Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 1347–1376 | Cite as

Parametric model for capacity curves

  • Luis G. PujadesEmail author
  • Yeudy F. Vargas-Alzate
  • Alex H. Barbat
  • José R. González-Drigo
Original Research Paper

Abstract

A parametric model for capacity curves and capacity spectra is proposed. The capacity curve is considered to be composed of a linear part and a nonlinear part. The normalized nonlinear part is modelled by means of a cumulative lognormal function. Instead, the cumulative Beta function can be used. Moreover, this new conceptualization of the capacity curves allows defining stiffness and energy functions relative to the total energy loss and stiffness degradation at the ultimate capacity point. Based on these functions, a new damage index is proposed and it is shown that this index, obtained from nonlinear static analysis, is compatible with the Park and Ang index obtained from dynamic analysis. This capacity based damage index allows setting up a fragility model. Specific reinforced concrete buildings are used to illustrate the adequacy of the capacity, damage and fragility models. The usefulness of the models here proposed is highlighted showing how the parametric model is representative for a family of capacity curves having the same normalized nonlinear part and how important variables can be tabulated as empirical functions of the two main parameters defining the capacity model. The availability of this new mathematical model may be a powerful tool for current earthquake engineering research, especially in seismic risk assessments at regional scale and in probabilistic approaches where massive computations are needed.

Keywords

Capacity curves Parametric model Stiffness degradation Energy loss Fragility curves Damage assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The thoughtful comments and suggestions of an anonymous reviewer helped to significantly improve the manuscript; his thorough review is highly appreciated and acknowledged. This work has been partially funded by the Spanish Government, by the European Commission and with FEDER funds, through the research projects: CGL2008-00869/BTE, CGL2011-23621, SEDUREC-CONSOLIDER-CSD2006-00060, INTERREG:POCTEFA 2007-2013/73/08, MOVE-FT7-ENV-2007-1-211590 and DESURBS-FP7-2011-261652. Y.F. Vargas-Alzate, has been the holder of a scholarship and a contract funded by the Geological Institute of Catalonia and the Polytechnic University of Catalonia by means of a bilateral agreement. Several quotes related to simplicity concept have been extracted from Wikipedia.

References

  1. Ambraseys N, Smit P, Sigbjornsson R, Suhadolc P, Margaris B (2002) Internet-site for European strong-motion data. European Commission, Research-Directorate General, Environment and Climate Programme. http://www.isesd.hi.is/ESD_Local/home.htm. Accessed 05 May 2014
  2. Ambraseys N, Smit P, Douglas J, Margaris B, Sigbjornsson R, Olafsson S, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2004) Internet-site for European strong-motion data. Boll Geofis Teor Appl 45(3):113–129Google Scholar
  3. ATC (1985) ATC-13. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC (1991) ATC-25. Seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of lifelines in the conterminous United States. Applied Technology Council. Funded By Federal EmergencyManagement Agency. ATC Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. ATC (1996) ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Moreno R (2006a) Performance of buildings under earthquake in Barcelona, Spain. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 21:573–593Google Scholar
  7. Barbat AH, Lagomarsino S, Pujades LG (2006b) Vulnerability assessment of dwelling buildings. In: Oliveira CS, Roca A, Goula X (eds) Chapter 6: Assessing and managing earthquake risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 115–134Google Scholar
  8. Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Moreno R (2008) Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: application to Barcelona. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:851–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbat AH, Vargas-Alzate YF, Pujades LG, Hurtado JE (2013) Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico de estructuras con base en la degradación de rigidez. Revista Internacional de Métodos numéricos para cálculo y diseño en ingeniería. Paper RIMNI-D-13-00044 (under review)Google Scholar
  10. Bertero VV (1996) State of art report on design criteria. In: Proceedings 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–28 June 1996Google Scholar
  11. Bertero VV (1997) Performance-based seismic engineering: a critical review of proposed guidelines. In: Fajfar, Krawinkler (eds) Proceedings, seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes, Bled, Slovenia, 23–27 June 1997, pp 1–31, A. A. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Bertero VV (2000) Performance-based seismic engineering: conventional vs. innovative approaches. In: Proceedings of the 12WCEE 2000 : 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, paper no. 2074, 8 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhatt C, Bento R (2011) Extension of the CSM-FEMA440 to plan-asymmetric real building structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(11):1263–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhatt C, Bento R (2013) The extended adaptive capacity spectrum method for the seismic assessment of plan asymmetric buildings. Earthq Spectra. doi: 10.1193/022112EQS048M
  15. BS EN (2005) Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings. British Standards InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  16. Carr AJ (2000) Ruaumoko–inelastic dynamic analysis program. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  17. Casarotti C, Pinho R (2007) An adaptive capacity spectrum method for assessment of bridges subjected to earthquake action. Bull Earthq Eng 5(3):377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998–1:2004. Comité Européen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. Chopra AK, Goel RK (1999) Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthq Spectra 15(4):637–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demand for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(8):903–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cosenza E, Manfredi G (2000) Damage indices and damage measures. Prog Struct Mat Eng 2(1):50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fajfar P, Gaspersic P (1996) The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(1):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fajfar P, Marušic D, Perus I (2005a) The extension of the N2 method to asymmetric buildings. In: Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic behavior of irregular and complex structures, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  25. Fajfar P, Marusic D, Perus I (2005b) Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings. J Earthq Eng 9(6):831–854Google Scholar
  26. FEMA (2002) Earthquake loss estimation methodology. HAZUS’99 (SR 2) technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Fost J (2007) If not God, Then What? Clearhead Studios, Inc. 288 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman SA (1998a) Development and use of capacity spectrum method. In: Proceedings of 6th U.S. national conference of earthquake engineering. EERI, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman SA (1998b) The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. In: Proceedings of the eleventh European conference on earthquake engineering, Paris, 1998Google Scholar
  30. Freeman SA (2004) Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method, paper No. 438. J Earthq Technol 41(1): 1–13Google Scholar
  31. Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrell JV (1975) Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk—a case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In: Proceedings of 1st U.S. national conference of earthquake engineering. EERI, Berkeley, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  32. Gaddis W (1955) The Recognitions. Dalkey Archive Press, February 7, 2012, 976 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Gencturk B, Elnashai AS (2008) Development and application of an advanced capacity spectrum method. Eng Struct 30:3345–3354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Giovinazzi S (2005) The vulnerability assessment and the damage scenario in seismic risk analysis. Ph.D dissertation. University of Florence (I) and Technical University of Braunschweig (D). http://digisrv-1.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de:8080/docportal/receive/DocPortal_document_00001757. Accessed on 07 Jan 2014
  35. Granat H (2003) Wisdom through the ages: book two. Miklen Press, Poulsbo, Washington, 300 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale. Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg, vol 15Google Scholar
  37. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):415–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lantada N, Pujades LG, Barbat AH (2009) Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation: a comparison. Nat Hazards 51:501–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lantada N, Irizarry J, Barbat AH, Goula X, Roca A, Susagna T, Pujades LG (2010) Seismic Hazard and risk scenarios for Barcelona, Spain, using the Risk-UE vulnerability index method. Bull Earthq Eng 8(2):201–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Limpert E, Stahel WA, ABBT M (2001) Log-normal distributions across the sciences: keys and clues. BioScience 51(5):341–352Google Scholar
  41. Milutinovic ZV, Trendafiloski GS (2003) WP04 Vulnerability of current buildings RISK-UE project of the EC: an advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European townsGoogle Scholar
  42. Otani S (1974) Inelastic analysis of RC frame structures. J Struct Div ASCE 100(7):1433–1449Google Scholar
  43. Park YJ (1984) Seismic damage analysis and damage-limiting design of R/C structures. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  44. Park YJ, Ang AH-S (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 111(4):722–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Park YJ, Ang AH-S, Wen YK (1985) Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. J Struct Eng 111:740–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Park YJ, Ang AH-S, Wen YK (1987) Damage-limiting aseismic design of buildings. Earthq Spectra 3(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pinho R, Marques M, Monteiro R, Casarotti, C (2008) Using the adaptive capacity spectrum method for seismic assessment of irregular frames. In: Proceedings of the 5th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures, Catania, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinho R, Monteiro R, Casarotti C, Delgado R (2009) Assessment of continuous span bridges through nonlinear static procedures. Earthq Spectra 25(1):143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pujades LG, Barbat AH, González-Drigo JR, Avila J, Lagomarsino S (2012) Seismic performance of a block of buildings representative of the typical construction in the example district in Barcelona (Spain). Bull Earthq Eng 10:331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sawyer HA Jr (1964) Status and potentialities of nonlinear design of concrete frames. In: Proceedings, international symposium on flexural mechanics of reinforced concrete, Miami, Florida, 10–12 November 1964, ASCE 1965 50 and ACI SP 12, pp 7–28Google Scholar
  51. SEAOC (1995) Vision 2000 Committee. Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, USA, report, 1995, 115 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2001) The incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vargas-Alzate YF (2013) Análisis estructural estático y dinámico probabilista de edificios de hormigón armado. Aspectos metodológicos y aplicaciones a la evaluación del daño. PhD Thesis. Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, BarcelonaTech. Barcelona, 203 ppGoogle Scholar
  54. Vargas-Alzate YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Hurtado JE (2013a) Incremental dynamic analysis and pushover analysis of buildings. A probabilistic comparison. Computational methods in stochastic dynamics, vol 2. Springer, pp 293–308Google Scholar
  55. Vargas-Alzate YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Hurtado JE (2013b) Capacity, fragility and damage in reinforced concrete buildings: a probabilistic approach. Bull Earthq Eng 11:2007–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vargas-Alzate YF, Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Hurtado JE (2013c) Probabilistic seismic risk evaluation of RC buildings. In: Proceedings of the ICE—structures and buildings. Available online 10 September 2013. 2012. doi: 10.1680/stbu.12.00031
  57. Vargas-Alzate YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Hurtado JE (2013d) Evaluación probabilista de la capacidad, fragilidad y daño sísmico en edificios de hormigón armado. Revista Internacional de Métodos Numéricos para Cálculo y Diseño en Ingeniería 29(2):63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williamson EB (2003) Evaluation of damage and P-\(\Delta \) effects for systems under earthquake excitation. J Struct Eng ASCE 129(3):1036–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williamson EB, Kaewkulchai G (2004) Computational modeling of structural collapse. In: The fifth U.S.–Japan workshop on performance-based earthquake engineering methodology for reinforced concrete building structures. 10–11 September 2003. PEER report 2003/11. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. College of Engineering. University of California, Berkeley. February 2004, pp 225–238Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis G. Pujades
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yeudy F. Vargas-Alzate
    • 2
  • Alex H. Barbat
    • 1
  • José R. González-Drigo
    • 3
  1. 1.Polytechnic University of Catalonia, BarcelonaTechBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede ManizalesManizalesColombia
  3. 3.Polytechnic University of Catalonia, BarcelonaTechBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations