Cardone2007 PDF

This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds]
On: 21 November 2014, At: 07:52

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Nonlinear Static Methods vs.

Experimental Shaking Table Test Results
a
Donatello Cardone
a
Department of Structures, Geotechnics and Applied Geology ,
University of Basilicata , Potenza, Italy
Published online: 29 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Donatello Cardone (2007) Nonlinear Static Methods vs. Experimental
Shaking Table Test Results, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11:6, 847-875, DOI:
10.1080/13632460601173938
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460601173938
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11:847–875, 2007
Copyright © A.S. Elnashai & N.N. Ambraseys
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632460601173938
Nonlinear Static Methods vs. Experimental

1559-808X
1363-2469
UEQE
Journal of Earthquake Engineering
Engineering, Vol. 0, No. 0, May 2007: pp. 0–0
Shaking Table Test Results
DONATELLO CARDONE
Nonlinear
D. CardoneStatic Methods vs. Experimental Results
Department of Structures, Geotechnics and Applied Geology,

University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
Three different Nonlinear Static Methods (NSM’s), based on pushover analysis, are applied to a 3-story,
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 07:52 21 November 2014
2-bay, RC frame. They are (i) the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), described in ATC-40, (ii) the
Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM), presented in FEMA-273 and further developed in FEMA
356, and (iii) the N2 Method, implemented in the Eurocode 8. Pushover analyses are conducted with
DRAIN-3DX by using four different lateral force distributions, according to the acceleration profile
assumed along the height of the structure: uniform, triangular, modal-proportional, and multimodal
fully adaptive. In the numerical model, RC members are modeled as fiber elements.
The numerical predictions of each method are compared to the experimental results of the
shaking table tests carried out on two similar 1:3.3-scale structural models, with and without
infilled masonry panels, respectively. The comparison is made in terms of maximum story displace-
ments, interstory drifts, and shear forces. All the NSM’s are found to predict with adequate accuracy
the maximum seismic response of the structure, provided that the associated parameters are prop-
erly estimated. The lateral load pattern, instead, is found to little affect the accuracy of the results
for the three-story model considered, even if collapse occurs with a soft story mechanism.
Keywords Pushover Analysis; Capacity Spectrum Method; Displacement Coefficient Method;

Inelastic Demand Spectra; Shaking Table Tests
1. Introduction
In recent years, a new generation of simplified nonlinear methods for the design and the
seismic assessment of buildings has been developed. All the methods combine the push-
over analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) model with the response spectrum
analysis of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, to provide an estima-
tion of the global displacement response of structures that exhibit nonlinear behavior
under strong earthquakes. The main Nonlinear Static Methods (NSM’s) are: (i) the so-
called Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), originally proposed by Freeman [1978] and
then adopted by ATC-40 [1996]; (ii) the Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM),
presented in FEMA-273 [1997] and then further developed in FEMA 356 [2000]; and
(iii) the N2 Method [Fajfar, 2000], which has been recently implemented in the Eurocode
8 [CEN, 2001].
The common feature of NSM’s is the use of a pushover analysis (POA) to character-
ize the nonlinear behavior of a structure. The applicability of NSM’s is mainly limited by
the implicit assumptions in POA [Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998]. Thus, recent
attempts to improve NSM’s basically consist in improvements of POA, to account for the
Received 15 May 2006; accepted 14 December 2006.

Address correspondence to Dr. Donatello Cardone, DiSGG – University of Basilicata, Macchia Romana
Campus, 85100 Potenza, Italy; E-mail: donatello.cardone@unibas.it
847
848 D. Cardone
contributions of higher modes [Chopra and Goel, 2002; Sasaki et al., 1998; Gupta and
Kunnath, 2000] and/or the redistribution of inertia forces due to possible story mecha-
nisms through adaptive force distributions [Bracci et al., 1997; Satyarno et al., 1998;
Elnashai, 2001; Requena and Ayala, 2000]. A multimodal fully adaptive pushover proce-
dure has been proposed by Antoniou et al. [2002] and Antoniou and Pinho [2004a]. In this
procedure, the lateral force distribution is continuously updated during the process,
according to the modal shapes and participation factors derived by eigenvalue analysis
carried out at each analysis step. More recently, the same authors proposed an improved
version of their adaptive pushover procedure, based on the use of a displacement rather
than force loading vector [Antoniou and Pinho, 2004b; Pinho et al., 2006].
The most important difference among the Nonlinear Static Methods consists in the
definition of the Demand Curve. Appropriately reduced and standard 5%-damped (for R/
C structures) elastic response spectra are considered by CSM and by DCM, respectively,
while the latest version of the N2 method makes use of inelastic spectra.
Several numerical studies [Albanesi et al., 2002; Zamfirescu and Fajfar, 2001; Bento
et al., 2004; Kim and D’Amore, 1999; Faella and Kilar, 1999; Lawson et al. 1994; Mwafy
and Elnashai, 2000] proved that NSP’s lead to good estimates of seismic demands, when the
structural response is actually governed by the fundamental mode and the inelastic action is
distributed throughout the height of the structures (i.e., for symmetric low-rise and medium-
rise buildings). The global quantities (i.e., top displacement and base shear) are generally
predicted with more accuracy than the local ones (e.g., plastic rotations at member ends).
Comparisons with experimental results have also been carried out, to assess the
degree of reliability of NSM’s. However, they were limited to single structural elements
(e.g., R/C columns) [Lin et al., 2004] or to a few pseudodynamic tests on full-scale R/C
frame [Falcao and Bento, 2002].
In this article the results of an extensive program of shaking table tests on two similar
1:3.3-scale R/C frames, with and without infilled masonry panels, are considered [Dolce
et al., 2005] and compared to the predictions of the three above-mentioned NSM’s. Five
tests of increasing intensity (PGA from 0.08 g to about 0.6 g) were carried out on the
model without infills and six tests (with PGA from 0.08 g to about 0.9 g) on the model
with infills. The comparison between numerical predictions and experimental results is
made in terms of maximum story displacements, interstory drifts, and story shears.
2. Overview of Nonlinear Static Methods

Nonlinear Static Methods (NSM’s) are simplified procedures in which the problem of
evaluating the maximum response of a building under strong earthquakes is converted into
that of estimating the maximum displacement of an equivalent SDOF system which
approximate the MDOF behavior of the real structure. The term “Nonlinear” is used to
indicate that various structural elements (or components) are described through a nonlin-
ear mathematical model. The term “Static” is used to point out that the characteristic
capacity curve of the real structure is obtained through POA [Lawson et al., 1994; Fajfar,
1996], in which a suitable distribution of lateral forces or displacements are statically (i.e.
slowly) applied to the structure and the displacement of a specific point in the structure is
monitored and related to the force variation. Various lateral force patterns have been pro-
posed and adopted in POA, ranging from the simple uniform and inverted triangular distri-
butions to the more sophisticated modal or multi-modal distributions [ATC, 1996; FEMA,
1997; FEMA, 2000; Chopra and Goel, 2002]. Fully adaptive force distributions that
attempt to follow more closely the time-variant distribution of inertia forces have been
lately proposed [Gupta and Kunnath, 2000; Elnashai, 2001; Antoniou et al., 2002].
Nonlinear Static Methods vs. Experimental Results 849
In the NSM’s, the Demand Curve is described by either elastic or inelastic response
spectra, representative of the expected ground motions. The seismic performance of the
structure (typically expressed in terms of maximum top displacement and maximum base
shear) is evaluated by comparing, in a proper format, the Demand Curve with a suitable
schematization of the Capacity Curve.
Three of the main NSM’s developed in the past have been applied in this study,
namely: (i) the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) [ATC, 1996]; (ii) the Displacement
Coefficient Method (DCM) [FEMA, 2000]; and (iii) the N2 Method [Fajfar, 2000]. In the
following subparagraphs, the basic features of such procedures are briefly reviewed. For
each method, the criteria followed in the selection of the optimal parameters are discussed.
2.1. Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM)

The CSM provides an estimate of the Performance Point (PP) of a structure, as defined by
the maximum roof displacement and maximum base shear experienced by the structure
during a given earthquake. It uses an iterative procedure, that considers a sequence of
equivalent linear SDOF systems. The capacity of the structure is directly compared to the
seismic demand in the so-called Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS)
format, in which spectral acceleration vs. spectral displacements are plotted, with periods
represented by radial lines passing through the origin of the axes [ATC, 1996].
The capacity curve is converted to spectral coordinates by dividing the top displace-
ment by the first modal participation factor at the top of the structure (i.e., G1 ⋅ φ1N ) and the
base shear by the effective modal mass of the fundamental vibration mode (i.e., M1* ). Both
G1 and M1* are a function of the floor masses (mj) and of the first modal shape (F1). The
latter can be obtained from modal analysis of an elastic MDOF model of the structure.
A bilinear representation of the Capacity Curve (CC) is then required, to easily esti-
mate the effective damping of the equivalent SDOF system. The slope of the elastic
branch of the bilinear representation of CC is taken equal to the initial stiffness (Ki) of the
structure. The post-elastic branch must satisfy two conditions: (i) passing through the
actual curve at the PP and (ii) having a slope such as the area below and above the curve
are approximately the same. An iterative procedure is then needed, as the bilinear idealiza-
tion of CC depends on the displacement demand.
The effective damping of the system (bef) is viewed as a combination of the viscous
damping inherent in the structure (bo, typically assumed equal to 5% for R/C structures)
and the equivalent hysteretic damping (beq):
bef = bo + k ⋅ beq . (1)
The equivalent hysteretic damping is calculated as [Chopra, 1995]:
WD
beq = (2)
4 ⋅ p ⋅ Ws
where WD is the energy dissipated by the equivalent SDOF system in the cycle of maxi-
mum amplitude and Ws is the associated maximum strain energy. The k-factor in Eq. (1)
plays a crucial role in the CSM. It is a measure of how much the actual hysteretic behavior
of the building differs from the theoretical elasto-plastic behavior. The k-factor depends
on the quality of the seismic resisting system and the duration of the ground motion. For
simplicity, ATC-40 distinguishes three categories of structures, types A, B, C, for which
850 D. Cardone
the k-factor assumes the values 1, 2/3, and 1/3, respectively, this latter corresponding to
poor hysteretic behaviors, with strong pinching effects.
The seismic demand is represented by highly damped elastic response spectra
(referred to as Demand Curves). They are obtained from the bo-damped elastic response
spectrum by means of appropriate reducing factors, which depend on bef. The intersection
between Capacity and Demand Curve provides an estimation of the Performance Point
(PP). Obviously, an iterative procedure is needed to estimate PP, as capacity and demand
are mutually related, through effective damping.
Finally, the coordinates of PP are re-converted to the maximum roof displacement
and maximum base shear by multiplying them by G1 ⋅ f1N and M1*, respectively.
2.2. Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM)

Unlike CSM, DCM provides a direct numerical procedure to estimate the performance
point of the structure, not requiring any conversion to the spectral format. Also in this
method, however, the base shear vs. top displacement curve obtained from POA is ideal-
ized by a bilinear relationship, with initial slope Ke and strain-hardening parameter a. The
post-yield segment passes through the actual curve at the calculated target displacement,
which requires an iterative procedure also for this method. Line segments on the idealized
force-displacement relation are located using an iterative graphical procedure that approx-
imately balances the areas above and below the two curves, like in CSM. The most impor-
tant difference with respect to CSM is that the slope of the first segment of the bilinear
curve is taken as the secant stiffness Ke (instead of the initial stiffness Ki), calculated for a
base shear equal to 60% of the effective yield strength of the structure [FEMA, 2000]. An
effective elastic period of vibration ( Te = Ti ⋅ K i K e ) is then defined and used to calcu-
late the maximum displacement of the equivalent linear SDOF system (de), through
response spectrum analysis. The maximum top displacement expected for the real struc-
ture (dt) is determined by adjusting the elastic displacement de with modification factors,
according to the following equation:
Te2
dt = C0 ⋅ C1 ⋅ C2 ⋅ C3 ⋅ de = C0 ⋅ C1 ⋅ C2 ⋅ C3 ⋅ Sae ⋅ (3)
4⋅ p2
where C0 relates the spectral displacement of the equivalent SDOF system to the top
displacement of the real building, C1 relates the maximum inelastic displacement to the
elastic one, C2 represents the effects of stiffness/strength degradation and pinching on the
maximum displacement, and C3 accounts for P-Δ effects. Equations and numerical values
for these coefficients are specified in the FEMA 273/356 guidelines [FEMA 1997; FEMA,
2000]. In Eq. (3), Sae represents the response spectrum acceleration for the effective elastic
period of vibration (Te) and the viscous damping ratio of the elastic structure (typically 5%
for R/C structures).
2.3. N2 Method
The N2 method can be considered a variant based on inelastic spectra [Fajfar, 1999] of the
CSM. The inelastic demand spectra are derived from “smoothed” elastic response spectra,
by applying a suitable reduction factor Rm, which depends on the hysteretic energy dissipa-
tion capacity of the structure and can be expressed as a function of its ductility factor m
and the elastic period of vibration T. Several formulations exist for the reduction factor Rm.
In this study, the approach of EC8 [CEN, 2001] has been followed, which makes use of a
bilinear relationship for Rm:
T
Rm = (m − 1) ⋅ +1 T < Tc (4)
Tc
Rm = m T ≥ Tc (5)
where Tc is the characteristic period of the ground motion, typically defined as that
corresponding to the transition from the acceleration-sensitive to the velocity-sensitive
region of the spectrum. Equations (4) and (5) are a slightly simplified form of the equa-
tions proposed by Vidic et al. [1994].
The capacity curve obtained from POA is transformed into that of an equivalent
SDOF system, similarly to CSM. The force-displacement relationship of the equivalent
SDOF system is then idealized as elastic-perfectly plastic, according to the equal energy
principle [Fajfar, 2000]. The elastic period of the idealized bilinear SDOF system is deter-
mined as:
m*
T * = 2π ⋅ (6)
k*
where m* = ∑ mi ⋅ f1i represents the mass of the equivalent SDOF system, k* the associ-
ated elastic stiffness, and F1 the normalized (F1top =1) first modal shape of the structure. T*
is used to derive Rm from Eqs. (4) and (5).
A graphical procedure similar to CSM could be adopted to determine the PP. In this
case, a number of inelastic demand spectra, corresponding to different ductility values, are
reported in the same graph with the idealized capacity curve. The yielding branch of the
capacity curve intersects the demand curve for different values of ductility. PP is deter-
mined by the intersection where the ductility factor calculated from the capacity curve
matches the ductility value associated with the demand curve. Actually, all the steps of the
procedure can be performed numerically without using any graph [Fajfar, 1999].
At the end of the calculations, the coordinates of PP are transformed back to maxi-
mum roof displacement and maximum base shear.
3. Testing Model and Experimental Results

The accuracy of NSM’s in estimating the maximum global response of R/C framed struc-
tures has been evaluated by comparing the numerical predictions of the three aforesaid
methods with the experimental results of a series of shaking table tests, carried out within
the Brite-Euram MANSIDE project [Dolce et al., 2005].
The shaking table tests were conducted on seven similar 1:3.3-scale R/C plane
frames, with and without masonry infills, under three different configurations: (i) fixed-
base moment-resisting frame, (ii) base-isolated frame, and (iii) frame equipped with spe-
cial braces. More details on the model configurations and passive control devices can be
found in the final report on the MANSIDE project [NSS, 1999]. In this study, only the two
fixed-base frames, with and without masonry infills, respectively, are considered. They
had the same geometrical characteristics and reinforcement detailing, with some minor
differences in the mechanical characteristics of the concrete material (e.g., compressive
852 D. Cardone
strength of about 35 MPa, after 28 days of curing, for the model w/o infills while about 43
MPa, after 90 days of curing, for the model with infills).
Figure 1 shows the general layout of the structural model under consideration. It rep-
resents a 3-story, 2-bay, R/C frame prototype with usual dimensions (3.5 m interstory
height, 5 m span length in the prototype scale).
The design of the full-scale prototype was made according to EC8 [CEN, 2001] and
EC2 [CEN, 1992]. Main design parameters were: soil type-B response spectrum, 0.15 g
peak ground acceleration (PGA), “low” ductility class for detailing, 2.5 behavior factor q,
C25/30 concrete, and S500 steel. The structural prototype was then scaled down by a 3.3
factor, in order to fully exploit the dimensions (4 m × 4 m) and the payload capacity (about
150 KN) of the seismic platform available at the Seismic Laboratory of the Technical
University of Athens, where tests were carried out.
Mass-similitude scaling required about 77.4 kN of added weight, made of steel blocks
anchored to each floor slab by threaded steel bars. Total weight of the model (foundation
beam excluded) was 97 kN, without infill, and about 106 kN with infills.
All the columns of the model had constant cross section (150 mm height by 105 mm
width) and the same steel reinforcement ((3+3) 4 mm diameter bars longitudinal rein-
forcement and 4 mm diameter hoops at 50 mm spacing transverse reinforcement) over the
height of the structure. Story beams had T-shaped cross section (90+60) mm height by
(50+105+50) mm width at all floors. The steel reinforcement of beams and columns was
designed with neither “capacity design” provisions nor special ductility detailing, accord-
ing to the EC8 requirements for low ductility structures. Therefore a weak column/strong
beam collapse scheme was expected to occur.
Each experimental model was subjected to two alternate series of tests, namely (1)
seismic tests and (2) characterization tests, always driving the shaking table only in the
longitudinal direction of the frame. The seismic tests were aimed at evaluating the struc-
tural response under seismic motion of increasing intensity (PGA). Characterization tests
were aimed at assessing the damage suffered by the structure during the previous seismic
test, through the evaluation of its fundamental frequency of vibration.
66.5
36
Load cells
Load cells
Shaking
table Shaking table
FIGURE 1 General layout of the model [24]. Units in cm.

The input signal of the table for the seismic tests was a generated accelerogram, com-
patible with the EC8 elastic response spectrum for soil type B [Dolce et al., 2005]. Its total
duration was 20 s, with 13 s. stationary signal, reached after a ramp of 2 s. The accelera-
tion profile was scaled down in time by a (3.3)1/2 factor, for consistency with the scale of
the model (see Fig. 2). PGA was progressively increased during the sequence of seismic
tests, up to the structural collapse or the operative limits of the table.
The input signal of the table for the characterization tests was a low intensity (0.07 g)
white noise.
Twenty sensors were used to record the response of the testing models, namely: (i)
four Celesco LVDT’s connected to a reference steel frame external to the table, measuring
absolute story displacements; (ii) three load-cells, measuring shear, moment, and axial
force at the base of the model; and (iii) eight Endevco accelerometers, with ± 2 g range,
measuring horizontal and vertical floor accelerations.
The experimental seismic response of the fixed-base models is extensively described
in Dolce et al. [2005]. The attention is herein focused on some important response param-
eters (story displacements, story shears, interstory drifts, and effective frequency of vibra-
tion), which allow a direct comparison with the numerical results of NSM’s.
The top diagrams of Fig. 3 show the experimental values of maximum base shear vs.
maximum top displacement (relative to the table), as recorded during the shaking table
tests on the model (a) without and (b) with infilled masonry panels. Each experimental
point is marked by the PGA of the corresponding test. For the tests at 0.48 g (on the model
w/o infills) and 0.9 g (on the model with infills), two different experimental points are
reported, because the maximum base shear and the maximum top displacement occurred
in two different instants of time. By joining together all the experimental points under con-
sideration, the typical force-displacement behavior of a ductile R/C framed structure is
observed.
The bottom diagrams of Fig. 3 show the changes in the fundamental frequency of
vibration of the two models, due to seismic tests of increasing intensity (PGA). Two dif-
ferent sets of data are reported. The “natural” frequencies are obtained from the transfer
functions of the signals recorded during the characterization tests. They represent the fun-
damental frequency of vibration of the inelastic system vibrating within its linear elastic
range. The “effective” frequencies are obtained from the transfer functions of the signals
recorded during the seismic tests. They represent the effective frequency of vibration of
the inelastic system during the seismic excitations. Both natural and effective frequencies
reduce during the sequence of the tests, while structural and non structural damage
progress. The differences between natural and effective frequency are mostly related to
the amplitude of vibration [Dolce et al., 2005].
5
1
4
Sa/PGA
0.5 3
acc/PGA
2
a/g
0
0 12 1
–0.5 (sec) 0
0 1 2 3
–1 (sec)
(a) (b)
FIGURE 2 (a) Input acceleration profile used for shaking table tests, and (b) associated
5%-damped response spectrum [24].
854 D. Cardone
Base shear (kN)
100
Base shear (kN)

100
∗
(0.9g)
80 80 0.63g
∗
0.28g (0.48g)
60 60 0.34g
0.19g
40 40 0.22g
0.14g ∗∗
20 0.16g (0.9g)
∗∗
20
0.07g (0.48g)
0.08g
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 0 30 60 90 120
Top displacement (mm) Top displacement (mm)
10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
8 8 natural frequency
6 6
4 natural frequency 4
effective frequency
2 2
effective frequency
0 0
0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75
PGA/g PGA/g
(a) (b)
FIGURE 3 (Top) Maximum base shear vs. maximum roof displacement and (bottom)
changes in the natural and effective frequency of vibration for the model (a) without and
(b) with infilled masonry panels, while increasing the seismic intensity (PGA) of the
experimental test.
Figure 4 shows the top displacement-time histories and base shear-time histories
recorded during the tests at 0.19 g and 0.28 g, on the model w/o infills. The experimental
curves are compared to those obtained from nonlinear direct-integration time-history anal-
yses on the numerical model described in Sec. 4. In the numerical simulations, the table
acceleration-time histories recorded during the tests are used as ground acceleration
records. No results are reported for the test at 0.48 g, as numerical and experimental time-
histories diverge after the attainment of the peak strength of the structure. The accordance
between experimental and numerical time-histories is excellent for the two tests under
consideration (at 0.19 g and 0.28 g). At 0.48 g, instead, only the maximum base shear (and
the corresponding top displacement) is captured with adequate precision.
The comparison between experimental and numerical time-histories shown in Fig. 4
is important to substantiate the methodology followed in this study. Typically, indeed, the
accuracy of pushover-based methods is checked by directly comparing pushover against
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) results [Mwafy and Elnashai, 2000]. The examina-
tion of Fig. 4 proves that the experimental results considered for comparison in this study
(a)
40 50
Top displacement (mm)
PGA = 0.19g PGA = 0.19g
Base shear (kN)

20 25
0 0
–20 –25
Numerical Numerical
Experimental Experimental
–40 –50
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
(sec) (sec)
(b)
40 50
Top displacement (mm)
PGA = 0.28g PGA = 0.28g
Base shear (kN)

20 25
0 0
–20 –25
Numerical Numerical
Experimental Experimental
–40 –50
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
(sec) (sec)
FIGURE 4 Top displacement- and base shear-time histories recorded during the experi-
mental tests at (a) 0.19 g and (b) 0.28 g. Comparison with the numerical curves obtained
from nonlinear direct-integration time-history analyses.
are little affected by the loading history (i.e., previous dynamic tests) and can reliably be
used to assess the accuracy of pushover-based methods, more realistically than IDA’s.
Figure 5 shows the experimental base shear vs. top displacement relationships rele-
vant to the tests at 0.19 g and 0.28 g. The examination of Figs. 3 and 5, together with a
series of other considerations, relevant to the strain levels attained in the steel and concrete
(kN)
(kN)
50 50
25 25
0 0
–40 –20 0 20 40 –40 –20 0 20 40
(mm) (mm)
–25 –25
–50 –50
(a) (b)
FIGURE 5 Experimental base-shear vs. top-displacement relationships relevant to the

tests at (a) 0.19 g and (b) 0.28 g on the model w/o infills.
856 D. Cardone
fibers based on the numerical simulations, lead to the identification of the structural per-
formance ranges of the two experimental models during the tests.
The structural response of the model without infills remains basically linear elastic up
to 0.19 g. Actually, concrete cracking and some limited yielding occur at 0.19 g, but, gen-
erally speaking, the structure responds within an Immediate Occupancy Performance
Level [ATC, 1996; FEMA, 2000] up to 0.19 g. The model exhibits a strong nonlinear
behavior at 0.28 g, attaining a maximum force of about 46 KN (corresponding to about
0.474 the weight of the structure), and is severely damaged. Basically, the structure
responds within a Life Safety Performance Level [ATC, 1996; FEMA, 2000] at 0.28 g.
Finally, the model reaches a condition of incipient collapse (Structural Stability [ATC,
1996] or Collapse Prevention [FEMA, 2000] Performance Level) at 0.48 g, due to the for-
mation of a soft story mechanism at the first story.
The structural response of the model with infills is essentially linear elastic up to 0.16 g.
Some damage in masonry panels starts to develop at 0.22 g. Significant damages in R/C
members are observed starting from 0.63 g. During this test, a maximum strength of 95 kN,
corresponding to about 90% of the model weight, is attained. Finally, a collapse condition
is reached during the 0.9 g test, due to the formation of a soft story mechanism at the first
floor.
4. Numerical Model
The structure is modeled as a 3-D assemblage of nonlinear elements connected at nodes
using DRAIN-3DX [Prakash et al., 1994]. Three different analyses are carried out on this
model, namely: static gravity, modal, and static load-to-collapse (“pushover”) analyses.
Figure 6(a) shows the finite element mesh of the R/C frame. Figure 6(b) shows the
idealized constitutive laws assumed for concrete and steel, according to the results of the
acceptance tests on steel and concrete. Steel bars are supposed to have the same behavior
under tensile and compressive stresses.
The fiber element (element type 15) of DRAIN-3DX is used to model beams and col-
umns. The cross section of each structural member is divided into concrete and steel
fibers, so as to capture the effects of yielding and strain-hardening of steel, cracking,
crushing, and post-crushing strength of concrete. Fourteen fibers of concrete and 2 fibers
of steel are used for beams, 20 fibers of concrete and 2 fibers of steel are used for columns,
as shown in Fig. 4(a). Concrete cover is simulated by 15 mm-thick concrete fibers.
Each structural member is divided into a number of elements (4 for columns and 6 for
beams, as shown in Fig. 6(a)), to take into account the actual arrangement of reinforce-
ment bars. At the end of each structural member, rigid end zones are defined to simulate
the actual stiffness of beam-column joints. The length of the rigid end zones is assumed
equal to 1/4 the cross section height of the orthogonal member. The load cells are modeled
by elastic beam-column elements (element type 17), connected to the base beam through
rigid arms. At each floor, the total mass (structural+additional) is lumped at the nodes of
the beams. The in-plane mechanical behavior of the infill panels is described by means of
equivalent diagonal compression-only struts (see Fig. 6(c)).
Reference to the model described in Panagiotakos and Fardis [1994] is made to simu-
late the monotonic nonlinear behavior of masonry panels. Panagiotakos and Fardis assume
a quadrilinear force-deformation law under monotonic loading (see Fig. 6(d)), which
reproduces the elastic stiffness Gw · Aw/H, the cracking strength a · Aw · tws, and the peak
strength b · Aw · tws of the infill panel, where Aw and H denote the horizontal cross-section
area of the panel and its clear height, Gw and tws are the shear modulus and shear strength
of masonry as measured on square wallette specimens in diagonal compression tests, a < 1
σ σ
ε ε
(b)
(a)
(c) (d)
FIGURE 6 Numerical modeling; (a) Finite element mesh; (b) Assumed constitutive law
of concrete and steel; (c) modeling of infill through equivalent compression-only strut;
and (d) associated idealized force-displacement behavior.
and b > 1 are two empirical modification factors which depend on the panel aspect ratio,
masonry type, and its material characteristics [Biondi et al., 2000]. The secant stiffness
from cracking to peak strength is evaluated with the formula proposed by Klinger and
Bertero [1978], which provides the axial stiffness of the equivalent strut (i.e., Ew · As/ls as
a function of its cross-section area (As) and length (ls) and of the masonry Young’s modu-
lus (Ew), as resulting from diagonal compression tests on wallettes. The height of the
cross-section of the equivalent strut is taken equal to the panel thickness. The width is
defined on the basis of the effective contact length between column and panel, according
to Mainstone and Weeks [1970]. In the case under consideration, the strut width is esti-
mated as 1/10 the diagonal length of the panel (ls).
The softening stiffness beyond the peak strength is taken equal to 0.5% of the initial
one. Finally, a residual strength of about 10% of the peak strength is assumed.
858 D. Cardone
The mechanical properties of masonry (basically tws, a, and b) are calibrated by fit-
ting the numerical floor displacement time-histories to the experimental ones [Dolce et al.,
2005], through the least square method. The mechanical properties of masonry as obtained
from the calibration process were then critically reviewed, in order to assess their compat-
ibility with typical experimental values [Biondi et al., 2000]. The choice of using an accu-
rate numerical model was intentional, in order to eliminate possible conditionings in the
evaluation of the effectiveness of the NSM’s, due to approximations in the numerical
model.
Table 1 summarizes the first three modes of vibration of the models, with (w) and
without (w/o) infills, in the test direction. For each mode, the period of vibration Ti, the
effective mass ratio Mi (expressed as percentage with respect to the total mass of the struc-
ture), and the modal participation factor at the top (Gi ⋅ fi,top ) are reported. As can be seen,
more than 75% of the total mass participates in the fundamental mode of both models,
which supports the assumption of a simplified lateral load distributions for the pushover
analysis [ATC, 1996; FEMA, 2000].

The base shear vs. top displacement relationships obtained from the pushover analy-
ses on the model w/o and with infills are plotted in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b), respectively. Four
different vertical distributions of lateral forces are considered for the model w/o infills
(see Fig. 7(a)), according to the acceleration distribution assumed along the height of the
structure: (a) an inverted triangular distribution; (b) a distribution consistent with the
shape of the fundamental mode of the structure; (c) a multimodal adaptive distribution that
changes as the structure is displaced beyond yielding; and (d) a uniform acceleration dis-
tribution, in which the lateral forces at each level are simply proportional to the total mass
at that level.
The multimodal Adaptive Pushover Analysis (APOA) is carried out according to the
procedure described in Antoniou et al. [2002], considering 3 modes of vibration and 40
steps of analysis. At the end of each load step of the APOA, an eigenvalue analysis is per-
formed, to determine modal shapes, participation factors, and modal mass ratios of the
structure in its stressed state. The increment of lateral forces to be applied to the structure
in the next step of the APOA is calculated based on the changed modal properties of the
structure, combined using the SRSS rule.
In this study, the adaptive pushover curves have been employed within equally adap-
tive NSM’s, in which the modal properties associated to each point of the MDOF adaptive
pushover curve are exploited to derive the equivalent SDOF capacity curve. In Fig. 7(a),
the capacity curves of the model w/o infills are compared to the experimental results, rep-
resented by circular dots, whose coordinates correspond to the maximum top displace-
ments and maximum base shears recorded during the seismic tests. As said before, for the
test at 0.48 g (model w/o infills) and 0.9 g (model with infills), the maximum base shear
TABLE 1 Periods of vibration (Ti), effective mass ratios (Mi), and participation factor at
the top for the first three modes of vibration of the model with (w) and without (w/o)
infills
Ti (sec) Mi (%) Gi Fi,top
Mode w/o w w/o w w/o w
1 0.254 0.091 76.7 71.9 1.25 1.35
2 0.079 0.041 7.8 11.6 0.31 0.36
3 0.044 0.033 1.4 1.3 0.063 0.015
++
(a) (b) (c) (d) (b) (d)

(d)
(kN)
(kN)
100 100
(d) Exp@0.63g
90 90
(c) Exp@0.9g
80 80 (b)
Exp@0.28g
70 70
(a) (b)
60 60
50 Exp@0.48g 50 Exp@0.9g
40 40
30 30
20 Exp@0.48g 20
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(mm) (mm)
(a) (b)
FIGURE 7 Base shear vs. top displacement relationships for the model (a) without and
(b) with infills, as obtained from pushover analyses by considering (a) triangular, (b)
modal, (c) adaptive, and (d) uniform distributions. Comparison with the experimental
results.
and maximum top displacement are not contemporary. As a consequence, two different
experimental points are reported, whose coordinates represent (i) the maximum base shear
and corresponding top displacement and (ii) the maximum top displacement and corre-
sponding base shear, respectively. The examination of Fig. 7 points out that the numerical
model reproduces with good accuracy the global behavior of the testing model, both in the
elastic and post-elastic range. The only exception is represented by the experimental point
associated to the maximum top displacement of the model w/o infills at 0.48 g, which is
significantly far from the numerical curves. Actually, the model w/o infills collapsed
through a soft-story mechanism at the first story, triggered by the pull out of the reinforc-
ing bars of the beam. Unfortunately, the pull out phenomenon was not considered in the
numerical model.
As it was expected, only minor differences are observed between the capacity curves
associated to the different lateral load patterns, mostly limited to the phase of development
of plastic hinges. This is because the structural model under consideration (a 3-story regu-
lar frame) featured a 1st mode-dominated response, both in the elastic and post-elastic
range.
Similar considerations apply to the model with infills (see Fig. 7(b)), for which only
two lateral force distributions are considered. The numerical model describes very well
the experimental global behavior of the structure both before and after the attainment of
the peak strength.
Figure 7 also confirm that the tests which actually produced significant plastic defor-
mations in the structure are the tests at 0.28 g and 0.48 g, for the model w/o infills, and the
tests at 0.63 g and 0.9 g, for the model with infills. The NSM’s are then applied with reference
860 D. Cardone
to these tests. For the tests at 0.48 g and 0.9 g, the experimental points associated to the
maximum base shear are considered.
5. Results and Comparisons
5.1. Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM)

The following assumptions have been made in applying CSM. The viscous damping
inherent in the structure (b0) has been taken equal to that exhibited by each model in the
seismic test of the lowest intensity (about 0.08 g), i.e., about 2.5% for the model without
(w/o) infills and about 8% for the model with (w) infills [Dolce et al., 2005]. The infills
have been considered partially effective at 0.63 g, while their contribution has been
neglected at 0.9 g, as they suffered severe damage during the test at 0.63 g and then col-
lapsed at 0.9 g. The loss of effectiveness of the infills during the test at 0.63 g has been
taken into account by performing two different analyses, assuming b0 =8% and b0 =2.5%,
respectively. b0 =2.5% has been assumed at 0.9 g. The values of the k-factor have been
drawn from ATC-40 assuming structural behavior Type B (k = 0.67) and Type C (k = 0.33),
for the model with and without infills, respectively.
Finally, a smoothed response spectrum, compatible with that obtained from the table
acceleration-time histories recorded during the tests, has been considered in the analysis,
assuming the damping reduction factor recommended in [CEN, 2001] (i.e.,
h = 10 (5 + b ) ) during the iterative procedure. The use of smoothed real response spectra
was aimed at avoiding that the results provided by the NSM’s were too much sensitive
to the local variations (peaks and troughs) of the spectra drawn from the recorded
accelerograms.
Figure 8(a) shows a graphical representation in the ADRS format of the CSM, consid-
ering the modal distribution of lateral forces, for the test at 0.28 g on the model w/o infills.
The capacity and demand spectra at the end of the iterative process and the PP of the
equivalent SDOF system are shown in Fig. 8(a). The original pushover curve is converted
to the capacity spectrum by means of the first-mode spectral properties reported in Table 1.
A bilinear representation of the capacity curve is then constructed and repeatedly updated
during the following iterative process for the evaluation of PP. At the end of this process,
the initial 2.5%-damped response spectrum is reduced to a 10.5%-damped response spectrum.
The idealized bilinear capacity curve intersects the 10.5%-damped response spectrum in
the PP, which provide the maximum expected top displacement and base shear. The radial
line passing for PP defines the effective period of vibration of the structure during the
earthquake.
Similarly, Fig. 9(a) shows the graphical representation, in the ADRS format, of the
CSM, for the test at 0.63 g on the model with infills, considering the modal distribution of
lateral forces, b0 =8% and k=0.33.
The numerical results provided by CSM are summarized in Table 2, for the model w/o
infills (model n. 1) and with infills (model n. 2). The numerical results obtained for the
considered lateral load distributions are compared to the experimental outcomes. The
comparison is made in terms of maximum top displacement (dtop), maximum base shear
(Sbase), effective period of vibration (Tef), and effective damping ratio (bef). The natural
period of vibration of the structure (To) is provided in the “Experimental results” section
and the values of viscous (b0) and hysteretic damping (beq) (see Eqs. (2) and (3)) are also
reported in the “Model parameters” section. It is worth to emphasize that To and bo intend
to represent the dynamic properties of the model at the beginning of each test, while Tef
and bef represent equivalent dynamic characteristics exhibited by the model during the
(a)
Sa (g) 1.0
0.9 Effective period
0.8
Performance Point
0.7
Capacity Curve (CC)
0.6
0.5
10.5%-damped ADRS
0.4
2.5%-damped ADRS
0.3
0.2
0.1 Bilinear idealization of CC
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Sd (mm)
(b)
C0. C1. C2. C3
Sa (g)
1.0
Tef
0.9
0.8
Elastic
0.7 Response Capacity curve (CC)
0.6 Te
0.5
Performance 2.5%-damped ADRS
0.4 Point
0.3
0.2
Bilinear idealization of CC
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(c) Sd (mm)
Sa (g)
1.0
0.8
0.7 Performance Rμ
Point Bilinear idealization of CC
0.6
0.5
0.4 μ 2.5%-damped elastic ADRS
0.3
0.2
Capacity curve (CC)
0.1
Inelastic ADRS at μ ductility
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Sd (mm)
FIGURE 8 Graphical representation of (a) CSM (b) DCM and (c) N2 method and evalu-
ation of the Performance Point for the model without infills at 0.28 g.
862 D. Cardone
(a)
Sa (g)
Performance Point
1.2
1.0 Capacity Curve (CC)
0.8 17.8%-damped ADRS
0.6 8%-damed ADRS
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
(b) Sd (mm)
C0 C1 C2 C 3
Sa (g)
1.4 Elastic response
1.2
1.0 Te
Capacity Curve (CC)
0.8 Performance
Point 8%-damped ADRS
0.6
Tef
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
(c)
Sd (mm)
Sa (g)
1.2
μ Rμ
1.0
Capacity Curve (CC)
0.8
8%-damped elastic ADRS
0.6 Performance
Point
0.4
0.2
Inelastic ADRS at μ ductility
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Sd (mm)
FIGURE 9 Graphical representation of (a) CSM (b) DCM and (c) N2 method and
evaluation of the Performance Point for the model with infills at 0.63 g.
TABLE 2 Comparison between experimental results and numerical predictions provided by CSM for the model n. 1 (w/o infills) and for the model
n. 2 (with infills)
Experimental results Model parameters Numerical results
PGA dtop Sbase To Tef bef b0 beq bef dtop Sbase Tef Δd ΔS
Model n. (g) (mm) (KN) (sec) (sec) (%) Load pattern (%) k-factor (%) (%) (mm) (KN) (sec) (%) (%)
1 0.28 35.45 45.8 0.340 0.49 10.1 triangular 2.5 0.33 24.4 10.4 26.52 43.55 0.396 −25.2 −4.9
modal 2.5 0.33 24.8 10.5 26.19 44.17 0.41 −26.1 −3.6
adaptive 2.5 0.33 24.5 10.4 26.01 44.35 0.438 −26.6 −3.1
uniform 2.5 0.33 26.7 11.1 24.33 45.7 0.389 −31.4 −0.2
1 0.48 70.9 48.2 0.392 – – triangular 2.5 0.33 40.1 15.5 51.38 46.31 0.535 −27.5 −3.9
modal 2.5 0.33 41.2 15.9 54.8 46.19 0.58 −22.7 −4.2
adaptive 2.5 0.33 39.4 15.3 46.95 46.42 0.625 −33.7 −3.7
uniform 2.5 0.33 44.5 17.0 48.31 46.36 0.544 −31.8 −3.9
2 0.63 18.65 94.78 0.161 0.357 11.4 modal 8.0 0.33 26.2 16.7 20.45 94.54 0.262 9.6 −0.3
modal 2.5 0.67 21.67 16.8 18.18 94.4 0.247 −2.5 −0.37
uniform 8.0 0.33 25.1 16.4 17.1 95.4 0.239 −8.3 −0.6
uniform 2.5 0.67 18.9 15.2 14.5 94.7 0.222 −21.8 −0.0
863
864 D. Cardone
same test. In the last two columns of Table 2, the percent differences between experimen-
tal and numerical values of top displacement (Δd) and base shear (ΔS) are reported.
The following observations can be made from Table 2. Firstly, the numerical results
are little sensitive to the shape of the lateral load distribution, as expected by considering
Fig. 7 and related comments. Secondly, CSM apparently underestimates the maximum top
displacements recorded during the experimental tests. Thirdly, a greater accuracy in the
evaluation of the maximum base shear is observed.
Actually, for the model w/o infills (model n. 1 in Table 2), the percentage differences
in terms of top displacement range from about 25–35%, for both the tests. On the contrary,
the differences in terms of maximum base shear are limited to a few percents. The under-
estimation of the maximum displacement at 0.28 g is partly due to a certain overestimation
of the effective stiffness of the structural model during the seismic tests. This is substanti-
ated by the comparison between the experimental values of the effective period (column 6
of Table 2) and the corresponding numerical estimation obtained at the end of the iterative
process (column 15 of Table 2). On the other hand, the effective damping exhibited by the
structural model is reproduced very well (compare columns 7 and 12 of Table 2), at least
for the test at 0.28 g, for which experimental results are fully available. Another reason for
the underestimation of the maximum displacement can be found in the use of smoothed
response spectra. As can be noted in Fig. 8(a), indeed, the radial line passing for the PP
(whose slope corresponds to the effective period of vibration of the structure during the
seismic test) intercepts the real response spectrum near to a peak, which implied higher
top displacements and base shears.
A significant improvement in the precision of the numerical predictions can be
reached by deriving the k-factor from the experimental outcomes. This can be done by
comparing experimental and theoretical force-displacement cycles at the same displace-
ment amplitudes, as shown in Fig. 10(a). A value of the k-factor equal to 0.21 is then
found at 0.28 g, which halves the percent differences on the maximum top displacement
given in Table 2, passing from 25–30% to 10–15%.
For the model with infills (model n. 2 in Table 2), an excellent accuracy is reached at
0.63 g, by using the modal load pattern and with the following combinations of numerical
(kN)
(KN)
100 100
Pushover
curve Pushover
Theoretical Experimental curve
cycle
cycle
0 0
–35 0 35 –35 0 35
(mm) (mm)
Experimental Theoretical
cycle cycle
–100 –100
(a) (b)
FIGURE 10 Comparison between theoretical and experimental base-shear vs. top-dis-

placement cycles for the model (a) without infills at 0.28 g and (b) with infills at 0.63 g.
parameters: b0 =8% and k=0.33 (masonry effective with significantly pinched hysteresis
loops) or, alternatively, b0 =2.5% and k=0.67 (R/C frame lacking of infills with stable
hysteresis loops). It is worth to observe that the experimental value of the k-factor at 0.63g
results to be 0.44 (see Fig. 10(b)), i.e., practically in-between the values suggested by
ATC-40 for structural behavior types B and C. In this case, however, an intermediate
value of b0 should also be assumed, leading to results similar to the already satisfactory
ones obtained with the above mentioned values of the couple (b0, k).
No numerical results are reported for the test at 0.9g, as the procedure does not converge.
5.2. Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM)

Figure 8(b) shows a graphical representation (in the ADRS format) of the DCM, consider-
ing the modal distribution of lateral forces, for the test at 0.28 g on the model without
infills. The bilinear idealization of the capacity curve (CC) at the end of the iterative pro-
cess is reported. The demand curve is represented by a smoothed 2.5%-damped response

spectrum, consistent with that obtained from the table acceleration-time history recorded
during the test under consideration. The intersection between the projection of the first
segment of the bilinear curve (whose slope corresponds to the effective elastic period Te)
with the response spectrum defines the maximum elastic displacement. The expected
maximum inelastic top displacement is calculated by applying the modification factors C0,
C1, C2, and C3, as previously defined. The radial line passing for the PP provides the effec-
tive period of vibration (Tef) of the model during the seismic test.
The graphical representation for the test at 0.63 g on the model with infills is reported
in Fig. 9(b). In this case, the demand curve is represented by a smoothed 8%-damped
response spectrum, consistent with that derived from the table acceleration time history
recorded during the test.
The assumptions made in the application of DCM are reported in the “Model Parame-
ters” section of Table 3. The modification factor C0 has been assumed equal to the first
modal participation factor at the top of the structure. As can be deduced from Table 3, for
the model w/o infills (model n. 1 in Table 3), C0 progressively reduces while increasing
the lateral forces applied. It is equal to 1.25 under gravity loads only (triangular, modal,
and uniform load pattern), then decreasing to 1.13 when a top displacement of about 25 mm
is reached (adaptive load pattern). Finally, it tends to 1 when a soft story mechanism
occurs. C1 and C3 have been calculated using the equation suggested by FEMA 356, as a
function of the effective fundamental elastic period of vibration of the structure (Te). It is
worth to note that C3 is always equal to 1 for the model w/o infills (capacity curve with
positive post-yield stiffness) while it assumes values greater than 1 for the model with
infills (capacity curve with negative post-yield stiffness). Finally, C2 has been varied dur-
ing the analyses, according to the seismic intensity of the tests. More precisely, reference
has been made to the values recommended by FEMA 356 (1.0 < C2 < 1.5) [FEMA, 2000],
which depend on the Structural Performance Level (SPL) of the building and its funda-
mental elastic period. In this study, the SPL has been correlated to the state of the experi-
mental model at the end of each test. Thus, the model w/o infills (model n. 1 in Table 3)
has been deemed to comply with the “Safety life” SPL at 0.28 g and the “Collapse Preven-
tion” SPL at 0.48 g [FEMA, 2000]. The model with infills (model n. 2 in Table. 3) has
been considered to respond within a “Damage Control” structural performance range
[FEMA, 2000] at 0.63 g and within the “Collapse Prevention” SPL at 0.9 g. As far as the
fundamental elastic period is concerned, reference has been made to the period of vibra-
tion of the first mode, as obtained from modal analysis (see Table 1). The values of C2
adopted in each analysis case are listed in Table 3.
866
TABLE 3 Comparison between experimental results and numerical predictions provided by DCM for the model n. 1 (w/o infills) and the model n. 2
(with infills)
PGA dtop Sbase To Tef b0 Te dtop Sbase Tef Δd ΔS
Model n. (g) (mm) (KN) (sec) (sec) Load pattern (%) (sec) Co C1 C2 C3 (mm) (KN) (sec) (%) (%)
1 0.28 35.4 45.8 0.34 0.49 triangular 2.5 0.31 1.25 1.044 1.15 1.0 29.1 44.4 0.45 −18 −3
modal 2.5 0.26 1.25 1.150 1.15 1.0 23.5 42.9 0.41 −33 −6
adaptive 2.5 0.30 1.13 1.066 1.15 1.0 25.4 44.1 0.56 −28 −4
uniform 2.5 0.27 1.25 1.125 1.15 1.0 23.4 45.5 0.39 −34 −1
1 0.48 70.9 48.2 0.39 – triangular 2.5 0.35 1.25 1.0 1.3 1.0 66.9 45.6 0.66 −5.6 −5
modal 2.5 0.30 1.25 1.066 1.3 1.0 54.9 46.2 0.60 −22.6 −4
adaptive 2.5 0.34 0.99 1.0 1.3 1.0 53.3 46.2 0.59 −24.8 −4
uniform 2.5 0.29 1.25 1.077 1.3 1.0 51.1 46.3 0.65 −27.9 −4
2 0.63 18.6 94.8 0.16 0.36 modal 8.0 0.12 1.23 2.0 1.12 1.0 16.3 94.1 0.26 −12 −1
uniform 8.0 0.13 1.23 1.69 1.12 1.0 15.4 95.1 0.25 −18 1
2 0.9 45.1 86.6 0.21 – modal 8.0 0.16 1.23 1.56 1.45 1.21 36.8 85.5 0.40 −18.4 −1.3
uniform 8.0 0.15 1.23 1.57 1.45 1.19 35.1 85.0 0.41 −22.2 −1.8
The numerical predictions provided by DCM are summarized in Table 3 for each dis-
tribution of lateral forces considered in the POA. The comparison with the experimental
results is made in terms of maximum top displacement (dtop), maximum base shear (Sbase)
and effective period of vibration (Tef) at the performance point.
For the model w/o infills (model n. 1 in Table 3), no significant differences with
respect to the results provided by CSM are found. Top displacements are significantly
underestimated (from about 18 to 34% at 0.28 g and from just 6 to 28% at 0.48 g), while
base shear forces are captured with great accuracy. This can be partly ascribed to a certain
overestimation of the lateral elastic stiffness of the structure, which can be noted by com-
paring the values of the effective elastic period of vibration used in the numerical analyses
(column 9 of Table 3) with the corresponding experimental values recorded during the
characterization tests (column 5 of Table 3). On the other hand, it is worth to observe that
the effective elastic period of vibration (column 9 of Table 3) results to be very close to
the period associated with the transition from the constant acceleration segment to the
constant velocity segment of the demand curve (equal to 0.335 s in the case under consid-
eration), beyond which the equal displacement rule applies (i.e., C1 =1). This may suggest
a re-appraisal of C2 (whose evaluation in the DCM is somewhat questionable, being
largely based on individual judgment) towards higher values.
For the model with infills (model n. 2 in Table 3) the results appear considerably
improved, compared to those provided by the CSM, not only because the predictions are
somewhat more accurate and conservative, but especially because the procedure con-
verged at 0.9 g, providing base shears in good accordance with the experimental ones,
though top displacements are appreciably lower (by about 20%), due to the more pro-
nounced slope of the softening segment of the pushover curve (see Fig. 7(b)). The greater
accuracy of the method for the model with infills could be ascribed to a better accordance
between experimental and numerical values of the effective elastic period of vibration,
especially for the test at 0.63 g (compare column 5 and 9 of Table 3). In addition, the val-
ues of C2 suggested by FEMA result more acceptable, due to the lower decay suffered by
the structural model during the experimental tests. For the test at 0.9 g, a fundamental role
is played by the modification factor C3 (> 1), which account for increased displacements
due to dynamic P-Δ effects, as the softening effect occurs.
5.3. N2 Method
Figures 8(c) and 9(c) show a graphical representation (in the ADRS format) of the N2
method, considering the modal distribution of lateral forces, and the evaluation of the PP
for the model without infills at 0.28 g and for the model with infills at 0.63 g, respectively.
The N2 method has been applied under the same assumptions as the two previous
methods, in particular for what concerns the elastic response spectrum and the inherent
viscous damping of the experimental models. In the “Numerical results” section of Table 4,
the numerical values of maximum top displacement (dtop), maximum base shear (Sbase)
and effective period of vibration at the performance point (Tef), are summarised. In the
“Model parameters” section of Table 4, the corresponding values of the ductility factor m,
elastic period T*, and reduction factor Rm of the idealized bilinear SDOF system (see Eqs.
(4)–(6)) are reported.
Looking at the test at 0.28 g on the model w/o infills (model n. 1 in Table 4), the
results provided by the N2 method appear to be more accurate than those obtained before,
with percent differences in terms of maximum top displacements less than 15% (except
for the uniform load pattern). To this regard, it is worth to emphasize the excellent agree-
ment between experimental and numerical values of the effective elastic period of vibration
868
TABLE 4 Comparison between experimental results and numerical predictions provided by the N2 method for the model n. 1 (w/o infills) and the
model n. 2 (with infills)
*
PGA dtop Sbase To Tef Load T dtop Sbase Tef Δd ΔS
Model n. (g) (mm) (KN) (sec) (sec) pattern b0 (%) m (sec) Rm (mm) (KN) (sec) (%) (%)
1 0.28 35.45 45.8 0.340 0.49 triangular 2.5 1.58 0.327 1.541 30.39 46.40 0.411 −14.2 1.3
modal 2.5 1.65 0.334 1.623 30.14 46.46 0.429 −14.9 1.4
adaptive 2.5 1.70 0.360 1.70 30.86 46.48 0.473 −12.9 1.5
uniform 2.5 1.72 0.30 1.618 25.63 46.62 0.395 −27.7 1.8
1 0.48 70.9 48.2 0.392 – triangular 2.5 2.67 0.324 2.548 51.28 46.40 0.53 −27.7 −3.7
modal 2.5 2.80 0.334 2.69 50.56 46.46 0.556 −28.7 −3.7
adaptive 2.5 2.69 0.388 2.69 48.48 46.48 0.635 −31.6 −3.5
uniform 2.5 2.95 0.301 2.683 44.09 46.62 0.518 −37.8 −3.4
2 0.63 18.65 94.78 0.161 0.357 modal 8.0 1.52 0.203 1.288 18.1 94.66 0.247 −3.1 −0.1
uniform 8.0 1.49 0.186 1.277 15.8 95.45 0.23 −15.3 0.7
2 0.9 45.1 86.66 0.213 – modal 2.5 3.93 0.201 2.762 47.5 94.7 0.40 5.1 9.2
uniform 2.5 4.27 0.186 2.740 44.4 95.45 0.384 −1.6 10.1
(compare columns 5 and 10 of Table 4). The examination of the numerical predictions rel-
evant to the test at 0.48 g confirms the inadequacy of the NSM’s in capturing, with good
precision, the displacement response of the model w/o infills near structural collapse.
For the model with infills (model n. 2 in Table 4) the correctness of the solution
strongly depends on the inherent viscous damping considered in the calculations. By con-
sidering the energy dissipation capacity of the infills (b0 =8%), the numerical predictions
at 0.63 g turn out to be excellent. The contrary holds at 0.9 g, where the assumption of
b0 =2.5% is fundamental to achieve suitable results.
The examination of the reduction factors (Rm) used in the N2 method to pass from
elastic to inelastic spectra, points out the different ductility demands (m) of each experi-
mental model, while increasing the seismic intensity of the tests. For the model w/o infills
(model n. 1), the ductility demand increases from about 1.7 to about 2.9, while PGA
increases from 0.28–0.48 g (see Table 4). For the model with infills (model n. 2), the duc-
tility demand increases from about 1.5 to about 4, while PGA increases from 0.63–0.9g
(see Table 4). Correspondently, the reduction factor Rm increases from about 1.6÷1.3 to
about 2.7. The aforesaid values of Rm have to be compared with the behavior factor q0 =2.5
assumed in the design, divided by the overstrength ratio au/a1 =1.3 [CEN, 2001]. Thus, a
design value of Rm equal to about 1.9 is obtained, which is within the experimental range
previously defined. The associated PGA value (0.15 g), however, is much lower than
those reached during the tests. This must be ascribed to the increase of the actual strength
of the structure, compared with that expected from design, due to the actual mechanical
properties of concrete and steel, the real amount of reinforcement, the role of the infilled
masonry panels (disregarded in the design), etc.
5.4. Comparison Between Methods and Procedures

Figure 11 compares the maximum story displacements, story shears and interstory drifts
recorded during the test at 0.28 g on the model w/o infills to those predicted by the three
NSM’s. Each diagram refers to a different distribution of lateral forces used in the POA,
namely: (a) triangular, (b) modal, (c) force-based multimodal adaptive, and (d) uniform.
As can be seen, the deformed shapes of the model appear quite regular, with a slight con-
centration of damage at the first story, well pointed out by the comparison between the
distribution of drifts over the height of the structure. All the NSM’s provide a suitable esti-
mate of the maximum seismic response, with the exception of the first interstory drift,
which is slightly underestimated. The N2 method provides the best results, regardless the
lateral load pattern considered in the POA. Only a slight improvement in the accuracy of
the results is observed by deriving the capacity curve from multimodal adaptive POA. The
latter conclusion was already drawn in the past by other researchers [Antoniou and Pinho,
2004a; Papanikolau et al., 2006], who related this “underperformance” of the force-based
adaptive pushover algorithm to the use of a single constant response spectrum and of the
SRSS (or CQC) rule to combine modal forces [Antoniou and Pinho, 2004a].
Similar diagrams are reported in Fig. 12 for the test at 0.48 g, which determined a
condition of collapse for the structural model w/o infills. It should be noted that the exper-
imental values of Fig. 12 represent the story displacements, shear forces, and interstory
drifts simultaneous to the maximum base shear. Higher story displacements and interstory
drifts are reached after the attainment of the peak strength of the structure, which are not
considered in this study, due to the inability of the pushover curves to follow the experi-
mental behavior of the structural model up to collapse (see Fig. 7).
The accordance between numerical and experimental profiles of Fig. 12 appears to be
acceptable, considering that the numerical methods do not take into account the material
870 D. Cardone
E Experimental CSM N2 DCM
++
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
story
1 1 1 1
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

0 0 0 0
0 20 40 0 20 40 0 20 40 0 20 40
3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2

interstory
2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1
1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2

interstory
2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1
1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0

(%) (%) (%) (%)
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
(a) (b) (c) (d)
FIGURE 11 Maximum story displacements, story shear forces, and interstory drifts of
the model w/o infills at 0.28 g, as predicted by CSM, DCM, and N2 method for different
lateral load patterns, i.e., (a) triangular, (b) modal, (c) adaptive and, (d) uniform. Compar-
ison with the corresponding maximum experimental values.
decay suffered by the structural model in the experimental test at 0.28 g. The DCM
method provides the best results, regardless the lateral load pattern considered in the POA.
6. Summary and Conclusions

Three different nonlinear static methods (NSM’s) for the evaluation of the structural
response of buildings to strong earthquakes are considered in this study, namely: the
Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), the Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM), and the
N2 Method. Common characteristic of all the methods is the use of Pushover Analysis
for the description of the nonlinear behavior of the structure. With the aim of evaluat-
ing the level of accuracy of each method in estimating the maximum seismic response
of R/C framed structures, the experimental results of shaking table tests on two similar
E Experimental CSM N2 DCM
+ +
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
story
1 1 1 1
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

0 0 0 0
0 60 120 0 60 120 0 60 120 0 60 120
3-2 3-2
3-2 3-2
interstory
2-1 2-1
2-1 2-1
1-0 1-0
1-0 1-0
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2

interstory
2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1
1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0

(%) (%) (%) (%)
0 3 6 0 3 6 0 3 6 0 3 6
(a) (b) (c) (d)
FIGURE 12 Maximum story displacements, story shear forces, and interstory drifts of
the model w/o infills at 0.48 g, as predicted by CSM, DCM, and N2 method for different
lateral load patterns, i.e., (a) triangular, (b) modal, (c) adaptive and, (d) uniform. Compar-
ison with the experimental values corresponding to the maximum base shear.
1:3.3-scale R/C plane frames, with and without infilled masonry panels, have been con-
sidered and compared to the numerical predictions of each method.
Modal and Pushover Analyses have been performed by means of an accurate numeri-
cal model, using fiber elements. A refined mesh has been adopted for both cross sections
and elements. Moreover, the constitutive laws of steel and concrete have been derived
from the results of experimental tests on the materials. This has been intentionally done, to
avoid possible conditioning in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the NSM’s, due to
inaccuracies of the structural modeling.
Four different distributions of lateral forces have been considered in the POA, accord-
ing to the distribution of acceleration along the height, namely: (i) a “triangular” distribu-
tion, in which accelerations are proportional to story heights; (ii) a “modal” distribution, in
which the lateral forces are consistent with the shape of the fundamental mode of the
structure; (iii) a “multimodal adaptive” load pattern, in which the lateral force distribution
872 D. Cardone
changes as the structure is displaced beyond yielding; and (iv) a “uniform” distribution, in
which the lateral forces are proportional to the masses at each floor level.
The comparison between numerical predictions and experimental results has been
made in terms of capacity curves and in terms of maximum story displacements, interstory
drifts, and story shears, with reference to four different seismic intensities (PGA’s), equal to
0.28 g and 0.48 g for the model without (w/o) infills, 0.63 g and 0.9 g for the model with
infills. The tests at 0.28 g and 0.63 g produced significant structural and non-structural
damage in the experimental models w/o and with infills, respectively. Those at 0.48 g and
0.9 g determined collapse conditions.
The results of this study clearly point out the importance of developing a refined
structural model, in order to achieve a good estimation of the actual seismic response of
the building. As long as the pushover curve turns out to be consistent with the experimen-
tal behavior of the structure, indeed, all the NSM’s seem to be able to predict the maxi-
mum seismic response of the building with adequate accuracy, provided that the
associated numerical parameters are properly estimated. The lateral load pattern used in
the POA, instead, has been found to little affect the accuracy of the results, for the struc-
tural model considered in this study (a 3-story regular frame), characterized by a 1st
mode-dominated response, both in the elastic and post-elastic range.
A number of critical numerical parameters, whose selection play a fundamental role
in the accuracy of the results, have been identified for each method. The key parameter in
the CSM is the k-factor, which is a measure of how much the actual hysteretic behavior of
the building differs from the theoretical elasto-plastic behavior. The key parameter in the
DCM is the modification factor C2, which takes into account the increase of response due
to stiffness/strength degradation and pinching of hysteresis loops. The critical point is that
the evaluation of the aforesaid parameters is based on individual judgment. A set of values
for both k and C2 are suggested in ATC-40 and FEMA-356, respectively. They appear rea-
sonably accurate when the building responds within a “Safety Life” structural perfor-
mance level, while they seem somewhat imprecise and underestimating when the building
responds within a “Collapse Prevention” (i.e., “Structural Stability”) structural perfor-
mance level.
The key parameters in the N2 method are the effective elastic period of vibration (Te)
and the reduction factor (Rm). The effective elastic period of vibration corresponds to the
initial period of the equivalent SDOF system. It depends on the approach used in the bilin-
ear idealization of the actual pushover curve, which goes through individual judgment. In
this study, reference has been made to the approach of Eurocode 8, which is based on the
equal energy principle. The reduction factor Rm depends on the hysteretic energy dissipa-
tion capacity of the structure and can be expressed as a function of the ductility factor m
and effective elastic period Te. Several formulations exist for the reduction factor Rm. In
this study, the relationships adopted in Eurocode 8 have been used. Under these assump-
tions, the N2 method provides numerical results similar to those predicted by DCM. For
structures with negative post-yield stiffness subjected to very strong earthquakes, DCM
appears more accurate than the N2 method, due to the presence of the C3 modification
factor. Perhaps, the introduction of an analogous factor could improve the N2 method.
The inherent viscous damping (b0) plays an important role for all the methods and it
should be selected with great care. On the contrary, the lateral load pattern seems to affect
negligibly the accuracy of the results. Obviously, this conclusion should be limited to low-
rise buildings (such as the experimental models considered in this study), in which the
structural response is dominated by the first mode of vibration, while the same conclusion
could not hold for high-rise buildings, for which multi-modal pushover analysis proce-
dures have been found to greatly improve the prediction [Chopra and Goel, 2002].
Finally, it should be mentioned that CSM, DCM, and N2 method also differ in sim-
plicity, reliability, and theoretical backgrounds. The CSM is formulated in the ADRS for-
mat and it requires an iterative graphical procedure to determine the performance point, as
structural capacity and seismic demand are mutually related. Another important limitation
of CSM is the lack of convergence under strong earthquakes (see test at 0.9 g on the model
with infills), which deform the structure into the region of negative post-yield stiffness,
with significant decay in the lateral strength. Unlike the CSM, DCM provides a direct
numerical procedure to define the displacement demand of the structure, which does not
require any conversion in the ADRS format. The bilinear idealization of the capacity
curve, however, depends on the displacement demand and the procedure becomes itera-
tive. In the N2 method all the steps can be performed numerically. Moreover, if a simple
conservative assumption is made (i.e., To =Tc, being To the characteristic period of the
ground motion and Tc the transition period form the constant-acceleration to the constant-
velocity segment of the response spectrum), no iterations are needed.
Acknowledgments
The experimental tests have been carried for the MANSIDE project, funded by the Euro-
pean Commission, D.G. XII, within the BRITE-EURAM program of the IV framework
(EC Project BE95-2168). The re-evaluation of the experimental tests and the numerical
work has been carried out within the framework of the Reluis – Line 4 research program
(Reluis – Italian Network of University Laboratories of Earthquake Engineering).
References
Albanesi, T., Nuti, C., and Vanzi, I. [2002] “State of the art review for Nonlinear Static Methods,”
Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM paper No.
602, London.
Antoniou, S., Rovithakis, A., and Pinho, R. [2002] “Development and verification of a fully adaptive
pushover procedure,” Proceedings Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
London, UK.
Antoniou, S. and Pinho, R. [2004a] “Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-
based pushover procedures,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(4),497–522.
Antoniou, S. and Pinho, R. [2004b] “Development and verification of a displacement-based adap-
tive pushover pocedure,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(5),643–661.
Applied Technology Council [1996] Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Report
No. ATC-40, Redwood City, CA.
Bento, R., Falcao, F., and Rodrigues, F. [2004] “Nonlinear Static Procedures in performance based
seismic design,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Van-
couver (Canada).
Biondi, S., Colangelo, F. and Nuti, C. [2000] Seismic Response of Masonry Infilled Frames (in ital-
ian), CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti – Roma.
Bracci, J. M., Kunnath, S. K., and Reinhorn, A. M. [1997] “Seismic performance and retrofit evalu-
ation for reinforced structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering – ASCE 123(1), 3–10.
CEN – European Committee for Standardization [2001] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earth-
quake resistance – Part 1. European standard prEN 1998–1, Draft No. 4.
CEN – European Committee for Standardisation [1992] Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures,
Part 1–1: General rules and rules for building, ENV 1992-1-1.
Chopra, A. K. [1995] Dynamics of Structures, Prentice Hall International Inc., London.
Chopra, A. K. and Goel, R. K. [2002] “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating
seismic demands for buildings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3),
561–582.
874 D. Cardone
Dolce, M., Cardone, D., Ponzo, F. C., and Valente, C. [2005] “Shaking table tests on reinforced con-
crete frames without and with passive control systems,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 34(14), 1687–1717.
Elnashai, A. S. [2001] “Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications,”
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 12(1), 51–69.
Faella, G. and Kilar, V. [1998] “Asymmetric multi-story R/C frame structures: push-over versus
nonlinear dynamic analysis,” Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, A.A., Ballkema, Rotterdam.
Fajfar, P. [1996] “Simple Push-over analysis of building structures,” Proceedings of the 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM paper No. 1011, Acapulco (Mexico).
Fajfar, P. [1999] “Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra,” Earthquake Engi-
neering and Structural Dynamics, 28, 979–993.
Fajfar, P. [2000] “A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design,” Earthquake
Spectra 16(3), 573–592.
Falcao, S. and Bento, R. [2002] “Analysis Procedures for Performance-based seismic design,” Pro-
ceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM paper No. 371,
London.
Federal Emergency Management Agency [1997] NEHRP Provisions for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings (FEMA-273).
Federal Emergency Management Agency [2000] Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA-356).
Freeman, S. A. [1978] “Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion,”
in Proceedings of Douglas McHenry Intern. Symp. On Concrete Structures, Detroit.
Gupta, B. and Kunnath, S. K. [2000] “Adaptive spectra-based pushover analysis procedure for
seismic evaluation of structures,” Earthquake Spectra 16, 367–392.
Kim, B. and D’amore, E. [1999] “Pushover analysis procedure in earthquake engineering,” Earth-
quake Spectra 13(2), 417–434.
Klinger, R. E., and Bertero, V. V. [1978] “Earthquake resistance of infilled frames,” Journal of the
Structural Division 104(ST6), 973–989.
Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. [1998] “Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis for Seis-
mic Performance Evaluation,” Engineering Structures 20(4–6), 452–464.
Lawson, R. S., Vance, V., and Krawinkler, H. [1994] “Nonlinear static push-over analysis – why,
when, and how,” Proceedings of the Fifth U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, I, Vol I.
Lin, Y. Y., Chang, K. C., and Wang, Y. L. [2004] “Comparison of displacement coefficient method
and capacity spectrum method with experimental results of RC columns,” Earthquake Engineer-
ing and Structural Dynamics 33, 35–48.
Mainstone, R. J., and Weeks, G. A. [1970] “The influence of bounding frame on the racking stiff-
ness and strength of brick walls,” Proc. 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke on
Trent, UK, 165–171.
Mwafy, A. M., and Elnashai, A. S. [2000] “Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC
buildings,” Eng. Struct. 23(5), 407–424.
National Seismic Survey [1999] Brite-Euram MANSIDE Project – Workshop Proceedings, Rome,
Italy.
Panagiotakos, T. B., and Fardis, M. N. [1994] “Proposed nonlinear strut models for infill panels,”
First Year Progress Report of HCM-PREC8 Project, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Papanikolaou V. K., Elnashai A. S., and Pareja J. F. [2006] “Evaluation of conventional and
adaptive pushover analysis,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 10(1), 127–132.
Pinho, R., Antoniou, S. and Pietra, D. [2006] “A displacement-based adaptive pushover for seismic
assessment of steel and reinforced concrete buildings,” Proc. 8th US National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, USA, paper No. 1701.
Prakash, V. Powell, G. H., and Campbell, S. [1994] DRAIN-3DX : Base program description and
user guide, Report No. UCB/SEMM-94/07, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
California at Berkeley, California.
Requena, M., and Ayala, G., [2000] “Evaluation of a simplified method for the determination of the
nonlinear seismic response of RC frames,” Proc. 12th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., Auckland, New
Zealand, Paper No. 2109.
Sasaki, K. K., Freeman, S. A., and Paret, T. F. [1998] “Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP) – a
method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis,” Proceedings of the Sixth
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute, Oakland, California.
Satyarno, I., Carr, A. J., and Restrepo, J. [1998] “Refined pushover analysis for the assessment of
older reinforced concrete buildings,” Proc. NZSEE Technology Conference, Wairakei, New
Zealand, 75–82.
Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. [1994] “Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and dis-
placement,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 23, 502–521.
Zamfirescu, D. and Fajfar, P. [2001] “Comparison of simplified procedures for nonlinear seismic
analysis of structures,” Proc. of the 3rd US-Japan Workshop on performance-based earthquake
engineering methodology for reinforced concrete buildings, Seattle.

Cardone2007 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cardone2007 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds]

On: 21 November 2014, At: 07:52

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Nonlinear Static Methods vs.

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460601173938

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Nonlinear Static Methods vs. Experimental

Shaking Table Test Results

Department of Structures, Geotechnics and Applied Geology,

Keywords Pushover Analysis; Capacity Spectrum Method; Displacement Coefficient Method;

Received 15 May 2006; accepted 14 December 2006.

2. Overview of Nonlinear Static Methods

2.1. Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM)

bef = bo + k ⋅ beq . (1)

The equivalent hysteretic damping is calculated as [Chopra, 1995]:

2.2. Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM)

3. Testing Model and Experimental Results

FIGURE 1 General layout of the model [24]. Units in cm.

Base shear (kN)

Base shear (kN)

PGA = 0.19g PGA = 0.19g

Base shear (kN)

PGA = 0.28g PGA = 0.28g

Base shear (kN)

FIGURE 5 Experimental base-shear vs. top-displacement relationships relevant to the

analysis [ATC, 1996; FEMA, 2000].

(a) (b) (c) (d) (b) (d)

5. Results and Comparisons

5.1. Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM)

1.0 Capacity Curve (CC)

0.8 17.8%-damped ADRS

0.6 8%-damed ADRS

1.4 Elastic response

1.4 Effective period

FIGURE 10 Comparison between theoretical and experimental base-shear vs. top-dis-

5.2. Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM)

cess is reported. The demand curve is represented by a smoothed 2.5%-damped response

5.4. Comparison Between Methods and Procedures

E Experimental CSM N2 DCM

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1

1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0

3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1

1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0

(a) (b) (c) (d)

6. Summary and Conclusions

E Experimental CSM N2 DCM

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1

1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0

Вам также может понравиться