The role of fragility assessment in consequence-based engineering

Earthquake Spectra

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 861-877

  Wen, Y K ^a   Ellingwood, B R ^b  

^a University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign   (United States)

^b Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUILDINGS; DECISION MAKING; EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

CONSEQUENCE BASED ENGINEERING; FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT;

SEISMOLOGY;

BUILDING; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; MASONRY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMICITY;

EID: 24144495295     PISSN: 87552930     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1193/1.1979502     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Abrams, D. P., 2002. Consequence-based engineering approaches for reducing loss in mid-America, Linbeck Distinguished Lecture Series in Earthquake Engineering, University of Notre Dame.
2. Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-273, Washington, D. C.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers, (ASCE), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared for the SAC Joint Venture, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356, Washington, D. C
4. Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., and Foutch, D. A., 2002. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines, J. Struct. Eng. 129 (4), 526-533.
5. Der Kiureghian, A., 1980. Structural response to stationary excitation, J. Eng. Mech. Div. 106 (6), 1195-1213.
6. Ellingwood, B., 1990. Validation studies of seismic PRAs, Nucl. Eng. Des. 123 (2), 189-196.
7. Ellingwood, B., 2001a. Earthquake risk assessment of building structures, Reliability Eng. Sys. Safety 74, 251-262.
8. Ellingwood, B., 2001b. Acceptable risk bases for design of structures, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 3 (2), 170-179.
9. Elms, D. G., 2004. Structural safety - Issues and progress, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 6 (2), 116-126.
10. Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A., and Mosalam, K. M., 2002. Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations, J. Eng. Mech. 128 (10), 1024-1038.
11. Giovinale, P., Cornell, C. A., and Esteva, L., 2004. Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural response, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 33, 951-979.
12. Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H., 2000. Behavior of ductile SMRFs at various seismic hazard levels, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (1), 98-107.
13. Kennedy, R. P., and Ravindra, M. K., 1984. Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant studies, Nucl. Eng. Des. 79 (1), 47-68.
14. Kircher, C. A., Nasser, A. A., Kustu, O., and Holmes, W. T., 1997. Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation, Earthquake Spectra13 (4), 663-682.
15. Maison, B. F., and Bonowitz, D., 2004. Discussion of seismic performance evaluation of pre-Northridge steel frames with brittle connections, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (4), 690-692.
16. Miranda, E., and Bertero, V. V., 1994. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquakeresistatu design, Earthquake Spectra 10 (2), 357-379.
17. Singhal, A., and Kiremidjian, A. S., 1996. Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage, J. Struct. Eng. 122 (12), 1459-1467.
18. Somerville, P. G., Smith, N., Punyamurthula, S., and Sun, J., 1997. Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC Steel Project, Report No. SAC/BD-97/04, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
19. Song, J., and Ellingwood, B. R., 2001. Risk evaluation of steel frames with welded connections under earthquake, Struct. Eng. Mech. 11 (6), 663-672.
20. Stein, S., Tomasello, J., and Newman, A., 2003. Should Memphis build for California earthquakes? EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 84 (19), 177, 184-185.
21. Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A., 2002. Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (3), 491-514.
22. Wang, C.-H., and Wen, Y. K., 2000. Evaluation of pre-Northridge low-rise steel buildings, II: Reliability, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (10), 1169-1176.
23. Wen, Y. K., Ellingwood, B. R., Veneziano, D., and Bracci, J., 2003. Uncertainty Modeling in Earthquake Engineering, Report FD-2, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu).
24. Wen, Y. K., Ellingwood, B. R., and Bracci, J., 2004. Vulnerability Function Framework for Consequence-Based Engineering, Report DS-4, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu).
25. Wen, Y. K., and Foutch, D. A., 1997. Proposed Statistical and Reliability Framework for Comparing and Evaluating Predictive Models for Evaluation and Design and Critical Issues in Developing Such Framework, Report No. SAC/BD-97/03, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
26. Wen, Y. K., and Wu, C. L., 2001. Uniform hazard ground motions for mid-America cities, Earthquake Spectra 17 (2), 359-384.
27. Whitman, R. V., Anagnos, T., Kircher, C. A., Lagorio, H. J., Lawson, R. S., and Schneider, P., 1997. Development of a national earthquake loss estimation methodology, Earthquake Spectra 13 (4), 643-662.