Vol. 15 No. 03 (2025): Tạp chí Vật liệu và Xây dựng
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##
Tạp chí Vật liệu & Xây dựng - Bộ Xây dựng

ISSN:

Website: www.jomc.vn

Nonlinear seismic responses of high-rise buildings subjected to earthquake using MPA-CSM procedure considered soil-structure interaction

Hồng Ân Nguyễn

Keywords:

Nonlinear static procedure
Pushover analysis
MPA procedure
CSM procedure
Soil-structure interaction

Abstract

This research aims to assess the bias and accuracy of the Modal Pushover Analysis combined with the Capacity Spectrum Method (MPA - CSM) when it is applied to 3-, 9-, 18-story steel frames due to two sets of strong ground motions having 2% and 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The influence of soil-structure interaction was taken into account in this study. The results of the MPA – CSM method were compared with the results from Standard Pushover Analysis (SPA), Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA), MPA - CSM  procedure (mode 1) and “exact” results from Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NL-RHA). The calculation process of the proposed MPA – CSM method is simpler than the MPA method and the NL – RHA method, thus saving calculation time and cost.

User Navigation

PDF (Tiếng Việt)

How to Cite

Nguyễn, H. Ân. (2025). Nonlinear seismic responses of high-rise buildings subjected to earthquake using MPA-CSM procedure considered soil-structure interaction. Tạp Chí Vật liệu & Xây dựng - Bộ Xây dựng, 15(03), Trang 212 – Trang 222. https://doi.org/10.54772/jomc.03.2025.992

References

  1. ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings: volumes 1 and 2. Redwood City (California): ATC-40, Applied Technology Council; 1996.
  2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington (DC): FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000
  3. BS EN 1998-1: 2004 (2004): Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance- Part 1: General rules,seismic actions and rules for buildings, British Standards, Bressel, UK.
  4. Chopra, A.K. and R.K. Goel, “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 31, pp. 561 -582, 2002.
  5. Nguyen, Hong An, Chintanapakdee, C., and Hayashikawa, T., “Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of BRBF buildings. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66(8-9): 1118-1127”, 2010.
  6. Chintanapakdee, C. and A. K. Chopra, “Evaluation of Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure Using Vertically "Regular" and Irregular Generic Frames”, University of California, Berkeley, 2003/03.
  7. Chintanapakdee, C., Nguyen, Hong An, and Hayashikawa, T.. “Assessment of modal pushover analysis procedure for seismic evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frames. The IES journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 2(3): 174-186”, 2009.
  8. Chopra, A.K and Goel, R.K., “Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthquake spectra 15(4): 637-656”,1999.
  9. Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using generic frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2003;32(3): 41742.
  10. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002;31(3):56182.
  11. Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures (SAC Task 5.4.3). Report No. 132. California: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University;1999.
  12. Bobadilla H, Chopra AK. Modal pushover analysis for seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete special moment resisting frame buildings. Report No. EERC 200701. Berkeley (California): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 2007.
  13. Kunnath SK, Kalkan E. Evaluation of seismic deformation demands using nonlinear procedures in multi-story steel and concrete moment frames. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology 2004;41(1):15982.
  14. Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: vertically regular and irregular generic frames. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(1):25571.
  15. Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanapakdee C. Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands. Earthquake Spectra 2004;20(3):75778.
  16. Raychowdhury, “Nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model for performance assessment of seismically loaded structures.”, PhD Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2008.
  17. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/OpenSees_User.
  18. The MathWorks Inc.. MATLAB version: 9.13.0 (R2022b), Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc. https://www.mathworks.com, (2022).
  19. Somerville, P., Smith, N., Punyamurthula, S. and Sun, J. “Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. Report no. SAC/BD-97/04. California: SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento”,1997.