2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spectral reduction factors evaluation for seismic assessment of frame buildings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A number of past studies have addressed the seismic assessment of individual bridge structures through nonlinear static or dynamic analysis [5,14,19,20,28]. However, such research was built upon the knowledge and the applications initially developed for building structures [10,21,27] and it resulted in the proposal of fragility curves for individual structures [7,8,16,24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…A number of past studies have addressed the seismic assessment of individual bridge structures through nonlinear static or dynamic analysis [5,14,19,20,28]. However, such research was built upon the knowledge and the applications initially developed for building structures [10,21,27] and it resulted in the proposal of fragility curves for individual structures [7,8,16,24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…If the latter approach is followed the number of structural analyses will increase but the statistical meaning of the computed failure probability will be higher. The vulnerability function can also be estimated recurring to nonlinear static procedures (based on pushover analysis), whose validity in estimating nonlinear response of bridges (and buildings) has been significantly recognised in recent studies [2,8,19,20,27,35,41,43,44]. The advantages in using such nonlinear static approach would be immediate given that N nonlinear dynamic analyses are replaced by less onerous static analysis.…”
Section: Failure Probability With Local Uncertaintymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Some of the most commonly employed procedures include the N2 Method [1]; Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) [2,3], Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) and its variant, the Modified Modal Pushover Analysis (MMPA) [4,5]; Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA) [6]; Adaptive Capacity Spectrum Method (ACSM) [7][8][9]; Modified Adaptive Modal Combination Method (M-AMC) [10]; and Multi-Mode Pushover Analysis using Generalized Force Vectors, or Generalized Pushover Analysis (GPA) [11]. All these procedures can be distinguished based on: (i) the use of single-mode based conventional pushover analysis, such as N2 and CSM; (ii) the use of multi-mode based conventional pushover analysis, such as MPA, MMPA, IRSA and GPA; and (iii) the use of multi-mode adaptive pushover analysis, such as ACSM and M-AMC.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%