Abstract
In this paper, the methodology for evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis presented in a companion paper is applied to a set of eight different reinforced concrete buildings, covering various levels of irregularity in plan and elevation, structural ductility and directional effects. An extensive series of pushover analysis results, monitored on various levels is presented and compared to inelastic dynamic analysis under various strong motion records, using a new quantitative measure. It is concluded that advanced (adaptive) pushover analysis often gives results superior to those from conventional pushover. However, the consistency of the improvement is unreliable. It is also emphasised that global response parameter comparisons often give an incomplete and sometimes even misleading impression of the performance.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 127-151 |
| Number of pages | 25 |
| Journal | Journal of Earthquake Engineering |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2006 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Civil and Structural Engineering
- Building and Construction
- Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology
Cite this
}
Evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis ii : Comparative results. / Papanikolaou, Vassilis K.; Elnashai, Amr S.; Pareja, Juan F.
In: Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, 01.01.2006, p. 127-151.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis ii
T2 - Comparative results
AU - Papanikolaou, Vassilis K.
AU - Elnashai, Amr S.
AU - Pareja, Juan F.
PY - 2006/1/1
Y1 - 2006/1/1
N2 - In this paper, the methodology for evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis presented in a companion paper is applied to a set of eight different reinforced concrete buildings, covering various levels of irregularity in plan and elevation, structural ductility and directional effects. An extensive series of pushover analysis results, monitored on various levels is presented and compared to inelastic dynamic analysis under various strong motion records, using a new quantitative measure. It is concluded that advanced (adaptive) pushover analysis often gives results superior to those from conventional pushover. However, the consistency of the improvement is unreliable. It is also emphasised that global response parameter comparisons often give an incomplete and sometimes even misleading impression of the performance.
AB - In this paper, the methodology for evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis presented in a companion paper is applied to a set of eight different reinforced concrete buildings, covering various levels of irregularity in plan and elevation, structural ductility and directional effects. An extensive series of pushover analysis results, monitored on various levels is presented and compared to inelastic dynamic analysis under various strong motion records, using a new quantitative measure. It is concluded that advanced (adaptive) pushover analysis often gives results superior to those from conventional pushover. However, the consistency of the improvement is unreliable. It is also emphasised that global response parameter comparisons often give an incomplete and sometimes even misleading impression of the performance.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=32644437308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=32644437308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13632460609350590
DO - 10.1080/13632460609350590
M3 - Article
VL - 10
SP - 127
EP - 151
JO - Journal of Earthquake Engineering
JF - Journal of Earthquake Engineering
SN - 1363-2469
IS - 1
ER -