Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings
Current time: 09-19-2018, 01:55 PM
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: TAFATNEB
Last Post: andersen3
Replies 1
Views 1664

Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings
#1
Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings

Author: A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai | Size: 0.88 MB | Format: PDF | Quality: Unspecified | Publisher: ngineering Structures 23 (2001) 407–424 | Year: 2001 | pages: 18

[Image: 33754749126756432301.png]


[Image: info.png]

Owing to the simplicity of inelastic static pushover analysis compared to inelastic dynamic analysis, the study of this technique
has been the subject of many investigations in recent years. In this paper, the validity and the applicability of this technique are
assessed by comparison with ‘dynamic pushover’ idealised envelopes obtained from incremental dynamic collapse analysis. This
is undertaken using natural and artificial earthquake records imposed on 12 RC buildings of different characteristics. This involves
successive scaling and application of each accelerogram followed by assessment of the maximum response, up to the achievement of the structural collapse. The results of over one hundred inelastic dynamic analyses using a detailed 2D modelling approach for each of the twelve RC buildings have been utilised to develop the dynamic pushover envelopes and compare these with the static pushover results with different load patterns. Good correlation is obtained between the calculated idealised envelopes of the dynamic analyses and static pushover results for a defined class of structure. Where discrepancies were observed, extensive investigations based on Fourier amplitude analysis of the response were undertaken and conservative assumptions were recommended.

[Image: mirror.png]
***************************************
Content of this section is hidden, You must be registered and activate your account to see this content. See this link to read how you can remove this limitation:

http://forum.civilea.com/thread-27464.html
***************************************



[-] The following 7 users say Thank You to TAFATNEB for this post:
  • rezart, ting tsai huang, blaze, malc, gulilero, ykhackhack, Batman07
Reply
#2
direct link
***************************************
Content of this section is hidden, You must be registered and activate your account to see this content. See this link to read how you can remove this limitation:

http://forum.civilea.com/thread-27464.html
***************************************

[-] The following 4 users say Thank You to andersen3 for this post:
  • ykhackhack, vardan, faros3000, Batman07
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Pushover Analysis of I-5 RAVENNA Bridge TAFATNEB 0 1,243 08-14-2014, 09:26 AM
Last Post: TAFATNEB
Comparison of Static and Dynamic Pushover Analysis in Assessment of the Target Displa TAFATNEB 0 966 08-10-2014, 03:42 PM
Last Post: TAFATNEB
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF DAMAGED BUILDINGS: A COMPARISON OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC NONLINEAR A TAFATNEB 0 924 08-10-2014, 03:06 PM
Last Post: TAFATNEB
Comparison between Static and Dynamic Analysis of Elevated Water Tank” TAFATNEB 0 1,214 05-10-2014, 10:18 AM
Last Post: TAFATNEB
Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss –Part II: Ap TAFATNEB 0 1,106 05-09-2014, 03:00 PM
Last Post: TAFATNEB



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)