Seismic fragility assessment of steel frames for consequence-based engineering: A case study for Memphis, TN

Engineering Structures

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1115-1127

  Kinali, Kursat ^a   Ellingwood, Bruce R ^a  

^a Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

Buildings; Dynamics; Earthquakes; Fragility assessment; Frames; Partially restrained connections; Reliability; Structural engineering

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKES; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL FRAMES;

CONSEQUENCE-BASED ENGINEERING; FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT; PARTIALLY RESTRAINED CONNECTIONS;

STEEL STRUCTURES;

EARTHQUAKES; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STEEL STRUCTURES; STRUCTURAL FRAMES;

BUILDING; GROUND MOTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC RESPONSE;

MEMPHIS; NORTH AMERICA; TENNESSEE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34247547564     PISSN: 01410296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.08.017     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Abrams DP. Consequence-based engineering approaches for reducing loss in Mid-America. Linbeck distinguished lecture series in earthquake engineering. University of Notre Dame. 2002
2. Wen YK, Ellingwood BR, Veneziano D, Bracci J. Uncertainty modeling in earthquake engineering. MAE center project FD-2 report 2003. http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/Research/Whitepaper.pdf
3. Ellingwood B.R., and Wen Y.K. Risk-benefit based design decisions for low probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 7 2 (2005) 56-70
4. Cornell C.A. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 58 5 (1968) 1583-1606
5. Shinozuka M., Feng N.Q., Lee J., and Naganuma T. Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 126 12 (2000) 1224-1231
6. Ellingwood B. Validation studies of seismic PRAs. Nuclear Engineering and Design 123 2 (1990) 189-196
7. Song J., and Ellingwood B.R. Probabilistic modeling of steel moment frames with welded connections. Engineering Journal, AISC 36 3 (1999) 129-137
8. Singhal A., and Kiremidjian A.S. Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 122 12 (1996) 1459-1467
9. May P.J. Making choices about earthquake performance. National Hazards Review 5 2 (2004) 64-70
10. Cornell C.A., Jalayer F., Hamburger R.O., and Foutch D.A. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC FEMA steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 128 4 (2002) 526-533
11. Gupta A., and Krawinkler H. Behavior of ductile SMRFs at various seismic hazard levels. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 126 1 (2000) 98-107
12. Yun S.Y., Hamburger R.O., Cornell C.A., and Foutch D.A. Seismic performance evaluation for steel moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 128 4 (2002) 534-545
13. Lee K., and Foutch D.A. Seismic performance evaluation of pre-Northridge steel frame buildings with brittle connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 128 4 (2002) 546-555
14. Shome N, Cornell CA. Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis. In: 6th US national conference on earthquake engineering. 1998
15. Giovenale P., Cornell C.A., and Esteva L. Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 33 8 (2004) 951-979
16. Atkinson G., and Boore D. New ground motion relations for eastern North America. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 85 (1995) 17-30
17. Frankel A, Mueller C, Barnhard T, Perkins D, Leyendecker E, Dickman N. et al. National seismic hazard maps: Documentation. US Geological survey open-file report 96-532. 1996
18. Wen Y.K., and Wu C.L. Uniform hazard ground motions for Mid-America cities. Earthquake Spectra 17 2 (2001) 359-384
19. SEAOC Blue Book. Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. 7th ed. Sacramento (CA): Seismology Committee. Structural Engineers Association of California; 1999
20. French SP, Olshansky R. Inventory of essential facilities in Mid-America. Project SE-1 Final report, Urbana-Champaign (IL): Mid-America Earthquake Center; 2000
21. Foutch D.A., and Yun S.Y. Modeling of steel moment frames for seismic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 58 (2002) 529-564
22. Leon RT, Kim DH. Seismic performance of older PR frames in areas of infrequent seismicity. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. Paper no. 2696. 2004
23. Galambos T.V., and Ravindra M.K. Properties of steel for use in LRFD. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 104 9 (1978) 1459-1468
24. Bertero V.V., Popov E.P., and Krawinkler H. Beam-column sub-assemblages under repeated loading. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 98 5 (1972) 1137-1159
25. Krawinkler H., Bertero V.V., and Popov E.P. Shear behavior of steel frame joints. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 101 11 (1975) 2317-2336
26. Schneider S.P., and Amidi A. Seismic behavior of steel frames with deformable panel zones. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 124 1 (1998) 35-42
27. Krawinkler H. Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames. Engineering Journal, AISC 15 3 (1978) 82-91
28. FEMA-355C. State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking. Federal Emergency and Management Agency; 2000
29. Maison BF, Kasai K. Seismic performance of 3 and 9 story PR moment frame buildings. SAC joint venture background document. Report no. SAC/BD-99/16. 1999
30. Swanson J.A., and Leon R.T. Bolted steel connections: Tests on T-stub components. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 123 1 (2000) 50-56
31. Altman WG, Azizinamini A, Bradburn JH, Radziminski JB. Moment-rotation characteristics of semi-rigid steel beam-column connections. A report of an investigation, earthquake hazard mitigation program. Columbia: University of South Carolina; 1982
32. Forcier GP. Seismic performance of older steel frames. Ph.D. dissertation. Minneapolis (MN): Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Minnesota; 1994
33. FEMA-273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1997
34. Jain AK, Goel SC. Inelastic cyclic behavior of bracing members and seismic response of braced frames of different proportions. Report no. UMEE78R3. Ann Arbor (MI): Department of Civil Engineering. University of Michigan; 1978
35. FEMA-274. NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1997
36. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Fenves GL. OpenSees command language manual. Berkeley (CA): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center. University of California; 2005
37. Vamvatsikos D., and Cornell C.A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31 3 (2002) 491-514
38. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd world conference on earthquake engineering. 1960. p. 895-912
39. ASCE 7-05. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI. 2005
40. FEMA-302. 1997 Edition: NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1997