ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?

Searer, Gary R.; Paret, Terrence F.; Freeman, Sigmund A.

doi:10.1061/41016(314)130

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second: seismic evaluation and retrofit standards must comply with the seismic design standards as well as their predecessors in order to avoid conflicts (Searer et al 2008). Some designs obtained by the linear design methods may be condemned by the available seismic evaluation method (like NSP of ASCE 41-17); however, they can be considered acceptable for different combinations of overstrength factors of beams and columns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A deductive design method to simplify ASCE 41-17 nonlinear static procedure preserving the adjusted collapse margin ratio of steel moment frames

Shahrouzi

Ebadijalal²

2022

Asian J Civ Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study offers a deductive linear design procedure based on optimally screened designs under nonlinear static procedure (NSP) of ASCE 41-17. A linearization algorithm is proposed for idealizing NSP pushover curves. The subsequent phase inferred a linear static methodology from the design philosophy underlying ASCE 41-17's NSP. The deduced design procedure is applied in providing a set of 6-story optimal SMRF designs under two load patterns: the code-based and the first-mode shape patterns. The optimal designs by the proposed deduced linear procedure are compared with those optimized under ASCE 41-17's NSP using FEMA p695 metrics. Consequently, adjusted collapse margin ratio is evaluated for both design approaches using incremental dynamic analyses. The evaluation results, demonstrates that the deduced linear static design yields comparable outcomes with respect to NSP; without requiring complex inelastic analysis in design steps of ASCE 41-17. Using the code-based lateral load pattern, the linear static design resulted in a greater margin of safety against collapse in heavier designs with respect to applying the first-mode shape. The deduced design procedure yields an idea that supports a seismic design philosophy to prevent conflict between design and retrofit standards.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A deductive design method to simplify ASCE 41-17 nonlinear static procedure preserving the adjusted collapse margin ratio of steel moment frames

Shahrouzi

Ebadijalal²

2022

Asian J Civ Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, although compliance to ASCE 41-06 suggests the use of seismic hazard maps to find the maximum considered earthquake for structural analyses, there is no provision to investigate the variation of seismic responses when multiple seismic events are considered. Under these circumstances, ASCE 41-06 seems to discourage, or even prohibit, the use of engineering judgment and decision making by its prescriptive procedure (Searer et al 2008). As a consequence, even inexperienced structural engineers are then encouraged to carry out performance-based seismic evaluation and design by using ASCE 41-06 which results in inappropriate engineering analysis, overestimation, dispensable strengthening of structures, and additional costs (Paret et al 2011).…”

Section: Code-based Seismic Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Reliability and Risk Assessment of Structures Based on Fragility Analysis – A Review

Sfahani

Guan

Loo

2015

Advances in Structural Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A practical approach to explain the consequences of seismic hazards for society and decision making organisations is predicting the seismic risk. In this regard, the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is used extensively to investigate the probability of different seismic hazard levels at a geographical location. In addition, a further advancement is the introduction of Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis (PSDA) method because it provides a new insight into the Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) by evaluating the seismic risk specifically for a structure. To evaluate this seismic risk, the probability that the structural seismic demands may exceed a specific value is calculated under different ground motion intensities through a probabilistic approach. This approach is called the fragility analysis. This paper provides a review of recent research advancements in seismic fragility analysis. Different methods and related solutions which can be used for the fragility analysis are discussed. In addition, uncertainty quantification, as a significant feature in fragility analysis, is described and the important parameters which may influence the seismic fragility of a structure are explained. Finally, the authors offer their recommendations for improving the fragility analysis for further studies in the future.

show abstract

“…The guidelines are very detailed (ASCE-41 is 400 pages and FEMA-351 is 200 pages) with prescriptive code-type command language (e.g., shall), which some engineers contend can inhibit good practice (Searer et al 2008). This study strictly followed the guidelines as close as possible, but some compromises had to be made in order to apply them to the experiment.…”

Section: Pbe Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASCE-41 and FEMA-351 Evaluation of E-Defense Collapse Test

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A welded steel moment-frame building is used to assess performance-based engineering guidelines. The full-scale four-story building was shaken to collapse on the E-Defense shake table in Japan. The collapse mode was a side-sway mechanism in the first story, which occurred in spite of a strong-column and weak-beam design. Computer analyses were conducted to simulate the building response during the experiment. The building was then evaluated using the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE-41) and Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (FEMA-351) for the collapse prevention performance level via linear and nonlinear procedures. The guidelines had mixed results regarding the characterization of collapse, and no single approach was superior. They mostly erred on the safe side by predicting collapse at shaking intensities less than that in the experiment. Recommendations are made for guideline improvements.

show abstract

ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

A deductive design method to simplify ASCE 41-17 nonlinear static procedure preserving the adjusted collapse margin ratio of steel moment frames

A deductive design method to simplify ASCE 41-17 nonlinear static procedure preserving the adjusted collapse margin ratio of steel moment frames

Seismic Reliability and Risk Assessment of Structures Based on Fragility Analysis – A Review

ASCE-41 and FEMA-351 Evaluation of E-Defense Collapse Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About