Significance of Modeling Deterioration in Structural Components for Predicting the Collapse Potential of Structures Under Earthquake Excitations

  • Helmut Krawinkler
  • Farzin Zareian
  • Dimitrios G. Lignos
  • Luis F. Ibarra
Chapter
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 13)

Abstract

The paper presents a summary of the state of knowledge in structural component and system modeling for predicting the collapse potential of buildings structural systems. In this context, collapse implies dynamic instability in a sidesway mode, usually triggered by large story drifts that are amplified by structure P-Δ effects and deterioration in strength and stiffness of the components of the system. The collapse capacity of a building is defined as the maximum ground motion intensity (often represented by the spectral acceleration at the first mode period) at which the structural system still maintains dynamic stability. A collapse fragility curve that incorporates aleatory uncertainty due to record-to-record (RTR) variability is obtained by ordering the collapse capacities for a representative set of ground motions. Realistic modeling of deterioration is found to be the most essential aspect of collapse prediction through nonlinear dynamic analysis.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Much of this research was supported by the NSF sponsored Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center. Additional support was provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through Grant No. CMS-0421551 as part of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Consortium Operations, and by a grant of the CUREE-Kajima Phase VI research program. All support is gratefully appreciated. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

References

  1. 1.
    ATC-72-1 (2009) Interim guidelines on modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings (95% draft). Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) Vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10):1193–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2007) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete frames. PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibarra L, Medina R, Krawinkler H (2002) Collapse assessment of deteriorating SDOF systems. Proceedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, Elsevier Science Ltd, London, September 2002, paper # 665Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Report No. PEER 2005/06. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2009) Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. Report No. 172, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Takizawa H, Jennings P (1980) Collapse of a model for ductile reinforced concrete frames under extreme earthquake motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 8(2):117–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Talaat M, Mosalam K (2007) Towards modeling progressive collapse in reinforced concrete buildings. Proceedings of ASCE Structures Congress, Long Beach, CA, paper ID 116Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2005) Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multi-degree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation. ASCE J Struct Eng 131(4):589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2007) Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):1901–1944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2009) Simplified performance-based earthquake engineering. Report No. 169, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helmut Krawinkler
    • 1
  • Farzin Zareian
    • 2
  • Dimitrios G. Lignos
    • 1
  • Luis F. Ibarra
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Southwest Research Institute CNWRASan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations