탄성응답스펙트럼을 사용하는 능력스펙트럼법은 비선형 시스템을 등가의 선형시스템으로 치환하여 주어진 지진 하중에 대한 구조물의 최대 비선형 거동을 예측한다. 본 연구의 목적은 이러한 능력스펙트럼법들의 정확성을 검증하고, 예측 특성을 비교하는 것이다. 이를 위해, ATC-40, G lkan, Kowalsky, 그리고 Iwan이 제시한 방법을 이용하여 등가주기와 등가감쇠비를 산정한 후, ATC-40에서 제시한 절차B에 따라 성능점을 산정 하였다. 전반적으로 ATC-40 방범은 구조물의 응답을 과소 평가하여 안전하지 못한 설계결과를 가져 올 수 있으며, G lkan과 Kowalsky의 방법은 과대 평가하는 경향을 가지고 있다. Iwan이 제시한 방법은 ATC-40 방법과 G lkan과 Kowalsky 방법의 중간 값을 예측함으로써, 비교적 정확한 값에 가까운 최대 변위를 산출하였다. 그리고, Kowalsky 방법은 항복 후 강성비에 따라 등가감쇠비를 음수로 산정함으로써 예측 값을 제시하지 못하는 경우가 있음을 확인하였다.

In the capacity spectrum method (CSM), the peak response of an inelastic system under a given earthquake load is estimated transforming the system into the equivalent elastic one. This paper presented estimating the peak inelastic response is evaIuated by the CSM. The equivalent period and damping are calculated using the ATC-40, Gülkan, Kowalsky, and Iwan methods, and the performance points are obtained according the procedure B of ATC-40. Analysis results indicate that the ATC-40 method generaIly underestimates the peak response, while the Gülkan and Kowalsky methods overestimate the responses. The Iwan method produces the values between those by the ATC-40 method and the Gülkan and Kowalsky methods, and estimates the reponses relatively closer to the exact ones. Further, it is found that the Kowalsky method gives the negative equivalent damping ratios depending on the hardening ratios, and thereby can not be used to estimate the responses in some cases.

Impact factor for used in the load carrying capacity evaluation of bridges is varied depending on vehicle speed and bridge frequencies. So, it is hard to define its peak value since in the field test the truck speeds applied cannot cover all possible vehicle speeds and the speed per each vehicle loading test cannot remain constant consistently. Furthermore, the target bridges should be closed during field test, which leads to an inconvenient traffic flow. In this paper, a displacement-based response spectrum of bridges is considered to define the peak impact factor without conducting the standard vehicle loading test, while using a bridge operational traffic condition.