Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records

Fatemeh Jalayer; Hossein Ebrahimian; Andrea Miano; Gaetano Manfredi; Halil Sezen

doi:10.1002/eqe.2922

journal article Jun 26, 2017

Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records

Fatemeh Jalayer

Hossein Ebrahimian Andrea Miano Gaetano Manfredi Halil Sezen

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics Vol. 46 No. 15 pp. 2639-2663 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/eqe.2922

Abstract

SummaryIt is desirable that nonlinear dynamic analyses for structural fragility assessment are performed using unscaled ground motions. The widespread use of a simple dynamic analysis procedure known as Cloud Analysis, which uses unscaled records and linear regression, has been impeded by its alleged inaccuracies. This paper investigates fragility assessment based on Cloud Analysis by adopting, as the performance variable, a scalar demand to capacity ratio that is equal to unity at the onset of limit state. It is shown that the Cloud Analysis, performed based on a careful choice of records, leads to reasonable and efficient fragility estimates. There are 2 main rules to keep in mind for record selection: to make sure that a good portion of the records leads to a demand to capacity ratio greater than unity and that the dispersion in records' seismic intensity is considerable. An inevitable consequence of implementing these rules is that one often needs to deal with the so‐called collapse cases. To formally consider the collapse cases, a 5‐parameter fragility model is proposed that mixes the simple regression in the logarithmic scale with logistic regression. The joint distribution of fragility parameters can be obtained by adopting a Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation scheme leading directly to the fragility and its confidence intervals. The resulting fragility curves compare reasonably with those obtained from the Incremental Dynamic Analysis and Multiple Stripe Analysis with (variable) conditional spectrum–compatible suites of records at different intensity levels for 3 older reinforced concrete frames with shear‐, shear‐flexure‐, and flexure‐dominant behavior.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

84

[1]

HickmanJW.PRA procedures guide: a guide to the performance of probabilistic risk assessments for nuclear power plants.NUREG/CR‐2300 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 1983.

[2]

KennedyRP ShortAS McDonaldRR McCannJrMW MurrayRC HillJR GopinathV.Natural phenomena hazards design and evaluation criteria for department of energy facilities.DOE‐STD‐1020–94 U.S. Department of Energy Washington DC 1994.

[3]

(2000)

[4]

(2012)

[5]

KrawinklerH.Challenges and progress in performance‐based earthquake engineering.International Seminar on Seismic Engineering for Tomorrow‐In Honor of Professor Hiroshi Akiyama Tokyo Japan November 26 1999.

[6]

Cornell CA "Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment" PEER Center News (2000)

[7]

Kannan AE (1973)

[8]

Prakash V (1993)

[9]

Carr AJ (2001)

[10]

10.1002/eqe.141

[11]

JalayerF CornellCA.A technical framework for probability‐based demand and capacity factor design (DCFD) seismic formats.Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center (PEER)2003/08.

[12]

10.1002/eqe.876

[13]

10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)

[14]

Bertero VV (1980)

[15]

10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1996)122:12(1459)

[16]

10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1998)124:11(1281)

[17]

10.1193/1.1586011

[18]

Luco N (1998)

[19]

10.1002/eqe.571

[20]

Lin T (2013)

[21]

Structure‐Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near‐Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions

Nicolas Luco, C. Allin Cornell

Earthquake Spectra 10.1193/1.2723158

[22]

10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0000327

[23]

10.1007/s10518-015-9755-9

[24]

10.1002/eqe.474

[25]

10.1080/13632460701673076

[26]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000215

[27]

10.1785/0120110293

[28]

10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.03.004

[29]

10.1002/eqe.693

[30]

10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.04.003

[31]

10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.07.003

[32]

10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.10.019

[33]

10.1007/s10518-014-9692-z

[34]

10.1002/eqe.2300

[35]

10.1007/s10518-013-9571-z

[36]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001224

[37]

10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2001)127:2(219)

[38]

Statistical Analysis of Fragility Curves

Masanobu Shinozuka, Maria Q. Feng, Jongheon Lee et al.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics 10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1224)

[39]

Radu AC (2015)

[40]

CEN.Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998–1 CEN Brussels: April 2004.

[41]

ASCE/SEI 41‐13.Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston VA 2014.

[42]

Krawinkler H (2005)

[43]

MianoA SezenH JalayerF ProtaA.Performance based comparison of effectiveness of building retrofit methods.Earthquake Spectra(Under Review).

[44]

BianchiniM DiotalleviPP BakerJW.Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations.10th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR09) Osaka Japan 2009.

[45]

10.1002/eqe.2575

[46]

10.1193/053115eqs080m

[47]

10.1002/eqe.704

[48]

Ditlevsen O (1996)

[49]

10.1193/080613eqs225m

[50]

10.1002/eqe.1081

Showing 50 of 84 references

Cited By

268

Optimal scalar and vector intensity measures in seismic fragility cloud analysis for underground subway station structures: A case study of Daikai Station

Jing Yang, Haiyang Zhuang · 2025

Tunnelling and Underground Space Te...

Seismic fragility and demand hazard analyses for earth slopes incorporating soil property variability

Wei Wang, Wenqi Du · 2023

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engine...

A novel framework for seismic fragility analysis with the combination of Box-Cox transformation and Bayesian inference

Junjun Guo, Penghui Zhang · 2023

Engineering Structures

Towards the updated Italian seismic risk assessment: exposure and vulnerability modelling

Angelo Masi, Sergio Lagomarsino · 2021

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Metrics

268

Citations

84

References

Details

Published: Jun 26, 2017
Vol/Issue: 46(15)
Pages: 2639-2663
License: View

Authors

F

Fatemeh Jalayer

Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture University of Naples Federico II Naples Italy

H

Hossein Ebrahimian

Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture University of Naples Federico II Naples Italy

A

Andrea Miano

Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture University of Naples Federico II Naples Italy

G

Gaetano Manfredi

Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture University of Naples Federico II Naples Italy

H

Halil Sezen

Department of Civil, Environmental & Geodetic Engineering Ohio State University Columbus OH USA

Cite This Article

Fatemeh Jalayer, Hossein Ebrahimian, Andrea Miano, et al. (2017). Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 46(15), 2639-2663. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2922

Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records

You May Also Like