Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering

Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering

Evaluation of seismic fragility of braced steel building frames at various damage states by considering the effect of different intensity measures

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Reza Saadi Andis 1
Saman Bagheri 2
1 M.Sc., Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
10.22065/jsce.2024.430478.3299
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to extract and evaluate the seismic fragility of braced steel building frames at different damage states by considering the effect of different seismic intensity measures. For this purpose, the finite element models of two steel frames with buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) have been used under 44 far-field earthquake records of FEMA-P695. Using incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) of models, seismic fragility curves of buildings as functions of four different seismic intensity measures including peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), spectral acceleration at the first mode of structural vibration (Sa (T1, 5%)) and weighted spectral acceleration with three modes (Sa (T123, 5%)) were obtained. Based on the criterion of interstory drift, four damage states including slight, moderate, extensive and complete damage were also considered to obtain fragility curves. The results show that the best seismic intensity measure depends on the desired damage states. At low damage states, where the response of the structure is mainly linear, the spectral parameters cause a significant reduction in the dispersion of the results compared to the other two intensity measures, and as a result, they are more efficient. However, at high damage states, where the nonlinear behavior becomes completely dominant, the difference in efficiency of different intensity measures decreases. Furthermore, the comparison of numerical values of probability of damage in two seismic hazard levels, i.e., design basis earthquake (DBE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE) showed that the selection of the intensity measure can significantly affect the numerical values of the probability of damage.
Keywords
Fragility curve
Earthquake
Incremental dynamic analysis
Seismic intensity measure
Steel building frame

Subjects

[1] Rossetto, T., Ioannou, I., Grant, D. N., and Maqsood, T. (2014). Guidelines for the empirical vulnerability assessment. ‏GEM Technical Rep. 2014-08 V1.0.0. Pavia, Itally: GEM Foundation.
[2] Jaiswal, K., Wald, D., and D'Ayala, D. (2011). Developing empirical collapse fragility functions for global building types. Earthquake Spectra, 27(3), 775–795.
[3] D'Ayala, D., Meslem, A., Vamvatsikos, D., Porter, K., Rossetto, T., Crowley, H., and Silva, V. (2014). Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment of low/mid-rise buildings. ‏Pavia, Italy: Vulnerability Global Component Project.
[4] Kennedy, R. P., Cornell, C. A., Campbell, R. D., Kaplan, S., and Perla, H. F. (1980). Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 59(2), 315–338.
[5] Ellingwood, B. R., Celik, O. C., and Kinali, K. (2007). Fragility assessment of building structural systems in Mid-America. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(13), 1935–1952.
[6] Wanitkorkul, A., and Filiatrault, A. (2008). Influence of passive supplemental damping systems on structural and nonstructural seismic fragilities of a steel building. Engineering Structures, 30(3), 675–682.
[7] Rosti, A., Del Gaudio, C., Rota, M., Ricci, P., Di Ludovico, M., Penna, A., and Verderame, G. M. (2021). Empirical fragility curves for Italian residential RC buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19, 3165–3183.
[8] Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Jiang, L., Skalomenos, K., and Zhang, D. (2023). Seismic fragility analysis of masonry structures considering the effect of mainshock-aftershock sequences. Engineering Structures, 275, 115287.
[9] Karim, K. R., and Yamazaki, F. (2003). A simplified method of constructing fragility curves for highway bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32(10), 1603–1626.
[10] Padgett, J. E., Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. (2008). Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37(5), 711–725.
[11] Thakkar, K., Rana, A., and Goyal, H. (2023). Fragility analysis of bridge structures: a global perspective and critical review of past and present trends. Advances in Bridge Engineering, 4(1), 1–28.
[12] O'Rourke, M. J., and So, P. (2000). Seismic fragility curves for on-grade steel tanks. Earthquake Spectra, 16(4), 801–815.
[13] Saha, S. K., Matsagar, V. A., and Jain, A. K. (2016). Seismic fragility of base-isolated water storage tanks under non-stationary earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(4), 1153–1175.
[14] Phan, H. N., Paolacci, F., Bursi, O. S., and Tondini, N. (2017). Seismic fragility analysis of elevated steel storage tanks supported by reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 47, 57–65.
[15] Ghowsi, A. F., and Sahoo, D. R. (2015). Fragility assessment of buckling-restrained braced frames under near-field earthquakes. Steel and Composite Structures, 19(1), 173–190.
[16] He, X., and Lu, Z. (2019). Seismic fragility assessment of a super tall building with hybrid control strategy using IDA method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 123, 278–291.
[17] Ruiz, S. E., Santos-Santiago, M. A., Orellana, M. A., and Jiménez, R. (2019). Fragility analysis of a soft first story building rehabilitated with buckling restrained braces. In: 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Quebec, Canada.
[18] Hu, S., and Wang, W. (2021). Comparative seismic fragility assessment of mid-rise steel buildings with non-buckling (BRB and SMA) braced frames and self-centering energy-absorbing dual rocking core system. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 142, 106546.
[19] Bakalis, K., and Vamvatsikos, D. (2018). Seismic fragility functions via nonlinear response history analysis. Journal of Structural Engineering, 144(10), 04018181.
[20] Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2005). Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthquake Engineering and Etructural Dynamics, 34(13), 1573–1600.
[21] Ebrahimian, H., and Jalayer, F. (2021). Selection of seismic intensity measures for prescribed limit states using alternative nonlinear dynamic analysis methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 50(5), 1235–1250.
[22] Zentner, I., Gündel, M., and Bonfils, N. (2017). Fragility analysis methods: review of existing approaches and application. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 323, 245–258.
[23] Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514.
[24] Baker, J. W. (2015). Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 31(1), 579–599.
[25] HAZUS 5.1. (2022). Hazus earthquake model technical manual, Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, FEMA, Washington, DC, USA.
[26] AISC. (2016). Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-16. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
[27] AISC. (2016). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 341-16. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
[28] ASCE. (2016). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.
[29] Upadhyay, A., Pantelides, C. P., and Ibarra, L. (2019). Residual drift mitigation for bridges retrofitted with buckling restrained braces or self centering energy dissipation devices. Engineering Structures, 199, 109663.
[30] FEMA. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors. FEMA-P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
[31] Su, N., Lu, X., Zhou, Y., and Yang, T. Y. (2017). Estimating the peak structural response of high‐rise structures using spectral value‐based intensity measures. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 26(8), e1356.

  • Receive Date 03 January 2024
  • Revise Date 02 March 2024
  • Accept Date 18 April 2024