asdeasoft.net

Thank you very much for the help.

I was wondering doesn't the pushover still continue even if 3 members are failing and show decreasing branch after peak, to observe progressive collapse and how it is spreading over the structure.

If the snap-back is very severe the displacement control will fail

for non linear THA the model is showing larger displacement.
How can this issue be solved?

What do you mean?

I conducted nonlinear time history analysis on the dome and the observed peak displacement magnitude is higher than the pushover. I am attaching a plot of peak displacement observed for the dome. So if the nonlinear THA response is larger, I was wondering if there is something wrong with the way pushover analysis is happening.
How can the issue of pushover be solved?
Does the issue is related to the loading protocol I used in the pushover which is causing numerical instability?

Well keep in mind that you cannot do a perfect comparison! they are different analyses and the load on the structure is applied in different ways.

In the pushover you are monotonically increasing a pre-defined load pattern, until some member become unstable. In a dyanmic analysis you have a base acceleration which puts intertia forces on the structure in a completely different way, both in terms of spatial distribution and temporal distribution.

But the order of magnitude is the same: 33 mm for pushover and between 40 and 50 mm for transient... is not that different

Thank you very much for the help.
I get what you are saying. With pushover, I wanted to check how progressive collapse of the dome occurs.

You're welcome