8 vues

Transféré par Anonymous ILEgXdW2

ninlinear analysis

- 09 Fujii Paper
- Soil Structure Interaction Effects on Seismic Performance of Multi-Story RC Buildings with and without Shear Wall
- OJCE_2016042519030475.pdf
- Design Maps Detailed Report
- [Extract] Racking Deformation Angle vs. Story Drift Ratio - From CTBUH (2008) Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings
- Notes ASCE07-10 Seismic Provision Not Yet Finished
- 51 Taiwan Code
- Final Thesis Print
- Chandra Sekar an 2006
- KSSC_3_2008_8_3_205(C)
- Advanced Seismic Design of Buildings for the Resilient City
- FEMA 440- SSI Provisions)
- Chapter 4
- Soil structure interaction effects on seismic response of multistory buildings on Raft Foundation.pdf
- Drifts Limits
- Most Critical Vertical Irregularity
- FEA Tutorials MA1
- Steel Analysis File
- Pengguna pembaca layar
- 2014-Amin Ali Amar Ahfid-ETAB Non-linear

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures

26-27 August, Thessaloniki, Greece

Paper No. 41

Peter FAJFAR

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering

Jamova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, SLOVENIA

Damjan MARUI

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering

Jamova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, SLOVENIA

Iztok PERU

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering

Jamova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, SLOVENIA

ABSTRACT

The paper deals with the extension of the N2 method to asymmetric building structures,

represented by a 3D structural model. The results of recent parametric studies suggest that in

the majority of cases an upper limit for torsional effects can be estimated by a linear dynamic

(spectral) analysis. Based on this observation, it is proposed that the results obtained by

pushover analysis of a 3D structural model be combined with the results of a linear dynamic

(spectral) analysis. The former results control the target displacements and the distribution of

deformations along the height of the building, whereas the latter results define the torsional

amplifications. In the paper, first the theoretical background of the transformation of a 3D

MDOF model to an equivalent SDOF model is given. Then, the proposed extended N2

method is summarized and applied to a test example of an asymmetric three-storey reinforced

concrete frame (SPEAR) building. The results are compared with results of nonlinear

dynamic time-history analyses.

INTRODUCTION

Simplified methods for seismic analysis based on nonlinear static (pushover) analysis

represent a relatively simple and efficient tool for seismic assessment of structures. They have

become very popular in research and also in application. Originally, all methods were limited

to planar structural models. Recently, attempts have been made to extend the applicability of

simplified methods to asymmetric structures, which require a 3D analysis, e.g. [1], [2], [3],

[4], [5] and [6].

One of simplified nonlinear methods is the N2 method ([7], [8], [9]), which has been

implemented in Eurocode 8 (Annex B of Part 1). In the N2 method, seismic demand is

determined from inelastic spectra and depends on the period of the idealized equivalent SDOF

system. The transformation from the MDOF to an equivalent SDOF system is based on the

assumption of a time-invariant displacement shape. This assumption represents the major

limitation of the applicability of the method. It works well in the case of planar structural

models with small influence of higher modes. In the case of asymmetric building structures,

represented by a 3D structural model, several modes may substantially contribute to the

response and the torsional effects may not be properly taken into account by a straightforward

extension of the N2 method to 3D models, used in some earlier publication by the authors

([10], [11], [12], [13]). The results of recent parametric studies suggest that in the majority of

cases an upper limit for torsional effects can be estimated by a linear dynamic (spectral)

analysis ([14], [15]). Based on this observation, it has been proposed that the results obtained

by pushover analysis of a 3D structural model be combined with the results of a linear

dynamic (spectral) analysis [16]. The former results control the target displacements and the

distribution of deformations along the height of the building, whereas the latter results define

the torsional amplifications. The same or a similar approach for the estimation of torsional

effects can be applied to other pushover-based methods.

A combination of linear dynamic and pushover analyses has also been used by Tso and

Moghadam [17] and Moghadam and Tso [18]. However, in their method the target

displacements for different substructures (e.g. planar frames or walls) are determined by the

3D elastic dynamic analysis of the model representing the whole structure. 2D pushover

analyses of most critical substructures are then performed.

In the paper, the proposed extended N2 method is summarized and applied to a test example

of an asymmetric three-storey reinforced concrete frame building (SPEAR building,

pseudo-dynamically tested in full-scale in ELSA). The results are compared with results of

nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses.

DESCRIPTION OF THE N2 METHOD

In this chapter, the steps of the simple version of the N2 method, extended to asymmetric

structures, are described. A simple version of the spectrum for the reduction factor is applied.

It should be noted, however, that the suggested procedures used in particular steps of the

method can be easily replaced by other available procedures. Additional information on the

N2 method can be found in [9] (planar version) and [10] (extended version).

Step 1: Data

A 3-D model of the building structure is used. The floor diaphragms are assumed to be rigid

in the horizontal plane. The number of degrees of freedom is three times the number of

storeys N. The degrees of freedom are grouped in three sub-vectors, representing

displacements at the storey levels in the horizontal directions x and y, and torsional rotations

UT = [UxT, UyT, UzT].

In addition to the data needed for the usual elastic analysis, the non-linear force - deformation

relationships for structural elements under monotonic loading are also required. The most

common element model is the beam element with concentrated plasticity at both ends. A

bilinear or trilinear moment - rotation relationship is usually used.

spectrum Sae (pseudo will be omitted in the following text), in which spectral accelerations

are given as a function of the natural period of the structure T. In principle, any spectrum can

be used. However, the most convenient is a spectrum of the Newmark-Hall type. The

specified damping coefficient is taken into account in the spectrum.

Step 2: Seismic Demand in AD Format

Starting from the usual acceleration spectrum (acceleration versus period), inelastic spectra in

acceleration displacement (AD) format can be determined. For an elastic SDOF system, the

following relation applies

S de =

T2

4 2

(1)

S ae

where Sae and Sde are the values in the elastic acceleration and displacement spectrum,

respectively, corresponding to the period T and a fixed viscous damping ratio.

For an inelastic SDOF system with a bilinear force - deformation relationship, the

acceleration spectrum (Sa) and the displacement spectrum (Sd) can be determined as

S ae

R

(2)

T2

T2

S

=

Sa

S de =

ae

R

R 4 2

4 2

(3)

Sa =

Sd =

where is the ductility factor defined as the ratio between the maximum displacement and the

yield displacement, and R is the reduction factor due to ductility, i.e., due to the hysteretic

energy dissipation of ductile structures. Note that R is not equivalent to the reduction factor R

used in seismic codes. The code reduction factor R, which is in Eurocode 8 called behaviour

factor q, takes into account both energy dissipation and the so-called overstrength Rs. It can be

defined as R = R Rs.

Several proposals have been made for the reduction factor R. In the simple version of the N2

method, we will make use of a bilinear spectrum for the reduction factor R

R = ( 1)

T

+1

TC

R =

T < TC

T TC

(4)

(5)

where TC is the characteristic period of the ground motion. It is typically (e.g. in Eurocode 8)

defined as the transition period where the constant acceleration segment of the response

spectrum (the short-period range) passes to the constant velocity segment of the spectrum (the

medium-period range). Eqs 3 and 5 suggest that, in the medium- and long-period ranges, the

equal displacement rule applies, i.e., the displacement of the inelastic system is equal to the

displacement of the corresponding elastic system with the same period.

Starting from the elastic design spectrum, and using Eqs 3 to 5, the demand spectra for the

constant ductility factors in AD format can be obtained. They represent inelastic demand

spectra. It should be noted that the construction of these spectra is in fact not needed in the

computational procedure. They just help for the visualisation of the procedure.

Step 3: Pushover Analysis

Using a pushover analysis, a characteristic non-linear force - displacement relationship of the

MDOF system can be determined. In principle, any force and displacement can be chosen.

Usually, base shear and roof (top) displacement are used as representative of force and

displacement, respectively. The selection of an appropriate lateral load distribution is an

important step within the pushover analysis. A unique solution does not exist. Fortunately, the

range of reasonable assumptions is usually relatively narrow and, within this range, different

assumptions produce similar results. One practical possibility is to use two different

displacement shapes (load patterns) and to envelope the results.

Lateral loads are applied in mass centres of different storeys. The vector of the lateral loads P,

which generally consists of components in three directions (forces in the x and y direction and

torsional moments) is determined as

P=p=pM

(6)

where M is the mass matrix. The magnitude of the lateral loads is controlled by p. The

distribution of lateral loads is related to the assumed displacement shape . (Note that the

displacement shape is needed only for the transformation from the MDOF to the equivalent

SDOF system in Step 4). Consequently, the assumed load and displacement shapes are not

mutually independent as in the majority of other pushover analysis approaches. The procedure

can start either by assuming displacement shape and determining lateral load distribution

according to Eq 6, or by assuming lateral load distribution and determining displacement

shape from Eq 6. Note that Eq 6 does not present any restriction regarding the distribution

of lateral loads.

Generally, can consist of non-zero components in three directions (two horizontal

directions and of torsional rotation). In such a case (coupled displacement shape) lateral loads

also consist of components in three directions. The procedure can be substantially simplified

if lateral loads are applied in one direction only. This is a special case that requires that also

the assumed displacement shape has non-zero components in one direction only, e.g.

(7)

This special case is used in the proposed extended version of the N2 method. It should be

noted, however, that even in this special case of uncoupled assumed displacement shape, the

resulting displacements, determined by a pushover analysis of an asymmetric structure, will

be coupled, i.e. they will have components in three directions.

From Eqs 6 and 7 it follows that the lateral force in the x-direction at the i-th level is

proportional to the component x,i of the assumed displacement shape x, weighted by the

storey mass mi

Px,i = p mi x,i

(8)

Such a relation has a physical background: if the assumed displacement shape was equal to

the mode shape and constant during ground shaking, i.e. if the structural behaviour was

elastic, then the distribution of lateral forces would be equal to the distribution of effective

earthquake forces and Eq 6 was exact. In inelastic range, the displacement shape changes

with time and Eq 6 represents an approximation. Nevertheless, by assuming related lateral

forces and displacements according to Eq 6, the transformation from the MDOF to the

equivalent SDOF system and vice-versa (Steps 4 and 6) follows from simple mathematics not

only in elastic but also in inelastic range. No additional approximations are required, as in the

case of some other simplified procedures.

In the proposed method, lateral loading, determined according to Eqs 6 and 7, is applied

independently in two horizontal directions, in each direction with + and - sign.

Step 4: Equivalent SDOF Model and Capacity Curve

In the N2 method, seismic demand is determined by using response spectra. Inelastic

behaviour is taken into account explicitly. Consequently, the structure should, in principle, be

modelled as a SDOF system. Different procedures have been used to determine the

characteristics of an equivalent SDOF system. One of them, used in the current version of the

N2 method, is summarized below.

The starting point is the equation of motion of a 3D structural model (with 3N degrees of

freedom) representing a multi-storey building (damping is not taken into account because it

will be included in the spectrum)

+ R = M s a

MU

(9)

and s is a vector defining the direction of ground motion. In the case of uni-directional ground

motion, e.g. in the direction x, the vector s consists of one unit sub-vector and of two subvectors equal to 0.

sT = [1T, 0T, 0T ]

(10)

Consequently, two separate analyses have to be performed with two different s vectors

(vector (10) and a similar vector that corresponds to the ground excitation in the y-direction).

A derivation, presented in [10] yields the following formulas.

The displacement and force of the equivalent SDOF system D* and F* are defined as

D* =

Dt

F* =

(11), (12)

V = p T M s = pm *

(13)

is the base shear of the MDOF model in the direction of ground motion. m* is the equivalent

mass of the SDOF system

m* = T M s

(14)

The constant controls the transformation from the MDOF to the SDOF model and viceversa. It is defined as

T M s m*

= T

=

M L*

(15)

Note that m* depends on the direction of ground motion. Consequently, , D*, and F* also

depend on the direction of ground motion. In the case of ground motion in one (x) direction

(Eq 10) and assuming a simple uncoupled displacement shape (Eq 7), the following equations

apply

m*x =

m

i

x ,i

Vx = pmi x ,i = Px ,i

=

m

m

i

i

x ,i

2

x ,i

(16)

(17)

(18)

transformation from the MDOF to the SDOF system and vice versa is exactly the same as in

the case of a planar structure.

is usually called the modal participation factor. Note that the assumed displacement shape

is normalized the value at the top is equal to 1. Note also that any reasonable shape can be

used for . As a special case, the elastic first mode shape can be assumed.

The same constant applies for the transformation of both displacements and forces (Eqs 11

and 12). As a consequence, the force - displacement relationship determined for the MDOF

system (the V - Dt diagram) applies also to the equivalent SDOF system (the F* - D* diagram),

provided that both force and displacement are divided by .

In order to determine a simplified (elastic - perfectly plastic) force displacement relationship

for the equivalent SDOF system, engineering judgement has to be used. In regulatory

documents some guidelines may be given. In Annex B of Eurocode 8 [19] the bilinear

idealization is based on the equal energy principle. Note that the displacement demand

depends on the equivalent stiffness which, in the case of the equal energy approach, depends

on the target displacement. In principle, an iterative approach is needed, in which a target

displacement is assumed, the bilinear idealization is made and the target displacement is

determined. This value is then used then as the new approximation for target displacement.

According to Eurocode 8, the displacement at the formation of plastic mechanism can be used

as the initial approximation for target displacement. Iteration is allowed but not required.

The graphical procedure (visualization), used in the simple N2 method, requires that the postyield stiffness is equal to zero. This is because the reduction factor R is defined as the ratio of

the required elastic strength to the yield strength. The influence of a moderate strain hardening

is incorporated in the demand spectra. It should be emphasized that moderate strain hardening

does not have a significant influence on displacement demand, and that the proposed spectra

approximately apply for systems with zero or small strain-hardening.

The elastic period of the idealized bilinear system T* can be determined as

m* D *y

T = 2

*

Fy*

(19)

where Fy* and D*y are the yield strength and displacement, respectively.

Note that, alternatively, first the bilinear idealization of the pushover curve can be made and

then the transformation to the equivalent SDOF system can be made. The same equations

apply.

Finally, the capacity diagram in AD format is obtained by dividing the forces in the force deformation (F* - D*) diagram by the equivalent mass m*

Sa =

F

m*

(20)

The procedure is applied for both horizontal directions, in each direction with + and - sign.

Step 5: Seismic Demand for the Equivalent SDOF System

The determination of the seismic demand for the equivalent SDOF system is illustrated in

Fig. 1 (for medium- and long-period structures, for which the equal displacement rule

applies; for short-period structures see e.g. [9]). Both the demand spectra and the capacity

diagram have been plotted in the same graph. The intersection of the radial line corresponding

to the elastic period T* of the idealized bilinear system with the elastic demand spectrum

defines the acceleration demand (strength), required for elastic behaviour Sae, and the

corresponding elastic displacement demand Sde. The yield acceleration Say represents both the

acceleration demand and the capacity of the inelastic system. The reduction factor R can be

determined as the ratio between the accelerations corresponding to the elastic and inelastic

systems

R =

( )

S ae T

S ay

(21)

Note that R is not the same as the reduction (behaviour, response modification) factor R used

in seismic codes. The code reduction factor R takes into account both energy dissipation and

the so-called overstrength. The design acceleration Sad is typically smaller than the yield

acceleration Say.

If the elastic period T* is larger than or equal to TC, the inelastic displacement demand Sd is

equal to the elastic displacement demand Sde (see Eqs 3 and 5, and Fig. 1). From triangles in

Fig. 1 it follows that the ductility demand, defined as = Sd / D y , is equal to R

Sd = Sde (T*)

T* TC

(22)

= R

(23)

Sa

T*

Sae

= 1 (elastic)

Say

Sad

Dd* Dy*

Sd = Sde

Sd

If the elastic period of the system is smaller than TC, the ductility demand can be calculated

from the rearranged Eq 4

= (R 1)

TC

+1

T

T* < TC

(24)

The displacement demand can be determined either from the definition of ductility or from

Eqs 3 and 24 as

S d = D y =

S de

T

1 + (R 1) C

R

T

(25)

In both cases ( T < TC and T TC ) the inelastic demand in terms of accelerations and

displacements corresponds to the intersection point of the capacity diagram with the demand

spectrum corresponding to the ductility demand . At this point, the ductility factor

determined from the capacity diagram and the ductility factor associated with the intersecting

demand spectrum are equal.

All steps in the procedure can be performed numerically without using the graph. However,

visualization of the procedure may help in better understanding the relations between the

basic quantities. Two additional quantities are shown in Fig. 1. Sad represents a typical design

strength, i.e. strength required by codes for ductile structures, and Dd* is the corresponding

displacement obtained by linear analysis.

The procedure is applied in two horizontal directions, in each direction with + and - sign.

Usually, the results obtained for both signs are similar. In such a case, the larger value of two

values, obtained for + and sign, can used as the target displacement (displacement demand

at CM) in each horizontal direction. Alternatively, the complete analysis can be performed for

both signs and the envelopes of all relevant quantities can be taken as the end result.

Step 6: Global Seismic Demand for the MDOF Model

The displacement demand for the SDOF model Sd is transformed into the maximum top

displacement Dt of the MDOF system (target displacement) by using Eq 11.

Step 7: Determination of Torsional Effects

Torsional effects are determined by a linear modal analysis of the 3D mathematical model,

independently for excitation in two horizontal directions and combining the results according

to the SRSS rule.

Step 8: Local Seismic Demand for the MDOF Model

Under monotonically increasing lateral loads with a fixed pattern (as in Step 3), the structure

is pushed to Dt. It is assumed that the distribution of deformations throughout the height of

the structure in the static (pushover) analysis approximately corresponds to that which would

be obtained in the dynamic analyses. Separate 3D pushover analyses are performed in two

horizontal directions.

The correction factors to be applied to the relevant results of pushover analyses are

determined. The correction factor is defined as the ratio between the normalized roof

displacements obtained by elastic modal analysis and by pushover analysis. The normalized

roof displacement is the roof displacement at an arbitrary location divided by the roof

displacement at the CM. If the normalized roof displacement obtained by elastic modal

analysis is smaller than 1.0, the value 1.0 is used, i.e. no de-amplification due to torsion is

taken into account. Correction factors are defined for each horizontal direction separately.

Note that the correction factor depends on the location in the plan. All relevant quantities

obtained by pushover analyses are multiplied with appropriate correction factors. For

example, in a perimeter frame parallel to the X-axis, all quantities are multiplied with the

correction factor determined with pushover results obtained for loading in the X-direction

and for the location of this frame. The relevant quantities are, for example, deformations for

the ductile elements, which are expected to yield, and the stresses for brittle elements, which

are expected to remain in the elastic range.

Step 9: Performance Evaluation (Damage Analysis)

Expected performance can be assessed by comparing the seismic demands, determined in

Step 8, with the capacities for the relevant performance level. The determination of seismic

capacity is not discussed in this paper. Global performance can be visualized by comparing

displacement capacity and demand.

The test structure represents a typical older three-storey reinforced concrete frame building

(Fig. 2a). The storey heights amount to 3.0 meters. The structure was experimentally and

numerically investigated in the SPEAR project (www.strulab.civil.upatras.gr/spear/). In the

analyses, presented in this paper, a model developed before the tests (the final pre-test

model, the details of the model will be presented elsewhere) was used. The CANNY

program [20] was employed. The mathematical model consists of beam elements. Flexural

behaviour of beams was modelled by one-component lumped plasticity elements, composed

of elastic beam and two inelastic rotational hinges. Rotational hinges were defined with the

tri-linear moment-rotation envelope, which includes pre-crack, post-crack and post-yield

parts, and Takedas hysteretic rules (Cross-peak trilinear model CP3) in time-history analysis.

The plastic hinge was used for the major-axis bending only. For flexural behaviour of

columns also a one-component lumped plasticity model was used, with two independent

plastic hinges for bending about the two principal axes. The eccentricities between the mass

centres and approximate stiffness centres amount to about 10 % and 14 % in the X- and Ydirections, respectively. The total mass of the structure amounts to 195 tons. The three

fundamental periods of vibration of the building (considering some inelastic deformations cracks due to gravity load), amount to 0.63 s, 0.58 s, and 0.45 s. The first mode is

predominantly in the X-direction, the second predominantly in the Y-direction, whereas the

third mode is predominantly torsional.

1.0

CM

X2,1

X2,2

Acceleration [g]

X3

Spectrum

EC8

Mean XY

0.5

X1,2

X1,1

0.0

9.7

SPEAR building.

T [s]

5% damping and the elastic spectrum

according to EC8 Type 1 Soil C; ag = 0.3 g.

In dynamic analyses, bi-directional semi-artificial ground motion records were used. The

horizontal components of seven recorded ground motions were fitted to the EC8 elastic design

spectrum (Type 1, soil C, Fig. 2b). The ground motions were scaled to peak ground

acceleration ag = 0.3. For each record 8 different combinations of directions and signs of

components were applied. In modal analysis, which provides results needed for the

determination of the torsional influences in the N2 method, the same EC8 spectra were

applied in both horizontal directions. Five percent damping was used in all analyses. In time-

history analysis Reyleigh damping (with instantaneous stiffness matrix) was applied. The P-

effect was not taken into account.

Analysis by the extended N2 Method

Pushover analyses were performed in two horizontal directions with lateral loads based on the

fundamental mode shapes in the relevant direction, i.e. x-components of the first mode shape

were used in X-direction, and y-components of the second mode shape were used in Ydirection. Loading was applied with + and sign. The results of pushover analyses are shown

in Fig.3. Iteration was used for determination of the bilinear idealization of pushover curves,

as described in Step 4 of the procedure. (Note that in the test example the alternative with the

idealization of the pushover curve for the MDOF system was used.) The idealized force

displacement relationships are plotted in Fig.3.

X-direction

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Y-direction

10 12 14 16

10 12 14 16

Figure 3: Pushover curves and bilinear idealizations for loading with + and - sign.

Sa [g]

X-direction

Y-direction

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

6 8

Sd [cm]

10 12 14 16 18 0

6 8

Sd [cm]

10 12 14 16 18

Figure 4: Elastic and inelastic demand spectra and capacity curves (for loading with +

and sign).

The capacity curves and the elastic and inelastic demand spectra are shown in Fig.4. In both

horizontal directions, larger displacement demands apply to the loading with the + sign. For

the equivalent SDOF system they amount to 12.8 and 11.1 cm in X- and Y- direction,

respectively, whereas the corresponding top displacements of the MDOF system in CM

amount to 15.8 and 14.2 cm. The displacement ductility demands (regarding the yield point of

the idealized bilinear systems) amount to about 2.5 in both directions.

Torsional effects in terms of normalized roof displacements determined by the proposed

extension of the N2 method are presented in Fig. 5. The N2 results are compared with the

results of elastic modal (spectral) analysis, non-linear time-history analysis for ag = 0.30 g,

and pushover analysis.

X-direction

Y-direction

1.5

Time-history

u/uCM

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

Mean

Mean +

Envelope

N2

Modal

Pushover

Stiff

CM

Flex.

Stiff

CM

Flex.

method, by modal analysis, by time-history analysis (mean, mean + sigma values and

envelope) and by pushover analysis.

u [cm]

X-direction

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Y-direction

Time-history

Mean

Mean +

Envelope

N2

Stiff

CM

Flex.

Stiff

CM

Flex.

Figure 6: Displacement (in plane) at the top of the building obtained by N2 and

time-history analyses.

The static analysis suggested that some cracks (non-linear deformations) occurred already due

to gravity loads. This state was assumed as the initial (elastic) state of the building, and the

modes of vibration of the building in such a condition were taken into account for the modal

analysis. Modal analysis was performed independently for the loading in both horizontal

directions, using the CQC rule for the combination of different modes, which is considered

appropriate for structures with closely spaced modes. The results of analyses for both

directions were combined by the SRSS rule.

According to the proposed extension of the N2 method, the results of elastic modal analysis

are used to determine the torsional effect, provided that amplification due to torsion occurs.

Consequently, the N2 results coincide with the line obtained by elastic modal analysis on the

stiff side. No de-amplification due to torsion is allowed in the N2 method. So a constant value

of 1.0 applies on the stiff side of the building. If compared with the mean results of nonlinear

time-history analyses, the proposed N2 approach is conservative. The N2 results are close to

mean+ values. However, it should be noted that the torsional effects are in general higher if

the ground motion intensity is lower (see [16]). Moreover, some particular ground motions

can produce very high torsional influences, as demonstrated by the envelope of results.

A pushover analysis with forces applied in the centre of masses at each floor at the same

target displacement yields very small torsional rotations. According to the proposed extension

of the N2 method, the results of pushover analysis are corrected by multiplying them by the

ratio between the N2 normalized displacements and normalized displacements obtained by

pushover analyses. The correction factors amount to 1.29, 1.22, 1.21 for columns and beams

in the frames Y3,1, Y3,2, and X3, respectively. For other frames the factors are small (from

1.00 to 1.05).

X-direction

Storey

Stiff edge(X1)

Centre (X2,2)

Time-history

Mean

Mean +

Envelope

2

1

Y-direction

Stiff edge(Y1)

N2

Centre (Y2)

Flex. edge(Y3,1)

3

2

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4

6 8 10

Figure 7: Storey drifts obtained by the N2 method and time-history analysis.

Absolute values of roof displacements are plotted in Fig.6. The N2 displacements in CM are

34 % and 23 % larger than the mean values obtained by time-history analysis and are larger

than the mean +. Note, however, that the standard deviation of the sample of accelerograms

is very small because all accelerograms are fitted to the same spectrum. In the case of

recorded accelerograms, the coefficient of variation for displacements usually amounts to

about 0.3. On the other hand, the idealization of the pushover curve according to EC8 is

conservative, i.e. leading to a low effective stiffness and high effective period.

Storey drifts in different frames are shown in Fig.7. The distribution of drifts along the height

of the building obtained by the N2 method is comparable with the distribution obtained by

nonlinear dynamic analysis. The N2 drift estimates are conservative with the exception of the

top storey in X-direction.

The seismic assessment of the structure, which is made by comparing demand with capacity,

is not discussed in this paper.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural response to strong earthquake ground motion cannot be accurately predicted due to

large uncertainties and the randomness of structural properties and ground motion parameters.

Consequently, excessive sophistication in structural analysis is not warranted. The N2

method, like some other simplified non-linear methods, provides a tool for a rational yet

practical evaluation procedure for building structures for multiple performance objectives.

The formulation of the method in the acceleration displacement format enables the visual

interpretation of the procedure and of the relations between the basic quantities controlling the

seismic response. This feature is attractive to designers. Of course, the N2 method is, like any

approximate method, subject to several limitations (see, e.g. [9]).

In this paper, the extended N2 method, which can be used for analysis of plan-asymmetric

building structures, has been summarized and applied to a test example. The transformation of

the MDOF to the equivalent SDOF system can be performed by the same equation as in the

case of planar systems. The consideration of the torsional effects is based on two

observations:

The torsional amplification of displacements determined by elastic dynamic analysis can

be used as a rough, mostly conservative estimate also in the inelastic range.

Any favourable torsional effect on the stiff side, i.e. any reduction of displacements

compared to the counterpart symmetric building, which may arise from elastic analysis,

will probably decrease or may even disappear in the inelastic range.

The results obtained by the proposed procedure are influenced both by nonlinear static

(pushover) and elastic dynamic analysis. Displacement demand (amplitude and the

distribution along the height) at the mass centres is determined by the usual N2 method,

which is based on pushover analysis. The amplification of demand due to torsion is

determined by elastic dynamic analysis, while reduction of demand due to torsion is not taken

into account. Such an approach yields in most cases a conservative estimate of torsional

influences. Note, however, that inelastic torsion is characterized by large inherent randomness

and uncertainty.

In the case of the test structure analyzed in this paper, a comparison with results of dynamic

analyses suggests that the N2 results are conservative. The conservatism originates both from

the determination of the target displacement at the mass centre and from the determination of

torsional effects. Note that the accuracy of the estimated target displacement depends

considerably on the bilinear idealization of the pushover curve, which controls the initial

period of the idealized equivalent SDOF system.

REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Ayala, A. G., and Tavera, E. A. (2002). A new approach for the evaluation of the

seismic performance of asymmetric buildings. Proc., 7th Nat. Conf. on Earthquake

Engineering, EERI, Boston.

Aydinoglu, M. N. (2003). An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure

based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance

evaluation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1(1), 3-36.

Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K. (2004). A modal pushover analysis procedure to

estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthquake Engineering

and Structural Dynamics, 33(8), 903-927.

Fujii, K., Nakano, Y., and Sanada, Y. (2004). Simplified nonlinear analysis procedure

for asymmetric buildings Proc., 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 149.

Yu, Q. S. K., Pugliesi, R., Allen, M., and Bischoff, C. (2004). Assessment of modal

pushover analysis procedure and its application to seismic evaluation of existing

building. Proc., 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,

Canada, Paper No. 1104.

Zrate, A., and Ayala, A. G. (2004). Validation of single storey models for the

evaluation of seismic performance of multi-storey asymmetric buildings Proc., 13th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 2213.

Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. (1988). N2 A method for non-linear seismic analysis

of regular buildings. Proc., 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Tokyo, Kyoto, Vol.5, 111-116.

Fajfar, P., and Gaperi, P. (1996). The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis

of RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25, 23-67.

Fajfar, P. (2000). A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic

design. Earthquake Spectra, 16(3), 573-592.

Fajfar, P. (2002). Structural analysis in earthquake engineering - a breakthrough of

simplified non-linear methods, Proc., 12th European Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, London, UK, Keynote lecture.

Fajfar, P., Kilar, V., Marui, D., Peru, I., and Magliulo, G. (2002). The extension of

the N2 method to asymmetric buildings. Proc., 4th forum on Implications of recent

earthquakes on seismic risk. Technical report TIT/EERG, 02/1, Tokyo Institute of

Technology, Tokyo, 291-308.

Fajfar, P., Magliulo, G., Marui, D., and Peru, I. (2002). Simplified non-linear

analysis of asymmetric buildings. Proc., 3rd European workshop on the seismic

behaviour of irregular and complex structures, De Stefano, M. and Rutenberg, A.

(eds.), Florence, Italy.

Kilar, V., and Fajfar, P. (2002), Seismic analysis of eccentric R/C buildings by the

N2 method. Proc., 3rd European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and

complex structures, De Stefano, M. and Rutenberg, A. (eds.), Florence, Italy.

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

Peru, I., and Fajfar, P. (2005). On the inelastic torsional response of single-storey

structures under bi-axial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, 34(8).

Marui, D., and Fajfar, P. (2005). On the inelastic seismic response of asymmetric

buildings under bi-axial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, 34(8).

Fajfar, P., Marui, D., and Peru, I. (2005). Torsional effects in the pushover-based

seismic analysis of buildings. J. Earthquake Engr., to be published.

Tso, W. K., and Moghadam, A. S. (1997). Seismic response of asymmetrical

buildings using pushover analysis. Proc., International Workshop on Seismic Design

Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar, P. and Krawinkler, H. (eds.),

Bled, Slovenia, A.A. Balkema, Roterdam, Brookfield, 311-321.

Moghadam, A. S., and Tso, W. K. (2000). 3-D pushover analysis for damage

assessment of buildings. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering

(Tehran), 2(3), 23-31.

CEN (2004). Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1,

European standard EN 1998-1, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization,

December 2004.

Li, K. N. [2002] 3-dimensional nonlinear static and dynamic structural analysis

computer program CANNY 99, CANNY Consultants Pte Ltd., Singapore.

- 09 Fujii PaperTransféré parAmnart Khampanit
- Soil Structure Interaction Effects on Seismic Performance of Multi-Story RC Buildings with and without Shear WallTransféré parIJRASETPublications
- OJCE_2016042519030475.pdfTransféré parIngeniero Estructural
- Design Maps Detailed ReportTransféré parAlo
- [Extract] Racking Deformation Angle vs. Story Drift Ratio - From CTBUH (2008) Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise BuildingsTransféré parO S
- Notes ASCE07-10 Seismic Provision Not Yet FinishedTransféré partamerragaa
- 51 Taiwan CodeTransféré parTirza Paramitha
- Final Thesis PrintTransféré parRajaram Chenna
- Chandra Sekar an 2006Transféré parparth daxini
- KSSC_3_2008_8_3_205(C)Transféré parYati Aggarwal
- Advanced Seismic Design of Buildings for the Resilient CityTransféré parReivax50
- FEMA 440- SSI Provisions)Transféré paraltarzakov
- Chapter 4Transféré parSrinivasan Narasimhan
- Soil structure interaction effects on seismic response of multistory buildings on Raft Foundation.pdfTransféré parBala Subramanian
- Drifts LimitsTransféré parNoman Ali
- Most Critical Vertical IrregularityTransféré parLuisito Sta. Ines
- FEA Tutorials MA1Transféré parphanoanhgtvt
- Steel Analysis FileTransféré parJayChristian Quimson
- Pengguna pembaca layarTransféré pardafa051
- 2014-Amin Ali Amar Ahfid-ETAB Non-linearTransféré parShivaji Sarvade
- DETERMINATION OF STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITY LIMITS – MASS IRREGULARITY EXAMPLETransféré parnick93
- SUMARRY BLOQUE1Transféré parRyu Rey Roger
- ColaTeric BetainesTransféré parmndmatt
- howto5Transféré parSrikar Avr
- Computing Seismic Loads Using Dynamic AnalysisTransféré parbobos
- Pushbloque 1Transféré parRyu Rey Roger
- Shock.xlsxTransféré parSam George
- TOWER_ 20170622_tulTransféré parDwi Prasetyo
- CASA 03Transféré parlazabaches
- Nano 3420Transféré parReddyvari Venugopal

- CHM3010+module+thermodynamic-ansTransféré parnur hashimah
- CompressorsTransféré parMike Finazzi
- COLORIMETER.pdfTransféré parEnrique Vidal
- strategic management-chapter2Transféré parOceanus Hyori
- Hucama Organisational Kpi White Paper UkTransféré partonypaulohutabarat
- US Internal Revenue Service: p15Transféré parIRS
- A Survey of Demonetization of Rs 500 and 1000 NotesTransféré parMaheshSrikakulam
- Business Systems AnalystTransféré parapi-78357108
- SEIS01Transféré parBobby Wsk
- Norway Malaysia Business Directory PDFTransféré parThiwakkaran Muagan
- Polymer Flood Aplication ReportTransféré parMohamedSadek
- Build Your Cloud Business OPN Session THT7663Transféré parHector Albarran Contreras
- Acca Afm s18 NotesTransféré parUsman Maqsood
- Song Bung 4 Hydro Power Project, TA No. 4625-VIETransféré parpramods_8
- Inside Network Perimeter Security-Packet FilteringTransféré parMihai Darstaru
- Rou Partd 2016-12 Offshore dTransféré parJuniorJavier Olivo Farrera
- Using Coils for Extending WorkloadTransféré parMorosanu Andreea-Diana
- Bfm Murugan McqsTransféré parHanumantha Rao Turlapati
- An Attempt to Simulate the Bowing Phenomenon in Tenter With Simple MethodsTransféré parFilthynotes
- ADuM2210_2211Transféré parBalu Samy
- Deabb 5171 16 EnTransféré parThameemul Buhari
- 10174B ENU TrainerHandbook Volume2Transféré parIsrael Lerma Hernández
- G.O.Ms.No.229 M.A. dt.16.4.94Transféré parRaghu Ram
- zoll m series.pdfTransféré parJan Pasten
- El Paso Scene May 2019Transféré parRandy Limbird
- History of DanceTransféré parAlshaif DonDx
- 120366-2004-Central Bank Employees Association Inc. V.Transféré parJanna Salvacion
- DWH Quiz2 With AnswersTransféré parSwapna
- Cover Letter ConsultancyTransféré parravi_ajmera
- Rail-a.pdfTransféré parRay Gong