Abstract
An important decision in seismic risk assessment involves a good choice of intensity measure (IM) used to describe ground motion intensity. Depending on the structural typology and type of analysis, the choice of an optimal IM may differ. Ideally, it should have accurate response predictions and not be biased by parameters like scaling factors or other ground motion characteristics. This article investigates this topic in the context of non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frames with masonry infills. It examines several case study structures with IMs like peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), first mode spectral acceleration, Sa(T1), and average spectral acceleration, AvgSa. It reveals PGA and PGV to possess undesirable traits relating to inefficiency, sensitivity to scaling and dependence on other ground motion parameters. Sa(T1) is shown to be an optimal IM at lower intensities, but runs into difficulty once the infill panels collapse and a non-ductile mechanism forms in the structure. Further investigation shows that the response is strongly biased by the velocity-based characteristics of the record upon infill panel collapse when using Sa(T1). On the other hand, AvgSa is seen to possess many of the same benefits regarding efficient response prediction for both intensity-based assessment and fragility function development but is not biased by the ground motion velocity-based characteristics. In light of this, this study presents a case for the traditional IM Sa(T1) to be set aside and for a more promising alternative in AvgSa to be adopted when analysing existing infilled RC frames.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
06 April 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01086-0
References
Agudelo J, López R (2009) Fragility curves for infilled frames. Case study: structures of one and two levels in Puerto Rico. Rev Int Desastres Nat Accid Infraestruct Civ 9(1–2):163–186
Akkar S, Sucuoǧlu H, Yakut A (2005) Displacement-based fragility functions for low- and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 21(4):901–927. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2084232
Baker JW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
Baker JW, Jayaram N (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthq Spectra 24(1):299–317. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857544
Baker JW, Allin Cornell C (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.571
Bertero VV, Mahin SA, Herrera RA (1978) Aseismic design implications of near-fault san fernando earthquake records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 6(1):31–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290060105
Bojórquez E, Iervolino I (2011) Spectral shape proxies and nonlinear structural response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(7):996–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.03.006
Borzi B, Crowley H, Pinho R (2008) The influence of infill panels on vulnerability curves for RC buildings. In: 14th World conference on earthquake engineering (14WCEE), p 8
Bradley BA (2010) A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):1321–1342. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.995
Bradley BA (2012a) Empirical correlations between peak ground velocity and spectrum-based intensity measures. Earthq Spectra 28(1):17–35. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3675582
Bradley BA (2012b) The seismic demand hazard and importance of the conditioning intensity measure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(11):1417–1437. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2221
Bradley BA (2012c) A ground motion selection algorithm based on the generalized conditional intensity measure approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 40(September):48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.04.007
Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA, Cubrinovski M (2009) Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in specific structures: ground motion and structural response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.954
Carofilis W, Perrone D, O’Reilly GJ, Monteiro R, Filiatrault A (2020) Seismic retrofit of existing school buildings in Italy: performance evaluation and loss estimation. Eng Struct 225(December):111243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111243
Chandramohan R, Baker JW, Deierlein GG (2016) Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthq Spectra 32(2):927–950. https://doi.org/10.1193/122813EQS298MR2
Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2):1–2
Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ, Park R (2000) Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures—a general review. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 33(1):30–47
Dávalos H, Miranda E (2019) Filtered incremental velocity: a novel approach in intensity measures for seismic collapse estimation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48(12):1384–1405. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3205
Du A, Padgett JE (2020) Entropy-based intensity measure selection for site-specific probabilistic seismic risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3346
Eads L, Eduardo M (2013) Seismic collapse risk assessment of buildings: effects of intensity measure selection and computational approach. In: Blume Report No. 184. http://purl.stanford.edu/cn733sv2623
Eads L, Miranda E, Lignos D (2016) Spectral shape metrics and structural collapse potential. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(10):1643–1659. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2739
Eads L, Miranda E, Lignos DG (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(12):2057–2073. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2575
Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F (2020) Selection of seismic intensity measures for prescribed limit states using alternative nonlinear dynamic analysis methods. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3393
Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F, Lucchini A, Mollaioli F, Manfredi G (2015) Preliminary ranking of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking. Bull Earthq Eng 13(10):2805–2840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9755-9
Erberik MA (2008) Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 30(5):1360–1374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.016
FEMA (2012) FEMA P-58-1: seismic performance assessment of buildings. Methodology, vol 1, Washington
Del Gaudio C, De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2017) Empirical fragility curves from damage data on RC buildings after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 15(4):1425–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0026-1
Del Gaudio C, Di Ludovico M, Polese M, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2019a) Seismic fragility for Italian RC buildings based on damage data of the last 50 years. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00762-6
Del Gaudio C, Risi MTD, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2019b) Empirical drift-fragility functions and loss estimation for Infills in reinforced concrete frames under seismic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 17(3):1285–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0501-y
GEM (2019) The OpenQuake Engine User Instruction Manual. p 189. https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM.OPENQUAKE.MAN.ENGINE.3.7.1.
Giovenale P, Allin Cornell C, Esteva L (2004) Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(8):951–979. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.386
Glaister S, Pinho R (2003) Development of a simplified deformation-based method for seismic vulnerability assessment. J Earthq Eng 7(sup001):107–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460309350475
Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, Altman DG (2016) Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 31(4):337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G, Sullivan TJ (2012) Damage control for clay masonry infills in the design of RC frame structures. J Earthq Eng 16(sup1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.670575
Haselton CB, Baker JW (2006) Ground motion intensity measures for collapse capacity prediction: choice of optimal spectral period and effect of spectral shape. In: 8th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2006, vol 15, pp 8830–8839
HAZUS (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—earthquake model. Washington.
Jalayer F (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. USA: PhD Thesis, Stanford University
Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(8):951–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.876
Jalayer F, Beck JL, Zareian F (2012) Analyzing the sufficiency of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking based on information theory. J Eng Mech 138(3):307–316. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000327
Jayaram N, Bazzurro P, Mollaioli F, De Sortis A, Bruno S (2010) Prediction of structural response in reinforced concrete frames subjected to earthquake ground motions. In: 9th US National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering 2010, including papers from the 4th international Tsunami symposium, May 2014, vol 9, pp 7138–47
Kappos AJ, Panagiotopoulos C, Panagopoulos G, El Papadopoulos (2003) Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Level 1 and Level 2 Analysis). In: WP4 Report RISK-UE
Kazantzi AK, Vamvatsikos D (2015) Intensity measure selection for vulnerability studies of building classes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(15):2677–2694. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2603
Kohrangi M, Vamvatsikos D, Bazzurro P (2016) Implications of intensity measure selection for seismic loss assessment of 3-D buildings. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2167–2189. https://doi.org/10.1193/112215EQS177M
Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Spillatura A (2017) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(10):1667–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2876
Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):415–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z
Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part II: intensity-based assessments and evaluation of alternative target spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(12):1867–1884. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2303
Luco N, Bazzurro P (2007) Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses? Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):1813–1835. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.695
McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2010) Nonlinear finite-element analysis software architecture using object composition. J Comput Civ Eng 24(1):95–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002
Mehanny SSF (2009) A broad-range power-law form scalar-based seismic intensity measure. Eng Struct 31(7):1354–1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.003
Minas S, Galasso C (2019) Accounting for spectral shape in simplified fragility analysis of case-study reinforced concrete frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 119(April):91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.12.025
Morandi P, Hak S, Magenes G (2018) Mechanical characterization and force-displacement hysteretic curves from in-plane cyclic tests on strong Masonry Infills. Data Brief 16(February):886–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.12.015
Nafeh AMB, O’Reilly GJ, Monteiro R (2020) Simplified seismic assessment of infilled RC frame structures. Bull Earthq Eng 18(4):1579–1611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00758-2
O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2018a) Probabilistic seismic assessment and retrofit considerations for Italian RC frame buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 16(3):1447–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0257-9
O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2018b) Quantification of modelling uncertainty in existing Italian RC frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(4):1054–1074. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3005
O’Reilly GJ, Monteiro R (2019) Probabilistic models for structures with bilinear demand-intensity relationships. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48(2):253–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3135
O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2019) Modeling techniques for the seismic assessment of the existing Italian RC frame Structures. J Earthquake Eng 23(8):1262–1296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1360224
O’Reilly GJ, Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Monteiro R (2018a) Intensity measures for the collapse assessment of infilled RC frames. In: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering. Thessaloniki, Greece
O’Reilly GJ, Perrone D, Fox M, Monteiro R, Filiatrault A (2018b) Seismic assessment and loss estimation of existing school buildings in Italy. Eng Struct 168 (August):142–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.056
O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ, Monteiro R (2018c) On the seismic assessment and retrofit of infilled RC frames structures. In: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering. Thessaloniki, Greece
O’Reilly GJ, Perrone D, Fox M, Monteiro R, Filiatrault A, Lanese I, Pavese A (2019) System identification and seismic assessment modeling implications for italian school buildings. J Perform Constr Facil 33(1):04018089. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001237
Padgett JE, Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2008) Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(5):711–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.782
Ricci P, De Luca F, Verderame GM (2011) 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete building performance. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9204-8
Rossetto T, Elnashai A (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 25(10):1241–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00060-9
Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia CL (2008) Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(10–11):933–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.010
Sassun K, Sullivan TJ, Morandi P, Cardone D (2015) Characterising the in-plane seismic performance of infill masonry. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 49(1):100–117
Silva V, Casotto C, Rao A, Villar M, Crowley H, Vamvatsikos D (2015) OpenQuake Risk Modeller’s Toolkit—User Guide. 2015–09. https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM.OPENQUAKE.MAN.RMTK.1.0
Silva V, Akkar S, Baker J, Bazzurro P, Castro JM, Crowley H, Dolsek M et al (2019) Current challenges and future trends in analytical fragility and vulnerability modeling. Earthq Spectra 35(4):1927–1952. https://doi.org/10.1193/042418EQS101O
Song B, Galasso C, Kanvinde A (2020) Advancing fracture fragility assessment of pre-northridge welded column splices. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 49(2):132–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3228
Sousa L, Silva V, Marques M, Crowley H (2016) On the treatment of uncertainties in the development of fragility functions for earthquake loss estimation of building portfolios. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2734
Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(3):581–626
Vamvatsikos D, Allin Cornell C (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141
Vamvatsikos D, Allin Cornell C (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20(2):523–553. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1737737
Villar-Vega M, Silva V, Crowley H, Yepes C, Tarque N, Acevedo AB, Hube MA, Gustavo CD, María HS (2017) Development of a fragility model for the residential building stock in South America. Earthq Spectra 33(2):581–604. https://doi.org/10.1193/010716EQS005M
Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, Valensise G et al (2015) The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng 13(12):3553–3596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1
Funding
The work presented in this paper has been developed within the framework of the project “Dipartimenti di Eccellenza”, funded by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research at IUSS Pavia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The author declares to have no conflicts of or competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Reilly, G.J. Limitations of Sa(T1) as an intensity measure when assessing non-ductile infilled RC frame structures. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 2389–2417 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01071-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01071-7