Evaluation of analytical methodologies used to derive vulnerability functions

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 181-204

  Silva, V ^a,b   Crowley, H ^b   Varum, H ^a   Pinho, R ^c   Sousa, R ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AVEIRO   (Portugal)

^b European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA   (Italy)

^d SCUOLA UNIVERSITARIA SUPERIORE IUSS PAVIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Analytical methodologies; Fragility; Loss assessment; Vulnerability

Indexed keywords

ESTIMATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY; COMPUTATIONAL EFFORT; FRAGILITY; NON-LINEAR RESPONSE; SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURAL MODELLING; VULNERABILITY; VULNERABILITY MODELS;

FUNCTION EVALUATION;

ANALYTICAL METHOD; BUILDING; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC RESPONSE; VULNERABILITY;

EID: 84891954845     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2337     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Sabetta F, Goretti A, Lucantoni A. Empirical fragility curves from damage surveys and estimated strong ground motion. In The 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France, 1998.
2. Rossetto T, Elnashai A. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Engineering Structures 2003; 25(10):1241-1263.
3. Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia C. Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2008; 28(10-11):933-947.
4. Singhal A, Kiremidjian S. A method for earthquake motion-damage relationships with application to reinforced concrete frames. NCEER report, State University of New York at Buffalo, U.S.A., 1997.
5. Dumova-Jovanoska E. Fragility curves for RC structures in Skopje region. In The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
6. Akkar S, Sucuoglu H, Yakut A. Displacement-based fragility functions for low- and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2005; 21(4):901-927.
7. Erberik MA. Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Engineering Structures 2007; 30(5):1360-1374.
8. Rossetto T, Elnashai A. A new analytical procedure for the derivation of displacement-based vulnerability curves for populations of RC structures. Engineering Structures 2005; 27(3):397-409.
9. Strasser FO, Bommer JJ, Sesetyan K, Erdik M, Cagnan Z, Irizarry J, Goula X, Lucantoni A, Sabetta F, Bal I, Crowley H, Lindholm C. A comparative study of European earthquake loss estimation tools for an earthquake scenario in Istanbul. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2008; 12(S2):246-256.
10. Chopra AK, Goel RK. Evaluation of NSP to estimate seismic deformation: SDF systems. Journal of Structural Engineering 2000; 126(4):482-490.
11. Dolsek M, Fajfar P. Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(1):49-66.
12. Casarotti C, Monteiro R, Pinho R. Verification of spectral reduction factors for seismic assessment of bridges. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2009; 42(2):111-121.
13. Antoniou S, Pinho R. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2004; 8(4):497-522.
14. ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Counci: Redwood City, California, USA, 1996.
15. FEMA-440. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 2005.
16. Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999; 28(9):979-993.
17. Bal I, Crowley H, Pinho R, Gulay, FG. Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2008; 28:914-932.
18. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra 1998; 14(4):469-500.
19. Bommer JJ, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, Re DD, Pterken D. Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. Journal of Seismology 2002; 6:431-446.
20. Priestley MJN. Displacement-based approaches to rational limit states design of new structures. In The 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1998.
21. Akyuz S, Uyan M. A study on the concrete steel bars used in Turkey. Technical Journal of the Turkish Assembly of Civil Engineering 1992; 35:497-508.
22. Bal I, Yildiz M. Evaluation of concrete quality of existing buildings in the regional municipalities of Istanbul. Journal of the Turkish Chamber Civil Engineering 2005; 80:10-7.
23. Matlab. Available from: http://www.mathworks.com/ [12 September 2012]
24. OpenSEES. Available from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu/. [28 June 2011]
25. Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI Journal Proceedings 1982; 79(1):13-27.
26. Giuffrè A, Pinto PE. Il comportamento del cemento armato per sollecitazioni cicliché di forte intensità. Giornale del Génio Civile 1970.
27. Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson N. Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2006; 26:477-482.
28. Katsanos EI, Sextos AG, Manolis GD. Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2010; 26:157-169.
29. Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker J. A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthquake Spectra 2011; 27(3):797-815.
30. Turkish Strong motion database. Available from: http://daphne.deprem.gov.tr:89/2K/daphne_v4.php/ [6 August 2012]
31. European strong motion database. Available from: http://www.isesd.hi.is/ [6 August 2012]
32. PEER strong motion database. Available from: http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/ [6 August 2012]
33. Global strong motion database. Available from: http://www.cosmos-eq.org/ [6 August 2012]
34. Kalkan E, Guulkan P, Yilmaz N, Celebi M. Probabilistic seismic hazard mapping of the Marmara region. Report No. 08-01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2008.
35. Baez J I, Miranda E. Amplification factors to estimate inelastic displacement demands for the design of structures in the near field. In The 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.
36. Gulkan P, Sozen MA. Inelastic responses of reinforced concrete structure to earthquake motions. ACI Journal Proceedings 1974; 71(12):604-610.
37. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna G. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998; 20(4-6):452-464.
38. Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997; 123(1):3-10.
39. Elnashai AS. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2001; 12(1):51-69.
40. Antoniou S, Pinho R. Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2004; 8(5):643-661.
41. JICA. The study on a disaster prevention/mitigation basic plan in Istanbul including seismic microzonation in the Republic of Turkey. Final Report, Japanese International Cooperation Agency, Japan, 2002.
42. Boǧaziçi University in Istanbul, Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area. Final Report, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Center, Istanbul, Turkey, 2002.
43. CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance - part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-2, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
44. Casarotti C, Pinho R. An adaptive capacity spectrum method for assessment of bridges subjected to earthquake action. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2007; 5(3):377-390.
45. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):561-582.
46. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 2006; 132(11):1721-1731.
47. st U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Berkley, U.S.A., 1975.
48. Freeman S. Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology 2004; 41(1):1-13.
49. Monteiro R. Probabilistic seismic assessment of bridges. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Porto, Porto, Portugal, 2011.
50. FEMA-273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 1997.
51. Lin YY, Chang KC, Wang YL. Comparison of displacement coefficient method and capacity spectrum method with experimental results of RC columns. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:35-48.
52. Priestley, MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-based Seismic Design of Structures. IUSS Press: Pavia, Italy, 2007.
53. Bommer JJ, Martínez-Pereira A. The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1999; 3(2):127-172.
54. Papanikolaou V, Elnashai A. Evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis I: methodology. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2005; 9(6):923-941.
55. Pinho R, Marques M, Monteiro R, Casarotti C, Delgado R. Evaluation of nonlinear static procedures in the assessment of building frames. Earthquake Spectra 2013, in press.
56. Bhatt C, Bento E. Comparison of nonlinear static methods for the seismic assessment of plan irregular frame buildings with non seismic details. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2012; 16(1):15-39.
57. Kappos A, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G. A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2006; 4(4):391-413.
58. th National Conference "L'ingegneria Sismica in Italia", Potenza-Matera, Italy, 2001.
59. FEMA-443. HAZUS-MH technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. U.S.A., 2003.
60. BU-ARC. Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area. Project Report, Boǧaziçi University and American Red Cross, Boǧaziçi University Publications, Istanbul, Turkey, 2002.
61. Demircioglu MB, Sesetyan K, Durukal E, Erdik M. Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey. In The 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2007.
62. OpenQuake. Available from: http://openquake.org/ [12 September 2012]
63. Global Earthquake Model. Available from: http://www.globalquakemodel.org/ [12 September 2012]