Seismic risk of base isolated non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings considering uncertainties and mainshock-aftershock sequences

Structural Safety

Volumn 50, Issue , 2014, Pages 39-56

  Han, Ruilong ^a   Li, Yue ^a   van de Lindt, John ^b  

^a MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Engineering Research Center and Hydraulics Laboratory   (United States)

Author keywords

Aftershocks; Base isolation; Lead rubber bearings; Non ductile RC frame building; Seismic risk; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

BUILDINGS; DUCTILITY; EARTHQUAKES; RETROFITTING;

AFTERSHOCKS; BASE ISOLATION; LEAD RUBBER BEARING; RC FRAMES; SEISMIC RISK; UNCERTAINTY;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84899848074     PISSN: 01674730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.03.010     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Liel Abbie B., Haselton Curt B., Deierlein Gregory G. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings: II. Comparative assessment of non-ductile and ductile moment frames. J Struct Eng 2011, 137(4):492-502.
2. Celik O.C., Ellingwood B.R. Seismic risk assessment of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames subjected to mid America ground motions. J Struct Eng 2009, 135(4):414-424.
3. Mokha A., Amin N., Constantinou M., Zayas V. Seismic isolation retrofit of large historic building. J Struct Eng 1996, 122(3):298-308.
4. De Luca A., Mele E., Molina J., Verzeletti G., Pinto A.V. Base isolation for retrofitting historic buildings: evaluation of seismic performance through experimental investigation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2001, 30(8):1125-1145.
5. Sayani Prayag J., Ryan Keri L. Comparative evaluation of base-isolated and fixed-base buildings using a comprehensive response index. J Struct Eng 2009, 135(6):698-707.
6. Erduran E., Dao N.D., Ryan K.L. Comparative response assessment of minimally compliant low-rise conventional and base-isolated steel frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2011, 40(10):1123-1141.
7. Karim K.R., Yamazaki F. Effect of isolation on fragility curves of highway bridges based on simplified approach. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2007, 27(5):414-426.
8. Zhang J., Huo Y. Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Eng Struct 2009, 31(8):1648-1660.
9. Huang Y.N., Whittaker A.S., Luco N. Performance assessment of conventional and base-isolated nuclear power plants for earthquake and blast loadings 2008, MCEER-08-0019, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
10. Porter K.A., Beck J.L., Shaikhutdinov R.V. Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthquake Spectra 2002, 18(4):719-743.
11. Yin Y.J., Li Y. Seismic collapse risk of light-frame wood construction considering aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Struct Saf 2010, 32(4):250-261.
12. Yeo G.L., Cornell C.A. Stochastic characterization and decision bases under time-dependent aftershock risk in performance-based earthquake engineering 2005, PEER 2005/13, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
13. Li Q., Ellingwood B.R. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under main shock-aftershock earthquake sequences. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2007, 36(3):405-427.
14. Ruiz-García J., Negrete-Manriquez J.C. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences. Eng Struct 2011, 33(2):621-634.
15. Nazari N, van de Lindt J, Li Y. Effect of mainshock-aftershock sequences on woodframe building damage fragilities. J Perform Constr Facil 2014; doi:0.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000512 [in press].
16. Huang Y., Wu J.P., Zhang T.Z., et al. Relocation of the M 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake and its aftershock sequence. Sci China D Earth Sci 2008, 51(12):1703-1711.
17. Li Y, Song R, van de Lindt JW. Collapse Fragility of Steel Structures Subjected to Earthquake Mainshock-Aftershock Sequences. J Struct Eng 2014 [in press].
18. Vamvatsikos D., Fragiadakis M. Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2010, 39(2):141-163.
19. Celik O.C., Ellingwood B.R. Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames-role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Struct Saf 2010, 32(1):1-12.
20. Padgett J.E., DesRoches R. Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter uncertainty. J Struct Eng 2007, 133(12):1710-1718.
21. Taflanidis A.A., Jia G. A simulation-based framework for risk assessment and probabilistic sensitivity analysis of base-isolated structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2011, 40(14):1629-1651.
22. Thompson AC, Whittaker AS, Fenves GL, Mahin SA. Property modification factors for elastomeric seismic isolation bearings. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. New Zealand: Auckand; 2000.
23. Constantinou M.C., Whittaker A.S., Kalpakidis Y., Fenz D.M., Warn G.P. Performance of seismic isolation hardware under service and seismic loading 2007, MCEER-07-0012, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
24. Krawinkler H. Van Nuys hotel building testbed report: exercising seismic performance assessment 2005, PEER 2005/11, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
25. Park S., Mosalam K.M. Experimental and analytical studies on reinforced concrete buildings with seismically vulnerable beam-column joints 2005, PEER 2012/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
26. McKenna F., Fenves G.L. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees) command language manual 2013, University of California, Berkeley, CA, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/.
27. Scott M.H., Fenves G.L. Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-column elements. J Struct Eng 2006, 132(2):244-252.
28. Panagiotakos T.B., Fardis M.N. Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J 2001, 98(2):135-148.
29. Saatcioglu M., Razvi S.R. Strength and ductility of confined concrete. J Struct Eng 1992, 118(6):1590-1607.
30. Aslani H., Miranda E. Probability-based seismic response analysis. Eng Struct 2005, 27(8):1151-1163.
31. Park R., Priestley M.J., Gill W.D. Ductility of square-confined concrete columns. J Struct Div 1982, 108(4):929-950.
32. ASCE-41: Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers; 2007.
33. Healey JJ, Wu ST, Murga M. Seismic Safety Margins Research Program (Phase I). Project IV. Structural building response; Structural Building Response Review (No. UCRL-15185). Ebasco Services Inc: NY; 1980.
34. Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2002, 31(3):491-514.
35. Federal Emergency Management Agency. HAZUS®MH MR4 Earthquake Model Technical Manual. Washington, DC; 2009.
36. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER Ground Motion Database. Last access: 04/20/2013. http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database.
37. Hancock J., Watson-Lamprey J., Abrahamson N.A., Bommer J.J., Markatis A., McCoy E., et al. An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. J Earthquake Eng 2006, 10(spec01):67-89.
38. Ryan K.L., Kelly J.M., Chopra A.K. Nonlinear model for lead-rubber bearings including axial-load effects. J. Eng Mech 2005, 131(12):1270-1278.
39. Yang T.Y., Konstantinidis D., Kelly J.M. The influence of isolator hysteresis on equipment performance in seismic isolated buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2010, 26(1):275-293.
40. Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data. Last access: 04/24/2013. http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/.
41. Whittaker AS, Soong TT, A overview of nonstructural component research at three U.S. earthquake engineering research centers. In: Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities (ATC-29-2), Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA. 2003; p. 271-280.
42. Elenas A., Meskouris K. Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structures. Eng Struct 2001, 23(6):698-704.
43. Naeim F., Kelly J.M. Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice 1999, John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.
44. FEMA 350. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. Washington, DC; 2000.
45. Ellingwood B., MacGregor J.G., Galambos T.V., Cornell C.A. Probability based load criteria: load factors and load combinations. J Struct Div 1982, 108(5):978-997.
46. Constantinou M.C., Kalpakidis I., Filiatrault A., Lay R.E. LRFD-based analysis and design procedures for bridge bearings and seismic isolators 2011, MCEER-11-0004, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
47. U.S. Geological Survey. Last access: 05/10/2013. http://www.usgs.gov/.
48. Cornell C., Jalayer F., Hamburger R., Foutch D. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 2002, 128:526-533. Special Issue: Steel Moment Frames after Northridge-Part II.
49. Ang AHS, Tang WH. Probability Concepts in engineering: emphasis on applications to civil and environmental engineering, vol. 1. Wiley; 2007.
50. Zuniga-Cuevas O., Teran-Gilmore A. Parametric study on acceleration-based design of low-rise base isolated systems. Eng Struct 2013, 53:25-37.
51. Choi E., DesRoches R., Nielson B. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Eng Struct 2004, 26(2):187-199.