2006) 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.541.
46. L. Petrini, C. Maggi, M.J.N. Priestley, G.M. Calvi, Experimental verification of viscous damping modeling for inelastic time history analyzes, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12 (2008) 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460801925822.
47. V. Mokarram, M.R. Banan, Modeling considerations for performance based seismic design of steel moment resisting frames, in: International Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Management in Iran, Tehran, Iran, 2018: pp. 1–14. https://civilica.com/doc/846834/.
48. ASCE/SEI 7-22, ASCE standard ASCE/SEI 7-22 Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2022.
49. ANSI/AISC 360-22, ANSI/AISC 360-22 An American national standard specification for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2022.
50. A. Neuenhofer, F.C. Filippou, Evaluation of nonlinear frame finite-element models, Journal of Structural Engineering 123 (1997) 958–966. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:7(958).
51. B.N. Alemdar, D.W. White, Displacement, flexibility, and mixed beam–column finite element formulations for distributed plasticity analysis, Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (2005) 1811–1819. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:12(1811).
52. S.M. Kostic, F.C. Filippou, Section discretization of fiber beam-column elements for cyclic inelastic response, Journal of Structural Engineering 138 (2012) 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000501.