OPEN ACCESS
Earthquakes result in substantial structural damage of a number of structures across a region. Many studies have made an effort to examine regional seismic damage and vulnerability to different structure types, e.g. buildings and bridges, using varying computational methodologies. This paper focuses on the use of Response Surface Metamodels (RSMs) in conjunction with Monte Carlo Simulations (MCSs) to quantify probabilistic seismic performance for different classes of structural populations with irregularities, including irregular steel buildings and steel girder bridges. As part of the regional vulnerability study, each of the selected classes is constructed based upon the appropriate experimental design technique, i.e. the Central Composite Design (CCD), and the responses of each class subjected to multiple ground motions are captured during the nonlinear time history analyses of an individual computational model. Then, a RSM for each class is established by performing a least-square regression analysis within the considered CCD space. Seismic fragility curves are generated by means of the joint RSM-MCS enabling to treat uncertainties regarding overall configuration irregularities and additional structural parameters considered significant for each class. The influence of the irregularity parameters on seismic vulnerability for each class is investigated by comparison of the resulting fragilities. Results reveal that the RSM-MCS is able to efficiently assess seismic vulnerability of each class and directly examine the parameters’ influence on corresponding behaviours.
irregularities, metamodel, seismic response, structural populations, vulnerability
[1] FEMA-273, NEHRP guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. building seismic safety council. FEMA, Washington, DC, 1997.
[2] FEMA-445, Next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines. program plan for new and existing buildings. FEMA, Washington, DC, 2006.
[3] Elnashai, A.S. & Di Sarno, L., Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. from source to fragility. Second Edition., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom, 2015.
[4] Budnitz, R.J., Opportunities for advancing Technology-neutral and performance-based design methods for the seismic design and Regulation of Nuclear Power Plant Struc-tures, Systems and Components. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 2010.
[5] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Seismic design criteria for structures, systems, and components in nuclear facilities, ASCE/SEI 43-05. ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, 2005.
[6] Klügel, J.-U. & Mualchin, L., Earthquake engineering needs and seismic hazard assess-ment, ERES 2013. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 132, pp. 47–67, 2013.
[7] Klügel, J.-U., Uncertainty analysis and expert judgment in seismic hazard analysis. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168, pp. 27–53, 2011.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0155-4
[8] Klügel, J.-U., Error inflation in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Engineering Geology, 90, pp. 186–192, 2007.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.01.003
[9] Bommer, J.J. & Abrahamson, N.A., Why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates. BSSA, 96(6), pp. 1967–1977, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060043
[10] Conseil de L’Europe, G. Grünthal., (Ed.)., European Macroseismic Scale 1998. Luxembourg, 1998.
[11] European-Mediterranean Seismological Center. Resorce reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe. EMSC, France, 2013.
[12] Renault, P., Abrahamson, N.A., Coppersmith, K.J., Koller, M., Roth, P. & Hölker, A., PEGASOS Refinment Project, Rev. 1. swissnuclear, Olten, 2014.
[13] Hassan, H.M., Romanelli, F., Panza, G.F. & ElGabry, M.N., Update and sensitivity analysis of the neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment for Egypt. Engineering Geology, 218, pp. 77–89, 2017.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.01.006
[14] Irikura, K. & Miyake, H., Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from crustal earthquake scenarios. PAGEOPH, 168, pp. 85–104, 2011.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0150-9
[15] Abrahamson, N.A., Coppersmith, K. & Sprecher, C., Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for swiss nuclear power plant sites (PEGASOS project), vol. 1–6. Nagra, Wettingen, 2004.
[16] Klügel, J-U., Understanding site-specific PSHA results by hazard deaggregation into site intensities, Poster. EGU General Assembly Meeting, Natural Hazards, Vienna, 2016.
[17] Klügel, J-U., Attinger, R., Rao, S. & Vaidya, N., Adjusting the fragility analysis method to the seismic hazard input, Part I. The intensity-based method, paper 1567. 20th Inter-national Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SmiRT 20), Espoo, Finland August 9–14, 2009, Espoo, 2009.
[18] EPRI, Methodology for developing seismic fragilities, TR-103959. EPRI, Palo Alto, 1994.