International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1607–1616 | Cite as

Sensitivity of Seismic Response and Fragility to Parameter Uncertainty of Single-Layer Reticulated Domes

  • Jie ZhongEmail author
  • Xudong Zhi
  • Feng Fan


Quantitatively modeling and propagating all sources of uncertainty stand at the core of seismic fragility assessment of structures. This paper investigates the effects of various sources of uncertainty on seismic responses and seismic fragility estimates of single-layer reticulated domes. Sensitivity analyses are performed to examine the sensitivity of typical seismic responses to uncertainties in structural modeling parameters, and the results suggest that the variability in structural damping, yielding strength, steel ultimate strain, dead load and snow load has significant effects on the seismic responses, and these five parameters should be taken as random variables in the seismic fragility assessment. Based on this, fragility estimates and fragility curves incorporating different levels of uncertainty are obtained on the basis of the results of incremental dynamic analyses on the corresponding set of 40 sample models generated by Latin Hypercube Sampling method. The comparisons of these fragility curves illustrate that, the inclusion of only ground motion uncertainty is inappropriate and inadequate, and the appropriate way is incorporating the variability in the five identified structural modeling parameters as well into the seismic fragility assessment of single-layer reticulated domes.


Sensitivity analysis Seismic fragility curves Structural modeling uncertainties Incremental dynamic analysis Single-layer reticulated domes 



This present work has been conducted with the financial support from the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 3102017OQD071), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51525802 and 51778157). The very constructive comments by the reviewers to this paper are also greatly appreciated.


  1. Celik, O. C., & Ellingwood, B. R. (2010). Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames: Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Structural Safety, 32, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, G. B., Zhang, H., Rasmussen, K. J. R., & Fan, F. (2014). Modelling geometric imperfections of spatial latticed structures considering correlations of node imperfections. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 553, 576–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., & Foutch, D. A. (2002). Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4), 526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ellingwood, B. R., & Kinali, K. (2009). Quantifying and communicating uncertainty in seismic risk assessment. Structural Safety, 31, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fan, F., Yan, J. C., & Cao, Z. G. (2012). Elasto-plastic stability of single-layer reticulated domes with initial curvature of members. Thin-Walled Structures, 60, 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FEMA. (1997). NEHRP guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  7. Gao, X. W., & Bao, A. B. (1985). Probabilistic model and its statistical parameters for seismic load. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 5(3), 13–22.Google Scholar
  8. GB50009. (2012). Load code for the design of building structures. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press.Google Scholar
  9. Helton, J. C., & Davis, F. J. (2003). Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 81, 23–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. JCSS. (2001). Probabilistic model code, Part 3: Resistance models, static properties of structural steel (rolled sections). JCSS Zurich. Available from Internet:
  11. JGJ7. (2010). Technical specification for space frame structure. Beijing: China Architecture Industry Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kiureghian, A. D., & Ditlevsen, O. (2009). Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Structural Safety, 31, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kwon, O. S., & Elnashai, A. (2006). The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure. Engineering Structures, 28(2), 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, D. H., Kim, B. H., Jeong, S. H., Jeon, J. S., & Lee, T. H. (2016). Seismic fragility analysis of a buried gas pipeline based on nonlinear time-history analysis. International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(1), 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, T. H., & Mosalam, K. M. (2005). Seismic demand sensitivity of reinforced concrete shear-wall building using FOSM method. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34, 1719–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moehle, J. & Deierlein, G. G. (2004). A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In Proc. 13th world conf. on earthquake engineering, CD-ROM, Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Canada, pp. 3812–3814.Google Scholar
  17. Nie, G. B., Zhi, X. D., Fan, F., & Dai, J. W. (2014). Seismic performance evaluation of single-layer reticulated dome and its fragility analysis. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 100, 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Padgett, J. E., & DesRoches, R. (2007). Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter uncertainty. Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(12), 1710–1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Park, J., Towashiraporn, P., Craig, J. I., & Goodno, B. J. (2009). Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise unreinforced masonry structures. Engineering Structures, 31(1), 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Porter, K. A., Beck, J. L. & Shaikhutdinov, R. V. (2002). Investigation of sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables for the Van Nuys testbed. PEER technical report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Richmond, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Ramanathan, K., Padgett, J. E., & DesRoches, R. (2015). Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete box-girder bridges in California. Engineering Structures, 97, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shah, H. C., Bao, A. B., & Dong, W. M. (1982). Implications and application of Bayesian model for seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
  23. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang, D. (2006). Probabilistic risk analysis of steel frame structures (pp. 18–19). Harbin: Dissertation of Harbin Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  25. Xie, L. L., & Ma, Y. H. (2002). Studies on performance-based seismic design criterion. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 24(2), 200–209.Google Scholar
  26. Zhi, X. D., Nie, G. B., Fan, F., & Shen, S. Z. (2012). Vulnerability and risk assessment of single-layer reticulated domes subjected to earthquakes. Journal of Structural Engineering, 138(12), 1505–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhong, J., Zhi, X. D., & Fan, F. (2016). A dominant vibration mode-based scalar ground motion intensity measure for single-layer reticulated domes. Earthquakes and Structures, 11(2), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhong, J., Zhang, J. P., Zhi, X. D., & Fan, F. (2018). Identification of dominant modes of single-layer reticulated shells under seismic excitations. Thin-Walled Structures, 127, 676–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanics, Civil Engineering and ArchitectureNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control of the Ministry of EducationHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Civil EngineeringHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations