Seismic loss analysis of buckling-restrained braced frames considering the effects of modeling uncertainties

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 MSc Graduate, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran.

Abstract

While the design criteria for buckling-restrained braced frames are advancing, understanding the functional behavior of these types of frames during the occuring earthquakes can considerably contribute  in the evolution of the design criteria for these frames. In this regard, taking the modeling uncertainties into account  will help in carrying out a more rational seismic performance assessment and seismic design of these types of structures. The main goal of this manuscript  is to include the modeling uncertainties in the seismic loss mathematical curves of the buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBF). The variation of the modulus of elasticity and the yield strength constitute the sources of the uncertainties  for this study. The two-dimensional 4-, 8-, and 12-story frames ,selected from symmetrical three-dimensional structures, were studied. Finally, it was concluded that the uncertainties existed in the yield stress and the modulus of elasticity parameters were more effective on the probabilistic seismic demand curves for the lower intensity levels, than the higher strong ground motion intensities. Besides all these, the variations of seismic-induced loss curves are presented considering the effect of the uncertainties compared to those neglecting the uncertainties. The calculated loss curves confirm the  significance of taking the sources of uncertainties into account in the seismic loss analysis of the structures.

Keywords

References

1. Hamburger, R.O. The ATC-58 project: development of next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering design criteria for buildings. in Structures Congress 2006: Structural Engineering and Public Safety. 2006. [DOI:10.1061/40889(201)31]
2. Yang, T., et al., Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: methodology and implementation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2009. 135(10): p. 1146-1154. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:10(1146)]
3. Zhang, H., R.L. Mullen, and R.L. Muhanna, Interval Monte Carlo methods for structural reliability. Structural Safety, 2010. 32(3): p. 183-190. [DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.01.001]
4. Petak, W.J., and S. Elahi. The Northridge earthquake, USA and its economic and social impacts. in Euro-conference on global change and catastrophe risk management, earthquake risks in Europe, IIASA. 2000.
5. Luco, N. and C.A. Cornell, Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, 2007. 23(2): p. 357-392. [DOI:10.1193/1.2723158]
6. Ibarra, L.F. and H. Krawinkler, Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. 2005: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Berkeley, CA.
7. Bradley, B.A. and D.S. Lee, Accuracy of approximate methods of uncertainty propagation in seismic loss estimation. Structural Safety, 2010. 32(1): p. 13-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.04.001]
8. Baker, J.W. and C.A. Cornell, Uncertainty propagation in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Structural Safety, 2008. 30(3): p. 236-252. [DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2006.11.003]
9. Padgett, J.E. and R. DesRoches, Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2008. 37(8): p. 1157-1174. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.801]
10. Shinozuka, M., et al., Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Journal of engineering mechanics, 2000. 126(12): p. 1224-1231. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1224)]
11. Cornell, C. and H. Krawinkler, Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News, Spring 2000. 2000.
12. Porter, K.A. An overview of PEER's performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. in Proceedings of ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering. 2003.
13. Krawinkler, H. A general approach to seismic performance assessment. in Proceedings. 2002.
14. Krawinkler, H. and E. Miranda, Performance-based earthquake engineering. 2004, CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL. p. 1-9. [DOI:10.1201/9780203486245.ch9]
15. Moehle, J. and G.G. Deierlein. A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. in 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. 2004.
16. Baker, J.W. and C.A. Cornell, Uncertainty specification and propagation for loss estimation using FOSM methods. 2003: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering.
17. Vamvatsikos, D. and M. Fragiadakis, Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 2010. 39(2): p. 141-163. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.935]
18. Deierlein, G.G. Overview of a comprehensive framework for earthquake performance assessment. in Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation, Proceedings of an International Workshop. 2004.
19. Hardyniec, A. and F. Charney, An investigation into the effects of damping and nonlinear geometry models in earthquake engineering analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2015. 44(15): p. 2695-2715. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.2604]
20. Hajirasouliha, I., K. Pilakoutas, and R.K. Mohammadi, Effects of uncertainties on seismic behavior of optimum designed braced steel frames. Steel and Composite Structures, 2016. 20(2): p. 317-335. [DOI:10.12989/scs.2016.20.2.317]
21. Kala, Z., Sensitivity assessment of steel members under compression. Engineering Structures, 2009. 31(6): p. 1344-1348. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.04.001]
22. Kala, Z., J. Melcher, and L. Puklický, Material and geometrical characteristics of structural steels based on statistical analysis of metallurgical products. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2009. 15(3): p. 299-307. [DOI:10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.299-307]
23. Liel, A.B., et al., Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Structural Safety, 2009. 31(2): p. 197-211. [DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.002]
24. Asgarian, B. and B. Ordoubadi, Effects of structural uncertainties on seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016. 120: p. 132-142. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.12.031]
25. Kazantzi, A., D. Vamvatsikos, and D. Lignos, Seismic performance of a steel moment-resisting frame subject to strength and ductility uncertainty. Engineering Structures, 2014. 78: p. 69-77. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.044]
26. Celik, O.C. and B.R. Ellingwood, Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames-Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Structural Safety, 2010. 32(1): p. 1-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.04.003]
27. Uriz, P. and S.A. Mahin. Seismic performance assessment of concentrically braced steel frames. in Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. 2004.
28. Zsarnóczay, Á., Experimental and numerical investigation of buckling restrained braced frames for Eurocode conform design procedure development. Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 2013.
29. Wakabayashi, M., et al. Experimental study of elastoplastic properties of precast concrete wall panels with built-in insulating braces. in Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting. 1973. Architectural Institute of Japan.
30. No, S., 2800 "Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings." 4rd edition, PN S 253, Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran, 2015.
31. Menegotto, M. and P. Pinto, Method of Analysis for Cyclically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Plane Frames Including Changes in Geometry and Non-elastic Behavior of Elements Under Combined Normal Force and Bending. Proceedings. IABSE Sympoium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well-Defined Repeated Loads, 1973.
32. Richards, P.W., Seismic column demands in ductile braced frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2009. 135(1): p. 33-41. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:1(33)]
33. Medina, R.A. and H. Krawinkler, Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground motions. 2004, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
34. Cornell, C.A., et al., Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of structural engineering, 2002. 128(4): p. 526-533. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)]
35. ; Available from: https://iranhazard.mporg.ir.
36. HAZUS, M., MR4 Technical Manual. Multihazard Loss Estimation Methodology, 2003.
37. FEMA, P., 58-3, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 3-Supporting Electronic Materials and Background Documentation: 3.1 Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT), Version 2.9. 65, Building seismic safety council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report. Google Scholar, 2012.
38. Porter, K.A., J.L. Beck, and R. Shaikhutdinov, Simplified estimation of economic seismic risk for buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 2004. 20(4): p. 1239-1263. [DOI:10.1193/1.1809129]
Numerical Methods in Civil Engineering
Volume 3, Issue 2
December 2018
Pages 24-34

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 August 2018
  • Revise Date: 02 November 2018
  • Accept Date: 05 December 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics