Advertisement

Rapid seismic loss assessment using new probabilistic demand and consequence models

  • M. Kia
  • M. Banazadeh
  • M. BayatEmail author
Original Research
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes a set of new Bayesian regression models to perform first order reliability method (FORM) calculations of repair cost exceedance probability. The models are classified in two categories, story-specific demand model and consequence models. The demand model developed in the form of linear equation predicts maximum acceleration and drift at each story of low-to mid-rise regular steel moment resisting frames. The consequence models are formulated as polynomial functions based on output provided by the upstream demand model and estimate repair cost of 30 building fragility groups. Next, the application of the proposed models in a first order reliability analysis to compute seismic loss probabilities for some example buildings is evaluated. The results are compared with those of a FEMA P-58 full simulation-based analysis and the computation reduction provided by utilization of the proposed regression models in the context of the FORM is assessed. Based on this finding, the practically appealing potential of the developed models is shown.

Keywords

First order reliability method Probabilistic demand and consequence model Seismic repair cost estimate Steel moment frame 

Abbreviations

FORM

First order reliability method

IDA

Incremental dynamic analysis

IM

Intensity measure

EDPs

Engineering demand parameters

SSD

Strength/stiffness distribution

N

Number of stories

T

Fundamental period

CCDF

Complementary cumulative distribution function

\( UC_{i} \)

Represents average repair cost

CY

Lateral yield coefficient (ratio of yield base shear to the building weight)

DS

Damage-state

ST_Num

Story number

\( TQ_{i} \)

Total quantity

Notes

References

  1. Adeli M, Banazadeh M, Deylami A (2011a) Bayesian approach for determination of drift hazard curves for generic steel moment-resisting frames in territory of Tehran. Int J Civ Eng 9(3):145–154Google Scholar
  2. Adeli MM, Deylami A, Banazadeh M, Alinia M (2011b) A Bayesian approach to construction of probabilistic seismic demand models for steel moment-resisting frames. Sci Iran 18(4):885–894Google Scholar
  3. ASCE (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures: American Society of Civil Engineers. Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation for California. Rep. No. ATC-13, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bai J-W, Gardoni P, Hueste MBD (2011) Story-specific demand models and seismic fragility estimates for multi-story buildings. Struct Saf 33(1):96–107Google Scholar
  6. Bayat M, Daneshjoo F, Nisticò N (2015) A novel proficient and sufficient intensity measure for probabilistic analysis of skewed highway bridges. Struct Eng Mech 55(6):1177–1202Google Scholar
  7. Beck JL, Porter KA, Shaikhutdinov RV, Au SK, Mizukoshi K, Miyamura M, Ishida H, Moroi T, Tsukada Y, Masuda M (2002) Impact of seismic risk on lifetime property values. Report No. EERL2002-04, California Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  8. Box GE, Tiao GC (2011) Bayesian inference in statistical analysis, vol 40. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK (2003) Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using generic frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(3):417–442Google Scholar
  10. Choe D-E, Gardoni P, Rosowsky D, Haukaas T (2008) Probabilistic capacity models and seismic fragility estimates for RC columns subject to corrosion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(3):383–393Google Scholar
  11. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2):1–3Google Scholar
  12. Ditlevsen O, Madsen HO (1996) Structural reliability methods, vol 178. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Esteva L, Ruiz SE (1989) Seismic failure rates of multistory frames. J Struct Eng 115(2):268–284Google Scholar
  14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors: FEMA P695, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings, vol 1. Methodology. Rep No. FEMA P-58-1Google Scholar
  16. FEMA-NIBS (2003) Earthquake loss estimation methodology—HAZUS Technical Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Gardoni P, Der Kiureghian A, Mosalam KM (2002) Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. J Eng Mech 128(10):1024–1038Google Scholar
  18. Ghowsi AF, Sahoo DR (2015) Fragility assessment of buckling-restrained braced frames under near-field earthquakes. Steel Compos Struct 19(1):173–190Google Scholar
  19. Goel RK, Chopra AK (1997) Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings. J Struct Eng 123(11):1454–1461Google Scholar
  20. Haldar A, Mahadevan S (2000) Probability, reliability, and statistical methods in engineering design, vol 1. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Haselton CB, Goulet CA, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein GG, Porter KA, Stewart JP, Taciroglu E (2008) An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete moment-frame building, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  22. Haukaas T (2008) Unified reliability and design optimization for earthquake engineering. Probab Eng Mech 23(4):471–481Google Scholar
  23. Iervolino I, Spillatura A, Bazzurro P (2017) RINTC project: Assessing the (implicit) seismic risk of code-conforming structures in Italy. In: Proc. of VI ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Rhodes, Greece, 15–17 JuneGoogle Scholar
  24. Jalali S, Banazadeh M, Abolmaali A, Tafakori E (2012) Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of steel moment frames with side-plate connections. Sci Iran 19(1):27–40Google Scholar
  25. Jalayer F, De Risi R, Manfredi G (2015) Bayesian cloud analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression. Bull Earthq Eng 13(4):1183–1203Google Scholar
  26. Kia M, Banazadeh M (2016) Closed-form fragility analysis of the steel moment resisting frames. Steel Compos Struct 21(1):93–107Google Scholar
  27. Kia M, Banazadeh M, Bayat M (2018) Rapid seismic vulnerability assessment by new regression-based demand and collapse models for steel moment frames. Earthq Struct 14(3):203–214Google Scholar
  28. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2010a) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng 137(11):1291–1302Google Scholar
  29. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2010b) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng 137(11):1291–1302Google Scholar
  30. Mahsuli M, Haukaas T (2013) Seismic risk analysis with reliability methods, part I: models. Struct Saf 42:54–62Google Scholar
  31. Martins L, Silva V, Marques M, Crowley H, Delgado R (2016) Development and assessment of damage-to-loss models for moment-frame reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(5):797–817Google Scholar
  32. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) OpenSees command language manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center 264Google Scholar
  33. Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2004) Seismic demands for non-deteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground motions. Doctoral dissertation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  34. Moehle J, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 679, pp 3812–3814Google Scholar
  35. O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2016) Fragility functions for eccentrically braced steel frame structures. Earthq Struct 10(2):367–388Google Scholar
  36. Rahnama M, Krawinkler H (1993) Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic demands, vol 108. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, StandfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramamoorthy SK, Gardoni P, Bracci JM (2006) Probabilistic demand models and fragility curves for reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng 132(10):1563–1572Google Scholar
  38. Ruiz-García J, Miranda E (2010) Probabilistic estimation of residual drift demands for seismic assessment of multi-story framed buildings. Eng Struct 32(1):11–20Google Scholar
  39. Sharma H, Gardoni P, Hurlebaus S (2014) Probabilistic demand model and performance-based fragility estimates for RC column subject to vehicle collision. Eng Struct 74:86–95Google Scholar
  40. Shome N, Cornell C (2000) Structural seismic demand analysis: consideration of “Collapse”. In: 8th ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability, Citeseer, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  41. Steinbrugge KV (1982) Earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis: an anatomy of hazards. Skandia America Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514Google Scholar
  43. Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2006) Simplified performance-based earthquake engineering. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhu L, Elwood K, Haukaas T (2007) Classification and seismic safety evaluation of existing reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 133(9):1316–1330Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Science and Technology of MazandaranBehshahrIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)TehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations