...
首页> 外文期刊>Earthquake spectra >Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover Analyses: Vertically 'Regular' and Irregular Generic Frames
【24h】

Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover Analyses: Vertically 'Regular' and Irregular Generic Frames

机译:模态和FEMA推覆分析的评估:垂直的“常规”和不常规通用框架

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This technical note compared the seismic demands from FEMA-356 NSP, MPA procedure, and nonlinear RHA for 54 generic frames- 30 vertically "regular" frames and 24 irregular frames- subjected to an ensemble of 20 ground motions. The comparative svaluation based on the story-drift demands has led to the following conclusions: 1. If a sufficient number (2 or 3) of "modes" are included, the height-wise variation of story drifts determined by MPA is generally similar to the "exact" results from nonlinear RHA. The first "mode" alone, which is the basis for pushover procedures currently used in engineering practice, does not adequately estimate seismic demands. 2. MPA is almost always more accurate in estimating drifts in all stories of all frames than all of FEMA distributions. The envelope of the four estimates corresponding to the four FEMA force distributions is less biased than the individual estimates but is almost always more biased than MPA. Generally well below 30%, the bias in MPA exceeds this limit in the upper-story drifts in 15-and 18-story frames designed for a ductility factor of 6; however, this bias in estimating the largest story drift over building height is less than 30% for all the "regular" and irregular frames investigated. 3. The MPA procedure maintains its superiority for almost all of the irregular frames. The MPA is almost always more accurate compared to all of the FEMA force distributions and to the envelope of the four FEMA estimates. Neither of the approximate procedures, however, can estimate seismic demands accurately for vertically irregular frames with strong or stiff-and-strong first story or lower half; seismic demands for such systems should be determined by nonlinear RHA. 4. An approximate procedure is likely to be accurate in estimating the seismic demands due to an individual excitation if both its bias and dispersion are small. In this sense, the MPA procedure is more reliable than FEMA-356 force distributions, although pushover procedures are not recommended in conjunction with individual excitations.
机译:该技术说明比较了FEMA-356 NSP,MPA程序和非线性RHA对54个普通框架(垂直30个“常规”框架和24个不规则框架)进行20次地面运动的地震要求。基于故事漂移需求的比较评估得出以下结论:1.如果包含足够数量(2或3)的“模式”,则MPA确定的故事漂移的高度变化通常类似于“精确”来自非线性RHA。仅第一个“模式”是目前工程实践中使用的推覆程序的基础,并不能充分估计地震需求。 2.在估计所有帧的所有层中的漂移时,MPA几乎总是比FEMA分布更准确。与四个FEMA力分布相对应的四个估计值的包络线比单个估计值的偏差要小,但几乎总是比MPA的偏差更大。通常,MPA中的偏差在15层和18层框架中的上层漂移中超出了此限制,这些上层漂移设计为6的延展性;但是,对于所有调查的“常规”和不规则框架,这种估计在整个建筑物高度上最大的故事漂移的偏差都小于30%。 3. MPA程序对于几乎所有不规则框架都保持其优势。与所有FEMA力分布以及四个FEMA估算值的范围相比,MPA几乎总是更准确。但是,两种近似程序都无法准确估计出第一层坚固或刚硬而下半部分的垂直不规则框架的地震需求。此类系统的地震需求应通过非线性RHA确定。 4.如果单个激励的偏差和色散都较小,则近似方法可能很准确,可以估算单个激励引起的地震需求。从这个意义上讲,尽管不建议将推覆程序与单个激励结合使用,但MPA程序比FEMA-356力分布更可靠。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号