Evaluation of the variability contribution due to epistemic uncertainty on constitutive models in the definition of fragility curves of RC frames

Abstract In the framework of uncertainty propagation in seismic analyses, most of the research efforts were devoted to quantifying and reducing uncertainties related to seismic input. However, also uncertainties associated to the definition of constitutive models must be taken into account, in order to have a reliable estimate of the total uncertainty in structural response. The present paper, by means of incremental dynamic analyses on reinforced concrete frames, evaluates the effect of the epistemic uncertainty for plastic-hinges hysteretic models selection. Eleven different hysteretic models, identified based on literature data, were used and seismic fragility curves were obtained for three different levels of maximum interstorey drift ratio. Finally, by means of analysis of variance techniques, the paper shows that the uncertainty associated to the hysteretic model definition has a magnitude similar to that due to record-to-record variability.

[1]  Marios K. Chryssanthopoulos,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of strength and ductility of confined reinforced concrete members , 1999 .

[2]  Riyadh Hindi,et al.  Analytical prediction of the pinching mechanism of RC elements under cyclic shear using a rotation-angle softened truss model , 2005 .

[3]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  The Use and Misuse of Logic Trees in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2008 .

[4]  Michael H. Scott,et al.  Nonlinear Finite-Element Analysis Software Architecture Using Object Composition , 2010, J. Comput. Civ. Eng..

[5]  Barbara Ferracuti,et al.  Response Surface with random factors for seismic fragility of reinforced concrete frames , 2010 .

[6]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR STEEL MOMENT FRAMES , 2002 .

[7]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Pre‐ and post‐test mathematical modelling of a plan‐asymmetric reinforced concrete frame building , 2006 .

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

[9]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Conditional Mean Spectrum: Tool for Ground-Motion Selection , 2011 .

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

[11]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  A framework for validation of seismic response analyses using seismometer array recordings , 2011 .

[12]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  On the importance of uncertain factors in seismic fragility assessment , 2013, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[13]  M. Erberik.  Energy Based Seismic Assessment of Degrading Systems , 2009 .

[14]  Gregory G. Deierlein,et al.  Seismic Damage and Collapse Assessment of Composite Moment Frames , 2001 .

[15]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure , 2006 .

[16]  Paolo Negro,et al.  A damage index of generalised applicability , 2005 .

[17]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Uncertainty propagation in probabilistic seismic loss estimation , 2008 .

[18]  F. Scherbaum,et al.  Logic Tree Branch Weights and Probabilities: Summing up to One is not Enough , 2011 .

[19]  Sri Sritharan,et al.  Lessons Learned from Seismic Analysis of a Seven-Story Concrete Test Building , 2010 .

[20]  Graham H. Powell,et al.  Seismic damage prediction by deterministic methods: Concepts and procedures , 1988 .

[21]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Probability and Uncertainty in Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2005 .

[22]  Bruce R. Ellingwood,et al.  Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames – Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties , 2010 .

[23]  Matjaz Dolsek,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties , 2009 .

[24]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures , 2007 .

[25]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Earthquake Accelerogram Selection and Scaling Procedures for Estimating the Distribution of Drift Response , 2011 .

[26]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Direct Estimation of Seismic Demand and Capacity of Multidegree-of-Freedom Systems through Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Single Degree of Freedom Approximation , 2005 .

[27]  Farzin Zareian,et al.  Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety , 2007 .

[28]  Sang Whan Han,et al.  Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the modal pushover analysis procedure , 2006 .

[29]  A. Kiureghian.  Non‐ergodicity and PEER's framework formula , 2005 .

[30]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates? , 2006 .

[31]  Mario Ordaz,et al.  On Uncertainties in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2016 .

[32]  Fabio Minghini,et al.  Empirical seismic fragility for the precast RC industrial buildings damaged by the 2012 Emilia (Italy) earthquakes , 2017 .

[33]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty , 2010 .

[34]  Michael D. Engelhardt,et al.  Net Section Efficiency of Steel Coupons with Power Actuated Fasteners , 2002 .

[35]  B. Bradley.  A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground‐motion selection , 2010 .

[36]  Christian Meyer,et al.  Reliability of Concrete Frames Damaged by Earthquakes , 1987 .

[37]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings , 2009 .

[38]  Roger M.W. Musson.  On the Nature of Logic Trees in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment , 2012 .

[39]  A. Ang,et al.  Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete , 1985 .

[40]  Robert J. Budnitz,et al.  Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and use of experts , 1997 .

[41]  R. Mcguire,et al.  Statistical uncertainties in seismic hazard evaluations in the United States , 1981 .