Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this paper a new approach to risk based seismic assessment of structures is proposed based on acceptable risk levels. In this approach, the probabilistic seismic vulnerability, predicted lifetime of structure, importance and knowledge factors are considered in the evaluation process. Park & Ang damage index is used to quantify damage states of structure. By performing several incremental dynamic analyses, all damage states of structure from minor to heavy and collapse are considered under all possible ground motions. The structural risk level and the necessity of seismic retrofit measures are specified by seismic risk index of structure. This probabilistic performance based method is simple and effective, and therefore, can be incorporated in future seismic assessment codes. At the end, an example of typical RC frames, in the central region of Tehran with high seismic activity, is assessed for seismic risk to illustrate the application of suggested method.

Keywords

risk based seismic assessment RC frame seismic risk index incremental dynamic analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ASCE 07 (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Eurocode 8 (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.

Chung

Y.S.

Meyer

and Shinozuka

(1987). Seismic Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Members, Technical report NCEER-87-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, USA.

Ciampoli

(2003). Performance Reliability of Earthquake-Resistant Steel–Concrete Composite Structures, Scientific Research Programs of Relevant National Interest.

Cornell

C.A.

Jalayer

Hamburger

R.O.

and Foutch

(2002). “The probabilistic basis for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 526–533.

Cornell

C.A.

(1996). “Calculating building seismic performance reliability; a basis for multi-level design norms”, Proceedings of the Eleventh World Confertence on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.

Sewell

R.T.

Toro

G.R.

and McGuire

R.K.

(1991). Impact of Ground Motion Characterization on Conservatism and Variability In Seismic Risk Estimates, NUREG/CR-6467, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washingtion, DC, USA.

Deierlein

G.G.

(2004). “Overview of a comprehensive framework for earthquake performance assessment”, Proceedings of International Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design-Concepts and Implementation, Bled, Slovenia, May, pp. 15–26.

FEMA 440 (2005). Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

10.

FEMA 350 (2000). Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, SAC Joint Venture, Washington, DC, USA.

11.

Gholipour

Bozorgnia

Rahnama

Berberian

and Shojataheri

(2008). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, Phase I – Greater Tehran Regions, Final Report, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran.

12.

Jalayer

and Cornell

C.A.

(2003). A Technical Framework for Probability-Based Demand and Capacity Factor Design, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER Rep. 2003/8, PEER Berkeley, California, USA.

13.

Kennedy

R.P.

and Short

S.A.

(1994). Basis for Seismic Provisions of DOE-STD-1020, UCRLCR-111478, Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.

14.

Krawinkler

Medina

and Alavi

(2003). “Seismic drift and ductility demand and their dependence on ground motions”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 637–653.

15.

Kunnath

S.K.

(2007). Application of the PEER PBEE Methodology to The I-880 Viaduct, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

16.

Kunnath

S.K.

Reinhorn

A.M.

and Lobo

R.F.

(2010). IDARC Version 7: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of RC Structures, Technical Report NCEER-92-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Bufalo, NY, USA.

17.

Park

Y.J.

and Ang

A.H.S.

(1985). “Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 4, pp. 722–739.

18.

Ricci

P.F.

Sagen

L.A.

and Whipple

C.G.

(1981). Technological Risk Assessment Series E: Applied Series No. 81, NATO ASI Series, Erice, Italy.

19.

Standard No 2800 (2005). Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistance Design of Buildings, 3rd Edition, Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran.

20.

Vamvatsikos

and Cornell

C.A.

(2002). “Incremental dynamic analysis”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 491–514.

21.

Williams

M.S.

and Sexsmith

R.G.

(1995). “Seismic damage indices for concrete structures: A state-of-the-art review”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 319–349.

Risk Based Seismic Assessment of Structures

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References