Advertisement

A New Method for Developing Seismic Collapse Fragility Curves Grounded on State-Based Philosophy

  • Aref BaharvandEmail author
  • Abdolrasoul Ranjbaran
Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Since the current process to achieve the collapse fragility curve in practical applications seems too complicated, also time-consuming to dominant by structure designers, the focus of this study is on introducing of a new approach for establishing collapse fragility curves which requires less analytical effort. To achieve this goal, state-based philosophy (SBP) has been taken into consideration. This theory benefits from some similarities in the nature of every failure process in solid mechanics regardless of its source. In this study these similarities are used intelligently in procedure of formulating new fragility function which has couple of unknown parameters. Next, it will be shown that these parameters can be attained from two different sources: the pushover curves of the structure, some selective damage data from incremental dynamic analysis analyses. Finally a complete form of new collapse fragility function which is called "SBP fragility function" proposed as a substitute for conventional collapse fragility function. The most important advantage of this new fragility function is its non-probabilistic structure that will make a huge difference in the amount of effort required to achieve the fragility curves. In this research, in order to ensure the efficiency, accuracy of this fragility function all steps of SBP fragility analyses are done on some special moment frames models, their results are presented.

Keywords

State-based philosophy Fragility curve Collapse Pushover analysis Incremental dynamic analysis Earthquake engineering Seismic risk assessment 

Abbreviations

CDF

Cumulative distribution function

EDP

Engineering demand parameter

IDA

Incremental dynamic analysis

PDF

Probability distribution function

PGA

Peak ground acceleration

PGV

Peak ground velocity

SBP

State-based philosophy

SD

Standard deviation

SDOF

Single degree of freedom

SMF

Special moment frame

TR

Transition ratio

List of Symbols

\(\xi\)

State variable

\(F_{R}\)

SBP fragility function

\(k_{N}\)

Natural damage criterion (dimensionless stiffness of the structure)

\(k_{S}\)

Stiffness of the intact structure

\(K_{S}\)

Dimensioned stiffness of the structure

\(k_{p}\)

SBP power factor

\(S_{a} \left( {T_{1} ,2\% } \right)\)

First mode spectral acceleration

\(S_{R}\)

Survival function

\(D_{S}\)

Destination function

Notes

Funding

Not applicable.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. AISC, A. (2010). AISC 341-10, seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel Construction.Google Scholar
  2. Akkar, S., Sucuoǧlu, H., & Yakut, A. (2005). Displacement-based fragility functions for low-and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthquake Spectra,21(4), 901–927.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2084232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltzopoulos, G., Baraschino, R., Iervolino, I., & Vamvatsikos, D. (2017). SPO2FRAG: software for seismic fragility assessment based on static pushover. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,15(10), 4399–4425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0145-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Çavdar, Ö., & Bayraktar, A. (2014). Pushover and nonlinear time history analysis evaluation of a RC building collapsed during the Van (Turkey) earthquake on October 23, 2011. Natural Hazards,70(1), 657–673.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0835-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chopra, A. K., & Goel, R. K. (2004). A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,33(8), 903–927.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., & Foutch, D. A. (2002). Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of structural engineering,128(4), 526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Luca, F., Vamvatsikos, D., & Iervolino, I. (2013). Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,42(4), 523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elkady, A., & Lignos, D. G. (2014). Modeling of the composite action in fully restrained beam-to-column connections: Implications in the seismic design and collapse capacity of steel special moment frames. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,43(13), 1935–1954.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Comitè Europèen de, N. Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1; CEN; Brussels; 2003.Google Scholar
  10. FEMA, A. (2005). 440, Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA-440, Redwood City.Google Scholar
  11. FEMA, P. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors (FEMA P695, ATC-63).Google Scholar
  12. Hariri-Ardebili, M. A., Sattar, S., & Estekanchi, H. E. (2014). Performance-based seismic assessment of steel frames using endurance time analysis. Engineering Structures,69, 216–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartloper, A., & Lignos, D. (2017). 11.29: Updates to the ASCE-41-13 provisions for the nonlinear modeling of steel wide-flange columns for performance-based earthquake engineering. ce/papers,1(2–3), 3072–3081.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hogan, L. S., Giongo, I., Walsh, K. Q., Ingham, J. M., & Dizhur, D. (2018). Full-scale experimental pushover testing of an existing URM building. Structures,15(2017), 66–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ji, J., Elnashai, A. S., & Kuchma, D. A. (2009). Seismic fragility relationships of reinforced concrete high-rise buildings. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,18(3), 259–277.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lallemant, D., Kiremidjian, A., & Burton, H. (2015). Statistical procedures for developing earthquake damage fragility curves. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,44(9), 1373–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, D., & Shin, S. (2015). Nonlinear pushover analysis of concrete column reinforced by multi-layered, high strength steel UL700 plates. Engineering Structures,90, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, D., Shin, S., & Ju, Y.-K. (2016). Evaluation of seismic performance factors for steel DIAGRID structural system design. Earthquake and Structures,10(4), 735–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. L. (2006). The open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSEES) user command-language manual.Google Scholar
  20. Mwafy, A. M., & Elnashai, A. S. (2001). Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Engineering Structures,23(5), 407–424.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00068-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nayak, B., Misra, B., & Mohapatra, A. (2018). A proposed reference current signal generation technique for shunt active power filter. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,13(6), 1834–1849.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ranjbaran, A., & Ranjbaran, M. (2014). New finite-element formulation for buckling analysis of cracked structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,140(5), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000734.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Ranjbaran, A., & Ranjbaran, M. (2016). State functions: the milestone of fracture. Archive of Applied Mechanics,86(7), 1311–1324.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-015-1115-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smyrou, E., Blandon, C., Antoniou, S., Pinho, R., & Crisafulli, F. (2011). Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,9(5), 1519–1534.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9262-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sudret, B., Mai, C., & Konakli, K. (2014). Assessment of the lognormality assumption of seismic fragility curves using non-parametric representations.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
  26. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2006). Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,35(9), 1097–1117.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vargas, Y. F., Pujades, L. G., Barbat, A. H., & Hurtado, J. E. (2013). Capacity, fragility and damage in reinforced concrete buildings: A probabilistic approach. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,11(6), 2007–2032.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9468-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Venture, N. C. J. (2010). Evaluation of the fema p-695 methodology for quantification of building seismic performance factors (pp. 20899–28600). Gaithersburg, MD: US Department of Commerce Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
  29. Zareian, F., Krawinkler, H., Ibarra, L., & Lignos, D. (2010). Basic concepts and performance measures in prediction of collapse of buildings under earthquake ground motions. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,19(1–2), 167–181.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringShiraz UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations