IM-based and EDP-based decision models for the verification of the seismic collapse safety of buildings

Summary Decision models for the verification of seismic collapse safety of buildings are introduced. The derivations are based on the concept of the acceptable (target) annual probability of collapse, whereas the decision making involves comparisons between seismic demand and capacity, which is familiar to engineering practitioners. Seismic demand, which corresponds to the design seismic action associated with a selected return period, can be expressed either in terms of an intensity measure (IM) or an engineering demand parameter (EDP). Seismic capacity, on the other hand, is defined by dividing the near-collapse limit-state IM or EDP by an appropriate risk-targeted safety factor (γim or γedp), which is the only safety factor used in the proposed decision model. Consequently, the seismic performance assessment of a building should be based on the best possible estimate. For a case study, it is shown that if the target collapse risk is set to 10−4 (0.5% over a period of 50 years), and if the seismic demand corresponds to a return period of 475 years (10% over a period of 50 years), then it can be demonstrated that γim is approximately equal to 2.5 for very stiff buildings, whereas for buildings with long periods the value of γim can increase up to a value of approximately 5. The model using γedp is equal to that using γim only if it can be assumed that displacements, with consideration of nonlinear behavior, are equal to displacements from linear elastic analysis.

[1]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Conditional spectrum‐based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration , 2017 .

[2]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Derivation of new SAC/FEMA performance evaluation solutions with second‐order hazard approximation , 2013 .

[3]  Matjaž Dolšek,et al.  A closed form solution for seismic risk assessment incorporating intensity bounds , 2014 .

[4]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines , 2002 .

[5]  Keith Porter.  Safe Enough? A Building Code to Protect Our Cities and Our Lives , 2016 .

[6]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Dispersions for the pushover‐based risk assessment of reinforced concrete frames and cantilever walls , 2016 .

[7]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions , 2007 .

[8]  Matjaž Dolšek,et al.  Seismic response analysis using characteristic ground motion records for risk‐based decision‐making (3R method) , 2016 .

[9]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Simplified probabilistic seismic performance assessment of plan‐asymmetric buildings , 2007 .

[10]  Jefferson County,et al.  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) TIERED SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM , 2012 .

[11]  Bruce R. Ellingwood,et al.  Disaggregating community resilience objectives to achieve building performance goals , 2015 .

[12]  Friedemann Wenzel,et al.  Setting structural safety requirement for controlling earthquake mortality risk , 2016 .

[13]  Matjaž Dolšek,et al.  Risk‐based seismic design for collapse safety , 2016 .

[14]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design , 2000 .

[15]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Approximate seismic risk assessment of building structures with explicit consideration of uncertainties , 2014 .

[16]  Polona Zupančič,et al.  Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Methodology for Distributed Seismicity , 2003 .

[17]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis , 2002 .

[18]  Matjaž Dolšek,et al.  Incorporating intensity bounds for assessing the seismic safety of structures: Does it matter? , 2014 .

[19]  Thomas Ulrich,et al.  Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France , 2013, Natural Hazards.

[20]  Bozidar Stojadinovic,et al.  A Framework for Linking Community-Resilience Goals to Specific Performance Targets for the Built Environment , 2015 .

[21]  Shan Cen,et al.  The connection domain in reverse transcriptase facilitates the in vivo annealing of tRNALys3 to HIV-1 genomic RNA , 2004, Retrovirology.

[22]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation , 2012, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[23]  Matjaz Dolsek,et al.  Development of computing environment for the seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete frames by using simplified nonlinear models , 2010 .