Abstract
Pushover analysis is a nonlinear static analysis method that is practiced widely in seismic evaluation. A capacity curve that represents the base shear versus roof displacement of a building can be found by performing pushover analysis of a building. From the capacity curve, the maximum lateral strength and displacement of a structure can be found. On the other hand, incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is a procedure where a series of nonlinear time history analyses should be conducted to get the capacity curve. The capacity curve can be constructed by considering base shear and roof displacement of a building as intensity measure and demand parameter, respectively. A comparison between nonlinear static and incremental dynamic analysis is well needed as they offer similar output (e.g., capacity curve) with different levels of complexities in analysis processes (e.g., number of models run, time). This study aims to comprehensively compare nonlinear static and incremental dynamic analysis method for the seismic evaluation of RC buildings. While previous comparative studies primarily focused on the extent of variation in global behavior, i.e., strength and displacement capacity of buildings, this study also considered the collapse mechanism of buildings and the damage extent of structural members, which are essential factors in seismic evaluation as well as in strengthening. This study may help researchers to understand relative prospect and limitation of each analysis method in a better way by considering these additional factors. In this study, lateral behavior of an existing seven-storied RC building under nonlinear static and incremental dynamic loads has been investigated and compared using SAP2000. In addition, the damage comparison was performed by comparing the plastic hinge states of the damaged building. The results showed that both capacity curves exhibited similar behavior in stiffness up to the first yielding of structural members. However, they differed in strength and ductility under the two analysis approaches. Additionally, it was observed that more beams and columns of the building yielded under IDA when compared with nonlinear static analysis. However, the building failed by forming a partial mechanism in both pushover and IDA analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
ACI 318 Group. (2002). Building code requirements for structural concrete. American Concrete Institute.
Astroza, R., Ebrahimian, H., & Conte, J. P. (2015). Material parameter identification in distributed plasticity FE models of frame-type structures using nonlinear stochastic filtering. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0000851
BNBC. (1993). Bangladesh National Building Code. Prepared by Housing and Building Research Institute. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
CSI. (2023). SAP2000 integrated software for structural analysis and design. Computers and Structures Inc.
Dinh, T. V., & Ichinose, T. (2005). Probabilistic estimation of seismic story drifts in reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2005)131:3(416)
Ebrahimi, E., Abdollahzadeh, G., & Jahani, E. (2018). Assessment of axial load effect on nonlinear modeling and seismic response of reinforced concrete-structures based on fuzzy set theory using genetic algorithm. Structural Concrete, 20(2), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800143
FEMA 356. (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Prepared by American Society of Civil Engineers for Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Fragiadakis, M., & Vamvatsikos, D. (2011). Qualitative comparison of static pushover versus incremental dynamic analysis capacity curves. In 7th Hellenic National Conference on Steel Structures.
Hyderkhan, P., & Murnal, P. B. (2018). Comparison of incremental dynamic analysis curve with pushover curve. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 05(10)
JBDPA. (2001). Guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation and rehabilitation. Prepared by Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association.
Kaveh, A., & Kaveh, A. (2016). Cost and CO 2 Emission Optimization of Reinforced Concrete Frames Using Enhanced Colliding Bodies Optimization Algorithm. Applications of Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms in Civil Engineering, 319–350.
Kaveh, A., & Zakian, P. (2014). Seismic design optimisation of RC moment frames and dual shear wall-frame structures via CSS algorithm. Asian J Civ Eng (BHRC), 15(3), 435–465.
Kaveh, A., & Behnam, A. F. (2012). Cost optimization of a composite floor system, one-way waffle slab, and concrete slab formwork using a charged system search algorithm. Scientia Iranica, 19(3), 410–416.
Kaveh, A., & Behnam, A. F. (2013). Design optimization of reinforced concrete 3D structures considering frequency constraints via a charged system search. Scientia Iranica, 20(3), 387–396.
Kaveh, A., Izadifard, R. A., & Mottaghi, L. (2019a). Optimal design of planar RC frames considering CO2 emissions using ECBO, EVPS and PSO metaheuristic algorithms. Journal of Building Engineering, 28, 101014.
Kaveh, A., Kabir, M. Z., & Bohlool, M. (2019b). Optimal design of multi-span pitched roof frames with tapered members. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 63(1), 77–86.
Kaveh, A., Kabir, M. Z., & Bohlool, M. (2019c). Optimum design of three-dimensional steel frames with prismatic and non-prismatic elements. Engineering with Computers, 36, 1011–1027.
Kaveh, A., Mottaghi, L., & Izadifard, R. A. (2021). An integrated method for sustainable performance-based optimal seismic design of RC frames with non-prismatic beams. Scientia Iranica, 28(5), 2596–2612.
Kunnath, S. K., & Kalkan, E. (2005). IDA capacity curves: the need for alternative intensity factors. In Structures Congress 2005: Metropolis and Beyond, 1–9.
Moravej, H., Vafaei, M., & Bakar, S. A. (2016). Seismic performance of a wall-frame air traffic control tower. Earthquakes and Structures, 10(2), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.2.463
Park, R. (1989). Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from laboratory testing. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 22(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.22.3.155-166
Vafaei, M., Adnan, A. B., & Rahman, A. B. A. (2014). A neuro-wavelet technique for seismic damage identification of cantilever structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(12), 1666–1684. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.849746
Vargas, Y. F., Pujades, L. G., Barbat, A. H., & Hurtado, J. E. (2013). Incremental dynamic analysis and pushover analysis of buildings. A probabilistic comparison. Computational Methods in Stochastic Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5134-7_17
Vielma, J. C., & Mulder, M. M. (2017). Procedure for assessing the displacement ductility based on seismic collapse threshold and dissipated energy balance. In XVI World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Zong, Z., Lin, X., & Niu, J. (2015). Finite element model validation of bridge based on Structural Health Monitoring—part I: Response surface-based finite element model updating. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 2(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2015.06.001
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MBP, MNIM, and MRAC generated models, analyzed data, and wrote the main manuscript text under the supervision of DS who contributed to generate the whole idea. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Prince, M.B., Mollah, M.N.I., Chowdhury, M.R.A. et al. Comparison of lateral behavior of an existing RC building under nonlinear static and incremental dynamic loads. Asian J Civ Eng 24, 2155–2164 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00632-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00632-2