Assessment Of Different Pushover Methods to Estimate Seismic Inelastic Demands Of SMRFs

Since the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) is one of the most prevalent and useful methods for the Performance-Based-Design (PBD) of buildings, it is considered by several researchers during past decades, so that the capability assessment of NSP in comparison with the nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP) and improving the NSP accuracy are the basic subject of previous studies. Therefore, in this paper several load patterns used in conventional and advanced NSP such as displacement-based adaptive NSP (DAP) and multi-mode interaction adaptive NSP (APAM) are evaluated and the results are compared with NDP responses. Based on modeling assumptions the results demonstrate that the CPA with elastic load patterns cannot predict displacement and story drift for high-rise models. The maximum differences between CPA and APA is almost 7.9%. In addition, the DAP adaptive method presents an almost accurate prediction of seismic demands and it can consider the effect of higher modes on inelastic responses. However, although the APAM adaptive method considers the interaction between modes, but it cannot predict the interstory drift angle at lower stories accurately. This behavior is intensified while the height of buildings increases.