Metamodel-based regional vulnerability estimate of irregular steel moment-frame structures subjected to earthquake events

Engineering Structures

Volumn 45, Issue , 2012, Pages 585-597

  Seo, Junwon ^a   Dueñas Osorio, Leonardo ^b   Craig, James I ^c   Goodno, Barry J ^c  

^a Iowa State University   (United States)

^b Rice University   (United States)

^c Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

L shaped buildings; Monte carlo simulation; Portfolio vulnerability; Response surface metamodels; Seismic fragility; Significant irregularity parameters; Surrogate models

Indexed keywords

L-SHAPED BUILDING; META MODEL; MONTE CARLO SIMULATION; PORTFOLIO VULNERABILITY; SEISMIC FRAGILITY; SIGNIFICANT IRREGULARITY PARAMETERS; SURROGATE MODEL;

FRACTURE MECHANICS; HAZARDS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; STRUCTURAL FRAMES; SURFACE PROPERTIES;

EARTHQUAKES;

BUILDING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE; EARTHQUAKE EVENT; ESTIMATION METHOD; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STEEL STRUCTURE; VULNERABILITY;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84865055389     PISSN: 01410296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. SAC joint venture. A policy guide to steel moment frame construction. Report FEMA 354. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC; 2000.
2. Arnold C., Reitherman R. Building configuration and seismic design 1982, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
3. Stefano M.D., Pintucchi B. A review of research on seismic behavior of irregular building structures since 2002. Bull Earthq Eng 2008, 6:285-308.
4. SEAOC. Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. Sacramento, California; 1999.
5. FEMA. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures - part 1 provisions FEMA 368, Washington, DC; 2000.
6. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE/SEI 7-10 minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, Virginia; 2010.
7. Tezcan S.S., Alhan C. Parametric analysis of irregular structures under seismic loading according to the new Turkish Earthquake code. Eng Struct 2001, 23:600-609.
8. FEMA. State of the art report on past performance of steel moment-frame buildings in earthquakes-FEMA 355E, Washington, DC; 2000.
9. Dinh TV, Ichinose T, Marubashi N. Collapse control of irregular wall building using story-safety factor. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering; August 1-6, 2004. Paper no. 1340.
10. Otani S. Disaster mitigation engineering - the Kobe earthquake disaster. In: Japan society for the promotion of science seminar on engineering in Japan at the royal society; September 27, 1999.
11. Tsai K.C., Hsiao C.P., Bruneau M. Overview of building damages in 921 Chi-Chi earthquake. Earthq Eng Eng Seismol 2000, 2(1):93-108.
12. Lang K. Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings. PhD dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland; 2002.
13. Dutta S.C., Roy R. Seismic demand of low-rise multistory systems with general asymmetry. J Eng Mech ASCE 2012, 138(1):1-12.
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). HAZUS-MH MR3 technical manual. Washington, DC; 2003.
15. Tantala M.W., Nordenson G.J.P., Deodatis G., Jacob K. Earthquake loss estimation for the New York city metropolitan region. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2008, 28:812-835.
16. GeoHazards International and United Nations Center for Regional Development (UNCRD). Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office. Global earthquake safety initiative (GESI). Pilot project. Final report; 2001.
17. United Nations Initiative Towards Earthquake Safe Cities. Risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disasters (RADIUS). International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction; 2000.
18. Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center. MAEviz. <>; 2011. https://wiki.ncsa.illinois.edu/display/MAE/Home.
19. ATC-13. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California, applied technology council. FEMA contract no. EMW-C-0912, Redwood City, CA; 1985.
20. Rota M., Penna A., Strobbia C.L. Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2008, 28:933-947.
21. Gulec C.K., Whittaker A.S., Hooper J.D. Fragility functions for low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls. Eng Struct 2010, 32:2894-2901.
22. Erberik M.A. Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 2008, 30:1360-1374.
23. Shafei B., Zareian F., Lignos G.D. A simplified method for collapse capacity assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural systems. Eng Struct 2011, 33(4):1107-1116.
24. Cimellaro G.P., Reinhorn A.M., D'Ambrisi A., Stefano M.D. Fragility analysis and seismic record selection. J Struct Eng ASCE 2011, 137(3):379-390.
25. Buratti N., Ferracuti B., Savoia M. Response surface with random factors for seismic fragility of reinforced concrete frames. Struct Saf 2010, 32:42-51.
26. Miura H., Midorikawa S., Fujimoto K., Pacheco B.M., Yamanaka H. Earthquake damage estimation in Metro Manila, Philippines based on seismic performance of buildings evaluated by local experts' judgments. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2008, 28:764-777.
27. Pinto P.E., Giannini R., Franchin P. Seismic reliability analysis of structures 2004, IUSS Press, Italy.
28. Guan X.L., Melchers R.E. Effect of response surface parameter variation on structural reliability estimates. Struct Saf 2001, 23:429-444.
29. Rajashekhar M.R., Ellingwood B.R. A new look at the response surface approach for reliability analysis. Struct Saf 1993, 12:205-220.
30. Faravelli L. Response surface approach for reliability analysis. J Eng Mech ASCE 1989, 115:1763-1781.
31. Möller O., Foschi R.O., Rubinstein M., Quiroz L. Seismic structural reliability using different nonlinear dynamic response surface approximations. Struct Saf 2009, 31:432-442.
32. Alibrandi U., Impollonia N., Ricciardi G. Probabilistic eigenvalue buckling analysis solved through the ratio of polynomial response surface. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2010, 199:450-464.
33. Chowdhury R., Rao B.N. Assessment of high dimensional model representation techniques for reliability analysis. Probabil Eng Mech 2009, 24:100-115.
34. Seo J., Linzell D.G. Probabilistic vulnerability scenarios for horizontally curved, steel, I-girder bridges under earthquake loads. Transport Res Rec: J Transport Res Board 2010, 2202(3):206-211.
35. Seo J., Linzell D.G. Horizontally curved steel bridge seismic vulnerability assessment. Eng Struct 2012, 34:21-32.
36. Franchin P, Lupoi A, Pinto PE, Schotanus MIJ. Response surface for seismic fragility analysis of RC structures. In: 9th International conference of applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering; 2003.
37. Rossetto T., Elnashai A.S.A. New analytical procedure for the derivation of displacement-based vulnerability curves for populations of RC structures. Eng Struct 2005, 27:397-409.
38. Towashiraporn P, Craig JI, Goodno BJ. Probabilistic response simulation and regional vulnerability determination using response surface metamodels. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering; August 1-6, 2004. Paper no. 1410.
39. Dueñas-Osorio L, Craig JI, Goodno BJ. Rapid regional response simulation of 3-D prototype structures for fragility characterization. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering; August 1-6, 2004. Paper no. 1499.
40. Liel A.B., Haselton C.B., Deierlein G.G., Baker J.W. Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Struct Saf 2009, 31:197-211.
41. Ellingwood B.R. Earthquake risk assessment of building structures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2001, 74(3):251-262.
42. Shome N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of non-linear structures. PhD dissertation, Stanford University; 1999.
43. Wu C.F.J., Hamada M. Experiments-planning, analysis and parameter design optimization 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
44. Rodriguez M.E., Aristizabal J.C. Evaluation of a seismic damage parameter. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1999, 28:463-477.
45. Jeong S.-H., Elnashai A.S. Fragility relationships for torsionally-imbalanced buildings using three-dimensional damage characterization. Eng Struct 2007, 29:2172-2182.
46. FEMA. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings-FEMA 356, Washington, DC; 2000.
47. Park J., Towashiraporn P., Craig J.I., Goodno B.J. Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 2009, 31(1):125-137.
48. Elnashai AS, Papanikolau V. Lee DH. ZEUS non-linear: a system for inelastic analysis of structures. User manual, version V1.9.0. Urbana-Champaign, IL: UIUC; 2011.
49. Rix GJ, Fernandez-Leon JA. Synthetic ground motions for Memphis, TN, Mid-America Earthquake Center; 2008. http://www.ce.gatech.edu/research/mae_ground_motion.
50. Montgomery D.C. Design and analysis of experiments 1997, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
51. SAS Institute Inc. JMP statistics and graphics guide - version 5.1.2. Cary, NC; 2008.
52. USCS - US Geological Survey. Understanding hazards in the Central and Eastern US; 2011. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceus/.
53. Muthukumar S. The application of advanced inventory techniques in urban inventory data development of earthquake risk modeling and mitigation in Mid-America. PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; 2008.
54. FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings. Report FEMA 96. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC; 1986. p. 66-79.
55. SAC joint venture. State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subjected to earthquake ground shaking. Report FEMA 355. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC; 2000.
56. Towashiraporn P. Building seismic fragilities using response surface metamodels. PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; 2004.
57. Song J., Ellingwood B.R. Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames with welded connections: II. J Struct Eng 1999, 125(4):372-384.
58. Southern Standard Building Code, Southern Building Code Congress, Birmingham, AL; 1969.
59. American Society of Civil Engineers Standard, New York: ASCE; 1988.
60. Southern Building Code Congress International, Standard Building Code, Birmingham, AL; 1991.
61. International Building Code, IBC; 2000.
62. GT STRUDL. Fully integrated software system for general structural engineering design & finite element analysis; 2010. http://www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu/.
63. Kim K.D., Engelhardt M.D. Beam-column element for nonlinear seismic analysis of steel frames. ASCE J Struct Eng 2000, 126(8):916-925.
64. Krishnan S. Three-dimensional nonlinear analysis of tall irregular steel buildings subject to strong ground motion. PhD dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena; 2004.
65. Mann N.R., Schafer R.E., Singpurwalla N.D. Methods for statistical analysis of reliability and life data 1974, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (NY).
66. Cornell C.A., Jalayer J., Hamburger O.R., Foutch D.A. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. ASCE J Struct Eng 2002, 128(4):526-533.
67. USGS - US Geological Survey. Interactive deaggregations for conterminous US; 2012. http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/.
68. Nielson B., DesRoches R. Analytical fragility curves for typical highway bridge classes in the Central and Southeastern United States. Earthq Spect 2007, 23(3):615-633.