Abstract
The main goals of this article are to analyze the use of simplified deterministic nonlinear static procedures for assessing the seismic response of buildings and to evaluate the influence that the uncertainties in the mechanical properties of the materials and in the features of the seismic actions have in the uncertainties of the structural response. A reinforced concrete building is used as a guiding case study. In the calculation of the expected spectral displacement, deterministic nonlinear static methods are simple and straightforward. For not severe earthquakes these approaches lead to somewhat conservative but adequate results when compared to more sophisticated procedures involving nonlinear dynamic analyses. Concerning the probabilistic assessment, the strength properties of the materials, concrete and steel, and the seismic action are considered as random variables. The Monte Carlo method is then used to analyze the structural response of the building. The obtained results show that significant uncertainties are expected; uncertainties in the structural response increase with the severity of the seismic actions. The major influence in the randomness of the structural response comes from the randomness of the seismic action. A useful example for selected earthquake scenarios is used to illustrate the applicability of the probabilistic approach for assessing expected damage and risk. An important conclusion of this work is the need of broaching the fragility of the buildings and expected damage assessment issues from a probabilistic perspective.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ambraseys N, Smit P, Douglas J, Margaris B, Sigbjornsson R, Olafsson S, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2004) Internet-site for European strong-motion data. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 45(3):113–129
Ambraseys N, Smit P, Sigbjornsson R, Suhadolc P, Margaris B (2002) Internet-site for European strong-motion data. European Commission, Research-Directorate General, Environment and Climate Programme. http://www.isesdhiis/ESD_Local/framesethtm. Accessed 17 Apr 2011
ATC (1985) ATC-13. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, USA
ATC (1991) ATC-25. Seismic Vulnerability and impact of disruption of lifelines in the conterminous United States. Applied Technology Council. Funded By Federal Emergency Management Agency. ATC Redwood City, CA
ATC (1996) ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council. Redwood City, CA
Barbat AH, Yépez F, Canas JA (1996) Damage scenarios simulation for risk assessment in urban zones. Earthq Spectra 2(3):371–394
Barbat AH, Mena U, Yépez F (1998) Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico en zonas urbanas Revista internacional de métodos numéricos para cálculo y diseño en ingeniería 14(2):247–268
Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Moreno R (2008) Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: application to Barcelona. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:851–865
Bommer JJ, Crowley H (2006) The influence of ground motion variability in earthquake loss modelling. Bull Earthq Eng 4(3):231–248
Borzi B, Phino R, Crowley H (2008) Simplified Pushover analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng Struct 30:804–820
Carr AJ (2000) Ruaumoko-inelastic dynamic analisys program. Dept of Civil Engineering Univ of Canterbury, Christchurch
Chopra AK, Goel RK (1999) Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthq Spectra 15(4):637–656
Crowley H, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Bird JF (2005) The impact of epistemic uncertainty on an earthquake loss model. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(14):1635–1685
Dolsek M (2009) Effects of uncertainties on seismic response parameters of reinforced concrete frame. Safety, reliability and risk of structures, infrastructures and engineering systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on structural safety and reliability, ICOSSAR, 13–17 September 2009, Osaka, Japan, Edited by Hitoshi Furuta, Dan M Frangopol, and Masanobu Shinozuka, CRC Press, pp 653–660
EC8 (2004) EN-1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings English version
Faccioli E (2006) Seismic hazard assessment for derivation of earthquake scenarios in Risk-UE. Bull Earthq Eng 4:341–364
Faccioli E, Pessina V (2003) WP2-Basis of a handbook of earthquake ground motions scenarios, Risk-UE project WP-2 report
Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:979–993
Faleiro J, Oller S, Barbat AH (2008) Plastic-damage seismic model for reinforced concrete frames. Comput Struct 86(7–8):581–597
FEMA (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic Rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 273 and NEHRP Commentary on the guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 274. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC
FEMA (2002) Earthquake loss estimation methodology, HAZUS’99 (SR 2) Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington DC
Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D (2010) Estimation of uncertain parameters using static pushover methods. In: Furuta H, Frangopol DM, Shinozuka M (eds) Proceedings of the tenth international conference on structural safety and reliability (icossar2009), Osaka, Japan, 13–17 September (2009) Safety Reliability and Risk of Structures. Infrastructures and Engineering Systems. Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK, pp 659–660
Freeman SA (1978) Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion publication SP-55. American Concrete Institute, Detroit
Freeman SA (1998) Development and use of capacity spectrum method. In: Proceedings of the 6th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Seattle, CD-ROM, EERI
Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrell JV (1975) Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk—a case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington Proceedings of the 1st US national conference on earthquake engineering. Oakland, CA, pp 113–122
Gasparini D, Vanmarcke EH (1976) Simulated earthquake motions compatible with prescribed response spectra. MIT Department of Civil Engineering Research report R76–4, Order No 527
Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 EMS-98. Conseil de L’Europe Cahiers du centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie 15
Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2006) A state of knowledge review of the influence of strong motion duration on structural damage. Earthq Spectra 22(3):827–845
Hancock J, Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ (2008) Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses. Earthq Eng Struct Eng 37(14):1585–1607
Hou S (1968) Earthquake simulation models and their applications, MIT Department of Civil Engineering Research, Report R68–17
Kalos M, Whitlock PA (1986) Monte Carlo methods. Volume: basics, vol 1. Wiley, New York
Kim SP, Kuruma YC (2008) An alternative pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic displacement demands engineering structures 30:3793–3807
Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443
Lantada N, Pujades LG, Barbat AH (2009) Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation: a comparison. Nat Hazards 51:501–524
Mahaney JA, Paret TF, Kehoe BE, Freeman SA (1993) The capacity spectrum method for evaluating structural response during the Loma Prieta earthquake. National earthquakes conference, Memphis
Mata PA, Oller S, Barbat AH (2007) Static analysis of beam structures under nonlinear geometric and constitutive behaviour. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:4458–4478
McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, MNO-10
Milutinovic ZV, Trendafiloski GS (2003) WP04 Vulnerability of current buildings RISK-UE project of the EC: an advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns
Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23:407–424
NCSE-02 (2002) Real Decreto 997/2002, de 27 de septiembre, por el que se aprueba la norma de construcción sismorresistente: parte general y edificación (NCSR-02) Ministerio de Fomento Fecha de publicación: 11-10-2002 BOE: 244–2002: 35898–35966
Otani S (1974) Inelastic analysis of RC frames structures. J Struct Div ASCE 100(7):1433–1449
Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS (2009) A consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings. Eng Struct 31:591–599
Pujades LG, Barbat AH, González-Drigo JR, Avila J, Lagomarsino S (2012) Seismic performance of a block of buildings representative of the typical construction in the Eixample district in Barcelona (Spain). Bull Earthq Eng 10:331–349
Risk-UE (2004) An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns Contract number: EVK4-CT-2000-00014 Project of the European Commission
Satyarno I (1999) Pushover analysis for the seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. Doctoral Thesis, Department of civil engineering, University of Canterbury. New Zealand
SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee (1995) Performance-Based Seismic Engineering. Report prepared by Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California Sacramento, CA April 1995 final report
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2001) The incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514
Vargas YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Hurtado JE (2010) Probabilistic assessment of the global damage in reinforced concrete structures. In: Proceeding of the 14th European conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid August 2010
Vielma JC, Barbat AH, Oller S (2009) Seismic performance of waffled-slabs floor buildings. Struct Build (Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineering) 162(SB3):169–182
Vielma JC, Barbat AH, Oller S (2010) Seismic safety of limited ductility buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 8(1):135–155
Vitruvius (1 BC) The ten books on architecture (Trans: Morgan MH). Cambridge Harvard University Press (1914)
Acknowledgments
The thoughtful comments and suggestions of Julian J. Bommer helped us to address the probabilistic treatment of the seismic actions and to improve the manuscript. The thorough review of two anonymous referees is also acknowledged. Special thanks are given to Emilio Carreño and Juan M. Alcalde of the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) who provided us the Spanish accelerogram database. M. Mar Obrador has carefully revised the English. This work has been partially funded by the Spanish government and the European Commission with FEDER funds through research projects CGL2008-00869/BTE, CGL2011-23621, CGL2011-29063INTERREG: POCTEFA 2007-2013/ 73/08 and MOVE-FT7-ENV-2007-1-211590. Yeudy F. Vargas has a scholarship from an IGC-UPC joint agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Accelerograms used in NLDA
Appendix: Accelerograms used in NLDA
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis requires accelerograms. Stochastic analyses require a significant number of accelerograms, all of them well-matched with a target spectrum. So, given a target response spectrum and a specific database of acceleration records, the procedure used in this article for selecting accelerograms is the following. Step 1: normalize the target spectrum at the zero period. Step 2: compute the corresponding normalized spectrum for each accelerogram. Step 3: compute a measure of the misfit between the computed and target spectra; in this case, this measure is the error computed according to the following equation:
where \(\varepsilon _j \) is a least square measure of the misfit between the spectrum of the accelerogram \(j\) and the target spectrum; \(y_{ji} \) is the spectral ordinate \(i\) of the spectrum of the accelerogram \(j, \) and \(Y_i \) is the corresponding \(i\) ordinate of the target spectrum; \(n\) is the number of spectral ordinates of the accelerogram, assumed to be the same for each accelerogram \( j,\) and \(N\) is the number of accelerograms. Step 4: organize the spectra according increasing errors. Step 5: let \(Sa_{ik} i=1\ldots n,\;k=1\ldots N\), be the \(i\)-th spectral ordinate corresponding to the spectrum of the accelerogram \(k\), once the accelerogram series has been arranged in such a way that \(\varepsilon _k \le \varepsilon _{(k+1)}\,\, k=1\ldots N-1\). Compute the following new spectra:
\(b_{im} \) are now the spectral ordinates of the mean of the first \(m\) spectra, once they have been arranged. Step 6: compute the following new error function \((Er_m )\), which is similar to that given in Eq. (8).
The value of \(m \) that minimizes the value of \(Er_m \) is considered as the optimum number of accelerograms that are compatible with the given target spectrum and that can be used of the given database. Of course, the value of \(Er_1 \) is also crucial for knowing the goodness of the fit. For databases with a large number of accelerograms, \(Er_1 \) is really small while we found \(m\) values of several tens. Some additional basic assumptions can be taken in order to reduce the size of the database. Information about the magnitude and focal mechanism of the earthquakes and about distance and soil type of the accelerometric stations can be used to significantly reduce the number of acceleration records to be tested. This procedure has been applied to the European (Ambraseys et al. 2002, 2004) and Spanish strong motion databases. As the European database is larger, most of the selected accelerograms are taken from this database but for spectra type 2, some accelerograms of the Spanish database were selected too. For each spectrum, 1A, 1D, 2A and 2D, more than 1,000 records of acceleration were tested. Table 10 shows the statistics of the distributions of the magnitudes of the events corresponding to the accelerograms selected compatibles with the 1A, 1D, 2A and 2D spectra. Figure 24 shows the error function,\(Er_m \) in Eq. (10), for the EC8 1D spectrum. The value of \(m\) minimizing this function has been found to be 20.
Table 11 shows the main parameters of these accelerograms. The mean values of the magnitude, distance and depth are respectively 6.5, 67 km and 16.7 km and the corresponding standard deviations are 0.7, 53.6 km and 17.6 km. Figure 25a shows the target EC8 1D spectrum, the mean spectrum and the spectrum defined by the median values plus one standard deviation. The fundamental period of the building is also plotted in this figure. Figure 25b shows an example of compatible accelerogram.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vargas, Y.F., Pujades, L.G., Barbat, A.H. et al. Capacity, fragility and damage in reinforced concrete buildings: a probabilistic approach. Bull Earthquake Eng 11, 2007–2032 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9468-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9468-x