Evaluation of ASCE-41, ATC-40 and N2 static pushover methods based on optimally designed buildings

Lagaros, ND; Fragiadakis, M

dc.contributor.author	Lagaros, ND	en
dc.contributor.author	Fragiadakis, M	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:35:39Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:35:39Z
dc.date.issued	2011	en
dc.identifier.issn	0267-7261	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/21143
dc.subject	Capacity Spectrum Method	en
dc.subject	Comparative Study	en
dc.subject	Life Cycle Cost	en
dc.subject	Nonlinear Response	en
dc.subject	Optimal Algorithm	en
dc.subject	Optimal Design	en
dc.subject	Performance Assessment	en
dc.subject	Performance Based Design	en
dc.subject	Reinforced Concrete	en
dc.subject	Seismic Design	en
dc.subject	Static and Dynamic Analysis	en
dc.subject	Incremental Dynamic Analysis	en
dc.subject	Lower Bound	en
dc.subject.classification	Engineering, Geological	en
dc.subject.classification	Geosciences, Multidisciplinary	en
dc.subject.other	Alternative approach	en
dc.subject.other	Analysis method	en
dc.subject.other	Capacity spectrum method	en
dc.subject.other	Coefficient methods	en
dc.subject.other	Comparative studies	en
dc.subject.other	Computational tools	en
dc.subject.other	Damage costs	en
dc.subject.other	Design life	en
dc.subject.other	Drift demands	en
dc.subject.other	Eurocode 8	en
dc.subject.other	Existing structure	en
dc.subject.other	Incremental dynamic analysis	en
dc.subject.other	Lifecycle costs	en
dc.subject.other	Lower bounds	en
dc.subject.other	N2 method	en
dc.subject.other	New structures	en
dc.subject.other	Nonlinear response history analysis	en
dc.subject.other	Optimization algorithms	en
dc.subject.other	Optimum performance	en
dc.subject.other	Performance assessment	en
dc.subject.other	Pros and cons	en
dc.subject.other	Pushover method	en
dc.subject.other	Research studies	en
dc.subject.other	Static and dynamic analysis	en
dc.subject.other	Concrete buildings	en
dc.subject.other	Concrete construction	en
dc.subject.other	Dynamic analysis	en
dc.subject.other	Laws and legislation	en
dc.subject.other	Reinforced concrete	en
dc.subject.other	Seismic design	en
dc.subject.other	Design	en
dc.subject.other	algorithm	en
dc.subject.other	building	en
dc.subject.other	displacement	en
dc.subject.other	dynamic analysis	en
dc.subject.other	dynamic response	en
dc.subject.other	earthquake engineering	en
dc.subject.other	optimization	en
dc.subject.other	reinforced concrete	en
dc.subject.other	seismic design	en
dc.title	Evaluation of ASCE-41, ATC-40 and N2 static pushover methods based on optimally designed buildings	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.identifier.primary	10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.08.007	en
heal.identifier.secondary	http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.08.007	en
heal.language	English	en
heal.publicationDate	2011	en
heal.abstract	Alternative static pushover methods for the seismic design of new structures are assessed with the aid of advanced computational tools. The current state-of-practice static pushover methods as suggested in the provisions of European and American regulations are implemented in this comparative study. In particular the static pushover methods are: the displacement coefficient method of ASCE-41, the ATC-40 capacity spectrum method and the N2 method of Eurocode 8. Such analysis methods are typically recommended for the performance assessment of existing structures, and therefore most of the existing comparative studies are focused on the performance of one or more structures. Therefore, contrary to previous research studies, we use static pushover methods to perform design and we then compare the capacity of the outcome designs with reference to the results of nonlinear response history analysis. This alternative approach pinpoints the pros and cons of each method since the discrepancies between static and dynamic analysis are propagated to the properties of the final structure. All methods are implemented in an optimum performance-based design framework to obtain the lower-bound designs for two regular and two irregular reinforced concrete building configurations. The outcome designs are compared with respect to the maximum interstorey drift and maximum roof drift demand obtained with the Incremental Dynamic Analysis method. To allow the comparison, also the life-cycle cost of each design is calculated; i.e. a parameter that is used to measure the damage cost due to future earthquakes that will occur during the design life of the structure. The problem of finding the lower bound designs is handled with an Evolutionary type optimization algorithm. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.	en
heal.publisher	ELSEVIER SCI LTD	en
heal.journalName	Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.08.007	en
dc.identifier.isi	ISI:000283686100007	en
dc.identifier.volume	31	en
dc.identifier.issue	1	en
dc.identifier.spage	77	en
dc.identifier.epage	90	en