Incremental Dynamic Analysis and Pushover Analysis of Buildings. A Probabilistic Comparison

  • Yeudy F. Vargas
  • Luis G. Pujades
  • Alex H. Barbat
  • Jorge E. Hurtado
Part of the Computational Methods in Applied Sciences book series (COMPUTMETHODS, volume 26)

Abstract

Capacity-spectrum-based-methods are also used for assessing the vulnerability and risk of existing buildings. Capacity curves are usually obtained by means of nonlinear static analysis. Incremental Dynamic Analysis is another powerful tool based on nonlinear dynamic analysis. This method is similar to the pushover analysis as the input is increasingly enlarged but it is different as it is based on dynamic analysis. Moreover, it is well known that the randomness associated to the structural response can be significant, because of the uncertainties involved in the mechanical properties of the materials, among other uncertainty sources, and because the expected seismic actions are also highly stochastic. Selected mechanical properties are considered as random variables and the seismic hazard is considered in a probabilistic way. A number of accelerograms of actual European seismic events have been selected in such a way that their response spectra fit well the response spectra provided by the seismic codes for the zone where the target building is constructed. In this work a fully probabilistic approach is tackled by means of Monte Carlo simulation. The method is applied to a detailed study of the seismic response of a reinforced concrete building. The building is representative for office buildings in Spain but the procedures used and the results obtained can be extended to other types of buildings. The main purposes of this work are (1) to analyze the differences when static and dynamic techniques are used and (2) to obtain a measure of the uncertainties involved in the assessment of the vulnerability of structures. The results show that static based procedures are somehow conservative and that uncertainties increase with the severity of the seismic actions and with the damage. Low damage state fragility curves have little uncertainty while high damage grades fragility curves show great scattering.

Keywords

Seismic Action Damage State Damage Index Fragility Curve Capacity Curve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by the Geologic Institute of Catalonia (IGC), by the ministry of science and innovation of Spain and by the European Commission through research projects CGL-2005-04541-C03-02/BTE, CGL2008-00869/BTE, CGL2011-23621 INTERREG: POCTEFA 2007-2013/ 73/08 y MOVE—FT7-ENV-2007-1-211590. The first author has a scholarship funded by a bilateral agreement between the IGC and the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (BarnaTech).

References

  1. 1.
    Barbat, A.H., Yépez Moya, F., Canas, J.A.: Damage scenarios simulation for risk assessment in urban zones. Earthq. Spectra 2(3), 371–394 (1996) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbat, A.H., Mena, U., Yépez, F.: Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico en zonas urbanas. Revista internacional de métodos numéricos para cálculo y diseño en ingeniería 14(2), 247–268 (1998) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borzi, B., Phino, R., Crowley, H.: Simplified pushover analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng. Struct. 30, 804–820 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbat, A.H., Pujades, L.G., Lantada, N., Moreno, R.: Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: application to Barcelona. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 28, 851–865 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lantada, N., Pujades, L.G., Barbat, A.H.: Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation. A comparison. Nat. Hazards 51, 501–524 (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell, C.A.: The incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31(3), 491–514 (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Satyarno, I.: Pushover analysis for the seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. Dissertation, University of Canterbury (1999) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carr, A.J.: Ruaumoko—inelastic dynamic analisys program. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (2000) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crowley, H., Bommer, J.J., Pinho, R., Bird, J.F.: The impact of epistemic uncertainty on an earthquake loss model. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34(14), 1635–1685 (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ATC-40: Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California (1996) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    FEMA: HAZUS99 technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA (1999) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    RISK-UE: An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. Project of the European Commission (2004) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bommer, J.J., Crowley, H.: The influence of ground motion variability in earthquake loss modelling. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 4(3), 231–248 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ambraseys, N., Smit, P., Sigbjornsson, R., Suhadolc, P., Margaris, B.: Internet-site for European strong-motion data. European Commission, Research-Directorate General, Environment and Climate Programme. http://www.isesd.hi.is/ESD_Local/frameset.htm. Accesed 17 Apr 2011
  15. 15.
    Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for building (2002) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park, Y.J., Ang, A.H.S.: Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 111(4), 722–757 (1985) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lilliefors, H.W.: On the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 318, 399–402 (1967) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vargas, Y.F., Pujades, L.G., Barbat, A.H., Hurtado, J.E.: Evaluación probabilista de la capacidad, fragilidad y daño sísmico en edificios de hormigón armado. Revista internacional de métodos numéricos para cálculo y diseño en ingeniería 29(1) (2013, to appear) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freeman, S.A., Nicoletti, J.P., Tyrell, J.V.: Evaluation of existing buildings for seismic risk—a case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In: Proceedings of U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, USA, pp. 113–122 (1975) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freeman, S.A.: Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 41, 1–13 (2004) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yeudy F. Vargas
    • 1
  • Luis G. Pujades
    • 1
  • Alex H. Barbat
    • 2
  • Jorge E. Hurtado
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Geotechnical Engineering and GeosciencesTechnical University of Catalonia (BarnaTech)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Structural Mechanics DepartmentTechnical University of Catalonia (BarnaTech)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.National University of ColombiaManizalesColombia

Personalised recommendations