Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Proceedings of the First Makassar International Conference on Civil

Engineering (MICCE2010), March 9-10, 2010, ISBN 978-602-95227-0-9

EVALUATING EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS OF IRANIAN CODE WITH


NONLINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

K. B. Marsono1 and H. R. Khoshnoud2

ABSTRACT: Iran is located on an active tectonic zone between Asian and Sweden Arabic Plates Which has
experienced large ground motions. Manjil 1990 and Bam 2003 earthquakes that have devastated a large part of Iran
have caused several changes in Iranian Code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings Code2800 . This
paper evaluates concrete frame buildings are designed based on equivalent static code2800 that are widely use in
practice, with Nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA) based on FEMA356, ATC40 and FEMA440. To achieve this
objective a set of 5, 7 and 10 stories concrete frame building with different importance factors and different concrete
compression strength, first based on equivalent static Code2800 have been analyzed and designed and then NSPA have
been performed. According to the results of the analysis it can be concluded that the performance level of intermediate
importance buildings, like residential and commercial ones analyzed and designated with code2800, is between life
safety and collapse prevision. The performance level for very high importance buildings, like hospitals, is about
Immediate occupancy and with increasing concrete compression strength, performance point shifts toward linear part of
capacity curve that are acceptable with code2800 objectives.

Keywords: Pushover analysis, material nonlinearity, performance based design, Iranian Code of practice, concrete
moment resistant frame.

INTRODUCTION dimension of cross sections of beams and columns in


concrete moment resistance frame buildings. In the next
The recent earthquakes that devastated a large part of step of structure designing, beams and columns will be
Iran have caused several changes in Iranian Code of designed for reinforcements.
Practice for seismic resistant design of buildings Although the whole process of analysis is linear, all
Code2800 . After Manjil earthquake in the North of nonlinear characteristics of the structure such as ductility,
Iran in 1990 and Bam earthquake in the Central part of redundancy and inherent overstrength capacity are just
Iran in 2003, the Second and Third revisions of considered in the building behavior factor, R. As the
Code2800 have been published. Although nonlinear time linear analysis can not lead us to any understanding
history analysis is mentioned in Iranian Code of Practice toward the post yielding behavior of the structure, so
but the main focus is on linear static and dynamic estimation of building s response can not be performed
analyses. Therefore in practice most of the analysis for nonlinear phase of response with linear analysis.
methods are limited to linear analysis especially One of the popular static nonlinear analyses is the
equivalent static analysis based on code of practice pushover analysis. In this approach, applying the lateral
Code2800 . loads is divided to several steps. In each step a portion of
lateral load is applied to the structure and linear analysis
V CW ( ABI / R ) W ( Eq .1) will be performed with regard to considering the material
nonlinearity of the structure. If a section of an element(s)
In equivalent static analysis a portion of structure s goes to nonlinear phase so its stiffness will be reduced
weight according to Eq.1 is laterally applied to the and it can not completely participate in resisting system
stories of buildings and the structure will be analyzed for and its stiffness matrix must be changed. Therefore in
these lateral and gravity loads. After the analysis phase, each step the stiffness of the structure is controlled and if
drifts of stories must be checked with the limitations of necessary, it will be modified. These steps will be
Code2800. These controls affect largely on the iterated until the structure reaches to its target point or a

1
- Professor, AKADIR@UTM.MY , 60-013-7257737, 60-07-5531606, 60-07-5532445, Faculty of civil engineering, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
2
- Student, HRKHOSHNOUD@YAHOO.COM , 98-9111368654, 98-131-7224204, Faculty of civil engineering, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
mechanism is formed in the building. The target point design drift. All lateral loads are applied with 5%
has a key role in pushover analysis and it is the point that eccentricity according to Code2800.
the capacity of the structure is equal to the demand of the
structure. In fact in pushover analysis the target point is Table1- The specification of the 5 story building
Dimension Reinforcement
some how akin to the base shear forces in equivalent Story Column
Beam Column Column Col2
static analysis because we check and design structures Col1
for those forces that exist when structure reaches to its 5 35x35 35x35 8 18 8 20
4 35x35 40x40 8 18 8 20
target point. 3 40x40 45x45 8 20 12 20
There are several methods for pushover analysis: the 2 45x45 45x45 8 20 12 20
capacity spectrum method ATC40, the coefficient 1 45x45 45x45 12 25 12 25

method of FEMA356 and the modal pushover analysis.


The approach of pushover analysis has been developed
by many researchers. In general, material nonlinearity
for frame elements like concrete frame structures is
considered with two main methods: Concentrated and
distributed plasticity. The concentrated plasticity or
plastic hinge method is simpler than distributed plasticity
but it can not take into account complex member
behavior under plasticity zone. In this research we
analyze regular concrete moment resistant frame
structure without any special loading during the span of
the beams so it can be predicted that our plastic zone will
be limited to the ends of the members therefore
concentrated plastic hinges is used for pushover analysis
of concrete frames.

MODELS CONSIDERED

In this Study a set of 5, 7 and 10 story concrete frame


buildings have been analyzed and designed with 3 spans
of 4 meter in each direction and height of each story
3.06m, 3.06m and 3.24m respectively, first based on
equivalent static Code2800 (3rd version) and then based
on nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA).
There are three groups of buildings, first group is a
set of 5, 7 and 10 story buildings with importance factor
I=1 and f `c=210 Kg/Cm2. The second group consists
three buildings of 5-stories with concrete compression of
f `c=210, 250, 280 Kg/Cm2 and importance factor I=1.
The final group consists two buildings of 5-stories with
importance factor I=1 and I=1.4 and concrete
compression of f `c=210Kg/Cm2.
it is assumed that buildings are located in high level
seismic zone with a design base acceleration 0.3g and
soil profile type IV (soft deposits and high moisture in
north of Iran). All buildings have intermediate R.C.
MRF system with behavior factor, R=7. The cracked Fig.1- The plan of a 5 story building with the details of
moment of inertia has been considered 0.35Ig3 and 0.7Ig column col1
for beams and columns respectively to calculate the
The dead load is considered as 700 kg/m2 for the
weight of floors and internal walls, 200 kg/m2 for live
3
load for stories, 600 kg/m2 for dead load and 200 kg/m2
- Although according to the table 6-5, FEMA 356, Effective stiffness
value for nonprestressed beam is 0.5EcIg but for similarities with for live load for roof.
code2800 it is assumed 0.35EcIg.
Fig. 2- The plan of a 7 story building with the details of
column col1

Table2 The specification of the 7 story building


Dimension Reinforcement
Story
Beam Column Col1 Col2 Col3
7 35x35 35x35 8 18 8 20 8 20
6 40x40 40x40 8 18 12 20 8 20 Fig.3 The plan of a 10 story building with the detail of
5 45x45 45x45 8 20 12 25 12 25 column col1
4 45x45 45x45 12 20 12 25 12 25
3 50x50 50x50 12 20 16 20 16 20
2 50x50 50x50 12 20 16 25 16 25 The assumption for the weight of external walls is
1 50x50 50x50 16 25 16 25 16 25 750 kg/m which applied on perimeter beams on stories.
To include the effective weight of last wall of the nonlinear behavior of elements especially for yielding
building for equivalent static analysis, a load of 375 and post-yielding behavior, plastic hinges can be define
kg/m2 is applied on perimeter beams of roof by type of in two ends of beams or columns or any other location
Other (not calculated in design process). that may have a plastic zone formed. In SAP2000
All building are from the type of intermediate Uncoupled moment, torsion, axial force and shear hinges
reinforced concrete moment resisting frame with are available. There is also a coupled P-M2-M3 hinges
behavior factor, R=7. For buildings with importance which yields based on the interaction of axial force and
factor I=1 and I=1.4 the C factor in Eq. 1 are 0.1178 and bi-axial bending moments at the hinge location [8].
0.165 respectively. During the pushover analysis the capacity curve of
structure can be developed. The capacity curve may be
Table3 The specification of the 10 story building presented in the form of force-displacement curve or
Dimension Reinforcement ADRS format. Normally the monitored displacement is
Story
Beam Column Column C1
10 35x35 35x35 8 20 the roof of building. One of the key parts of pushover
9 40x40 45x45 12 20 analysis is finding the target or performance point of the
8 45x45 60x60 12 25
building. In fact the target point is the maximum
7 60x60 60x60 12 25
6 60x60 60x60 16 25 expected displacement resulting from the earthquake
5 60x60 60x60 16 25 intensity under consideration. In other words, target or
4 60x60 70x70 16 25
performance point is the intersection of capacity curve
3 60x60 70x70 16 25
2 60x60 70x70 20 25 with demand curve of structure as shown in figure 4.
1 60x60 70x70 24 25

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN BASED ON CODE2800

All groups of buildings have been analyzed and


designed based on Code2800. After linear analysis, drifts
of stories have been controlled with the limitations of
Code2800. According to the limitations of Code2800 the
drifts of stories are as follows:

M 0.025h for T 0.7 Sec (Eq. 2)


M 0.020h for T 0.7 Sec (Eq. 3)
M 0. 7 R w (Eq. 4)
T 0.07h 3 / 4 (Eq. 5)
(for reinforcement concrete frame)

M The Actual design story drift


w The design story drift Fig.4- performance point in capacity and demand curve
R Building behavior factor

In fact M and w are drifts of inelastic and elastic


of buildings, therefore drift limitations for 5, 7 and 10
stories are 0.0051,0.0051 and 0.0041 respectively. After
the drift control, each building has been designed for
reinforcement. The results of the building s design for
group one for 5, 7 and 10 stories have been depicted in
figure 1, 2 and 3 and in table 1, 2 and 3.

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis is a series of incremental linear


analysis and in each step a portion of lateral load is
applied to the structure. For monitoring the material Fig.5 - Performance levels
The evaluation of building s performance is the main Table 4 - The target displacement and base shear for 5, 7
objective of performance based design. There are several and 10 story buildings
Vp
performance levels according to the location of target
base shear
Vs
Ratio of
story disp. base shear (ton)
performance point of structure like IO (immediate (cm)
(ton)
(static analysis)
Vp/Vs
occupancy), LS (life safety) and CP (collapse (pushover )
5 28 292 116 2.52
prevention). If the performance point shifts toward linear
part (point B in figure 5) it means there is more tolerance 7 36 359 175 2.05
for more deformation. On the other hands if the 10 52 489 303 1.61
performance point shifts towards point C it means there
is no more capacity for any deformation so the collapse Table 5- periods and modal participating Mass
may occur. Period Mass Mass Mass
Mode
(Sec) UX UY RZ
Distribution of lateral loads is one of the important 1 1.064 0.66 0.08 0
parts of a pushover analysis. According to section 3.3.2.3, 2 1.064 0.08 0.66 0
for all analyses, at least two vertical distributions of 5 3 0.907 0.00 0.00 0.756
4 0.390 0.13 0.02 0
lateral load shall be applied. In this study two 5 0.390 0.02 0.13 0
distributions of lateral load is used one based on 1 1.255 0.749 0.000 0
Equation 3-12 of FEMA356 and another based on 2 1.255 0.000 0.749 0
7 3 1.071 0.000 0.000 0.756
uniform distribution. 4 0.474 0.084 0.046 0
5 0.474 0.046 0.084 0
1 1.247 0.005 0.731 0
2 1.247 0.731 0.005 0
10 3 1.037 0.000 0.000 0.744
4 0.523 0.009 0.097 0
5 0.523 0.097 0.009 0

Therefore the dimension of cross section elements of


10 story buildings is relatively greater than 7 story
buildings. It means that the stiffness of 10 story
buildings is relatively more than 7 stories because the 10
story building s drift limitation is smaller than the one of
the 7 story building.
Also according to table 5, modal participating mass
in x direction for 5, 7 and 10 story buildings are 66%,
75% and 73% respectively. Therefore it is not accurate if
we use the distribution of lateral load based on Equation
Fig.6 - Capacity curve for 5, 7 and 10 story buildings 3-12 of FEMA356.

Figure 6 shows three capacity curves for 5, 7 and 10 PERFORMANCE OF FIRST GROUP OF BUILDINGS
story buildings after pushover analysis of the buildings
of group one. Each curve stars with a linear part and with Table 6 shows the pushover curve or performance of
the formation of the first plastic hinge in elements, the the 5 story building. As shown before step 3, all hinges
response of structure will go to nonlinear part. When are behind the point B or in elastic range and have a
more lateral loads are applied to the building more lateral displacement around 8cm for control point (roof
plastic hinges will be formed and the slope of capacity displacement). The first plastic hinges have been formed
cure will be reduced. It means that in nonlinear part, in beams of story 1 as shown in figure 7. Before step 8,
structures are not able to carry more lateral load because the lateral displacements are around 16cm for control
of the reduction of their stiffness but they may tolerate point and all hinges are behind point of IO. In step 8,
more deflection. plastic hinges expand to upper stories beams and first
The target displacement and base shear for 5, 7 and plastic hinges have been formed in lower parts of first
10 story buildings are 28, 36, 52cm and 292, 359 and story columns as depicted in figure 8. In step 11, around
489ton respectively as shown in table 4. Table 5 shows 31cm all plastic hinges are behind CP points. The target
the periods and modal participating mass for buildings of point for 5 story building is 28cm so it can be concluded
group one. The drift limitations for 7 and 10 stories are that the performance of 5 story building is between LS
0.0051 and 0.0041 respectively according to Code2800. and CP points as shown in figure 8.
3 8.7 218.2 392 8 0 0 0
4 10.3 247.9 360 40 0 0 0
5 12.9 269.9 330 70 0 0 0
6 15.3 280.6 304 96 0 0 0
7 16.2 282.8 296 104 0 0 0
8 21.4 288.7 276 76 48 0 0
9 23.4 290.3 264 56 80 0 0
10 27.4 292.2 264 48 88 0 0
11 31.4 294.1 264 24 104 8 0

Fig.7- plastic hinges formation in step 3 (uniform


pattern)

Fig.9- plastic hinges formation in step 11 (uniform


pattern)

Table 7- Pushover Curve for 7 stories building (Eq. 3-12


pattern)
Base
Disp. B- IO- LS- CP-
Step Force A-B
(Cm) IO LS CP C
(Ton)
0 0 0 560 0 0 0 0
1 6.0 153.3 560 0 0 0 0
2 10.2 259.5 560 0 0 0 0
3 12.1 303.3 509 51 0 0 0
4 12.7 310.4 485 75 0 0 0
5 18.8 334.9 448 112 0 0 0
6 24.9 347.0 424 87 49 0 0
7 31.0 354.0 414 50 96 0 0
8 37.0 360.3 401 42 76 41 0
9 42.2 364.6 386 38 64 51 0
10 48.2 366.9 380 44 41 42 0
11 48.9 367.0 379 45 40 36 0
12 48.9 367.0 379 45 40 36 0
Fig.8- plastic hinges formation in step 8 (uniform
pattern)
Table 7 shows the pushover curve or performance of
Table 6- Pushover Curve for 5 stories building (uniform a 7 stories building. As shown before step 3 all hinges
pattern) are behind point B and in around 10cm, the first plastic
Base hinges have been formed (Fig. 10). Before step 6, in
Disp. B- IO- LS- CP-
Step Force A-B
cm
ton
IO LS CP C around 19cm, all hinges are before point of IO. In step 6
0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 all hinges are before point of LS (Fig. 11). In step 8, in
1 4.0 100.5 400 0 0 0 0 around 37cm all plastic hinges are behind CP points. The
2 7.9 199.1 400 0 0 0 0
target point for the 7 story building is 36cm so it can be
concluded that the performance of the 7 story building is
between LS and CP points (Fig. 12).

Fig.12- plastic hinges formation in step 8 (Esq. 3-12


pattern)

Fig.10- plastic hinges formation in step 3 (Esq. 3-12


pattern)

Fig.13- plastic hinges formation in step 4 (Esq. 3-12


pattern)
Fig.11- plastic hinges formation in step 6 (Esq. 3-12
pattern)
Table 8 shows the pushover curve or performance of story building is 52cm so it can be concluded
a 10 story building. As shown before the step 4 all that the performance of the 10 story building is
hinges are behind point B and in around 12cm the first between LS and CP points (Fig. 15).
plastic hinges have been formed (Fig. 13). Before step
10, in around 27cm, all hinges are before point of IO. In
the step 10, all hinges are before point of LS (Fig. 14).

Table 8- Pushover Curve for 10 stories building (Eq. 3-


12 pattern)
Base
Disp. B- IO- LS- CP-
Step Force A-B
cm IO LS CP C
ton
0 0.002 0.0 800 0 0 0 0
1 6.002 222.2 800 0 0 0 0
2 10.451 387.0 800 0 0 0 0
3 10.348 383.2 800 0 0 0 0
4 11.914 438.9 733 67 0 0 0
5 12.130 442.7 685 115 0 0 0
6 12.575 445.6 650 150 0 0 0
7 13.566 448.7 611 189 0 0 0
8 20.751 458.8 578 222 0 0 0
9 27.147 466.2 570 230 0 0 0
10 35.822 475.1 562 142 96 0 0
11 42.735 481.1 560 83 157 0 0
12 50.852 488.0 558 58 174 10 0
13 57.652 493.7 556 28 100 116 0

Fig.15- plastic hinges formation in step 13 (Esq. 3-12


pattern)

PERFORMANCE OF SECOND GROUPS OF


BUILDINGS

The second group of buildings consists three 5-story


buildings with concrete compression strength of f `c=210,
250, 280 Kg/Cm2, and importance factor I=1. The
pushover curves have been shown in figure 16. The
target displacement and base shear for buildings with
concrete compression of f `c=210, 250, 280 Kg/Cm2, are
28, 26.5, 22.7cm and 292, 299.3, 305 ton respectively.
Table 9 shows the target displacements and base shear
forces for this group.
Table 10 shows the performance on building with
concrete compression strength of f `c=280 Kg/Cm2. As
shown before step 9, in about 24 cm all hinges are
behind LS. The target point is about 23cm so it can be
concluded that the performance of the 5 story building
Fig.14- plastic hinges formation in step 10 (Esq. 3-12 with f `c=280 Kg/Cm2 is between IO and LS. Therefore
pattern) the conclusion will be drawn as with increasing concrete
compression strength, the stiffness of building increases
In step 13, around 58cm all plastic hinges are and the performance point of it shifts to linear part. For
before CP point. The target point for the 10 our case, the performance point of building shifts from
LS-CP to IO-LS part.
Table 9- The target displacement and base shear for 11 shows the target displacements and base shear forces
buildings group 2 for this group.
Vp Vs
target Ratio
base shear base shear
f 'C disp. of
(ton) (ton)
(cm) Vp/Vs
(pushover ) (static analysis)
210 28 292 116 2.52
250 26.5 299 116 2.57
280 22.7 305 116 2.63

Fig. 17- the pushover curves for buildings group 3

Table 11 - the target displacement and base shear for


buildings group 3
target Vp base Vs base shear Ratio
displ. shear (ton) (ton) (static of
(cm) (pushover) analysis) Vp/Vs
Fig. 16- The pushover curves for buildings group 2 I=1 25.3 291 116 2.51
I=1.4 20 250 177 1.41
Table 10- Pushover Curve (Uniform pattern, FEM356,
I=1,) Table 12- Pushover Curve (Uniform pattern, FEM356,
Base
Step
Disp.
Force A-B
B- IO- LS- CP- I=1.4)
(Cm) IO LS CP C Base
(Ton) Disp B- IO- LS- CP-
0 0.0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Step Force A-B
cm IO LS CP C
Ton
1 4.0 116.7 400 0 0 0 0
0 0.0 0 400 0 0 0 0
2 7.6 220.9 398 2 0 0 0
1 3.6 139.6 394 6 0 0 0
3 8.8 250.4 364 36 0 0 0
2 5.6 180.8 344 56 0 0 0
4 10.4 269.5 340 60 0 0 0
3 7.4 199.9 318 82 0 0 0
5 12.6 284.9 314 86 0 0 0
4 12.3 227.0 304 96 0 0 0
6 15.2 295.5 296 104 0 0 0
5 15.7 240.3 280 92 28 0 0
7 19.4 302.1 268 84 48 0 0
6 19.7 249.0 280 50 70 0 0
8 24.0 305.6 264 60 76 0 0
7 23.7 257.7 280 30 90 0 0
9 31.7 311.2 262 6 124 8 0
8 28.7 268.6 272 8 78 42 0
10 35.7 313.9 260 4 62 72 0
9 30.2 271.1 266 14 70 44 0
11 39.5 316.2 260 4 38 72 0
10 30.6 271.6 264 16 66 42 0
12 39.5 316.2 260 4 38 72 0
11 33.7 273.2 264 16 42 48 0
13 39.8 316.4 260 4 36 72 0
12 33.7 273.2 264 16 42 48 0
13 34.1 273.4 264 16 40 44 0
PERFORMANCE OF THIRD GROUP OF 14 34.1 273.4 264 16 40 44 0
15 34.6 273.6 264 16 40 38 0
BUILDINGS
16 34.6 273.6 264 16 40 38 0
17 35.5 274.0 264 16 34 38 0
The third group of buildings are two 5 story buildings 18 35.5 274.0 264 16 34 38 0
19 37.0 274.6 264 16 24 40 0
with importance factor I=1 and I=1.4 and concrete 20 37.0 274.6 264 16 24 40 0
compression of f `c=210 Kg/Cm2. The pushover curves 21 38.1 274.9 264 16 20 38 0
have been shown in figure 17 for buildings of the second 22 38.1 274.9 264 16 20 38 0
23 38.6 275.1 264 16 18 32 0
group. The target displacement and base shear based on 24 38.6 275.1 264 16 18 32 0
FEMA356, for buildings with importance factor I=1 and 25 40.0 275.5 264 16 12 36 0
I=1.4 are 25, 20cm and 291, 250ton respectively. Table
Table 12 shows the performance on buildings with ATC40, Seismic and evaluation and retrofit of concrete
importance factor I=1.4. As shown before step 8, in buildings, Volume 1, applied technology council,
about 24 cm all hinges are behind LS. The target point is 1996.
about 20cm so it can be concluded that the performance Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356,
of the 5 story building with importance factor I=1.4 is Prestandard and commentary seismic rehabilitation
between IO and LS. It can be concluded that with of buildings, Washington D.C., 2000.
increasing the importance factor, the structure should be Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis
analyzed and designed for larger lateral forces in procedure for estimating seismic demands for
equivalent static analysis therefore the designed buildings Earthquake Engineering and structural
buildings are more rigid in comparison to the same Dynamics 31(3), 561-582, 2002
buildings with I=1. On the other hand, increasing the Fajfar, P. Structural analysis in earthquake engineering
stiffness of buildings causes the performance point of it a breakthrough of simplified nonlinear methods,
shifts from LS-CP to IO-LS part. 12th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Paper Reference 843, 2002
CONCLUSION Elansha, A. S. Advanced inelastic static (pushover)
analysis for earthquake applications, Structural
There are the conclusions drawn from comparing the Engineering and Mechanics 12(1), 51-69, 2001.
results from the equivalent static analysis based on CSI analysis reference manual, SAP2000, Ver. 14,
Code2800 and the pushover analysis: integrated finite element analysis and design of
structures. Berkeley (CA, USA), Computers and
The performance of concrete moment resisting
frame buildings that have analyzed and designed Structures ING; 2009.
with Code2800 with importance factor 1 and 1.4
are between LS and CP and between IO and LS,
respectively. It has good compatibility with
expectation of Code2800.
Consideration of the formation of plastic hinges
shows they formed in lower stories; grow up to
upper stories and in column of lower story. This
pattern of plastic hinges shows the compatibility
with the philosophy of strong columns and weak
beams.
Increasing the concrete compression strength
improves the performance of buildings.
The ductility of structures and the ability of tolerate
more deformation is an essential factor for moment
resistant frames buildings.
The pushover analysis is a simple and straight
forward method for giving us a reasonable
perspective of yielding and post yielding behavior
of buildings.

It is needed more investigation of concrete moment


resisting frames based on Code2800, especially on
studying the irregular buildings in plan or in height and
on considering the amount of behavior factor, R and the
effective parameters which impacts on it.

REFERENCES

Iranian Code of practice for seismic resistant design of


buildings (Standard No. 2800), 3rd edition, Building
and housing research center, 2007.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 440,
Improvement of Nonlinear static seismic analysis
procedure, Washington D.C., 2005.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen