Welcome to Open Science
Contact Us
Home Books Journals Submission Open Science Join Us News
A Comparative Assessment of Existing Structure by Performance Based Analyses
Current Issue
Volume 1, 2014
Issue 1 (March)
Pages: 1-6   |   Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2014   |   Follow on         
Paper in PDF Downloads: 78   Since Aug. 28, 2015 Views: 1921   Since Aug. 28, 2015
Authors
[1]
Ali Demir , Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
[2]
Hakan Başaran , Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
[3]
Muhiddin Bağci , Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
Abstract
There have been tremendous losses of lives due to recent earthquakes which can largely be attributed to colossal damages incurred in the structures Therefore, several non-linear models have been developed to determine seismic performance of structures accurately and to minimize damages. Even though nonlinear time history analysis is the best method for determining seismic demands, FEMA-356, FEMA-440 and ATC-40 non-linear static method or displacement analysis has been suggested. Our study addressed Turkish Earthquake Code 2007, ATC 40 and FEMA 440 capacity spectrum method; FEMA 356 and FEMA 440 Displacement Coefficient Method. Moreover, non-linear dynamic analysis was applied to already present structures and its accordance with pushover analysis was investigated. Differences observed due to different methods were reported. For numerical analysis, reinforced concrete 3, 5 or 7 stories structures having A3 inconsistencies were studied. Incremental static pushover analysis and capacity curves of structures subjected to the same earthquake effects were carried out and earthquake demands for 7 different real earthquake data were calculated by using non-linear dynamic analysis and by drawing performance point versus time history. Finally, results obtained by non-linear static analysis and non-linear dynamic analysis were compared.
Keywords
Performance Based Analyses, Capacity Spectrum Method, Displacement Coefficient Method, Capacity Spectrum
Reference
[1]
Shibata, A., and Sozen, M. A. (1976), “Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C”, Journal of the Structural Division, 102(1), 1–18.
[2]
Saiidi M, Sozen MA., (1981), “Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures”, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 107(ST5):937–51.
[3]
Mwafy, A.M., Elnashai A.S., (2001), Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings, Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424.
[4]
Kalkan., E and Kunnath, SK., (2007), Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings, Engineering Structures, 29, 305–316.
[5]
Tuncer, O., Celep, Z., Yılmaz, M.B., (2007), A Comparative Evaluation Of The Methods Given In the Turkish Seismic Code, WCCE–ECCE– TCCE Joint Conference: EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI.
[6]
Erdem, RT., Bağcı, M. and Demir, A., (2011), “A Comparative Evaluation Of Performance Based Analysis Procedures According To 2007 Turkish Earthquake Code And Fema-440”, Mathematical and Computational Applications, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 605-616.
[7]
Fardis, M. N., (2013), “Performance- and displacement-based seismic design and assessment of concrete structures in fib Model Code 2010”, Structural Concrete, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.215-229.
[8]
Malekpour, S. and Dashti, F., (2013), “Application of the Direct Displacement Based Design Methodology for Different Types of RC Structural Systems”, International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, Vol.7, No.2, pp.135–153.
[9]
Golghate, K., Baradiya, V., Sharma, A., (2013), “Pushover Analysis of 4 Storey’s Reinforced Concrete Building”, International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2 No.3, pp.80-84.
[10]
Akberuddin, M.A.A. and Saleemuddin, M.Z.M., (2013), “Pushover Analysis of Medium Rise Multi-Story RCC Frame With and Without Vertical Irregularity, Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 3, No.5, pp.540-546.
[11]
ATC-40, (1996), Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings vols. 1–2. California. Applied Technology Council.
[12]
FEMA-356, (2000), Prestandard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington.
[13]
FEMA-440, (2004), Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Washington (DC).
[14]
TEC 2007, Specifications for buildings to be built in seismic areas. Turkish Earthquake Code 2007). Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. Ankara. (Turkey).
[15]
Kappos, A.J., Kyriakakis, P., (2000), A re-evaluation of scaling techniques for natural records, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 111-123.
[16]
Bardakis, V.G, Dritsos, S.E., (2007), Evaluating assumptions for seismic assessment of existing buildings, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223–233.
[17]
Inel, M., Ozmen, H.B., Bilgin, H., (2008) “Re-evaluation of building damage during recent earthquakes in Turkey”, Engineering Structures 30 -412–427.
[18]
PEER, “Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center”, web page, peer.berkeley.edu
Open Science Scholarly Journals
Open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, Open Science Journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
CONTACT US
Office Address:
228 Park Ave., S#45956, New York, NY 10003
Phone: +(001)(347)535 0661
E-mail:
LET'S GET IN TOUCH
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
SEND MASSAGE
Copyright © 2013-, Open Science Publishers - All Rights Reserved