A New Ground Motion Intensity Measure, Peak Filtered Acceleration (PFA), to Estimate Collapse Vulnerability of Buildings in Earthquakes

In this thesis, we develop an efficient collapse prediction model, the PFA (Peak Filtered Acceleration) model, for buildings subjected to different types of ground motions. For the structural system, the PFA model covers modern steel and reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame buildings (potentially reinforced concrete shear wall buildings). For ground motions, the PFA model covers ramp-pulse-like ground motions, long-period ground motions, and short-period ground motions. To predict whether a building will collapse in response to a given ground motion, we first extract long-period components from the ground motion using a Butterworth low-pass filter with suggested order and cutoff frequency. The order depends on the type of ground motion, and the cutoff frequency depends on the building’s natural frequency and ductility. We then compare the filtered acceleration time history with the capacity of the building. The capacity of the building is a constant for 2-dimentional buildings and a limit domain for 3-dimentional buildings. If the filtered acceleration exceeds the building’s capacity, the building is predicted to collapse. Otherwise, it is expected to survive the ground motion. The parameters used in PFA model, which include fundamental period, global ductility and lateral capacity, can be obtained either from numerical analysis or interpolation based on the reference building system proposed in this thesis. The PFA collapse prediction model greatly reduces computational complexity while archiving good accuracy. It is verified by FEM simulations of 13 frame building models and 150 ground motion records. Based on the developed collapse prediction model, we propose to use PFA (Peak Filtered Acceleration) as a new ground motion intensity measure for collapse prediction. We compare PFA with traditional intensity measures PGA, PGV, PGD, and Sa in collapse prediction and find that PFA has the best performance among all the intensity measures. We also provide a close form in term of a vector intensity measure (PGV, PGD) of the PFA collapse prediction model for practical collapse risk assessment.

[1]  Eric B. Williamson,et al.  Evaluation of Damage and P-Δ Effects for Systems Under Earthquake Excitation , 2003 .

[2]  Swaminathan Krishnan,et al.  Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst: Response of Tall Steel Buildings to the ShakeOut Scenario Earthquake , 2011 .

[3]  K. Lang Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings , 2002 .

[4]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis , 2002 .

[5]  Zekeriya Polat,et al.  Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings , 2006 .

[6]  Satoshi Yamada,et al.  Full scale shaking table collapse experiment on 4-story steel moment frame: Part 2 detail of collapse behavior , 2009 .

[7]  Luis Ibarra,et al.  Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration , 2005 .

[8]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Adaptive Spectra-Based Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures , 2000 .

[9]  Ahmet Yakut,et al.  Seismic vulnerability assessment using regional empirical data , 2006 .

[10]  C. Cornell,et al.  Vector-valued Intensity Measures Incorporating Spectral Shape For Prediction of Structural Response , 2008 .

[11]  John F. Hall,et al.  Seismic response of steel frame buildings to near‐source ground motions , 1998 .

[12]  Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos,et al.  Inelastic torsion of multistorey buildings under earthquake excitations , 2005 .

[13]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Accounting for Ground-Motion Spectral Shape Characteristics in Structural Collapse Assessment through an Adjustment for Epsilon , 2011 .

[14]  L. Ye,et al.  Collapse Simulation of RC High-Rise Building Induced by Extreme Earthquakes , 2013 .

[15]  J. Baker,et al.  Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection , 2006 .

[16]  A. Irfanoglu,et al.  Correlation between Ground Motion Based Shaking Intensity Estimates and Actual Building Damage , 2012 .

[17]  Abbie B. Liel,et al.  The effect of near‐fault directivity on building seismic collapse risk , 2012 .

[18]  Paul C. Jennings,et al.  Collapse of a model for ductile reinforced concrete frames under extreme earthquake motions , 1980 .

[19]  Abbie B. Liel,et al.  Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings in Southern California , 2011 .

[20]  Swaminathan Krishnan Case studies of damage to 19‐storey irregular steel moment‐frame buildings under near‐source ground motion , 2007 .

[21]  Helmut Krawinkler,et al.  PROS AND CONS OF A PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION , 1998 .

[22]  John F. Hall,et al.  Parameter study of the response of moment-resisting steel frame buildings to near-source ground motions , 1995 .

[23]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Earthquakes, Records, and Nonlinear Responses , 1998 .

[24]  J. Baker,et al.  A vector‐valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon , 2005 .

[25]  Swaminathan Krishnan Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Analysis of Tall Irregular Steel Buildings Subject to Strong Ground Motion , 2003 .

[26]  Roberto Villaverde,et al.  Methods to Assess the Seismic Collapse Capacity of Building Structures: State of the Art , 2007 .

[27]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Probabilistic fragility analysis parameterized by fundamental response quantities , 2007 .

[28]  S. Yamada,et al.  China COLLAPSE EXPERIME * T O * 4-STORY STEEL MOME * T FRAME : PART 1 OUTLI * E OF TEST RESULTS , 2008 .

[29]  John F. Hall,et al.  Beam-column modeling , 1995 .

[30]  Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany,et al.  A new indicator of elastic spectral shape for the reliable selection of ground motion records , 2011 .

[31]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover Analyses: Vertically “Regular” and Irregular Generic Frames , 2004 .

[32]  Gregory G. Deierlein,et al.  Seismic Collapse Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. II: Comparative Assessment of Nonductile and Ductile Moment Frames , 2011 .

[33]  Robert W. Graves,et al.  Broadband ground motion simulations for scenario ruptures of the Puente Hills fault , 2006 .

[34]  Mehdi Saiidi,et al.  SIMPLE NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF R/C STRUCTURES , 1981 .

[35]  Dionisio Bernal,et al.  Amplification factors for inelastic dynamicp? effects in earthquake analysis , 1987 .

[36]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings , 2002 .

[37]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings , 2006 .

[38]  Craig D. Comartin,et al.  WHE-PAGER PROJECT: A NEW INITIATIVE IN ESTIMATING GLOBAL BUILDING INVENTORY AND ITS SEISMIC VULNERABILITY , 2008 .

[39]  John F. Hall,et al.  Earthquake collapse analysis of steel frames , 1994 .

[40]  J. Baker,et al.  GROUND MOTION INTENSITY MEASURES FOR COLLAPSE CAPACITY PREDICTION: CHOICE OF OPTIMAL SPECTRAL PERIOD AND EFFECT OF SPECTRAL SHAPE , 2006 .

[41]  Chen Ji,et al.  Performance of Two 18-Story Steel Moment-Frame Buildings in Southern California during Two Large Simulated San Andreas Earthquakes , 2006 .

[42]  A. Elnashai,et al.  ANALYTICAL AND FIELD EVIDENCE OF THE DAMAGING EFFECT OF VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION , 1996 .

[43]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Characterizing Ground Motions that Collapse Steel Special Moment-Resisting Frames or Make Them Unrepairable , 2015 .

[44]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  THE N2 METHOD FOR THE SEISMIC DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS , 1996 .

[45]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Effects of Fling Step and Forward Directivity on Seismic Response of Buildings , 2006 .

[46]  M. D. Trifunac,et al.  Ambient Vibration Tests of Structures−a Review , 2001 .

[47]  Jing Yang Nonlinear Responses of High-Rise Buildings in Giant Subduction Earthquakes , 2009 .

[48]  Gregory G. Deierlein,et al.  Inelastic analyses of a 17-story steel framed building damaged during Northridge , 1998 .