Nonlinear Analysis
Most buildings experience significant inelastic deformations when affected by
strong earthquakes. Initially, the most popular approach was the use of force
reduction factors, and this approach remains popular today (Chapter 3).
Although this concept for taking into account the influence of inelastic
behaviour in linear analysis. A truly realistic assessment of structural
behaviour in the inelastic range can be made only through nonlinear analysis.
For nonlinear analysis, data about the structure have to be known, so it is
very well suited for the analysis of existing structures. In the case of newly
designed structures, a preliminary design has to be made before starting a
nonlinear analysis.
Nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) is the most advanced
deterministic analysis method available today. However, due to its
complexity, it has, in practice, rarely been used for common structures. NRHA
takes a lot of computing power because it involves simulating how a
structure behaves during an earthquake, second by second. computationally
demanding (But today, faster computers and better software have made this
less of a problem.), but also requires additional data, which are not needed in
pushover-based nonlinear analysis.
Unlike simpler methods like pushover analysis, NRHA needs more input data.
Specifically:
1. A suite of accelerograms – real or simulated earthquake ground
motion records.
2. Hysteretic behaviour data – how materials and structural elements
behave when they are loaded and unloaded repeatedly (important
for modeling damage and energy dissipation).
When a building undergoes permanent damage during an earthquake (called
inelastic behavior), experts still don’t agree on the best way to model
damping (the process by which vibrations reduce). Because of the high
complexity and dependence on judgment, most building codes require an
independent expert to review NRHA results before they’re accepted.
According to Krawinkler (2006), “In concept, the simplest method that
achieves the intended objective is the best one. The more complex the nonlinear
analysis method, the more ambiguous the decision and interpretation process is
Good and complex are not synonymous, and in many cases they are conflicting.
Analysis procedures, intended to achieve a satisfactory balance between
required reliability and applicability for everyday design use, are pushover-based
methods (Section 2.3), among them is the N2 method.
Pushover-based Analysis
Sigmund Freeman, a practising engineer from the USA, can be considered the
“father” of pushover-based seismic analysis which was first introduced in the
1970s as a rapid evaluation procedure (Freeman et al. 1975). In the 1980s, it was
named the “Capacity Spectrum Method” (CSM).
Structures don’t behave perfectly elastically during earthquakes — they yield,
deform permanently, and dissipate energy. This is called nonlinear inelastic
behavior. Since response spectra are usually based on linear (elastic) behavior,
we need a way to modify them to reflect the energy loss that occurs in real
(nonlinear) structures. Effective viscous damping values were applied to the linear-
elastic response spectrum (i.e., an “overdamped spectrum”) in all CSM
formulations. The modified response spectrum, with higher damping, is called an
“overdamped spectrum.”
Every version of the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) uses this technique of
applying effective damping to a linear spectrum, to approximate nonlinear
behavior.
