Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222528216
CITATIONS
READS
74
1,291
2 authors:
Mehmet Inel
Pamukkale University
Usak niversitesi
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Abstract
Due to its simplicity, the structural engineering profession has been using the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis. Modeling
for such analysis requires the determination of the nonlinear properties of each component in the structure, quantified by strength and deformation
capacities, which depend on the modeling assumptions. Pushover analysis is carried out for either user-defined nonlinear hinge properties or
default-hinge properties, available in some programs based on the FEMA-356 and ATC-40 guidelines. While such documents provide the hinge
properties for several ranges of detailing, programs may implement averaged values. The user needs to be careful; the misuse of default-hinge
properties may lead to unreasonable displacement capacities for existing structures. This paper studies the possible differences in the results of
pushover analysis due to default and user-defined nonlinear component properties. Four- and seven-story buildings are considered to represent
low- and medium- rise buildings for this study. Plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing are assumed to be effective parameters
in the user-defined hinge properties. Observations show that plastic hinge length and transverse reinforcement spacing have no influence on the
base shear capacity, while these parameters have considerable effects on the displacement capacity of the frames. Comparisons point out that an
increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement improves the displacement capacity. Although the capacity curve for the default-hinge model
is reasonable for modern code compliant buildings, it may not be suitable for others. Considering that most existing buildings in Turkey and in
some other countries do not conform to requirements of modern code detailing, the use of default hinges needs special care. The observations
clearly show that the user-defined hinge model is better than the default-hinge model in reflecting nonlinear behavior compatible with the element
properties. However, if the default-hinge model is preferred due to simplicity, the user should be aware of what is provided in the program and
should avoid the misuse of default-hinge properties.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nonlinear hinge properties; Nonlinear static procedure; Plastic hinge length; Pushover analysis; Transverse steel amount; Nonlinear time history
1. Introduction
Since inelastic behavior is intended in most structures
subjected to infrequent earthquake loading, the use of nonlinear
analyses is essential to capture behavior of structures under
seismic effects. Due to its simplicity, the structural engineering
profession has been using the nonlinear static procedure
(NSP) or pushover analysis, described in FEMA-356 [1] and
ATC-40 [2]. It is widely accepted that, when pushover analysis
is used carefully, it provides useful information that cannot be
obtained by linear static or dynamic analysis procedures.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 258 213 4030x1547; fax: +90 258 212
5548.
E-mail addresses: minel@pamukkale.edu.tr (M. Inel),
ozmenhayri@yahoo.com (H.B. Ozmen).
1495
Period (s)
Mass participation factor
0.755
0.819
Story level
4
3
2
1
1.000
0.853
0.553
0.224
0.250
0.117
1.000
0.001
0.842
0.580
0.147
0.036
1.000
1.017
0.159
0.788
1496
Table 2
Dynamic characteristics of 7-story frame
Mode no
Period (s)
Mass participation factor
0.965
0.775
Story level
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.000
0.936
0.796
0.634
0.436
0.273
0.109
0.345
0.126
1.000
0.575
0.172
0.656
0.820
0.660
0.301
0.209
0.044
1.000
0.042
0.925
0.497
0.470
0.777
0.462
3. Modeling approach
Analyses have been performed using SAP2000 [9], which
is a general-purpose structural analysis program for static
and dynamic analyses of structures. In this study, SAP2000
1.4s f yh su
f cc
(1)
1497
given in Eqs. (2) and (3); 0.5H is the simplest form of plastic
hinge length (Park and Paulay [3]) and the one given in Eq. (3)
is proposed by Priestley et al. [4] and has been used in some
guidelines (i.e. ATC-32 [15]):
L p = 0.5H
(2)
(3)
1498
(4)
Table 3
Pushover analysis cases
Default hinge (Case A)
User-defined hinges
s = 100 (mm)
s = 150 (mm)
s = 200 (mm)
L p w/Eq. (2)
L p w/Eq. (3)
Case B2
Case B3
Case C3
Case D3
1499
is used instead of Eq. (3) for L p . The curve for the defaulthinge properties case is also shown in the figures. The capacities
for Cases A and B3 are quite similar. However, note that the
1500
Fig. 9. Plastic hinge patterns for 4-story frame at global yielding and ultimate states.
Fig. 10. Plastic hinge patterns for 7-story frame at global yielding and ultimate states.
Table 4
Summary of plastic hinging for pushover analysis at different damage levels
Hinge damage states
4 story
7 story
A-B
B-IO
IO-LS
LS-CP
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
Total
Yield
User-defined
Default
45
46
17
25
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
72
Ultimate
User-defined
Default
29
29
6
9
30
5
4
22
2
0
0
1
0
6
1
0
72
72
Yield
User-defined
Default
87
88
39
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
126
126
Ultimate
User-defined
Default
58
59
9
23
52
6
4
34
1
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
126
126
because of the larger axial force level. Even though the userdefined models have good agreement with this expectation, the
default models are not compatible (Figs. 9 and 10). From left to
right, the second- and fourth-row base columns of the frames
resist the lateral loading by their weak axis. Therefore, they
have lower strength and larger deformation capacities compared
with their neighbors. This behaviour can also be seen in the
user-defined hinge models, but not on the default-hinge models.
The 4- and 7-story frames have a significant amount of
column yielding at the upper stories (Figs. 9 and 10). Careful
1501
Fig. 11. Comparison of plastic hinging mechanism of 4-story frame for nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic (subjected to 1940 El Centro ground motion)
analyses.
Fig. 12. Plastic hinging mechanism of 4- and 7-story frames with user-defined
hinges subjected to scaled 1940 El Centro ground motion to obtain the ultimate
displacement determined from pushover analysis. (a) 4-story frame (scale factor
= 1.88 and demand = 170 mm). (b) 7-story frame (scale factor = 1.90 and
demand = 232 mm).
beams and columns. The frames were modeled with default and
user-defined hinge properties to study possible differences in
the results of pushover analyses. The following findings were
observed:
1. The base shear capacity of models with the default hinges
and with the user-defined hinges for different plastic hinge
length and transverse reinforcement spacing are similar; the
variation in the base shear capacity is less than 5%. Thus, the
base shear capacity does not depend on whether the default
or user-defined hinge properties are used.
2. Plastic hinge length (L p ) has considerable effects on the
displacement capacity of the frames. Comparisons show that
there is a variation of about 30% in displacement capacities
due to L p .
3. Displacement capacity depends on the amount of transverse
reinforcement at the potential hinge regions. Comparisons
clearly point out that an increase in the amount of transverse
reinforcement improves the displacement capacity. The improvement is more effective for smaller spacing. For example, reducing the spacing from 200 mm to 100 mm provides
an increase of up to 40% in the displacement capacity, while
reducing the spacing from 200 mm to 150 mm provides an
increase of only 12% for the 4-story frame.
1502