Abstract
The development of fragility curves to perform seismic scenario-based risk assessment requires a fully probabilistic procedure in order to account for uncertainties at each step of the computation. This is especially true when developing fragility curves conditional on an Intensity Measure that is directly available from a ground-motion prediction equation. In this study, we propose a new derivation method that uses realistic spectra instead of design spectral shapes or uniform hazard spectra and allows one to easily account for the features of the site-specific hazard that influences the fragility, without using non-linear dynamic analysis. The proposed method has been applied to typical school building types in the city of Basel (Switzerland) and the results have been compared to the standard practice in Europe. The results confirm that fragility curves are scenario dependent and are particularly sensitive to the magnitude of the earthquake scenario. The same background theory used for the derivation of the fragility curves has allowed an innovative method to be proposed for the conversion of fragility curves to a common IM (i.e. spectral acceleration or PGA). This conversion is the only way direct comparisons of fragility curves can be made and is useful when inter-period correlation cannot be used in scenario loss assessment. Moreover, such conversion is necessary to compare and verify newly developed curves against those from previous studies. Conversion to macroseismic intensity is also relevant for the comparison between mechanical-based and empirical fragility curves, in order to detect possible biases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Ay BO (2014a) Compatible ground-motion prediction equations for damping scaling factors and vertical-to-horizontal spectral amplitude ratios for the broader Europe region. Bull Earthq Eng 12:517–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9537-1
Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014b) Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:359–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4
Atkinson GM, Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2014) Alternative approaches to modeling epistemic uncertainty in ground motions in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Seismol Res Lett 85:1141–1144. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140120
Baker JW (2010) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137:322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
Bernardini A, Lagomarsino S, Mannella A et al (2010) Forecasting seismic damage scenarios of residential buildings from rough inventories: a case-study in the Abruzzo Region (Italy). Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O J Risk Reliab 224:279–296. https://doi.org/10.1243/1748006XJRR305
Bommer JJ, Crowley H (2006) The influence of ground-motion variability in earthquake loss modelling. Bull Earthq Eng 4:231–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9008-z
Bradley BA (2013) A critical examination of seismic response uncertainty analysis in earthquake engineering. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1717–1729. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2331
Cauzzi C, Edwards B, Fäh D et al (2015) New predictive equations and site amplification estimates for the next-generation Swiss ShakeMaps. Geophys J Int 200:421–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu404
CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998-1: European Committee for Standardization
Edwards B, Fäh D (2013) A stochastic ground-motion model for Switzerland. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:78–98. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110331
Faenza L, Michelini A (2010) Regression analysis of MCS intensity and ground motion parameters in Italy and its application in ShakeMap. Geophys J Int 180:1138–1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04467.x
Faenza L, Michelini A (2011) Regression analysis of MCS intensity and ground motion spectral accelerations (SAs) in Italy. Geophys J Int 186:1415–1430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05125.x
Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16:573–592
FEMA (2012) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: earthquake model. Hazus–MH 2.1: technical manual
Freeman SA (1998) The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. In: 11th European conference on earthquake engineering, pp 6–11
Grünthal G, Musson RMW, Schwartz J, Stucchi M (1998) European macroseismic scale 1998. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg
Hancilar U, Tuzun C, Yenidogan C, Erdik M (2010) ELER software—a new tool for urban earthquake loss assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:2677–2696. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-2677-2010
Jaiswal K, Wald DJ, D’Ayala D (2011) Developing empirical collapse fragility functions for global building types. Earthq Spectra 27:775–795. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3606398
Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker JW (2011) A Computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthq Spectra 27:797–815. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3608002
Jeong SH, Elnashai AS (2007) Probabilistic fragility analysis parameterized by fundamental response quantities. Eng Struct 29:1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.06.026
Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:391–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9023-0
Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2014) Fragility functions of masonry buildings. In: Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia A (eds) SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk: buildings, lifelines, transportation networks and critical facilities. Springer, Dordrecht
Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z
Lestuzzi P, Podestà S, Luchini C et al (2016) Seismic vulnerability assessment at urban scale for two typical Swiss cities using Risk-UE methodology. Nat Hazards 84:249–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2420-z
Lin Y, Miranda E (2008) Noniterative equivalent linear method for evaluation of existing structures. J Struct Eng 134:1685–1695. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:11(1685)
Michel C, Fäh D (2016) Basel earthquake risk mitigation computation of scenarios for school buildings. ETH-Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-010646514
Michel C, Lestuzzi P, Lacave C (2014) Simplified non-linear seismic displacement demand prediction for low period structures. Bull Earthq Eng 12:1563–1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9585-1
Michel C, Fäh D, Edwards B, Cauzzi C (2017a) Site amplification at the city scale in Basel (Switzerland) from geophysical site characterization and spectral modelling of recorded earthquakes. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 98:27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.07.005
Michel C, Hannewald P, Lestuzzi P et al (2017b) Probabilistic mechanics-based loss scenarios for school buildings in Basel (Switzerland). Bull Earthq Eng 15:1471–1496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0025-2
Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010) SELENA—an open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36:257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.006
Mouroux P, Le Brun B (2006) Presentation of RISK-UE project. Bull Earthq Eng 4:323–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9020-3
Murphy JR, O’Brien LJ (1977) The correlation of peak ground acceleration amplitude with seismic intensity and other physical parameters acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:877–915
Musson RMW, Grünthal G, Stucchi M (2010) The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales. J Seismol 14:413–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-009-9172-0
Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia AM (eds) (2014) SYNER-G : typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7872-6
Polese M, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G (2013) Damage-dependent vulnerability curves for existing buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:853–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2249
Résonance (2016) Basel earthquake risk mitigation—capacity curves of school buildings. ETH-Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3929/ETHZ-A-010647300
Rey J, Faccioli E, Bommer JJ (2002) Derivation of design soil coefficients (S) and response spectral shapes for Eurocode 8 using the European strong-motion database. J Seismol 6:547–555. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021169715992
Sedan O, Negulescu C, Terrier M et al (2013) Armagedom—a tool for seismic risk assessment illustrated with applications. J Earthq Eng 17:253–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.726604
Silva V, Crowley H, Pinho R, Varum H (2013) Extending displacement-based earthquake loss assessment (DBELA) for the computation of fragility curves. Eng Struct 56:343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.023
Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M et al (2014a) Development of the OpenQuake engine, the global earthquake model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Nat Hazards 72:1409–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0618-x
Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H et al (2014b) Evaluation of analytical methodologies used to derive vulnerability functions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:181–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2337
So E, Spence R (2013) Estimating shaking-induced casualties and building damage for global earthquake events: a proposed modelling approach. Bull Earthq Eng 11:347–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9373-8
Spence R, Bommer JJ, Del Re D et al (2003) Comparing loss estimation with observed damage: a study of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng 1:83–113
Weatherill G, Silva V, Crowley H, Bazzurro P (2015) Exploring the impact of spatial correlations and uncertainties for portfolio analysis in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 13:957–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9730-5
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Canton Basel-Stadt that funded this research. They also thank Prof. J. Bommer for his review that greatly helped improving the paper and Dr. Yavor Kamer for his comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Michel, C., Crowley, H., Hannewald, P. et al. Deriving fragility functions from bilinearized capacity curves for earthquake scenario modelling using the conditional spectrum. Bull Earthquake Eng 16, 4639–4660 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0371-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0371-3