Abstract
Based on the first-order second-moment method, a comparative study on seismic fragility analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainty is carried out for a 12-story reinforced concrete frame structure under excitation with far-field and pulse-like near-field ground motions by using the multiple stripes analysis method. The sensitivity of the median fragility capacity of the building to fourteen parameters in the cases of three limit states (i.e., immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention) is analysed, and the effect of the selection of ground motion intensity measures on the determination of modeling uncertainty is investigated. Finally, the annual probabilities of exceeding each limit state with different confidence levels are calculated, and two methods, the mean estimates approach and the confidence interval method, are used to incorporate uncertainties. The results show that the characteristics of ground motions affect the sensitivity of the median capacity to the disturbance of structural parameters. The modeling uncertainty estimated in the near-field records is meaningfully less than that in the far-field records. Judging from this limited case study, the modeling uncertainty estimated may be underestimated by using an inefficient IM. The influence of the modeling uncertainty in the fragility analysis for each limit state cannot be ignored when using the confidence interval method.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data and material for producing the presented results will be made available upon request.
Code availability
Code for producing the presented results will be made available upon request.
References
Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2004) Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct D 33(6):687–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.369
Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005. https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS197M
ASCE 7–16 (2016) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE, Reston
Asgarian B, Ordoubadi B (2016) Effects of structural uncertainties on seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames. J Constr Steel Res 120:132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.12.031
Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. B Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1486–1501. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060255
Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M
Bradley BA, Lee DS (2010) Accuracy of approximate methods of uncertainty propagation in seismic loss estimation. Struct Saf 32(1):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.04.001
Dong ZQ, Li G, Li HN (2021) Dynamic tests of the collapse-prevention performance of a low-ductility low-rise steel concentrically braced frame. Eng Struct 240:112420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112420
Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SS, Cornell CA (2001) Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure. Proceedings of the Second Us-Japan Workshop on Performance-based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures; Sapporo, Hokkaido. p. 187–206
Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128(4):526–533. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)
Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31(2):105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020
Dolšek M (2009) Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties. Earthq Eng Struct D 38(6):805–825. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.869
Dolšek M (2012) Simplified method for seismic risk assessment of buildings with consideration of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Struct Infrastruct E 8(10):939–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.574813
Eads L, Miranda E, Krawinkler H, Lignos DG (2013) An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions. Earthq Eng Struct D 42(1):25–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2191
Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F, Lucchini A, Mollaioli F, Manfredi G (2015) Preliminary ranking of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking. B Earthq Eng 13(10):2805–2840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9755-9
Ellingwood B, Galambos TV, MacGregor JG (1980) Development of a probability-based load criterion for american national standard a58. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, p 222
Erberik MA (2008) Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct D 37(3):387–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.760
FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA, Washington D.C
FEMA P695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. FEMA, Washington D.C
Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D (2010) Fast performance uncertainty estimation via pushover and approximate IDA. Earthq Eng Struct D 39(6):683–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.965
Freddi F, Padgett JE, Dall’Asta A (2017) Probabilistic seismic demand modeling of local level response parameters of an RC frame. B Earthq Eng 15(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9948-x
GBJ 68–84 (1984) Unified standard for design of building structure. Beijing: China Academy of Building Research. (in Chinese)
Gentile R, Galasso C, Pampanin S (2021) Material property uncertainties versus joint structural detailing: relative effect on the seismic fragility of reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng 147(4):04021007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002917
Ghosh J (2021) Next generation fragility functions for seismically designed highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Nat Hazards Rev 22(1):04020051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000426
Gokkaya BU, Baker JW, Deierlein GG (2016) Quantifying the impacts of modeling uncertainties on the seismic drift demands and collapse risk of buildings with implications on seismic design checks. Earthq Eng Struct D 45(10):1661–1683. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2740
Haselton CB (2006) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete frame buildings. Stanford University, Stanford, CA
He X, Lu Z (2019) Seismic fragility assessment of a super tall building with hybrid control strategy using IDA method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 123:278–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.05.003
He Z, Wang Z, Zhang YT (2017) Collapse safety margin and seismic loss assessment of RC frames with equal material cost. Struct Des Tall Spec. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1407
Dávalos H, Miranda E (2021) Enhanced two-stripe analysis for efficient estimation of the probability of collapse. J Earthq Eng 25(11):2325–2348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1628127
Huang LJ, Clayton PM, Zhou Z (2021) Seismic design and performance of self-centering precast concrete frames with variable friction dampers. Eng Struct 245:112863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112863
Jalayer F (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2003) A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity factor (DCFD) seismic formats. Berkeley (CA): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. Report No.: PEER 2003/08.
Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct D 38(8):951–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.876
JCSS (2001) Probabilistic model code, Part II: Probabilistic model code. Joint Committee on Structural Safety
Kadas K, Yakut A, Kazaz I (2011) Spectral ground motion intensity based on capacity and period elongation. J Struct Eng 137(3):401–409. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000084
Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Farsangi EN (2020) The seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies: a state-of-the-art review. Ain Shams Eng J 11(4):849–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.04.001
Kosič M, Fajfar P, Dolšek M (2014) Approximate seismic risk assessment of building structures with explicit consideration of uncertainties. Earthq Eng Struct D 43(10):1483–1502. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2407
Kwon OS, Elnashai A (2006) The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure. Eng Struct 28(2):289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.07.010
Lee TH, Mosalam KM (2005) Seismic demand sensitivity of reinforced concrete shear-wall building using FOSM method. Earthq Eng Struct D 34(14):1719–1736. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.506
Liel AB, Haselton CB, Deierlein GG, Baker JW (2009) Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Struct Saf 31(2):197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.002
Liu Z, Zhang Z (2018) Artificial neural network based method for seismic fragility analysis of steel frames. KSCE J Civ Eng 22(2):708–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1329-8
Lu DG, Yu XH, Jia MM, Wang GY (2014) Seismic risk assessment for a reinforced concrete frame designed according to Chinese codes. Struct Infrastruct E 10(10):1295–1310. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.791326
Malhotra PK (1999) Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct D 28(11):1309–1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199911)28:11%3c1309::AID-EQE868%3e3.0.CO;2-U
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2011) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees) command language manual. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Command_Manual
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of People’s Republic of China (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings (GB 50011–2010). China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese)
Porter KA, Beck JL, Shaikhutdinov RV (2002) Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthq Spectra 18(4):719–743. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1516201
Ranjbaran F, Hosseini M (2014) Seismic vulnerability assessment of confined masonry wall buildings. Earthq Struct 7(2):201–216. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.2.201
Riddell R (2007) On ground motion intensity indices. Earthq Spectra 23(1):147–173. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2424748
Sadraddin HL, Shao X, Hu Y (2016) Fragility assessment of high-rise reinforced concrete buildings considering the effects of shear wall contributions. Struct Des Tall Spec 25(18):1089–1102. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1299
Shekhar S, Ghosh J (2020) A metamodeling based seismic life-cycle cost assessment framework for highway bridge structures. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 195:106724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106724
Shi W, Zhang L, Lu XZ, Ye LP (2015) Quantitative estimation of the effect of model parameter uncertainties on the collapse resistance of structures. Earthq Resist Eng Retrofit 37(2):9–16. https://doi.org/10.16226/j.issn.1002-8412.2015.02.002 (in Chinese)
Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech 126(12):1224–1231. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1224)
Shome N, Cornell CA. (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of non-linear structures, Report No. RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Takewaki I, Fujita K, Yoshitomi S (2013) Uncertainties in long-period ground motion and its impact on building structural design: case study of the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake. Earthq Struct 49:119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.10.038
Thomos GC, Trezos CG (2006) Examination of the probabilistic response of reinforced concrete structures under non-linear analysis. Eng Struct 28(1):120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.003
Tothong P, Luco N (2007) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct D 36(13):1837–1860. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.696
Tubaldi E, Barbato M, Dall’Asta A (2012) Influence of model parameter uncertainty on seismic transverse response and vulnerability of steel–concrete composite bridges with dual load path. J Struct Eng 138(3):363–374. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000456
Ugalde D, Lopez-Garcia D, Parra PF (2020) Fragility-based analysis of the influence of effective stiffness of reinforced concrete members in shear wall buildings. B Earthq Eng 18(5):2061–2082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00786-3
Ugurhan B, Baker JW, Deierlein GG (2014) Uncertainty estimation in seismic collapse assessment of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. In: Proceedings of the 10th national conference in earthquake engineering. Anchorage, Alaska
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct D 31(3):491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141
Wang Z (2016) Collapse safety margin and seismic loss assessment of concrete frames having equal construction cost. Dalian University of Technology, Dalian
Xu YL, Hu R (2021) Component-level seismic performance assessment of instrumented super high-rise buildings under bidirectional long-period ground motions. J Struct Eng 147(2):04020324. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002894
Yakut A, Yılmaz H (2008) Correlation of deformation demands with ground motion intensity. J Struct Eng 134(12):1818–1828. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:12(1818)
Ye LP (2012) Concrete structures. China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese)
Ye LP, Ma QL, Miao ZW, Guan H, Zhuge Y (2013) Numerical and comparative study of earthquake intensity indices in seismic analysis. Struct Des Tall Spec 22(4):362–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.693
Yu XH, Lv DG (2012) Seismic collapse fragility analysis considering structural uncertainties. J Build Struct 33(10):8–14. https://doi.org/10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2012.10.002(inChinese)
Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2007) Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety. Earthq Eng Struct D 36(13):1901–1914. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.702
Zhang YT, He Z (2019) Appropriate ground motion intensity measures for estimating the earthquake demand of floor acceleration-sensitive elements in super high-rise buildings. Struct Infrastruct E 15(4):467–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.1544986
Zhang YT, He Z (2020a) Acceptable values of collapse margin ratio with different confidence levels. Struct Saf 84:101938. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STRUSAFE.2020.101938
Zhang YT, He Z (2020b) Seismic collapse risk assessment of super high-rise buildings considering modeling uncertainty: a case study. Struct Des Tall Spec 29:e1687. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1687
Zhang YT, He Z, Yang YF (2018) A spectral-velocity-based combination -type earthquake intensity measure for super high-rise buildings. B Earthq Eng 16(2):643–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0224-5
Zhang YT, Shi YA, Sun BY, Wang Z (2021) Estimation of aleatory randomness by Sa(T1)-based intensity measures in fragility analysis of reinforced concrete frame structures. CMES Comput Model Eng. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2021.016857
Zuo Y, Li W, Li M (2019) Seismic fragility analysis of steel frame structures containing initial flaws in beam-column connections. Int J Steel Struct 19(2):504–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0135-6
Funding
This research was financially supported by the Jiangsu Youth Fund Projects (BK20210371), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52108457 and 52108133), the Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China (20KJB560014, 18KJB560010 and 19KJB560017), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (B210201019), High-level Talent Research Fund of Nanjing Forestry University (163050115), Nanjing Forestry University Undergraduate Innovation Training Program (2021NFUSPITP0221, 2020NFUSPITP0352 and 2020NFUSPITP0373), and Jiangsu Undergraduate Innovation Training Program (202110298079Y).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
YZ: Investigation, formal analysis, writing—original draft; XO: data processing, picture production, writing—response; BS: validation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing; YS: writing—review & editing, methodology; ZW: design, modeling, writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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
Zhang, Y., Ouyang, X., Sun, B. et al. A comparative study on seismic fragility analysis of RC frame structures with consideration of modeling uncertainty under far-field and near-field ground motion excitation. Bull Earthquake Eng 20, 1455–1487 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01254-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01254-2