Intensity-based demand and capacity factor design: A visual format for safety checking

Quantitative safety checking is an essential part of performance-based design and retrofit of new and existing construction. The intensity-based demand and capacity factor design (DCFD) is a practical closed-form safety-checking format that lends itself quite well to visual interpretation. Adopting the critical demand to capacity ratio as a global damage measure directly, skipping the engineering demand parameter, helps in identifying the onset of the prescribed performance levels. For each intensity level, the contribution to the error in the DCFD format in logarithmic domain is visualized as the distance between the hazard curve and its tangent at median intensity at the onset of the performance level weighted by the probability density of the intensity-based capacity. The latter reaches its maximum value at the median intensity at the onset of the performance level, where the error in hazard is zero, and decays with a rate that depends on the logarithmic standard deviation of fragility. The proposed intensity-based DCFD provides accurate safety-checking estimates that are always on the safe side for concave mono-curvature hazard curves in the logarithmic scale.

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

[2]  Halil Sezen,et al.  Reinforcement Slip in Reinforced Concrete Columns , 2008 .

[3]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Three Proposals for Characterizing MDOF Nonlinear Seismic Response , 1998 .

[4]  Pacific Earthquake.  A Technical Framework for Probability-Based Demand and Capacity Factor Design (DCFD) Seismic Formats , 2003 .

[5]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Performance-based flood safety-checking for non-engineered masonry structures , 2016 .

[6]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Knowledge-Based Performance Assessment of Existing RC Buildings , 2011 .

[7]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Equivalent Constant Rates for Performance-Based Seismic Assessment of Ageing Structures , 2011 .

[8]  Halil Sezen,et al.  Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records , 2017 .

[9]  Y. K. Wen,et al.  Reliability and performance-based design☆ , 2001 .

[10]  Panagiotis Galanis,et al.  Development of Collapse Indicators for Risk Assessment of Older-Type Reinforced Concrete Buildings , 2015 .

[11]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Seismic reliability assessment and the nonergodicity in the modelling parameter uncertainties , 2020, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics.

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

[13]  Helmut Krawinkler,et al.  Van Nuys Hotel Building Testbed Report: Exercising Seismic Performance Assessment , 2005 .

[14]  Halil Sezen,et al.  PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT RETROFIT METHODS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE SRUCTURES , 2017 .

[15]  Chris D. Poland,et al.  ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings , 2012 .

[16]  Emilio Rosenblueth.  Towards Optimum Design Through Building Codes , 1976 .

[17]  Aníbal Costa,et al.  Alternative closed‐form solutions for the mean rate of exceedance of structural limit states , 2013 .

[18]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Alternative non‐linear demand estimation methods for probability‐based seismic assessments , 2009 .

[19]  Eduardo Miranda,et al.  Probability-based seismic response analysis , 2005 .

[20]  Kevin R. Mackie,et al.  A Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering of Bridge-Abutment Systems , 2012 .

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

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

[23]  R. De Risi,et al.  Robust Fragility Assessment using Bayesian Parameter Estimation , 2013 .

[24]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Simplified estimation of seismic risk for reinforced concrete buildings with consideration of corrosion over time , 2011 .

[25]  Jack P. Moehle,et al.  "BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 318-11) AND COMMENTARY" , 2011 .

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

[27]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  Improved seismic hazard model with application to probabilistic seismic demand analysis , 2007 .

[28]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Accurate Application and Second-Order Improvement of SAC/FEMA Probabilistic Formats for Seismic Performance Assessment 1 , 2014 .

[29]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures , 1999 .

[30]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability analysis of RC frames , 2007 .

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

[32]  Matjaž Dolšek,et al.  The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame — a deterministic assessment , 2008 .

[33]  Vladimir Sigmund,et al.  Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings , 2010 .

[34]  Chen Qiao-sheng,et al.  A Brief Introduction of FEMA P695—Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors , 2013 .

[35]  S. A. Short,et al.  Basis for seismic provisions of DOE-STD-1020 , 1994 .

[36]  Kevin R. Mackie,et al.  Performance‐based seismic bridge design for damage and loss limit states , 2007 .

[37]  Sonia E. Ruiz,et al.  Structural reliability evaluation considering capacity degradation over time , 2007 .

[38]  Halil Sezen,et al.  Model for the Lateral Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Including Shear Deformations , 2008 .

[39]  Rüdiger Rackwitz,et al.  Optimization — the basis of code-making and reliability verification , 2000 .

[40]  Jack P. Moehle,et al.  Axial Capacity Model for Shear-Damaged Columns , 2005 .

[41]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Seismic risk assessment considering cumulative damage due to aftershocks , 2017 .

[42]  B. Bradley,et al.  Error estimation of closed‐form solution for annual rate of structural collapse , 2008 .

[43]  Andrea Prota,et al.  Cloud to IDA: Efficient fragility assessment with limited scaling , 2018 .

[44]  Halil Sezen,et al.  Performance-Based Assessment Methodology for Retrofit of Buildings , 2019 .

[45]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  The Case for Using Mean Seismic Hazard , 2005 .

[46]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Bayesian Cloud Analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[47]  Y. K. Wen,et al.  Reliability and performance-based design § , 2002 .

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

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

[50]  Paolo Franchin,et al.  Method for Probabilistic Displacement-Based Design of RC Structures , 2012 .

[51]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: Implementing non-linear dynamic assessments , 2003 .

[52]  Sonia E. Ruiz,et al.  Time-Dependent Confidence Factor for Structures with Cumulative Damage , 2015 .

[53]  Alessio Lupoi,et al.  SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT OF RC STRUCTURES WITH THE “2000 SAC/FEMA” METHOD , 2002 .

[54]  Michael H. Scott,et al.  Plastic Hinge Integration Methods for Force-Based Beam¿Column Elements , 2006 .

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

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