This article was downloaded by: On: 12 January 2010 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher

Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713683556

Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis considering variable incident angle

Nikos D. Lagaros a a Institute of Structural Analysis and Seismic Research, National Technical University of Athens, Greece First published on: 21 January 2009

To cite this Article Lagaros, Nikos D.(2010) 'Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis considering variable incident

angle', Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6: 1, 77 94, First published on: 21 January 2009 (iFirst) To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15732470802663805 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732470802663805

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering Vol. 6, Nos. 12, FebruaryApril 2010, 7794

Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis considering variable incident angle

Nikos D. Lagaros*
Institute of Structural Analysis and Seismic Research, National Technical University of Athens, 9, Iroon Polytechniou Str., Zografou Campus, 157 80 Athens, Greece (Received 18 December 2007; nal version received 3 December 2008) Performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) is the current trend in designing earthquake-resistant structures. The implementation of the PBEE framework requires the assessment of the structural capacity in multiple earthquake hazard levels. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is considered to be one of the most ecient computational tools for estimating structural capacity; therefore, it is often incorporated into the PBEE framework. Most real world reinforced concrete (RC) buildings can only be represented accurately with three-dimensional (3D) models; hence, a multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis (MIDA) is required in order to carry out an IDAbased PBEE framework. In this work, the implementation of IDA studies in 3D structures is examined, where a twocomponent seismic excitation is applied, and a new procedure for performing MIDA is proposed. According to the proposed procedure, the MIDA is performed over a sample of record-incident angle pairs that are generated using Latin hypercube sampling (LHS).
Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Keywords: critical incident angle; multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis; RC buildings; fragility analysis; Latin hypercube sampling

1.

Introduction

Severe damage caused by recent earthquakes made the engineering community to question the eectiveness of the current seismic design codes (Lagaros et al. 2006, Zhai and Xie 2006). Given that the primary goal of contemporary seismic design procedures is the protection of human life, it is evident that additional performance targets and earthquake intensities should be considered in order to assess the structural performance in many hazard levels. In the previous decade, the concept of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) for designing structures subject to seismic loading conditions has been introduced (SEAOC 1995, ATC 1996, FEMA 1997). The main objective of PBEE is to provide an integrated framework for siting, designing, constructing and maintaining buildings in order to have predictable performance in a variety of earthquake hazard levels during the structures lifetime. The implementation of PBEE requires a reliable tool for estimating the capacity and the demand for any structural system. Among others (Fajfar 2000, Chopra and Goel 2002), incremental dynamic analysis (IDA; Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) is considered to be an analysis method for obtaining good estimates of the structural performance in the case of earthquake hazards and is an

appropriate method to be incorporated into the PBEE framework. In view of the complexity and the computational eort required by the three-dimensional (3D) models that are employed to represent real buildings, simplied two-dimensional (2D) structural simulations are used during the design procedure. This is mainly encountered in-plan symmetric buildings and mostly in the case of steel framed buildings, since they are composed of 2D moment resisting frames. In 3D reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, however, the columns belong to two or more intersecting lateralforce-resisting systems; consequently, it is not possible to employ a 2D simulation, since the bidirectional orthogonal shaking eects should be taken into account. Moreover, 3D models should also be considered in the case that plan non-symmetric steel or RC buildings are examined. So far, IDA has mainly been implemented in 2D structures (Ellingwood and Wen 2005, Fragiadakis et al. 2006). To our knowledge, only a few works can be found in the literature where IDA study is performed in 3D structures. In the work by Vamvatsikos (2006), IDA is employed in order to evaluate the seismic performance of a 20-storey steel space frame under biaxial seismic loading. The two components of the records are applied along the structural axes, while the maximum peak drift over

*Email: nlagaros@central.ntua.gr
ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/15732470802663805 http://www.informaworld.com

78

N.D. Lagaros parts of the parametric study are performed in two test examples, one having a symmetrical plan view, and a second one having a non-symmetrical layout. As will be seen from the parametric study, the three implementations of the MIDA, where the two components of all the records are applied along the same incident angle, either overestimate or underestimate the capacity of a structural system compared to the proposed implementation. 2. Critical orientation of the seismic incidence literature survey A structure subjected to the simultaneous action of two orthogonal horizontal ground accelerations along the directions Ow and Op is illustrated in Figure 1. The orthogonal system Oxyz denes the reference axes of the structure (structural axes). The angle dened with an anticlockwise rotation of the structural axis Ox to coincide with the ground motion axis Ow is called the incident angle of the record. According to Penzien and Watabe (1975), the orthogonal directions of a ground motion can be considered uncorrelated in the principal directions of the structure. This nding was the basis for many researchers in order to dene the orientation that yields the maximum response when the response spectrum dynamic analysis was applied. In the work by Wilson et al. (1995), an alternative code method, which results in structural designs that have equal resistance to seismic motions from all directions, was proposed. Lopez and Torres (1997) proposed a simple method that can be employed by the seismic codes to determine the critical angle of seismic incidence and the corresponding peak response of structures subjected to two horizontal components applied along any arbitrary directions and to the vertical component of earthquake ground motion. The CQC3 response spectrum rule for combining the contributions from three orthogonal components of ground motion to the maximum value of a response quantity was presented in the work by Menun and Der Kiureghian (1998). In the work by Lopez et al. (2000, 2001), an explicit

all the storeys of the building is used to monitor the structural performance. In the work by Serdar Kircil and Polat (2006), a suite of 12 records has been selected, and the IDA curves for the two structural axes have been obtained independently. Based on the two groups of the IDA curves, the fragility curves for RC frame buildings have been developed. Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis (MIDA) is performed in a similar way to the 2D implementation of IDA, i.e. a suite of records is selected and, for each record, a MIDA representative curve is produced. The 50% fractile MIDA curve is calculated using the representative curves of all the records, and then this curve is employed to develop the fragility curves that constitute a part of the PBEE framework. Selecting the IDA representative curve in its 2D implementation is, in most cases, a straightforward procedure. On the other hand, its 3D implementation is not an easy task, since the incident angle selected for applying the two components of the records might considerably inuence the outcome of the MIDA and consequently the results of the PBEE framework. In this work, a new procedure for performing MIDA is proposed, where it is performed over a sample of recordincident angle pairs generated using the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) method. The numerical part of this work is composed of two parts. In the rst part, a parametric study is performed in an eort to dene the orientation where the two components of the records should be applied in order to obtain the maximum seismic response. In particular, the inuence of the incident angle of attack of the two horizontal components of the records on the seismic response of mid-rise RC buildings is examined. In the second part of the study, six implementations of the MIDA are assessed with respect to limit state fragility curves developed. More specically, the six implementations are: (i) application of the two components of the records along the structural axes and their complementary ones; (ii) application of the two components along the principal axes and their complementary ones; (iii) application of the two components along two orthogonal axes dened with a randomly selected incident angle (considered xed for all records) and its complementary one; (iv) application of the proposed procedure over a sample of 15 pairs; (v) application of the proposed procedure over a sample of 30 pairs; and (vi) application of the proposed procedure over a sample of 100 pairs. Cases (i) to (iii) are variations of the typical MIDA implementation, while (iv) to (vi) are variants of the proposed method with respect to the sample size. The proposed method gives a rational procedure in order to take into account randomness on both incident angle and seismic excitation in the framework of MIDA. Both

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 1.

Denition of the incident angle a.

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering formula, convenient for code applications was proposed, in order to calculate the critical value of the structural response to the two principal horizontal components acting along any incident angle with respect to the structural axes, and the vertical component of ground motion. In other work by Menun and Der Kiureghian (2000a,b), a response spectrum-based procedure for predicting the envelope that bounds two or more responses in a linear structure was developed. In the work by Anastassiadis et al. (2002), a seismic design procedure for structures was proposed where the three translational ground motion components on a specic point of the ground were statistically non-correlated along a well-dened orthogonal system. There are only few studies in the literature where the case of the critical incident angle is examined when time history analysis is employed. In these studies, it was found that, in the most general case, where nonlinear behaviour is encountered, it was not an easy task to dene the critical angle. In the work by MacRae and Mattheis (2000), the ability of the 30% square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) rule and the sum of absolute values methods to assess building drifts for bidirectional shaking eects was proposed, while it was shown that the response was dependent on the reference axes chosen. MacRae and Tagawa (2001) found that design level shaking caused the structure to exceed storey yield drifts in both directions simultaneously, and that signicant column yielding occurred above the base. Shaking a structure in the direction orthogonal to the main shaking direction increased drifts in the main shaking direction, indicating that 2D analyses would not estimate the 3D response well. Ghersi and Rossi (2001) examined the inuence of bidirectional seismic excitations on the inelastic behaviour of in-plan irregular systems with one symmetry axis, where it was found that, in most cases, the adoption of Eurocode 8 (CEN 2003) provisions to combine the eects of the two seismic components allowed the limitation of the orthogonal elements ductility demand. In the work by Athanatopoulou (2005), analytical formulae were developed for determining the critical incident angle and the corresponding maximum value of a response quantity of structures subjected to three seismic correlated components when linear behaviour was considered. The analyses results have shown that, for the earthquake records used, the critical value of a response quantity can be up to 80% larger than the usual response produced when the seismic components are applied along the structural axes. Rigato and Medina (2007) studied a number of symmetrical and asymmetrical structures with fundamental periods ranging from 0.2 to 2.0 s, where the inuence that the incident angle of

79

the ground motion had on several engineering demand parameters was examined. 3. MIDA implementations The main objective of an IDA study is to dene a curve through the relationship of the intensity level with the maximum seismic response of the structural system. The intensity level and the seismic response are described through an intensity measure (IM) and an engineering demand parameter (EDP), respectively. The IDA study is implemented with the following steps: (i) dene the nonlinear FE model required for performing the nonlinear dynamic analyses; (ii) select a suite of natural records; (iii) select a proper intensity measure and an engineering demand parameter; (iv) employ an appropriate algorithm for selecting the record scaling factor in order to obtain the IDA curve performing the least required nonlinear dynamic analyses; and (v) employ a summarisation technique for exploiting the multiple record results. Selecting the IM and EDP is one of the most important steps of the IDA study. In the work by Giovenale et al. (2004), the signicance of selecting an ecient IM was discussed, while an originally adopted IM was compared with a new one. The IM should be a monotonically scalable ground motion intensity measure, such as the peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), the x 5% damped spectral acceleration at the structures rst-mode period (Sa(T1,5%)) and many others. In the current work, the Sa(T1,5%) is selected, as it is the most commonly used intensity measure in practise today for the analysis of buildings. The two components of the records are scaled to Sa(T1,5%), thus preserving their relative scale. This is achieved by scaling the component of the record with the highest Sa(T1,5%), while the second one follows the scaling rule, thus preserving their relative ratio. On the other hand, the damage may be quantied by using any of the EDPs dened as functions, whose values can be related to particular structural damage states. A number of available response-based EDPs were discussed and critically evaluated in the past for their applicability in seismic damage evaluation (Ghobarah et al. 1999). In their work, the EDPs are classied into four categories: engineering demand parameters based on maximum deformation, engineering demand parameters based on cumulative damage, engineering demand parameters accounting for maximum deformation and cumulative damage, global engineering demand parameters. In the current work, the maximum interstorey drift ymax is chosen, belonging to the EDPs, which are based on the maximum deformation. The reason for selecting ymax is because there is an established relation between

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

80

N.D. Lagaros representative MIDA curve is developed for the pair in question. Afterwards, these representative MIDA curves are used in order to develop the 16%, 50% and 84% median curves that are used to perform probabilistic analysis. LHS is a strategy for generating random sample points, ensuring that all portions of the random space are properly represented. In LHS, a full stratication of the sampled distribution with a random selection inside each stratum is performed, and the sample values are randomly shued among dierent variables. A Latin hypercube sample is constructed by dividing the range of each of the M uncertain variables into N non-overlapping segments of equal marginal probability. Thus, the whole parameter space, consisting of N parameters, is partitioned into NM cells. A single value is selected randomly from each interval, producing N sample values for each input variable. The values are randomly matched to create N sets, from the NM space with respect to the density of each interval, for the N simulation runs. In the current implementation, both record and incident angle are considered uniformly distributed over a sample of 15 records and in the range 08 to 1808, respectively. 4. Description of the models

interstorey drifts and performance-oriented descriptions, such as immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention (FEMA 1997). According to the MIDA framework, a set of natural records, each one represented by its longitudinal and transverse components, are applied to the structure in order to account for the randomness on the seismic excitation. The dierence of the MIDA framework from the original one-component version of the IDA, proposed by Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2002), stems from the fact that, for each record, a number of MIDA representative curves can be dened, depending on the incident angle selected, while in most cases of the one-component version of IDA, only one IDA representative curve is obtained. In the MIDA implementation performed so far (Serdar Kircil and Polat 2006, Vamvatsikos 2006), the two components of the records were applied along two orthogonal axes with the same incident angle, which was equal to zero, ignoring the randomness on the incident angle. In this work, a new procedure for applying MIDA that is based on the idea of considering variable incident angle for each record, is proposed. The proposed implementation takes into account the randomness both on the seismic excitation and the incident angle. In MIDA, the relation of IMEDP is dened similarly to the onecomponent version of the IDA, i.e. both horizontal components of each record are scaled to a number of intensity levels to encompass the full range of structural behaviour from elastic to yielding that continues to spread, nally leading to global instability. A schematic representation of the proposed procedure can be seen in Figure 2, where the MIDA is implemented over a sample of recordincident angle pairs generated using LHS (McKay et al. 1979). According to the proposed method, a sample of N pairs of recordincident angle are generated with LHS; for each pair, MIDA is conducted and the

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

The two three-storey 3D RC buildings, shown in Figures 3 and 4, have been considered in order to study the framework for applying the MIDA. The rst test example corresponds to an RC building of symmetrical plan view, while the second one corresponds to an RC building with a non-symmetrical plan view. Both buildings have been designed to meet the Eurocode requirements, i.e. the EC2 (CEN 2002) and EC8 (CEN 2003) design codes. In the case of the EC8, the lateral forces were derived from the design response spectrum (5% damped elastic spectrum divided by the behaviour factor q 3.0) at the fundamental period of the

Figure 2.

The new MIDA procedure.

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

81

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 3. Test example 1: geometry of the three-storey symmetric 3D building: (a) plan view and (b) side view (the dimensions of beams and colums are in cm).

building. Concrete of class C16/20 (nominal cylindrical strength of 16 MPa) and class S500 steel (nominal yield stress of 500 MPa) are assumed. The base shear is obtained from the response spectrum for soil type B (sti soil y 1.0, with characteristic periods T1 0.15 s and T2 0.60 s), while the PGA considered for the rst test example is of 0.24g and for the second one is of 0.16g. Moreover, the importance factor gI was taken equal to 1.0, while the damping correction factor is equal to 1.0, since a damping ratio of 5% has been considered. The slab thickness is equal to 15 cm, for both test examples, and is considered to contribute to the moment of inertia of the beams with an eective ange width. In addition to the self weight of the beams and the slab, a distributed dead load of 2 kN/m2, due to oor nishing and partitions, and an imposed live load with a nominal value of 1.5 kN/m2, are considered. The nominal dead and live loads are multiplied by load factors of 1.35 and 1.5, respectively. Following EC8, in the seismic design combination, dead loads are considered with their nominal values, while live loads with 30% of their nominal value. A centreline model was formed, for both test examples, using the OpenSees (McKenna and Fenves 2001) simulation platform. The members are modelled using the force-based bre beamcolumn element while the same material properties are used for all the structural elements of the two structures. Soil structure interaction was not considered and the base

of the columns at the ground oor is assumed to be xed. 5. Incident angle in the framework of MIDA In this section, the inuence of the intensity level on the critical incident angle and the diversication of the MIDA curves with respect to the incident angle are examined in an eort to be considered in the MIDA framework. 5.1. Critical incident angle with respect to the intensity level In order to examine the inuence of the incident angle on the seismic response of the structure, three records have been selected at random from a suite of 15 records, and are applied to both test examples. The three records considered are the Loma Prieta (WAHO), the Imperial Valley (Compuertas) and the Northridge (LA, Baldwin Hills), and their characteristics can be found in Table 1. The three records have been applied considering a varying incident angle in the range of 08 to 3608, with a step of 58. In order to examine the inuence of the incident angle on the maximum interstorey drift to dierent intensity levels, the three records have been scaled with respect to the 5% damped spectral acceleration at the structures rst mode period to 0.05g, 0.30g and 0.50g, and the maximum interstorey drift has been recorded for all

82

N.D. Lagaros

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 4. Test example 2: geometry of the three-storey non-symmetric 3D building: (a) plan view and (b) side view (the dimensions of beams and columns are in cm).

the incident angles and the intensity levels considered. The ground motion records are listed in the table, where the Campbells R and epicentre (EpiD) distances, the duration, the PGA values for the

longitudinal and transverse directions, Campbells soil type (A is rm soil, B is very rm soil and C is soft rock) and the fault rupture mechanism (SS is for strike slip, RN is reverse normal and RO is reverse

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Table 1. Record station Characteristics of the 15 records. R (km) EpiD (km) 35.83 29.41 18.88 24.43 36.18 39.49 51.88 28.20 30.27 29.72 45.10 12.56 36.31 40.12 42.13 Duration (s) 40.00 44.00 40.00 36.00 39.03 28.00 32.00 40.00 29.99 29.99 39.64 24.96 39.95 40.00 39.25 PGAlog (g) 0.36 0.18 0.27 0.19 0.14 0.21 0.09 0.24 0.16 0.36 0.27 0.37 0.13 0.17 0.21 PGAtran (g) 0.26 0.21 0.25 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.06 0.17 0.24 0.21 0.28 0.64 0.10 0.16 0.21 Campbells GEOCODE A A A A A A A C B A A C B A A

83

Fault rupture SS SS SS SS SS RN RN RN RN RN RO RO RO RO RO

Superstition Hills 1987 (B) (M 6.7) 1. El Centro Imp. Co Cent 18.5 2. Wildlife Liquefaction Array 24.1 Imperial Valley 1979 [23:16], (M 6.5) 3. Chihuahua 8.4 4. Compuertas 15.3 5. El Centro Array #1 21.7 San Fernando 1971 (M 6.6) 6. LA, Hollywood Stor. Lot 25.9 Northridge 1994 (M 6.7) 7. Leona Valley #2 37.2 8. LA, Baldwin Hills 29.9 9. LA, Fletcher Dr 27.3 10. Glendale Las Palmas 22.2 Loma Prieta 1989 (M 6.9) 11. Hollister Di Array 24.8 12. WAHO 17.5 13. Halls Valley 30.5 14. Agnews State Hospital 24.6 15. Sunnyvale Colton Ave 24.2
Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

oblique) are given for the 15 records, while M stands for the moment magnitude of the earthquake. In this work, the response of the structure is dened through the bidirectional maximum column interstorey drift ratio over all storeys (Wen and Song 2003) of the structure, which is dened as follows: ymax q max yt2 yt2 ; X Y 1

where y(t)X and y(t)Y are the interstorey drift along the structural axes X and Y in the tth time step, i.e. ymax is dened as the maximum value of the vector sum of the interstorey column drift ratio in the two structural axes. The alteration of the maximum interstorey drift with respect to the incident angle and the intensity level for the three records is depicted in Figures 5 and 6 for the two test examples, respectively. As can be seen from both groups of gures, the seismic response for both test examples when the incident angle varies in the range of 08 and 1808 almost coincides with the seismic response corresponding to incident angle varying in the range of 1858 to 3608. This is because the relative ratio of the two horizontal components of the records is close to one, thus the two components are scaled to almost the same intensity level, i.e. the same value of Sa(T1,5%). Moreover both symmetrical and non-symmetrical buildings are primarily controlled by the rst eigenmode. For this reason, the incident angle range of 08 to 1808 is employed for the

parametric studies performed in the following sections for both test examples. A second remark from Figures 5 and 6 is that the seismic response varies signicantly with respect to the incident angle. For instance, for the rst test example, the maximum interstorey drift for the case of Loma Prieta (WAHO) record varies from 0.17% to 0.23% for the 0.05 intensity level, while, for the 0.50 intensity level, the maximum interstorey drift for the same record varies from 1.77% to 2.20%. Another signicant observation from the two groups of gures is that the maximum seismic response is encountered for dierent incident angles when a dierent record is considered. Worth mentioning is that, for the 0.30g intensity level, the maximum seismic response for the test example with the symmetrical layout is encountered in the incident angle range of 908 to 1208 for the Northridge (LA, Baldwin Hills) record. For the Loma Prieta (WAHO) record, however, in the same incident angle range, the minimum seismic response is encountered. Similar observations can be noticed for the second test example and the same intensity level when the incident angle varies in the range of 608 to 1208. In Tables 2 and 3, the maximum and minimum values, along with the mean value and the coecient of variation (COV) of the maximum interstorey drift, when the three records are applied in a range of incident angles, are given. It can also be seen from both tables that it is not possible to predict the critical incident angle where the response in terms of interstorey drift takes its maximum value for the

84

N.D. Lagaros

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 5. Test example 1: ymax (%) with respect to the incident angle of the record scaled to: (a) 0.05g, (b) 0.30g and (c) 0.50g intensity levels.

intensity level in question. It can also be observed that the COV varies signicantly with respect to the intensity level and the record for both test examples. Worth mentioning also is that the variation of the seismic response of the second test example for the 0.05g intensity level varies from 10% to 32%. Moreover, in these two tables, the maximum interstorey drift when the two horizontal components of the records are applied along the structural and principal axes of the structure can also be found, along with the 16%, 50% and 84% median values of the ymax when the three records are applied in the range of 08 to 1808. It has to be noted that the maximum interstorey drift values for the case of the structural and principal axes are obtained as the mean values of the ymax when the horizontal components of the record are applied along the structural or principal axes and their complementary ones. For the rst test example, the principal and structural axes coincide due to the symmetrical plan view. For both test examples, the ymax value for the case of the structural and principal axes is either lower or greater than the 50% median value; this depends on the record and the intensity level. For instance for the rst test example for all three

intensity levels, the ymax value of the case of the structural axes is close to the corresponding value for the 84% median for the Loma Prieta (WAHO) record. Very dierent observations are obtained for the same test example for the Imperial Valley (Compuertas) record. On the other hand, when the two components of the records are applied along the principal axes, the ymax value is close to the 50% median values for all the intensity levels. 5.2. MIDA representative curves with respect to the incident angle As was mentioned in the previous section, the implementation of the MIDA framework requires the denition of the MIDA representative curve for each record, or for each pair of recordincident angle. In this section, three implementations of the MIDA are examined, where the incident angle remains xed over the records, while two variations for each implementation are considered. In particular, in the rst implementation, the two variations are denoted as case A1 and case A2; the two horizontal components of the records are applied along the structural axes and their

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

85

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 6. Test example 2: ymax (%) with respect to the incident angle of the record scaled to: (a) 0.05g, (b) 0.30g and (c) 0.50g intensity levels.

complementary ones, respectively. In the second implementation, the variations are denoted as case B1 and case B2; the two horizontal components are applied along the principal axes and their complementary ones. In the third implementation, the two variations are denoted as case C1 and case C2; in this implementation, the two horizontal components of the records are applied along a randomly selected incident angle (308) and their complementary ones. Through the parametric study of the previous section, it was found that the critical incident angle varies signicantly with reference to the intensity level. The objective of this part of the study is to compare the MIDA representative curves of the three implementations versus representative curves developed using variable incident angle. For this reason, the three implementations and their variations are performed for the three records selected for the parametric investigation of the previous section. Figures 7 and 8 depict, for the two test examples, the various MIDA representative curves dened both with variable incident angle in the range of 08 to 1808, with a step of 58, along with the MIDA curves representing the cases A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2, together with the

16%, 50% and 84% medians. The median curves are dened through the MIDA representatives obtained with variable incident angle. As can be seen from both groups of gures, there is a signicant variability of the MIDA curves with respect to the incident angle. For the rst test example, where, due to the symmetrical plan view cases Ai and Bi (i 1 or 2) coincide, the cases A2/B2 and C2 are more conservative with respect to the cases A1/B1 and C1, apart from the Northridge (LA, Baldwin Hills) record, where case C1 is more conservative compared to case C2. Moreover, the MIDA curve for case A1/B1 is always above the 50% median, while the curve for case A2/B2 is always below the 50% median approaching the 84%. Furthermore, cases Ai/Bi (i 1 or 2) are, for all three records, more conservative compared to cases Ci. In the second test example, although the last observation remains the same, i.e. cases Ai/Bi (i 1 or 2) are more conservative compared to cases Ci, variation on the other remarks of the rst test example is encountered. No denite rule can be dened regarding the relations of the cases A1, B1 and C1 with reference to the cases A2, B2 and C2, furthermore stronger variation on the position of the Ai, Bi and Ci (i 1 or 2) MIDA curves is encountered

86
Table 2.

N.D. Lagaros
Test example 1: statistical data of ymax (%) with reference to three intensity levels. Maximum ymax(%) Incident angle (8) Minimum ymax(%) 0.1564 0.6639 1.1959 0.2036 0.9843 1.2918 0.2536 1.1548 1.4561 Incident angle (8) 060 095 075 050 060 090 150 035 010 Structural axes ymin(%) 0.2336 1.1310 2.0974 0.2157 1.1649 1.6545 0.3481 1.3556 1.5566 Mean ymax(%) 0.1984 0.9498 1.7182 0.2541 1.2309 1.4890 0.3452 1.3544 1.7803 COV (%) 14.56 16.47 18.72 17.59 9.20 10.27 18.18 7.17 10.36 Median 16% ymax(%) 0.1661 0.7705 1.2822 0.2163 1.1394 1.3230 0.2737 1.2609 1.5862 Median 50% ymax(%) 0.1925 0.9062 1.7129 0.2398 1.2005 1.4273 0.3355 1.3474 1.7479 Median 84% ymax(%) 0.2336 1.1277 2.0876 0.2970 1.3727 1.6776 0.4286 1.4547 1.9787

Sa(T1) (g)

Loma Prieta (WAHO) 0.05 0.2497 160 0.30 1.1551 155 0.50 2.1313 165 Imperial Valley (Compuertas) 0.05 0.3616 145 0.30 1.4258 135 0.50 1.7012 150 Northridge (LA, Baldwin Hills) 0.05 0.4544 040 0.30 1.5468 100 0.50 2.0663 065

Table 3.

Test example 2: statistical data of ymax (%) with reference to three intensity levels. Maximum Incident Minimum Incident ymax(%) angle (8) ymax(%) angle (8) 0.1733 1.0197 1.7669 0.1487 0.9723 1.0517 0.2339 1.0121 1.2662 005 015 355 230 185 355 115 120 140 Principal axes ymin(%) 0.1945 1.1507 1.8809 0.1523 1.0264 1.3831 0.3624 1.3257 1.4927 Structural axes ymin(%) 0.1733 1.0982 1.7766 0.3536 0.9877 1.0963 0.2772 1.4262 1.6369 Mean ymax(%) 0.1959 1.2407 1.9693 0.3004 1.1378 1.2940 0.2862 1.2976 1.4789 COV (%) 9.79 10.81 6.39 31.97 9.88 8.64 15.91 10.75 8.15 Median 16% ymax(%) 0.1790 1.0766 1.8403 0.2072 1.0083 1.1713 0.2381 1.0909 1.3443 Median 50% ymax(%) 0.1891 1.2571 1.9628 0.2767 1.1396 1.3260 0.2714 1.3484 1.4636 Median 84% ymax(%) 0.2204 1.3959 2.0919 0.4203 1.2687 1.4052 0.3429 1.4200 1.6080

Sa(T1) (g)
Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Loma Prieta (WAHO) 0.05 0.2358 085 0.30 1.4295 110 0.50 2.2027 285 Imperial Valley (Compuertas) 0.05 0.4433 320 0.30 1.3020 295 0.50 1.4263 075 Northridge (LA, Baldwin Hills) 0.05 0.3685 045 0.30 1.4483 190 0.50 1.7170 195

with reference to the 16%, 50% and 84% medians. The results of this section enforce the need to take into account the randomness of both record and incident angle. 6. MIDA-based PBEE

One of the objectives in PBEE is to quantify the seismic reliability of a structure, due to future random earthquakes, at a site. For that purpose, fragility analysis is used in order to estimate the mean annual frequency of exceeding a specied value of a structural demand parameter. In this work, a MIDA-based fragility analysis of 3D mid-rise RC buildings is performed. 6.1. The MIDA framework The rst step, in order to perform MIDA based fragility analysis, is to select a suite of natural records to be used for performing the MIDA study, while the

second one is to adopt the 50% fractile MIDA curves of the two test examples for developing the limit state fragility curves. Based on previous studies (Shome and Cornell 1999), it was found that 10 to 20 records are sucient for predicting, with acceptable accuracy, the seismic demand of a mid-rise building; for this reason, a suite of 15 records with two components each has been selected in this study. In this work, two distinctive procedures for implementing MIDA are considered. In the rst one, the two horizontal components of the records are applied along two orthogonal axes with the same incident angle (a detailed description of the cases Ai, Bi and Ci was given in the previous section). According to the second procedure, MIDA is performed over a sample of recordincident angle pairs that are generated (as described in the previous section). Figures 9 and 10 depict the MIDA representative curves of the 15 records considered, together with the 16%, 50% and 84% fractile MIDA curves for the cases A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2 and the cases LHS-15, LHS-30 and

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

87

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 7. Test example 1: MIDA curves with respect to the incident angle, cases A1/B1, A2/B2, C1, C2 and 16%, 50%, 84% median curves for step size 58: (a), (b) Loma Prieta (WAHO), (c), (d) Imperial Valley (Compuertas) and (e), (f) Northridge (LA, Baldwin Hills).

LHS-100, which stand for the proposed procedure where sample sizes N equal to 15, 30 and 100 pairs are taken into account, respectively. Due to the symmetrical plan view of the rst test example, Figures 9a and 9b correspond to cases A1/B1 and A2/B2, respectively. 6.2. Probabilistic safety assessment of RC buildings Once the 50% fractile MIDA curve is obtained, we proceed with the development of the fragility curves for the limit states in question. Figures 11 and 12

depict the limit state fragility curves for the two lowrise RC buildings for the high-code design level of the earthquake loss estimation methodology (HAZUS; FEMA-NIBS 2003). Four limit states are selected: slight, moderate, extensive and complete structural damage states. Buildings are composed of both structural (load carrying) and non-structural systems (e.g. architectural and mechanical components). While damage to the structural system is the most important measure of building damage aecting casualties and catastrophic loss of function, damage to non-structural

88

N.D. Lagaros

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 8. Test example 2: MIDA curves with respect to the incident angle, cases A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 and 16%, 50%, 84% median curves for step size 58: (a), (b) Loma Prieta (WAHO), (c), (d) Imperial Valley (Compuertas) and (e), (f) Northridge (LA, Balwin Hills).

systems and contents tends to dominate economic loss. Figures 11 and 12 refer to the structural damage only. The damage states are dened with respect to the interstorey drift limits given in HAZUS (FEMA-NIBS 2003) for this type of structure. The interstorey drift limits are equal to 0.5%, 1.0%, 3.0% and 8.0% for slight, moderate, extensive and complete structural damage states, respectively. The fragility curves shown in Figures 11 and 12 correspond to all implementations of the MIDA. The probabilities of exceedance of the

four damage states corresponding to Sa(T1,5%) equal to 1.0, 3.0 and 6.0 m/s2 are given in Tables 4 and 5 for the two test examples, respectively. From Figures 11 and 12, signicant variability of the fragility curves is observed for some limit states. For the rst test example, considerable disparity on the fragility curves is observed for the complete damage state. For the second test example, signicant variation is encountered in all limit states. Moreover, for both test examples, the fragility curves corresponding to the

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

89

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 9. Test example 1: MIDA representative curves for the 15 records and 16%, 50% and 84% fractile MIDA curves implementing case: (a) A1/B1, (b) A2/B2, (c) C1, (d) C2, (e) LHS-15, (f) LHS-30 and (g) LHS-100.

90

N.D. Lagaros

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 10. Test example 2: MIDA representative curves for the 15 records and 16%, 50% and 84% fractile MIDA curves implementing case: (a) A1, (b) A2, (c) B1, (d) B2, (e) C1, (f) C2, (g) LHS-15, (h) LHS-30 and (i) LHS-100.

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

91

Figure 11.

Test example 1: fragility curves for four limit states.

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

Figure 12.

Test example 2: fragility curves for four limit states.

cases A1, B1 and C1 vary with reference to the curves of the complementary cases. On the other hand, in most of the limit states, the fragility curves developed based on LHS-30 are very close to those developed based on the LHS-100 for the two test examples; consequently 30 pairs are enough for achieving a good approximation. The observations obtained from Figures 11 and 12 are veried from the probabilities given in Tables 4 and 5. From both tables, it can be seen that the variation of

the probabilities of exceedance belonging to cases A1, B1 and C1 compared to those belonging to the complementary cases depends on the limit state and the intensity level for both test examples. More specically, in the rst test example, the probability of exceedance of the slight limit state calculated based on the A1/B1 implementation is equal to 61% for Sa(T1,5%) 1.0 m/s2 versus 56% for the complementary case A2/B2. On the other hand, the probabilities of exceedance for the same limit state is equal to 98%

92
Table 4.

N.D. Lagaros
Test example 1: probability of exceeding the four limit states (%). A1/B1 A2/B2 56.22 14.89 0.07 0.00 97.68 78.63 8.46 1.99 99.92 97.45 41.41 18.44 C1 60.56 16.17 0.07 0.00 98.22 80.16 8.49 0.69 99.94 97.75 41.47 9.58 C2 60.33 14.42 0.06 0.00 98.20 78.03 8.11 1.31 99.94 97.32 40.51 14.36 LHS-15 61.16 15.83 0.04 0.00 98.29 79.77 6.67 0.63 99.95 97.68 36.57 9.09 LHS-30 60.49 14.66 0.07 0.00 98.22 78.34 8.58 0.91 99.94 97.39 41.71 11.43 LHS-100 58.96 14.95 0.06 0.00 98.04 78.70 7.71 1.04 99.94 97.46 39.47 12.45

Limit state

Sa(T1,5%) 1.0 m/s2 Slight 60.88 Moderate 14.89 Extensive 0.07 Complete 0.00 Sa(T1,5%) 3.0 m/s2 Slight 98.26 Moderate 78.63 Extensive 8.79 Complete 1.68 Sa(T1,5%) 6.0 m/s2 Slight 99.95 Moderate 97.45 Extensive 42.22 Complete 16.64

Table 5.

Test example 2: probability of exceeding the four limit states (%). A1 A2 55.36 11.73 0.06 0.01 97.56 74.09 8.16 3.25 99.91 96.44 40.64 24.60 B1 55.50 9.99 0.09 0.02 97.58 70.98 9.81 4.16 99.91 95.64 44.64 28.28 B2 59.30 15.21 0.04 0.01 98.08 79.02 6.79 3.74 99.94 97.53 36.93 26.61 C1 58.64 9.55 0.04 0.01 98.00 70.10 6.45 3.11 99.93 95.40 35.92 23.95 C2 58.50 14.35 0.10 0.01 97.98 77.94 10.69 3.21 99.93 97.31 46.60 24.40 LHS-15 59.33 14.33 0.04 0.02 98.08 77.90 6.40 4.18 99.94 97.30 35.76 28.36 LHS-30 56.01 11.76 0.05 0.01 97.65 74.13 7.17 2.47 99.92 96.45 38.00 20.98 LHS-100 56.50 11.76 0.05 0.01 97.72 74.13 7.51 2.36 99.92 96.45 38.93 20.41

Limit state

Sa(T1,5%) 1.0 m/s2 Slight 61.03 Moderate 11.78 Extensive 0.10 Complete 0.01 Sa(T1,5%) 3.0 m/s2 Slight 98.28 Moderate 74.18 Extensive 10.52 Complete 3.15 Sa(T1,5%) 6.0 m/s2 Slight 99.95 Moderate 96.46 Extensive 46.23 Complete 24.16

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

for A1/B1 versus 97.7% for A2/B2 when Sa(T1,5%) 3.0 m/s2, while if Sa(T1,5%) 6.0 m/s2, the two probabilities are identical. The same observations can be described for all limit states and intensity levels for all three cases Ai, Bi and Ci. For the proposed implementation where variable incident angle is taken into account through the LHS method, the results do not seem to vary considerably with respect to the number of pairs employed, while the LHS-30 and LHS100 implementations are almost identical. 7. Conclusions

The probabilistic safety assessment of the seismic response of real world 3D mid-rise RC buildings, which is one of the most signicant ingredients of the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) framework, is studied in this work. In particular, an incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)-based fragility analysis is performed. The dierence of the

multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis (MIDA) with respect to its one component version stems from the inability to dene the direction that the two horizontal components of the records should be applied in order to obtain the maximum seismic response. There were two serious indications that were required to take into account the incident angle in the MIDA. The rst one was obtained through the parametric study performed, where it was found that the response varies with respect to the record, intensity level and incident angle. The second indication was the variability of the fragility curves developed, based on the cases A1, B1 and C1 versus their complementary ones. For this reason, a new procedure for performing MIDA is proposed in the present work, with variable incident angle considered using the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) method. The proposed procedure provides a rational way for taking into account the randomness on the record and on the incident angle

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering requiring only 30 recordincident angle pairs. The new procedure is compared with three implementations and with the same incident angle. The dierent implementations have been employed in order to perform probabilistic safety analysis of two 3D midrise RC buildings. Both buildings have been designed to full the provisions of Eurocodes 2 and 8 (CEN 2002, 2003). References
Anastassiadis, K., Avramidis, I., and Panetsos, P., 2002. Concurrent design forces in structures under threecomponent orthotropic seismic excitation. Earthquake Spectra, 18, 117. Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Methodology for evaluation and upgrade of reinforced concrete buildings. Sacramento, CA: California Seismic Safety Commission, report no. ATC-40. Athanatopoulou, A.M., 2005. Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components. Engineering Structures, 27 (2), 301312. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K., 2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31 (3), 561582. Ellingwood, B.R. and Wen, Y.-K., 2005. Risk-benet-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in mid-America. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 7 (2), 5670. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2002. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures. Brussels: CEN. prEN-1992. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2003. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Brussels: CEN. prEN-1998. Fajfar, P., 2000. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra, 16 (3), 573592. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1997. NEHRP guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington DC: FEMA. Federal Emergency Management Agency-National Institute of Building Sciences (FEMA-NIBS), 2003. HAZUS-MH MR1, Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology earthquake model. Washington DC: FEMA-NIBS. Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D., and Papadrakakis, M., 2006. Evaluation of the inuence of vertical irregularities on the seismic performance of a nine-storey steel frame. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35 (12), 14891509. Ghersi, A. and Rossi, P.P., 2001. Inuence of bi-directional ground motions on the inelastic response of one-storey in-plan irregular systems. Engineering Structures, 23 (6), 579591. Ghobarah, A., Abou-Elfath, H., and Biddah, A., 1999. Response-based damage assessment of structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28 (1), 79 104. Giovenale, P., Cornell, C.A., and Esteva, L., 2004. Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 33 (8), 951979.

93

Lagaros, N.D., Fotis, A.D., and Krikos, S.A., 2006. Assessment of seismic design procedures based on the total cost. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 35 (11), 13811401. Lopez, O.A. and Torres, R., 1997. The critical angle of seismic incidence and the maximum structural response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 881894. Lopez, O.A., Chopra, A.K., and Hernandez, J.J., 2000. Critical response of structures to multicomponent earthquake excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 29, 17591778. Lopez, O.A., Chopra, A.K., and Hernandez, J.J., 2001. Evaluation of combination rules for maximum response calculation in multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30, 1379 1398. MacRae, G.A. and Mattheis, J., 2000. Three-dimensional steel building response to near-fault motions. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126 (1), 117126. MacRae, G.A. and Tagawa, H., 2001. Seismic behaviour of 3D steel moment frame with biaxial columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127 (5), 490497. McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J., and Conover, W.J., 1979. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 21 (2), 239245. McKenna, F. and Fenves, G.L., 2001. The OpenSees command language manual version 1.2. University of California, Berkeley: Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Menun, C. and Der, Kiureghian, A., 1998. A replacement for the 30%, 40% and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 14 (1), 153 163. Menun, C. and Der Kiureghian, A., 2000a. Envelopes for seismic response vectors. I: theory. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126, 467473. Menun, C. and Der Kiureghian, A., 2000b. Envelopes for seismic response vectors. II: application. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126, 474481. Penzien, J. and Watabe, M., 1975. Characteristics of 3dimensional earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3 (4), 365 373. Rigato, A.B. and Medina, R.A., 2007. Inuence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for inelastic single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions. Engineering Structures, 29 (10), 25932601. Serdar Kircil, M. and Polat, Z., 2006. Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings. Engineering Structures, 28 (9), 13351345. Shome, N. and Cornell, C.A., 1999. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, report no. RMS-35, RMS program. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1995. Vision 2000 a framework for performance-based seismic engineering. Sacramento, CA: SEAOC. Vamvatsikos, D., 2006. Incremental dynamic analysis with two components of motion for a 3D steel structure. In: Proceedings of 8th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, USA. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A., 2002. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31 (3), 491514.

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010

94

N.D. Lagaros
Zhai, C. and Xie, L., 2006. State-of-art applications of strength reduction factors in seismic design codes. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 26 (2), 17.

Wen, Y.K. and Song, S.-H., 2003. Structural reliability/ redundancy under earthquakes. Journal of Structural Engineering, 129 (1), 5667. Wilson, E.L., Suharwardy, A., and Habibullah, A., 1995. A clarication of the orthogonal eects in a threedimensional seismic analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 11 (4), 659666.

Downloaded At: 19:55 12 January 2010