Empirical seismic fragility assessment with explicit modeling of spatial ground motion variability

Engineering Structures

Volumn 100, Issue , 2015, Pages 479-489

  Yazgan, Ufuk ^a  

^a ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Bayesian analysis; Empirical fragility; Fragility assessment; Ground motion uncertainty; Ground motion variability; Reinforced concrete buildings; Seismic fragility; Seismic loss estimation; Seismic risk assessment; Vulnerability

Indexed keywords

CONCRETE BUILDINGS; CONCRETES; EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS; EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE; EARTHQUAKES; GEOPHYSICS; REINFORCED CONCRETE; RISK PERCEPTION; SEISMOLOGY; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL FRAGILITY; FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT; GROUND MOTION UNCERTAINTY; GROUND-MOTION VARIABILITY; SEISMIC FRAGILITY; SEISMIC LOSS ESTIMATION; SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT; VULNERABILITY;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; BUILDING; DYNAMIC RESPONSE; GROUND MOTION; NUMERICAL MODEL; REINFORCED CONCRETE; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; VULNERABILITY;

EID: 84934290972     PISSN: 01410296     EISSN: 1873-7323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.06.027     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Whitman RV, Reed JW, Hong ST. Earthquake damage probability matrices. In: The 5th World conference on earthquake engineering, Rome, Italy; 1973.
2. Singhal A., Kiremidjian A.S. Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1996, 122(12):1459-1467.
3. Mosalam K.M., Ayala G., White R.N., Roth C. Seismic fragility of LRC frames with and without masonry infill walls. J Earthq Eng 1997, 1(4):693-719.
4. Chryssanthopoulos M.K., Dymiotis C., Kappos A.J. Probabilistic evaluation of behaviour factors in EC8-designed RC frames. Eng Struct 2000, 22(8):1028-1041.
5. Erberik M.A., Elnashai A.S. Fragility analysis of flat-slab structures. Eng Struct 2004, 26(7):937-948.
6. Akkar S., Sucuoğlu H., Yakut A. Displacement-based fragility functions for low- and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 2005, 21(4):901-927.
7. Kirçil M.S., Polat Z. Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings. Eng Struct 2006, 28(9):1135-1345.
8. Dolce M., Kappos A., Masi A., Penelis G., Vona M. Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. Eng Struct 2006, 28(3):357-371.
9. Hueste M.B.D., Bai J.-W. Seismic retrofit of a reinforced concrete flat-slab structure: part II seismic fragility analysis. Eng Struct 2007, 29(6):1178-1188.
10. Erberik A. Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 2008, 30(5):1360-1374.
11. Casotto C., Silva V., Crowley H., Nascimbene R., Pinho R. Seismic fragility of Italian RC precast industrial structures. Eng Struct 2015, 94:122-136.
12. Porter K.A. Seismic vulnerability. Earthquake engineering handbook 2003, CRC Press, Raton, Florida. W.-F. Chen, C. Scawthorn (Eds.).
13. Rossetto T., Elnashai A. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 2003, 25(10):1241-1263.
14. Singhal A., Kiremidjian A.S. Bayesian updating of fragilities with application to RC frames. J Struct Eng 1998, 124(8):922-929.
15. Celik O.C., Ellingwood B.R. Modeling beam-column joints in fragility assessment of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames. J Earthq Eng 2008, 12(3):357-381.
16. Celik O.C., Ellingwood B.R. Seismic risk assessment of gravity load designed concrete frames subjected to mid-America ground motions. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2009, 135(4):414-424.
17. Negro P., Colombo A. How reliable are global computer models? Correlation with large-scale tests. Earthq Spectra 1998, 14:441.
18. Yazgan U., Dazio A. Simulating maximum and residual displacements of RC structures: I. Accuracy. Earthq Spectra 2011, 27(4):1187-1202.
19. Yazgan U., Dazio A. Simulating maximum and residual displacements of RC structures: II. Sensitivity. Earthq Spectra 2011, 27(4):1203-1218.
20. Zerva A. On the spatial variation of seismic ground motions and its effects on lifelines. Eng Struct 1994, 16(7):534-546.
21. Boore D.M., Gibbs J.F., Joyner W.B., Tinsley J.C., Ponti D.J. Estimated ground motion from the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake at the site of the interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard Bridge collapse, West Los Angeles, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2003, 93(6):2737-2751.
22. Goda K., Hong H. Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2008, 98(1):354-365.
23. Jayaram N., Baker J.W. Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2009, 38(15):1687-1708.
24. Abrahamson N.A., Bolt B.A., Darragh R.B., Penzien J., Tsai Y.B. The SMART I accelerograph array (1980-1987): a review. Earthq Spectra 1987, 3(2):263-287.
25. Crowley H., Stafford J.P., Bommer J.J. Can earthquake loss models be validated using field observations?. J Earthq Eng 2008, 12(7):1078-1104.
26. Yazgan U. A new approach to building stock vulnerability modeling based on Bayesian analysis. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal; 2012.
27. Yazgan U. Empirical vulnerability modeling considering geospatial ground motion variability. In: 11th International conference on structural safety & reliability, New York; 2013.
28. Coburn A., Spence R. Earthquake protection 2002, Wiley, New Jersey. 2nd ed.
29. Ang A.H.S., Tang W.H. Probability concepts in engineering planning and design. Decision, risk, and reliability 1984, vol. II. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
30. Mooney CZ, Duval RD. Bootstrapping: a nonparametric approach to statistical inference, no. 94-95, Sage; 1993.
31. Douglas J. Seismic network design to detect felt ground motions from induced seismicity. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2013, 48:193-197.
32. Park J, Bazzurro P, Baker JW. Modeling spatial correlation of ground motion intensity measures for regional seismic hazard and portfolio loss estimation. In: Applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, ICASP10, Tokyo, Japan; 2007.
33. Shinozuka M., Feng M.Q., Lee J., Naganuma T. Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech, ASCE 2000, 126(12):1224-1231.
34. SERU. Düzce database. Tech. rep., Structural Engineering Research Unit (SERU), Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey; 2003.
35. SERU. Bingöl database. Tech. rep., Structural Engineering Research Unit (SERU), Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey; 2003.
36. Sucuoğlu H., Yazgan U., Yakut A. A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. Earthq Spectra 2007, 23(2):441-458.
37. Crowley H, Colombi M, Ahmad N, Fardis M, Tsionis G, Papailia A, et al. Fragility functions for common RC building types, D 3.1. Tech. rep., systemic seismic vulnerability and risk analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructures safety gain (SYNER-G). Project of the EC framework programme 7, Pavia, Italy; 2011.
38. Campbell K.W., Bozorgnia Y. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10s. Earthq Spectra 2008, 24(1):139-171.
39. Delouis B, Lundgren P, Giardini D. Slip distributions of the 1999 Duzce (Mw 7.2) and Izmit (Mw 7.6) earthquakes on the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey): a combined analysis. Tech. rep., ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; 2004.
40. Akkar S., Boore D., Gülkan P. An evaluation of the strong ground motion recorded during the May 1, 2003 Bingöl, Turkey earthquake. J Earthq Eng 2005, 9(2):173-197.
41. Allen T.I., Wald D.J. On the use of high-resolution topographic data as a proxy for seismic site conditions (Vs30). Bull Seismol Soc Am 2009, 99(2A):935-943.
42. AFAD. AFAD: strong ground motion database of Türkiye. Earthquake Department, Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), Ankara, Turkey; 2012.