International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1710–1722 | Cite as

Proposing a Method for Robustness Index Evaluation of the Structures Based on the Risk Analysis of Main Shock and Aftershock

  • Gholamreza Abdollahzadeh
  • Hadi FaghihmalekiEmail author


Investigating remained damages from terrible earthquakes, it could be concluded that some events including explosion because of defect and failure in the building mechanical facilities or caused by gas leak, firing, aftershocks, etc., which are occurred during or a few time after the earthquake, will increase the effects of damages. In this paper, by introducing a complete risk analysis which included direct and indirect risks for earthquake (the main shock) and aftershock, the corresponding robustness index was created that called as “robustness index sequential critical events risk-based”. One of the main properties of the intended robustness index is using progressive collapse percentage in its evaluation. Then, in a numerical example for a 4-storey moment resisting steel frame structure, a method is presented for obtaining all effective parameters in robustness index evaluation based on the intended risk and at last its results were reported.


Robustness Index Risk analysis Direct and indirect risk Progressive collapse Main shock and aftershock 


  1. Abdollahzadeh, G. R., & Faghihmaleki, H. (2017a). Probabilistic two-hazard risk assessment of near-fault and far-fault earthquakes in a structure subjected to earthquake-induced gas explosion. Journal of Building Engineering, 13, 294–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdollahzadeh, G., & Faghihmaleki, H. (2017b). Seismic-explosion risk-based robustness index of structures. International Journal of Damage Mechanics, 26(4), 523–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrahamson, N. A. (2000). Effects of rupture directivity on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. In Sixth international conference on seismic zonation, Oakland, California. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Botez, M., Bredean, L., & Ioani, A. M. (2015). Improving the accuracy of progressive collapse risk assessment: Efficiency and contribution of supplementary progressive collapse resisting mechanisms. Journal of Computers and Structures, 174, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brett, C., & Lu, Y. (2013). Assessment of robustness of structures: Current state of research. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 7(4), 356–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R., Parisi, F., & Augenti, N. (2015). Progressive collapse fragility of reinforced concrete framed structures through incremental dynamic analysis. Journal of Engineering Structures, 104, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CPNI (2011). Review of international research on structural robustness and disproportionate collapse. Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI), USA.Google Scholar
  8. Eurocode 8. (2005). Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Brussels: Comité Européen de Normalisation.Google Scholar
  9. Faghihmaleki, H., Abdollahzadeh, G. R., & Esmaili, H. (2018). A survey of hysteresis energy distribution and lateral displacement in steel buildings with CCB brace at internal and external frames. International Journal of Structural Integrity, 9(1), 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fascetti, A., Kunnath, S. K., & Nisticò, N. (2015). Robustness evaluation of RC frame buildings to progressive collapse. Journal of Engineering Structures, 86, 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GSA. (2013). General services administration alternate path analysis and design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance. Washington: General Services Administration (GSA).Google Scholar
  12. Kanno, Y., & Takewaki, I. (2006). Sequential semidefinite program for maximum robustness design of structures under load uncertainty. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 130(2), 265–287.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khaloo, A., Nozhati, S., Masoomi, M., & Faghihmaleki, H. (2016). Influence of earthquake record truncation on fragility curves of RC frames with different damage indices. Journal of Building Engineering, 7, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lu, D. G., Cui, S. S., Song, P. Y., Chen, Z. H., (2010). Robustness assessment for progressive collapse of framed structures using pushdown analysis method. In 4th international workshop on reliable engineering computing (REC 2010). National University of Singapore,
  15. Nielsen, J. J. (2009). Probabilistic analysis of the robustness of earthquake resistant steel structures. Master Thesis, Faculty of Engineering and Science and Medicine, Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  16. Rezvani, F. H., Yousefi, A. M., & Ronagh, H. R. (2015). Effect of span length on progressive collapse behaviour of steel moment resisting frames. Journal of Structures, 3, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruiz-Garcí, J., & Manriquez, J. C. N. (2011). Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault main shock–aftershock seismic sequences. Journal of Engineering Structures, 33, 621–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sap 2000 (2015). Structural analysis program (SAP). Computers and Structures, Inc, Version 18.01, USA.Google Scholar
  19. SeismoSignal. (2016). Seismosoft-earthquake engineering solution software, Pavia, Italy.Google Scholar
  20. SIP. (2014). Major damages in the building structures due to a strong earthquake. Part of Natural Disasters, Statistical Institute of Pooyesh (SIP), Tehran, Iran, Report No. 94-489, pp. 102–158.Google Scholar
  21. Somerville, P. G. (2003). Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 137(1), 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., & Abrahamson, N. A. (1997). Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological Research Letters, 68(1), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sørensen, J. D. (2011). Framework for robustness assessment of timber structures. Journal of Engineering Structures, 33(2011), 3078–3092.Google Scholar
  24. UFC 4-023-03 (2013). Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Including Change 2, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Yang, G., & Xi-la, L. (2014). Topology-based quantitative assessment of structural robustness. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University., 19(3), 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhai, C. H., Wen, W. P., Chen, Z. Q., Li, S., & Xie, L. L. (2013). Damage spectra for the main shock–after shock sequence-type ground motions. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 45, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringBabol Noshirvani University of TechnologyBabolIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringAyandegan Institute of Higher EducationTonekabonIran

Personalised recommendations