Advertisement

A New Method for Developing Seismic Collapse Fragility Curves Grounded on State-Based Philosophy

  • 25 Accesses

Abstract

Since the current process to achieve the collapse fragility curve in practical applications seems too complicated, also time-consuming to dominant by structure designers, the focus of this study is on introducing of a new approach for establishing collapse fragility curves which requires less analytical effort. To achieve this goal, state-based philosophy (SBP) has been taken into consideration. This theory benefits from some similarities in the nature of every failure process in solid mechanics regardless of its source. In this study these similarities are used intelligently in procedure of formulating new fragility function which has couple of unknown parameters. Next, it will be shown that these parameters can be attained from two different sources: the pushover curves of the structure, some selective damage data from incremental dynamic analysis analyses. Finally a complete form of new collapse fragility function which is called "SBP fragility function" proposed as a substitute for conventional collapse fragility function. The most important advantage of this new fragility function is its non-probabilistic structure that will make a huge difference in the amount of effort required to achieve the fragility curves. In this research, in order to ensure the efficiency, accuracy of this fragility function all steps of SBP fragility analyses are done on some special moment frames models, their results are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Abbreviations

CDF:

Cumulative distribution function

EDP:

Engineering demand parameter

IDA:

Incremental dynamic analysis

PDF:

Probability distribution function

PGA:

Peak ground acceleration

PGV:

Peak ground velocity

SBP:

State-based philosophy

SD:

Standard deviation

SDOF:

Single degree of freedom

SMF:

Special moment frame

TR:

Transition ratio

\(\xi\) :

State variable

\(F_{R}\) :

SBP fragility function

\(k_{N}\) :

Natural damage criterion (dimensionless stiffness of the structure)

\(k_{S}\) :

Stiffness of the intact structure

\(K_{S}\) :

Dimensioned stiffness of the structure

\(k_{p}\) :

SBP power factor

\(S_{a} \left( {T_{1} ,2\% } \right)\) :

First mode spectral acceleration

\(S_{R}\) :

Survival function

\(D_{S}\) :

Destination function

References

  1. AISC, A. (2010). AISC 341-10, seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel Construction.

  2. Akkar, S., Sucuoǧlu, H., & Yakut, A. (2005). Displacement-based fragility functions for low-and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthquake Spectra,21(4), 901–927. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2084232.

  3. Baltzopoulos, G., Baraschino, R., Iervolino, I., & Vamvatsikos, D. (2017). SPO2FRAG: software for seismic fragility assessment based on static pushover. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,15(10), 4399–4425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0145-3.

  4. Çavdar, Ö., & Bayraktar, A. (2014). Pushover and nonlinear time history analysis evaluation of a RC building collapsed during the Van (Turkey) earthquake on October 23, 2011. Natural Hazards,70(1), 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0835-3.

  5. Chopra, A. K., & Goel, R. K. (2004). A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,33(8), 903–927. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.380.

  6. 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.

  7. De Luca, F., Vamvatsikos, D., & Iervolino, I. (2013). Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,42(4), 523–543.

  8. Elkady, A., & Lignos, D. G. (2014). Modeling of the composite action in fully restrained beam-to-column connections: Implications in the seismic design and collapse capacity of steel special moment frames. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,43(13), 1935–1954. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2430.

  9. Comitè Europèen de, N. Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1; CEN; Brussels; 2003.

  10. FEMA, A. (2005). 440, Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA-440, Redwood City.

  11. FEMA, P. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors (FEMA P695, ATC-63).

  12. Hariri-Ardebili, M. A., Sattar, S., & Estekanchi, H. E. (2014). Performance-based seismic assessment of steel frames using endurance time analysis. Engineering Structures,69, 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.03.019.

  13. Hartloper, A., & Lignos, D. (2017). 11.29: Updates to the ASCE-41-13 provisions for the nonlinear modeling of steel wide-flange columns for performance-based earthquake engineering. ce/papers,1(2–3), 3072–3081. https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.359.

  14. Hogan, L. S., Giongo, I., Walsh, K. Q., Ingham, J. M., & Dizhur, D. (2018). Full-scale experimental pushover testing of an existing URM building. Structures,15(2017), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.04.007.

  15. Ji, J., Elnashai, A. S., & Kuchma, D. A. (2009). Seismic fragility relationships of reinforced concrete high-rise buildings. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,18(3), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.408.

  16. Lallemant, D., Kiremidjian, A., & Burton, H. (2015). Statistical procedures for developing earthquake damage fragility curves. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,44(9), 1373–1389.

  17. Lee, D., & Shin, S. (2015). Nonlinear pushover analysis of concrete column reinforced by multi-layered, high strength steel UL700 plates. Engineering Structures,90, 1–14.

  18. Lee, D., Shin, S., & Ju, Y.-K. (2016). Evaluation of seismic performance factors for steel DIAGRID structural system design. Earthquake and Structures,10(4), 735–755.

  19. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. L. (2006). The open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSEES) user command-language manual.

  20. Mwafy, A. M., & Elnashai, A. S. (2001). Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Engineering Structures,23(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00068-7.

  21. Nayak, B., Misra, B., & Mohapatra, A. (2018). A proposed reference current signal generation technique for shunt active power filter. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,13(6), 1834–1849. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.

  22. Ranjbaran, A., & Ranjbaran, M. (2014). New finite-element formulation for buckling analysis of cracked structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,140(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000734.

  23. Ranjbaran, A., & Ranjbaran, M. (2016). State functions: the milestone of fracture. Archive of Applied Mechanics,86(7), 1311–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-015-1115-3.

  24. Smyrou, E., Blandon, C., Antoniou, S., Pinho, R., & Crisafulli, F. (2011). Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,9(5), 1519–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9262-6.

  25. Sudret, B., Mai, C., & Konakli, K. (2014). Assessment of the lognormality assumption of seismic fragility curves using non-parametric representations. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.

  26. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2006). Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,35(9), 1097–1117. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.573.

  27. Vargas, Y. F., Pujades, L. G., Barbat, A. H., & Hurtado, J. E. (2013). Capacity, fragility and damage in reinforced concrete buildings: A probabilistic approach. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,11(6), 2007–2032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9468-x.

  28. Venture, N. C. J. (2010). Evaluation of the fema p-695 methodology for quantification of building seismic performance factors (pp. 20899–28600). Gaithersburg, MD: US Department of Commerce Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

  29. Zareian, F., Krawinkler, H., Ibarra, L., & Lignos, D. (2010). Basic concepts and performance measures in prediction of collapse of buildings under earthquake ground motions. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,19(1–2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.546.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Aref Baharvand.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is 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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baharvand, A., Ranjbaran, A. A New Method for Developing Seismic Collapse Fragility Curves Grounded on State-Based Philosophy. Int J Steel Struct (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-020-00308-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • State-based philosophy
  • Fragility curve
  • Collapse
  • Pushover analysis
  • Incremental dynamic analysis
  • Earthquake engineering
  • Seismic risk assessment