PP-pushOver Analysis-7-200824114229

Safety Assessment and Retrofitting of Existing Structures and Infrastructures
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS F. Di Trapani
Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover)

Non-Linear Static Analysis - PUSHOVER
It is an engineering technique for assessing structural capacity against seismic actions in nonlinear field
Capacity should not be strictly synonymous with resistance but, more in general, we intend displacement
capacity or structural ductility with respect to a request from the earthquake (Limit State)
It is a technique based on some simplified assumptions and approximations therefore it can be used in
specficic cases
It can be a very useful tool to make a judgment on the vulnerability of structures or the effectiveness of
retrofitting interventions
Non-Linear Static Analysis - PUSHOVER

What does it consist of?
1 Application of a profile of forces or displacements monotonically increasing
2 Evaluation at every step of base shear and the corresponding top displacement and definition of a V-δ curve called a
capacity curve
Conversion of the capacity curve of the MDOF system into an equivalent SDOF capacity curve and check in terms of
3
displacement (or ductility) compared to the demand from inelastic spectra
Top displacement Capacity curve
V (Base Shear)
Forces profile
Vmax
δu δ
Base shear δ (Top displacement)

Model Nonlinearity
The model has to evolve during the analysis in order to capture the damage associated
with the nonlinear response of materials
NON-LINEARITY OF MATERIAL
Elastic stage Inelastic stage σ
σ σ
ε ε
ε
CONCRETE Steel
Plastic Hinge models (concentrated plasticity)
MODELING OF MECHANICAL NONLINEARITY

(in frame structures)
Fiber section models (distributed plasticity)
Safety Assessment
Safety Assessment
and Retrofitting
and Retrofitting
of Existing
of Existing
Structures
Structures
and Infrastructures
and Infrastructures
PUSHOVER
NL MODELLING OFANALYSIS
RC FRAME STRUCTURES OVERALL RESPONSE F. Di
F. Di
Trapani
Trapani
Sample of nonlinear step-by-step response Base Shear

δ (example with concentrated plasticity) V3=V4 3 4
M 2
Myc (Columns) V2
Myb (Beams) 1
V V1
Θ δ1 δ2 δ3 δ4 δ
Top Displacement
Myb Myb
F1 F2 F3 Myb F4=F3
Myb Myb Myb
(1) (2) (3) (4) Sequence of formation
Myc Myc Myc Myc of plastic hinges during
the analysis and
V1 associated deformed
V2 V3 V4=V3
shapes.
F1 δ1 δ2 δ3 δ4
Determination of nonlinear response

V The stiffness matrix updated during the analysis. The
determination of the nonlinear response is an iterative
procedure. In most cases Newton-Raphson algorithm is used.
LINEAR Response
δ Newton - Raphson Algorithm F = Kδ

First iteration Error on first NON LINEAR Response
iteration K = K(δ )
equilibrium is rewritten every time as a
function to the evolution of K
Load
increment
F = K(δ )δ( ∆U )
K0 δ1 = F1 R − F1 = U 1
Forces within the
first iteration K1δ2 = F2 R − F2 = U 2
Error
Displacement to
first iteration R-F=U
Iterations are carried out as long as the
error is less than the established tolerance
Non-Linear Static Analysis

Hypotheses for Uni-Modal Non-Adaptive (Pushover)
1 Lateral forces profile or displacements is monotonically increasing (the actual forces are cyclic)
2 The force profile is proportional to the first mode (first mode should have large participating mass ratio)
3 The lateral force profile has fixed shape and increases only in amplitude (the actual force profile varies with the
modification of the stiffness matrix)
4 The capacity curve of the MDOF system should be converted into an equivalent SDOF capacity curve in order to do
safety checks using spectra (which are defined for SDOF systems)
General Framework for Pushover analysis
Adaptive Multi-modal (Hp. 2 is removed)

(Hp. 3 is removed)
Pushover Analysis Pushover Analysis
Non-Adaptive Uni-modal
Evaluation of the Capacity Curve

x1(t) Equation of the motion for a nonlinear MDOF system

m1
&& + C x& + R(x, x& ) = − Mτ&x&g
Mx
x2(t)
The linear term Kx and replaced by a nonlinear term representing
m2 inelastic restoring forces
x3(t) R
m3
x
Introduction of Hypotheses
&x&g && + Cx& + R(x, x& ) = − Mτ&x&g
Mx
2 Assumptions of load profile shape

4
Transforming the MDOF system equation into an equivalent SDOF system equation
4 Transforming the MDOF system equation into an equivalent SDOF system equation
&& + Cx& + R(x, x& ) = − Mτ&x&g

Mx
 x1  Φ 11 Φ 12 Φ 13   y 1 
x = Φy  x  = Φ Φ Φ  y 
  
2 21 22 23  2 
 x3  Φ 31 Φ 32 Φ 33   y3 
Φ1 Eigenvector first mode Φ11   1 

Φ  Φ /Φ 
Φ1 =  21  =  21 11  It is chosen for convenience of normalizing
 ...   ...  it with respect to the top displacement
   
Φn1  Φn1 /Φ11 
x = Φ1 y1
MΦ1 &y&1 + CΦ1 y&1 + R(Φ1 y1 ,Φ1 y&1 ) = − Mτ&x&g

2 Introducing the Load Profile Shape (Modal Profile) F1

F2
MΦ1 &y&1 + CΦ1 y&1 + R(Φ1 y1 ,Φ1 y&1 ) = − Mτ&x&g F3
Vector of equivalent static
Vector of restoring forces R =F forces
It is assumed that the non-linear relationship between restoring forces and displacements is determined
through the application of a force profile F of the same shape as what you would have in the linear field
F1 F = Kx = KΦ1 y1 λ × m1 Φ11
In addition, since:
F2 KΦ1 = ω12 MΦ1 m2 Φ21
F3
F = ω12 MΦ1 y1 = ω12 y1 MΦ1
m3 Φ31
Force profile final form  m1 Φ11 
m Φ 
F = λ  2 21 
 ... 
 
m Φ
 n n1 
2-4 Conversion of the MDOF system into the equivalent SDOF system in the case of modal force profile
MΦ1 &y&1 + CΦ1 y&1 + R(Φ1 y1 ,Φ1 y&1 ) = − Mτ&x&g

The expression of R is replaced and both members multiply by Φ1T
Φ1T MΦ1 &y&1 + Φ1T CΦ1 y&1 + Φ1T MΦ1ω12 y1 = −Φ1T Mτ&x&g
The modal Φ1T Mτ

participation factor is:
Γ1 = T §C 7.3.5 (Circ. 2019)
Φ1 MΦ1
Assuming the variable y1

D1 =
D1 as: Γ1
&& + 2ξω D& + ω 2 D = −&x&

D It is the equation of a non-linear SDOF system
1 1 1 1 1 g
The equivalent SDOF system is obtained by the scaling factor Γ1

(first modal participation factor with the eigenvector normalized at the top)
The mass of the equivalent SDOF is: m* = Φ1T Mτ §C 7.3.4.2 (Circ. 2019)
2-4 Γ1 force profile

Conversion of the MDOF system into the equivalent SDOF system in the case of modal
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
dc
EQUIVALENT SDOF CAPACITY CURVE
Fb dc
MDOF SYSTEM CAPACITY CURVE F* = d* = §C 7.3.4.2 (Circ. 2009)
Γ1 Γ1
Fb F*
MDOF Response Fb Equivalent SDOF response
dc d*
Uniform profile
In order to consider a different possible modification of lateral forces as a function of the actual damage (e.g. damage
localized at the lower floors) another analysis with is typically performed using a force profile that is typically proportional to
floor accelerations and then to the floor masses. This is typically called uniform profile.
m1
m2
m3 Amplifies demand to lower floors
MDOF
Fb F* SDOF
Uniform
Possible real response
Uniform
Modal
Modal
dc d*
Evaluation of the Demand and safety assessment

(N2 Method) – Fajfar 1996
Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment: Identification of the bilinear equivalent SDOF curve
Safety assessment is carried out by using elastic and inelastic spectra. To determined the demand it is necessary to characterize
the SDOF period T*, Stiffness K* and, reduction factor q*. This can be done by defining a bilinear equivalent curve.
F* Fbu* =
Fbu
du
Γ1 d* =
Fbu* SDOF Γ1
Fy*
BILINEAR
*
0.6 Fbu EQUIVALENT
CURVE
Fy* is determined in such a way ≥ 0.85Fbu*
that you get equivalence of the
underlying areas
d*
d *y du*
The bilinear intersects the capacity curve at 0.6Fbu*
dy* is the yielding displacement associated with Fy*

Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment : Determination of K* and T*
F*
Fbu* SDOF
Fy*
BILINEAR EQUIVALENT
*
0.6 F
bu
k*
d*
d*y du*
Stiffness Period
Mass
F * * T m* §C 7.3.6 (Circ. 2019)
* y m = Φ Mτ *
T = 2π *
k = *
1
k
d y
Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment : Determination of the reduction factor q*
FE
Reduction factor q= = FORCE REQUIRED TO THE ELASTIC SYSTEM
Fy YIELDING FORCE
The force required to the indefinitely elastic system can be obtained through the elastic spectrum
Se ( T )
FE = FE* = Se ( T * )m*
Se( T*)
The yielding force is already known
T
Fy = F * T*
y
* FE* Se ( T * )m*
q = * = §C 7.3.4.2(Circ. 2019)
Fy Fy*
The displacement demand will depend on q* and T*
Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment : Safety checks

CASE 1 T*≥TC (q* and T* are known)
 Tc
*
µ
 d = ( q − 1 ) +1 ( T * < TC )
In terms of ductility
*
 T
µ = q* ( T * ≥ TC )
Equal displacement rule applies  d
du*
F*
ELASTIC µd µc = * Capacity
DISPLACEMENT dy
DEMAND Demand µ d ≤ µc
INELASTIC §C 7.3.4.2(Circ. 2019)
DISPLACEMENT
DEMAND *  * d e*,max  * Tc 
In terms of displacements
*
k *
µd =
d max d max = * ( q − 1 ) *
+ 1 ( T < TC )
*  q  T 
Fy* DISPLACEMENT d y d * = d *
Bilinear CAPACITY  max e ,max ( T * ≥ TC )
Equivalent
*
d max = d e*,max = S De ( T * ) du*
d* Demand Capacity
d*y d max
*
= d e*,max du*
*
d max ≤ du*
Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment : Safety checks

CASE 2 T*<TC (q* and T* are known)
 Tc
*
µ
 d = ( q − 1 ) +1 ( T * < TC )
In terms of ductility
*
 T
µ = q* ( T * ≥ TC )
 d
du*
F* ELASTIC µd µc = * Capacity
DISPLACEMENT dy
DEMAND Demand µ d ≤ µc
INELASTIC
§C 7.3.4.2(Circ. 2019)
DISPLACEMENT
DEMAND *  * d e*,max  * Tc 
In terms of displacements
*
k *
µd =
d max d max = * ( q − 1 ) *
+ 1 ( T < TC )
*  q  T 
Fy* DISPLACEMENT d y d * = d *
Bilinear CAPACITY
 max e ,max ( T * ≥ TC )
Equivalent
d e*,max = S De ( T * )
d * du*
d* max
d*y *
d e*,max d max du*
Demand Capacity
*
d max ≤ du*
Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment : Safety checks in the ADRS plan
(acceleration) (acceleration)
Elastic spectrum (µ=1) Elastic spectrum (µ=1)
Inelastic constant ductility spectrum Inelastic constant ductility spectrum
Bilinear equivalent curve (capacity spectrum) Bilinear equivalent curve (capacity spectrum)
µd µd
(displacement) (displacement)
The safety check can be done graphically by
Fe* superimposing the normalized capacity curve
*
S ae = S ae ( T ) = *  * Tc
m S µ
 d = ( q − 1 ) +1 ( T * < TC ) with the constant ductility spectrum for the
q* = ae  T *
requested µd and is satisfied if the
Fy* S ay µ = q*
S ay = *  d ( T * ≥ TC ) performance point is exceeded.
m
Determination of Vulnerability indexes (TR=const. Hp.)

The vulnerability indexes, defined by the coefficient ζE are conventionally evaluated by carrying out the ratio between
the PGA capacity and the PGA demand. This ratio can be larger or lower than 1 in the case that the system is satisfying or
not the safety check.
The PGA capacity is associated with the seismic
performance of the structure. This can be larger or The PGA of the earthquake inducing the limit state
lower than the demand, and this means that the (LS) is found by imposing the capacity parameters of
earthquake exactly inducing the limit state is different the SDOF
and has scaled (up or down) elastic spectrum
Sae( T )
PGAc ag ,c ⋅ S
ζE = =
PGAd ag ,d ⋅ S
(S= Soil factor) Spectrum inducing LS
The PGA demand is associated with the PGAc Reference Elastic Spectrum
reference elastic spectrum. It is the spectral PGAd
acceleration in correspondence of T=0
T
Determination of Vulnerability indexes (TR=const. Hp.)

Ultimate
Form the bilinear curve of the SDOF has the * d u* Ductility
following capacities: d displacement µc = *
u capacity d y capacity
2. Substituting q ~* and d * the elastic
~* T* u
1. Substituting the ductility q = ( µc − 1 ) + 1 ( T * < TC ) displacement associated with the
 Tc
capacity into the q-µ-T
relationships one can found the q~* q~* = µ
 c ( T * ≥ TC )
spectrum of~ the earthquake inducing the
*
limit state d e ,max is found
reduction factor associated with
the current SDOF and the  ~* d u* q~*
spectrum of the earthquake  * d e*,max d e ,max = ( T * < TC )
 * Tc  *  ~* − 1 ) Tc + 1
inducing the limit state d max = * ( q − 1 ) *
+ 1 ( T < TC )  ( q
 q  T  ~ T *
d * = d * ( T * ≥ TC ) d e*,max = d u* ( T * ≥ TC )
 max e ,max
Sae(T )
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Given the proportionality d e*,max S De ( T * ) S ae ( T * ) PGAc Sae(T* )
of spectral ordinated with = = ∝ =ζE Spectrum inducing LS
respect to PGA one can set: d e*,max S De ( T * ) S ae ( T * ) PGAd
PGAc Sae(T* )
PGAd Reference Elastic Spectrum
4. PGA capacity can be also
found. PGAc = ζ E PGAd T
T*
Technical code definitions and prescriptions

NTC 2018 and Circular 2019: Definitions and Prescriptions

Nonlinear static analysis allows to determine the capacity curve of the structure, expressed by the relation Fb-dc, in
which Fb is the shear at the base and dc the displacement of a control point, which for buildings is generally
represented by the center of mass of the last floor. For each limit state considered, the comparison between the
capacity curve and the displacement demand allows to determine the level of performance achieved. To this
end, a structural system equivalent to a degree of freedom is usually associated with the real structural system.
Main distributions (Group 1)
At least two distributions of lateral forces must be

considered (one for each group).
Secondary distributions (Group 2)


Group 1 – Main Distributions
if the fundamental mode of vibration in the considered direction has a mass participation not less than 75% (60% for
masonry buildings), it applies one of the following two distributions:
- distribution proportional to the static forces referred to in § 7.3.3.2, using as a second distribution the (a) for
Group 2,
- distribution corresponding to a trend of accelerations proportional to the shape of the fundamental mode of
vibration in the direction considered;
m1 Φ11
wi hi
Fi = Fh Fi = Φ i mi m2 Φ21
 wi hi F components are the
m3 Φ31 combination of modals
forces component according
to combination rules
in all cases a distribution corresponding to the trend of the horizontal floor forces F1
acting can be used.
These are calculated in a linear dynamic analysis (Response spectrum analysis), including F F2
in the direction considered a number of modes necessary to achieve a total participating F3
mass of not less than 85%. The use of this distribution is mandatory if the period
fundamental of the structure is higher than 1.3 TC

Group 2 – Secondary Distributions
a) distribution of forces, deduced from a uniform acceleration trend along the height of the building;
m3
Fi = mi m2
m3
b) b) adaptive distribution, which changes as the displacement of the control point increases as a function of the
plasticization of the structure;
c) multimodal distribution, considering at least six significant modes

How many analyses to perform in total ?
Group 1 Group 2
Center of Mass CM translation +/-5% Center of Mass CM translation +/-5%
for each direction with positive and for each direction with positive and
negative verse negative verse
+X(-) +X(-)
+Y(-) +X(+) +Y(+) +Y(-) +X(+) +Y(+)
Y CM Y CM
-Y(+) -Y(+)
-Y(-) -Y(-)
-X(-) -X(+) -X(-) -X(+)
X X
8 Analysis 8 Analysis
TOTAL 16 ANALYSES
Applicative Example
CASE STUDY – GEOMETRIC DATA

CASE STUDY – Mechanical data
fy=450 MPa εcu=0,005
fc=27 MPa
BOND STEEL Bond CLS

MODEL
MODAL ANALYSIS
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
T=0,84 s T=0,25 s T=0,13 s

MODAL ANALYSIS
Participating periods and masses
Eigenvectors first mode Masses on the floors Participation Coefficient

 0.0883 
 0.0755 
 1
 0.855


m1 = 61 . 55 kNs 2 /m Φ1T Mτ
Γ1 = T =
mφ i i1
= 61 . 55 kNs 2
ϕ1 =   ϕ 1n = 
m2
= 61 . 55 kNs 2
/m Φ1 MΦ1 mφ 2
i i1
 0.0549   0.621  m3 /m
    m4 = 61 . 55 kNs 2 /m Γ 1 = 1 . 27 kNs 2
 0.0282   0.319 
LOAD PROFILES
1
MODAL
0.86
 1 × 61.55   61 . 55  Scaled by 61.55 0.62

 0.855 × 61.55   52 . 62 
F = = 
0.32
 0.621 × 61.55   38 . 26 
   
 0.319 × 61.55   19 . 65 
UNIFORM 1
1
m 1 = 61 . 55 kNs 2 / m
m 2 = 61 . 55 kNs 2 / m Scaled by 61.55 1
m 3 = 61 . 55 kNs 2 / m
m 4 = 61 . 55 kNs 2
/m 1
Safety Assessment and Retrofitting of Existing Structures and UNIFORM
Infrastructures
RESPONSES
MODAL PROFILE UNIFORM PROFILE
1° Yield strength Collapse 1° Yield strength Collapse

500 Capacity Curves
450
Base shear [kN]
400
350
300
MODALE
250
UNIFORME
200
150
100
50
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
Top Displacement [m]

CONVERSION TO THE EQUIVALENT SDOF

2
500
450
Γ 1 = 1 . 27 kNs
400
Base Shear [kN]
Base Shear [kN]

400 350
350 300
300 250
MODALE
250 MDOF UNIFORME
200 SDOF Serie1
200 150 Serie2
150 100
100 50
50 0
0 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
Top Displacement [m] Top Displacement [m]
400
350
Base Shear [kN]
Base Shear [kN]

MODAL 300
UNIFORM
2
m* = 158 .4 kNs / m 250
Serie1
F y * = 290 kN 200
d y * = 0 .046 m 150 FXTRI BIL

100
T * = 0 .99 s
50
k* = 6323 kN / m
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
Top Displacement [m] Top Displacement [m]

DEFINITION OF THE DEMAND

UNIFORM MODAL
T * = 0 .91 T * = 0 .99
Se(T) Se ( T *) = 0 .31 g Se ( T *) = 0 .28 g
[g]
T [s]
Determination of q*
UNIFORM
T * = 0 .91
FE = Se ( T *) m* = 0 .31 × 9 .81 × 158 .4 = 491 .04 kN
F y * = 328 kN
FE
q* = = 1 .49
Fy *
MODAL
T * = 0 .99
FE = Se ( T *) m* = 0 .28 × 9 .81 × 158 .4 = 435 kN
F y * = 328 kN
FE
q* = = 1 .32
Fy *
Determination of the displacement demand and safety checks
CASE 1
Se ( T * )m* *
T*>TC d *
max
*
= S De ( T ) = d max ≤ du*
k*
UNIFORM
k * = 7472 kNm
Se ( T *) m * 0 . 31 × 9 . 81 × 158 . 4 491
d * max = = = = 0 . 065 m
k* 7472 7472
d u* = 0 . 361 m Verified!
MODAL
k * = 6323 kNm
Se ( T *) m * 0 . 28 × 9 . 81 × 158 . 4 435
d * max = = = = 0 . 07 m
k* 6323 6323
d u* = 0 . 362 m Verified!
Nonlinear Static Analysis: Final Considerations

1. This is an approximate method for assessing the seismic performance of structures with respect to a specified
seismic demand.
2. It is a static method used to simulate the effect of a dynamic action
3. It provides good results and is applicable IF the structure is dominated by a fundamental mode
4. Load profile increases in amplitude but does not change shape even when structure enters nonlinear field
5. To take into account possible oversights arising from this hypothesis, verification is usually required for different
force profiles
6. To perform the checks an equivalent SDOF is identified
7. Checks are performed in terms of ductility or displacements.
ESSENTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Faijfar, P., Gaspersic, P., 1996. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics,25, 31-46.
Peter Fajfar (2000) A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design. Earthquake Spectra: August 2000, Vol. 16
Faijfar, P., 1999. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
28, 979-993.
Anil K. Chopra and Rakesh K. Goel (2000). A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings.
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:561–582 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.144)
D.M. 14/01/2008. Nuove Norme tecniche per le costruzioni.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2000. FEMA 356 “Prestandard and commentary
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings”, Washington, D.C., Stati Uniti.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2001. FEMA 368 “NEHRP Recommended

provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures”, Washington,
D.C., Stati Uniti.

PP-pushOver Analysis-7-200824114229

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP-pushOver Analysis-7-200824114229

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP-pushOver Analysis-7-200824114229

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Safety Assessment and Retrofitting of Existing Structures and Infrastructures

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS F. Di Trapani

Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover)

Non-Linear Static Analysis - PUSHOVER

Non-Linear Static Analysis - PUSHOVER

Base shear δ (Top displacement)

Plastic Hinge models (concentrated plasticity)

MODELING OF MECHANICAL NONLINEARITY

Sample of nonlinear step-by-step response Base Shear

Determination of nonlinear response

δ Newton - Raphson Algorithm F = Kδ

Non-Linear Static Analysis

General Framework for Pushover analysis

Adaptive Multi-modal (Hp. 2 is removed)

Evaluation of the Capacity Curve

x1(t) Equation of the motion for a nonlinear MDOF system

2 Assumptions of load profile shape

&& + Cx& + R(x, x& ) = − Mτ&x&g

Φ1 Eigenvector first mode Φ11   1 

MΦ1 &y&1 + CΦ1 y&1 + R(Φ1 y1 ,Φ1 y&1 ) = − Mτ&x&g

2 Introducing the Load Profile Shape (Modal Profile) F1

MΦ1 &y&1 + CΦ1 y&1 + R(Φ1 y1 ,Φ1 y&1 ) = − Mτ&x&g

The modal Φ1T Mτ

Assuming the variable y1

&& + 2ξω D& + ω 2 D = −&x&

The equivalent SDOF system is obtained by the scaling factor Γ1

2-4 Γ1 force profile

EQUIVALENT SDOF CAPACITY CURVE

m3 Amplifies demand to lower floors

Evaluation of the Demand and safety assessment

dy* is the yielding displacement associated with Fy*

Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment : Determination of K* and T*

Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment : Safety checks

Evaluation of the demand and safety assessment : Safety checks

Determination of Vulnerability indexes (TR=const. Hp.)

Determination of Vulnerability indexes (TR=const. Hp.)

Technical code definitions and prescriptions

NTC 2018 and Circular 2019: Definitions and Prescriptions

Main distributions (Group 1)

At least two distributions of lateral forces must be

Secondary distributions (Group 2)

NTC 2018 and Circular 2019: Definitions and Prescriptions

NTC 2018 and Circular 2019: Definitions and Prescriptions

c) multimodal distribution, considering at least six significant modes

How many analyses to perform in total ?

CASE STUDY – GEOMETRIC DATA

CASE STUDY – Mechanical data

fy=450 MPa εcu=0,005

BOND STEEL Bond CLS

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

T=0,84 s T=0,25 s T=0,13 s

Eigenvectors first mode Masses on the floors Participation Coefficient

 1 × 61.55   61 . 55  Scaled by 61.55 0.62

1° Yield strength Collapse 1° Yield strength Collapse

Top Displacement [m]

CONVERSION TO THE EQUIVALENT SDOF

Base Shear [kN]

Base Shear [kN]

d y * = 0 .046 m 150 FXTRI BIL

Top Displacement [m] Top Displacement [m]