Probabilistic seismic demand model for pounding risk assessment
Enrico Tubaldi
Department of Civil Engineering—Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Fabio Freddi
School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL UK
Correspondence to: Fabio Freddi, School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorMichele Barbato
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University and A&M College, 3418H Patrick F. Taylor Hall, Nicholson Extension, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803 USA
Search for more papers by this authorEnrico Tubaldi
Department of Civil Engineering—Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Fabio Freddi
School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL UK
Correspondence to: Fabio Freddi, School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorMichele Barbato
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University and A&M College, 3418H Patrick F. Taylor Hall, Nicholson Extension, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803 USA
Search for more papers by this authorSummary
Earthquake-induced pounding of adjacent structures can cause severe structural damage, and advanced probabilistic approaches are needed to obtain a reliable estimate of the risk of impact. This study aims to develop an efficient and accurate probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM) for pounding risk assessment between adjacent buildings, which is suitable for use within modern performance-based engineering frameworks. In developing a PSDM, different choices can be made regarding the intensity measures (IMs) to be used, the record selection, the analysis technique applied for estimating the system response at increasing IM levels, and the model to be employed for describing the response statistics given the IM. In the present paper, some of these choices are analyzed and evaluated first by performing an extensive parametric study for the adjacent buildings modeled as linear single-degree-of-freedom systems, and successively by considering more complex nonlinear multi-degree-of-freedom building models. An efficient and accurate PSDM is defined using advanced intensity measures and a bilinear regression model for the response samples obtained by cloud analysis. The results of the study demonstrate that the proposed PSDM allows accurate estimates of the risk of pounding to be obtained while limiting the number of simulations required. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
References
- 1Anagnostopoulos SA. Pounding of buildings in series during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1988; 16(3): 443–456.
- 2Cole GL, Dhakal RP, Turner FM. Building pounding damage observed in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2012; 41(5): 893–913.
- 3Filiatrault A, Wagner P, Cherry S. Analytical prediction of experimental building pounding. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1995; 24(8): 1131–1154.
- 4Papadrakakis M, Mouzakis HP. Earthquake simulator testing of pounding between adjacent buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1995; 24(6): 811–834.
- 5Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P. Earthquake-induced poundings of a seismically isolated building with adjacent structures. Engineering Structures 2010; 32(7): 1937–1951.
- 6Jankowski R. Non-linear viscoelastic modelling of earthquake-induced structural pounding. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(6): 595–611.
- 7Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Structural pounding between adjacent buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part I: The effect of different structures arrangement. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2013; 42(10): 1509–1528.
- 8Skrekas P, Sextos A, Giaralis A. Influence of bi-directional seismic pounding on the inelastic demand distribution of three adjacent multi-storey R/C buildings. Earthquakes and Structures 2014; 6(1): 71–87.
- 9Takabatake H, Yasui M, Nakagawa Y, Kishida A. Relaxation method for pounding action between adjacent buildings at expansion joint. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2014; 43(9): 1381–1400.
- 10Tubaldi E. Dynamic behavior of adjacent buildings connected by linear viscous/viscoelastic dampers. Structural Control Health Monitoring 2015; 22(8): 1086–1102.
- 11Raheem SA. Mitigation measures for earthquake induced pounding effects on seismic performance of adjacent buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2014; 4(12): 1705–1724.
- 12 Building Center of Japan (BCJ). Structural Provisions for Building Structures. Building Center of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 1997.
- 13 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Uniform Building Code (UBC). International Conference of Building Officials: Whittier, CA, USA, 1997.
- 14 Construction and Planning Administration Ministry of Interior. Seismic Provisions. Building Code (TBC): Taipei, Taiwan, 1997.
- 15 European Committee for Standardization (CEN). European Standard EN 1998–1: 2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, Seismic action and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
- 16Tubaldi E, Barbato M, Ghazizadeh SA. Probabilistic performance-based risk assessment approach for seismic pounding with efficient application to linear systems. Structural Safety 2012; 36–37: 14–22.
- 17Barbato M, Tubaldi E. A probabilistic performance-based approach for mitigating the seismic pounding risk between adjacent buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2013; 42(8): 1203–1219.
- 18Chase JG, Boyer F, Rodgers GW, Labrosse G, MacRae GA. Probabilistic risk analysis of structural impact in seismic events for linear and nonlinear systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2014; 43(10): 1565–1580.
10.1002/eqe.2414 Google Scholar
- 19Aslani H, Miranda E. Probability-based seismic response analysis. Engineering Structures 2005; 27(8): 1151–1163.
- 20Padgett JE, Nielson BG, DesRoches R. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2008; 37(5): 711–725.
- 21Rajeev P, Franchin P, Tesfamariam S (2014) “ Probabilistic seismic demand model for RC frame buildings using cloud analysis and incremental dynamic analysis”, Proc. of 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska.
- 22Mackie KR, Stojadinovic B. Comparison of incremental dynamic, cloud, and stripe methods for computing probabilistic seismic demand models. Proceedings of the 2005 ASCE Structures Congress 2005; New York, NY.
- 23Porter KA. An overview of PEER's performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Application of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP9) 2003; San Francisco, California; 973–980.
- 24Zhang Y, Acero G, Conte J, Yang Z, Elgamal A. Seismic reliability assessment of a bridge ground system. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2004; Vancouver, Canada.
- 25Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering 2002; 128(4): 526–533.
- 26Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(2): 357–392.
- 27Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3): 491–514.
- 28Shome N, Cornell CA. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Reliability of Marine Structures Program 1999; Report No. RMS-35. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, California.
- 29Vega J, Del Rey I, Alarcon E. Pounding force assessment in performance-based design of bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2009; 38(13): 1525–1544.
10.1002/eqe.916 Google Scholar
- 30Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F, Lucchini A, Mollaioli F, Manfredi G. Preliminary ranking of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2015; 13(10): 2805–2840.
- 31Lopez-Garcia D, Soong TT. Assessment of the separation necessary to prevent seismic pounding between linear structural systems. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 2009; 24(2): 210–223.
10.1016/j.probengmech.2008.06.002 Google Scholar
- 32Lopez-Garcia D, Soong TT. Evaluation of current criteria in predicting the separation necessary to prevent seismic pounding between nonlinear hysteretic structural systems. Engineering Structures 2009; 31(5): 1217–1229.
10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.01.016 Google Scholar
- 33Lin JH. Evaluation of seismic pounding risk of buildings in Taiwan. Chinese Institute of Engineers 2005; 28(5): 867–872.
10.1080/02533839.2005.9671057 Google Scholar
- 34Mackie KR, Stojadinovic B. Fragility curves for reinforced concrete highway overpass bridges. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2004; Vancouver, BC.
- 35Baker JW. Probabilistic structural response assessment using vector-valued intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13): 1861–1883.
- 36Kasai K, Jagiasi RA, Jeng V. Inelastic vibration phase theory for seismic pounding. Journal of Structural Engineering 1996; 122(10): 1136–1146.
- 37Tubaldi E, Barbato M. Discussion: Probabilistic risk analysis of structural impact in seismic events for linear and nonlinear systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2015; 44(3): 491–493.
- 38Bai JW, Gardoni P, Hueste MBD. Story-specific demand models and seismic fragility estimates for multi-story buildings. Structural Safety 2011; 33(1): 96–107.
10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.09.002 Google Scholar
- 39Barenblatt GI. Dimensional Analysis. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers: New York, 1987.
- 40Baker JW, Jayaram N, Shahi S. Ground motion studies for transportation systems. PEER Website 2011. http://peer.berkeley.edu/transportation/projects/ground-motion-studies-for-transportation-systems/ (accessed on February 2016)
- 41 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington DC, 2000.
- 42Shome N, Cornell CA. Structural seismic demand analysis: consideration of ‘Collapse’. 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability 2007; University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN.
- 43Ott RL, Longnecker M. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis ( 6th edn), Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA, 2010.
- 44 USGS, United States Geological Survey. (Available from: http://www.usgs.gov/).
