Challenges in Evaluating Seismic Collapse Risk for RC Buildings
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The development of fragility functions that express the probability of collapse of a building as a function of some ground motion intensity measure is an effective tool to assess seismic vulnerability of structures. However, a number of factors ranging from ground motion selection to modeling decisions can influence the quantification of collapse probability. A methodical investigation was carried out to examine the effects of component modeling and ground motion selection in establishing demand and collapse risk of a typical reinforced concrete frame building. The primary system considered in this study is a modern 6-story RC moment frame building that was designed to current code provisions in a seismically active region. Both concentrated and distributed plasticity beam–column elements were used to model the building frame and several options were considered in constitutive modeling for both options. Incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) were carried out using two suites of ground motions—the first set comprised site-dependent ground motions, while the second set was a compilation of hazard-consistent motions using the conditional scenario spectra approach. Findings from the study highlight the influence of modeling decisions and ground motion selection in the development of seismic collapse fragility functions and the characterization of risk for various demand levels.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. Arteta, C. A., & Abrahamson, N. A. (2019). Conditional scenario spectra (CSS) for hazard-consistent analysis of engineering systems. Earthquake Spectra, 35(2), 737–75710.1193/102116EQS176M ↗
2. ASCE. (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7–05, Reston, VA: ASCE
3. ASCE/SEI. (2016). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA
4. ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary. ACI 318R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI
5. Baker, J. W. (2011). Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)St.1943-541x.000021510.1061/(Asce)St.1943-541x.0000215 ↗
6. Baker, J. W., & Cornell, C. A. (2005). A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34, 1193–121710.1002/eqe.474 ↗
7. Bertero, V. (1980). Strength and deformation capacities of buildings under extreme environments. Structural engineering and structural mechanics, A Volume Honoring Edgar P. Popov, K. Pister, ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 188–237
8. Davalos, H., & Miranda, E. (2019). Evaluation of bias on the probability of collapse from amplitude scaling using spectral shape matched records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 48(8), 970–986. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.317210.1002/eqe.3172 ↗
9. Haselton, C. B., Liel, A. B., Deierlein, G. G., Dean, B. S., & Chou, J. H. (2011). Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: Assessment of ductile moment frames. Journal of the Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, 137(4), 481–491
10. Ibarra, L. & Krawinkler, H. (2005). Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Report No. PEER 2005/06, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
11. Ibarra, L., & Krawinkler, H. (2011). Variance of collapse capacity of SDOF systems under earthquake excitations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 40, 1299–131410.1002/eqe.1089 ↗
12. Iervolino, I., Maddaloni, G., & Cosenza, E. (2008). Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for seismic analysis of structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(1), 54–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363246070145717310.1080/13632460701457173 ↗
13. Jalayer, F. (2003). Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
14. Jalayer, F., & Cornell, C. A. (2009). Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 38, 951–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.87610.1002/eqe.876 ↗
15. Koopaee, M., Dhakal, R., & MacRae, G. (2015). Analytical simulation of seismic collapse of RC frame buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 48(3), 157–16910.5459/bnzsee.48.3.157-169 ↗
16. Koopaee, M., Dhakal, R., & MacRae, G. (2017). Effect of ground motion selection methods on seismic collapse fragility of RC frame buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 46(11), 1875–189210.1002/eqe.2891 ↗
17. Liel, A. B., Haselton, C. B., & Deierlein, G. G. (2011). Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: Comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames. Journal of the Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, 137(4), 492–502
18. Lee, K., & Foutch, D. A. (2002). Performance evaluation of new steel frame buildings for seismic loads. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics., 31(3), 653–67010.1002/eqe.147 ↗
19. Lin, T., & Baker, J. (2015). Conditional spectra. In M. Beer, I. A. Kougioumtzoglou, E. Patelli, & I.S.-K. Au (Eds.), Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering. (p. 13). Berlin: Springer.
20. Luco, N., & Cornell, C. A. (2007). Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 357–39210.1193/1.2723158 ↗
21. Menegotto, M. & Pinto P.E. (1972). Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. Report 32, Istituto di Scienza e Tecnica delle Costruzioni, University of Rome, Italy
22. OpenSees, (2019). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. http://opensees.berkeley.edu. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley
23. Rajeev, P., & Tesfamariam, S. (2012). Seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete buildings with consideration of irregularities. Structural Safety, 39, 1–1310.1016/j.strusafe.2012.06.001 ↗
24. Scott, B. D., Park, R., & Priestley, M. J. N. (1982). Stress–strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI Journal, 79(1), 13–27
25. Shome, N. & Cornell, C.A. (1999). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. RMS-35. RMS Program, Stanford, CA, 320
26. Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., & Carballo, J. E. (1998). Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra, 14, 469–50010.1193/1.1586011 ↗
27. Vamvatisikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics., 31, 491–51410.1002/eqe.141 ↗
28. Yassin, M.H.M. (1994). Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and cycling loads. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.