A comparison of structural analyses procedures for earthquake-resistant design of buildings

IF 1.4 4区工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL

Earthquakes and Structures Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI:10.12989/EAS.2021.20.5.531

R. Latifi, M. Hadzima-Nyarko

{"title":"A comparison of structural analyses procedures for earthquake-resistant design of buildings","authors":"R. Latifi, M. Hadzima-Nyarko","doi":"10.12989/EAS.2021.20.5.531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several seismic analysis procedures in the latest standards have been developed for structural design and assessment. Since these methods have different advantages and limitations, a comprehensive comparison of these procedures is required to select the most effective one. The three most common methods are the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) method, Modal Response Spectrum (MRS) analysis, and Linear Response History (LRH) analysis. This research intends to present a comparative study of these methods, according to ASCE 7-16 standard by utilizing ETABSR software. They were examined in terms of base shear and distribution of story shear forces for a sixth-story reinforced concrete (RC) building, designed according to ACI 318-19 standard. Building code requirements for RC structures with the dual lateral force-resisting system in a high seismic zone are discussed. The results show that the ELF procedure's base shear for the building under consideration is conservative compared to the MRS or LRH analysis. The vertical distribution of the ELF procedure is just a function of the structure's fundamental period; however, the advantage of the MRS and LRH analysis is that they provide information as to how the distribution of mass and stiffness of a structure influences the member forces and displacements.","PeriodicalId":49080,"journal":{"name":"Earthquakes and Structures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earthquakes and Structures","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12989/EAS.2021.20.5.531","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several seismic analysis procedures in the latest standards have been developed for structural design and assessment. Since these methods have different advantages and limitations, a comprehensive comparison of these procedures is required to select the most effective one. The three most common methods are the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) method, Modal Response Spectrum (MRS) analysis, and Linear Response History (LRH) analysis. This research intends to present a comparative study of these methods, according to ASCE 7-16 standard by utilizing ETABSR software. They were examined in terms of base shear and distribution of story shear forces for a sixth-story reinforced concrete (RC) building, designed according to ACI 318-19 standard. Building code requirements for RC structures with the dual lateral force-resisting system in a high seismic zone are discussed. The results show that the ELF procedure's base shear for the building under consideration is conservative compared to the MRS or LRH analysis. The vertical distribution of the ELF procedure is just a function of the structure's fundamental period; however, the advantage of the MRS and LRH analysis is that they provide information as to how the distribution of mass and stiffness of a structure influences the member forces and displacements.

查看原文本刊更多论文

建筑抗震设计结构分析方法的比较

在结构设计和评估的最新标准中，已经开发了几种地震分析程序。由于这些方法有不同的优点和局限性，因此需要对这些方法进行综合比较，以选择最有效的方法。最常用的三种方法是等效侧向力(ELF)法、模态响应谱(MRS)分析和线性响应历史(LRH)分析。本研究拟根据ASCE 7-16标准，利用ETABSR软件对这些方法进行比较研究。根据ACI 318-19标准设计的六层钢筋混凝土(RC)建筑的基础剪力和层剪力分布进行了检查。讨论了高震区双侧抗力体系钢筋混凝土结构的建筑规范要求。结果表明，与MRS或LRH分析相比，ELF程序对所考虑的建筑物的基础剪力是保守的。ELF过程的垂直分布只是结构基本周期的函数;然而，MRS和LRH分析的优点是，它们提供了关于结构的质量分布和刚度如何影响构件力和位移的信息。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Earthquakes and Structures ENGINEERING, CIVIL-ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

20.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Earthquakes and Structures, An International Journal, focuses on the effects of earthquakes on civil engineering structures. The journal will serve as a powerful repository of technical information and will provide a highimpact publication platform for the global community of researchers in the traditional, as well as emerging, subdisciplines of the broader earthquake engineering field. Specifically, some of the major topics covered by the Journal include: .. characterization of strong ground motions, .. quantification of earthquake demand and structural capacity, .. design of earthquake resistant structures and foundations, .. experimental and computational methods, .. seismic regulations and building codes, .. seismic hazard assessment, .. seismic risk mitigation, .. site effects and soil-structure interaction, .. assessment, repair and strengthening of existing structures, including historic structures and monuments, and .. emerging technologies including passive control technologies, structural monitoring systems, and cyberinfrastructure tools for seismic data management, experimental applications, early warning and response