Dagang Lu

Applications of fragility analysis to the
new-generation performance-based
earthquake engineering (PBEE)
Dagang Lu
Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE)
School of Civil Engineering
Harbin Institute of Technology, China
August 6, 2012
Dagang Lu, Applications of fragility analysis to the new-generation performance-based earthquake engineering
Seismic fragility functions and curves

Fragility functions and curves have been widely used as effective tools to
evaluate seismic vulnerability and risk of civil infrastructures.
FRi ( x) P[ D Ci | IM x]
(FEAM, 1996)
Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),
The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12
The new-generation performance-based earthquake

engineering (PBEE)
PEER PBEE methodology
(dv)
dm edp im
G (dv | dm) | dG (dm | edp) || dG (edp | im) || d (im) |

(Deierlein, Krawinkler and Cornell, 2003)

The question: whats the relationship between the traditional

fragility functions and the new PBEE?

The motivation of this presentation

1
Whats the role of the traditional fragility analysis in the

current PEER PBEE framework?
How do the incipient collapse (IC) and the subsequent
progressive collapse (PC) affect the traditional fragility curves
from the viewpoint of the current PEER PBEE framework?

The forward PBEE

The PBEE framing formula
(dv)
dm edp im
IM
G (dv | dm) | dG (dm | edp) || dG (edp | im) || d (im) |

EDP

DM
DV
Fragility functions in the forward PBEE

The demand fragility
FR , Demand ( x) P( EDP edp | IM x) G (edp | im)

IM
EDP


The capacity fragility
FR , Capacity ( x) P( DM dm | edp x) G (dm | edp)

EDP

DM

The fragilities of the current PBEE are limited to the capacity models for
structural and non-structural components based on experimental results.


(FEMA P-58, 2012)

10

(FEMA P-58, 2012)

11

The loss fragility
FR , Loss ( x) P( DV dv | dm x) G (dv | dm)

DM

DV
12
The backward PBEE

(edp) G (edp | im) | d (im) |
im
(dv) G (dv | im) | d (im) |

im
(dm) G (dm | im) | d (im) |

im
IM
EDP

DM
DV
13
Fragility functions in the backward PBEE

The demand fragility
FR , Demand ( x) P( EDP edp | IM x)
G (edp | im)
IM
EDP
(edp) G (edp | im) | d (im) |

im
14

The damage fragility
FR , Damage ( x) P( DM dm | IM x)
G (dm | edp) G (edp | im) FR , Capacity ( x) FR , Demand ( x)

IM
EDP
DM
(dm) G (dm | im) | d (im) |

im

15

FR , Loss ( x)
The decision fragility

FR , Decision ( x) P( DV dv | IM x)
FR , Capacity ( x)
G (dv | dm) G (dm | edp) G (edp | im)

IM
EDP
DM
FR , Demand ( x)
DV
(dv) G (dv | im) | d (im) |

im

16
Analytical fragility functions in PBEE

IM-based fragility function
ln x / mR
FR , IM ( x)
mR
Median
Dispersion
(Ellingwood, 2001)
mR

17

Demand-based fragility function
FR , Demand ( x) P[LSEDP | IM x] P[ D d | IM x]
mD|IM x a ( x)b
D mD|IM x D
LN(1, D|IM x )
(Cornell et al, 2002)

(Lu, et al, 2014)
x
ln
mRd
FR ,Demand ( x)
Rd
1/ b
d
mRd
a
R
d

D| S
IM d
18

Damage-based fragility function
FR , Damage ( x) P[LSDamage | IM x] P[ D C | IM x]
mD|IM x a( x)b
D mD|IM x D
LN(1, D|IM x )
x
ln
mRC
FR ,Damage ( x)
RC
1/ b
LN(mC , C )
(Lu, et al, 2014)

mRC
mC
R
C
S amC
D2 |S C2
a
19

IM-based risk function
ln x / mR
FR , IM ( x)
H IM ( x) 1 exp[( x / k0 ) k ] k0 x k
2
1
PLS H (mR ) exp k R
2
Cornell, C.A. (1994). Risk-based structural design. In A.S. Nowak (Ed.),

Proceedings of Symposium on Risk Analysis, 1112 August (pp. 3748). Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan.
20

Demand-based risk function
x
ln
mRd
FR , Demand ( x)
Rd
H IM ( x) 1 exp[( x / k0 ) k ] k0 x k
1 k2 2
H D (d ) P[ D d ] H ( s ) exp 2 D|Sa
2 b
d
a

(Lu, et al, 2014)
21

Damage-based risk function
x
ln
mRC
FR , Damage ( x)
RC
H IM ( x) 1 exp[( x / k0 ) k ] k0 x k
1 k2 2
H D (C ) P[ D C ] H ( s ) exp 2 D|Sa C2
2 b
mC
a
Lu DG, Yu XH, Jia MM, et al. (2014). Seismic risk assessment for a reinforced
concrete frame designed according to Chinese codes. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 10, pp. 1295-1310.
22
Modified analytical fragility functions considering collapse case
Influences of collapse on seismic fragility functions

As the earthquake intensity increasing, the probability of collapse is
correspondingly increasing. Once collapse occurs, the earthquake response
should be viewed as infinite, and the exceeding probability for any threshold
will be set equal to one.
It is necessary to modify
traditional seismic fragility
functions considering the
case of collapse !
Yu XH, Lu DG, Jia MM. (2012). Two analytical formulas for seismic fragility evaluation
considering collapse case. International Symposium on Reliability Engineering & Risk
Management (ISRERM2012), Kanagawa University, Yokohama, Japan, August 5-8, 2012, Paper
No. P027, pp.158-164.
23
Formula 1: direct approach

The total probability theorem (TPT) is used to directly derive the modified seismic
fragility function considering collapse:
PM,1 ( D C IM x) P( D C IM x , NC) P(NC | IM x) 1 P(C | IM x)
ln mC ln mD|IM
P( D C IM x , NC)
2
2
C D|IM
ln mD|IM ln mC
PM,1 ( D C IM x)
1 P(C | IM x) P(C | IM x)
2
2
C D|IM
24
Formula 2: indirect approach

ln d / m
P( D d | IM x) 1
D| IM
D| IM
PM ( D d IM x) P( D d IM x , NC)
P(NC | IM x) P(C | IM x)
1 PM ( D d IM x) 114444442
P(C | IM
x)
4444443
14444444442 4444444443
PM ( D d IM x )
P ( NC| IM x )
P( D d IM x , NC) P(NC | IM x )
PM ( D d IM x) P( D d | IM x, NC) 1 P(C IM x)
ln d / mD| IM
1 P(C IM x)

D| IM

d mD|IM exp D IM g 1 / 1 P(C IM x)
25

If a lognormal distribution is still assumed for the conditional seismic demand by
ln d / mM
D IM
PM ( D d IM x)
DMIM
where
mDM|IM mD|IM exp D IM g1 0.50 / 1 P(C IM x)
DMIM ln d0.50 ln d0.16 = D IM g 1 0.50 / 1 P(C IM x) 1 0.16 / 1 P(C IM x)
according to the above two equations, the following equation should be satisfied:
0 0.50 / 1 P(C IM x) 1 I
0 0.16 / 1 P(C IM x) 1
Then, the effect scope of earthquake intensity is defined as 0 IM mcol, where mcol
is the median collapse capacity.

26

The modified median and dispersion of conditional demand can be illustrated as:
1.2
Un-variant dispersion,
Modified dispersion,
Dispersion
1.1
1
max
max
Ultimate point for
max
|Sa
Spectral acceleration, Sa(g) for = 5%
1.3
|Sa
|Sa
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
10
NTHA results
|Sa,NC
max
-1
10
|Sa,C
max
Ultimate point for max|Sa,C

Flatline after ultimate point
-3
10
-2
10
Maximum interstory drift, max(rad)
-1
10
Substituting the modified parameters of the conditional seismic demand, the modified
fragility formula is derived as a piece-wise function:
ln mDM|IM ln mC

PM,2 D C | IM x ( DM| IM )2 C2
1
0 IM mcol
IM mcol
27
Design and modeling of the case-study buildings

Plan and elevation views of the case-study buildings
Chinese seismic design code of buildings (GB50011, 2010).
Chinese design code of concrete structures (GB 50010, 2010).

28
Probabilistic seismic demand analysis

Ground motion records selection
One hundred real ground motion records are selected from the PEER-NGA database
(http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/) as the inputs considering the record-to-record
variation, where nineteen records were recommended by FEMA-P695, seventy three
records were used by Median and Krawinkler (2003), and seven records were
recorded in Chi-Chi earthquake (1999).
8
7.5
Spectral Acceleration, Sa(g) for =5%
2.5
R=30km
Mw
6.5
Mw=6.5
6
5.5
10
ATC
M-K
ChiChi
20
30
40
50
60
R/km

Individual response spectra

Median response spectra
2
SMSR5.8<Mw<6.5, 13<R<30km
LMSR6.5<Mw<7.0, 13<R<30km
1.5
SMLR 5.8<Mw<6.5, 30<R<60km

LMLR6.5<Mw<7.0, 30<R<60km
0.5
0
0
3
4
Period, T(sec)
29
Probabilistic seismic capacity analysis

Criteria of defining limit states
Four limit states, i.e., slight damage (SD), moderate damage (MD), extensive
damage (ED) and collapse, are considered in this study.
The non-collapse limit states including SD, MD and ED are identified on pushover
curves, while the collapse state is defined through IDA.
5
x 10
4
Slight damage
Moderate damage
3.5
3
Maximum steel strain,steel (%)
Base shear/N
Extensive damage
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.8
Equivalent yield point
0.7
0.6
Equivalent elastic-plastic
system
First steel yielding point
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Maximum interstory drift angle, max (%)
0.5
1.5
Maximum interstory drift angle, max(%)

2.5
30

Random structural parameters

31

Random pushover analysis
The RPA procedure is composed of four steps:
1) define random variables and generate random samples via TCLHS;
2) derive all pushover curves for sampling buildings;
3) identify the limit state thresholds from each pushover curve;
4) obtain the lognormal distributions for all non-collapse limit states by fitting the
thresholds identified from random pushover curves.
Probability of exceedance
0.8
LN~(lnmC,CR)
0.6
0.4
0.2
Empirical values
Lognormal fit
0
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
Maximum interstory drift angle, max(%)

32

Probabilistic seismic capacity for non-collapse limit states
The medians and dispersions of seismic capacity are obtained through the
presented RPA for the non-collapse limit states, where an epistemic component
of uncertainty, equal to 0.2, is additionally considered in the dispersions.
4.5
x 10
ln d / mC
FC (d ) P[C d ]
Base shear /N
3.5
3
2
2
C CR
CU
2.5
LS1
LS2
RPA is used to define the values of mC

and CR, while CU is assumed as 0.2
for simplicity.
LS3
1.5
LS4
1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Maximum interstorey drift angle, max (%)

33

Probabilistic seismic capacity for non-collapse limit states
The medians and dispersions of seismic capacity are obtained through the
presented RPA for the non-collapse limit states, where an epistemic component
of uncertainty, equal to 0.2, is additionally considered in the dispersions.

34

Probabilistic seismic capacity for collapse limit state
The medians mR and dispersions R of the lognormal collapse models for the
low-to-rise case frames are mR=1.12g, 1.70, 1.21 and 1.80, respectively, and
R=0.43, 0.46, 0.42 and 0.47, respectively.

35
Results of fragility analysis considering collapse
0.8
0.6
0.4
P(LS|Sa)
PM,1(LS|Sa)
0.2
PM,2(LS|Sa)
P(C|Sa)
0
0
0.5
1.5
Three-story frame
36
0.8
0.6
0.4
P(LS|Sa)
PM,1(LS|Sa)
0.2
PM,2(LS|Sa)
P(C|Sa)
0
0
0.5
1.5
Five-story frame
37
0.8
0.6
0.4
P(LS|Sa)
PM,1(LS|Sa)
0.2
PM,2(LS|Sa)
P(C|Sa)
0
0
0.5
1.5
Eight-story frame
38
0.8
0.6
0.4
P(LS|Sa)
PM,1(LS|Sa)
0.2
PM,2(LS|Sa)
P(C|Sa)
0
0
0.5
1.5
Ten-story frame
39
Conclusions and remarks (1/2)

The new-generation PEER PBEE framework can be applied by two-direction
ways: forward PBEE, or backward PBEE.
For forward PBEE, demand fragility, capacity fragility, and loss fragility, are
respectively demand model, capacity model, and loss model.
For backward PBEE, the damage fragility is the integral of demand model and
capacity model, while the decision fragility are the production of demand model,
capacity model, and loss model.
The seismic risk can be assessed by either the forward PBEE, or the backward
PBEE. For the backward PBEE, it is the same as the traditional fragility
methodology.
The fragilities of the current PBEE are limited to the capacity models for
structural and non-structural components based on experimental results.
40
Conclusions and remarks (2/2)

Two analytical formulas via direct approach and indirect approach are proposed
for the analytical fragility functions when considering collapse case.
The modified fragility curves using the direct and the indirect approaches seem
different from each other. The differences can be attributed to the basic
assumptions adopted by the indirect approach.
In the indirect approach, the lognormal distributions are still assumed for the
modified fragility curves; while for the direct approach, the modified fragility
curves are not lognormal distributed any more. This characteristic makes the
modified fragility curves by the indirect approach as piece-wise ones.
The indirect approach only modifies the conditional demand parameters used in
the traditional fragility functions, while the direct approach directly modifies the
conventional fragility functions.
41
Thank you for your attention!

Dagang Lu, Professor, Ph.D.
ludagang@hit.edu.cn; http://rare.hit.edu.cn
Head of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE) Research Group
School of Civil Engineering

Dagang Lu

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dagang Lu

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Applications of fragility analysis to the

Harbin Institute of Technology, China

Seismic fragility functions and curves

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

The new-generation performance-based earthquake

G (dv | dm) | dG (dm | edp) || dG (edp | im) || d (im) |

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

The question: whats the relationship between the traditional

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

The motivation of this presentation

Whats the role of the traditional fragility analysis in the

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

The forward PBEE

G (dv | dm) | dG (dm | edp) || dG (edp | im) || d (im) |

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the forward PBEE

FR , Demand ( x) P( EDP edp | IM x) G (edp | im)

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the forward PBEE

FR , Capacity ( x) P( DM dm | edp x) G (dm | edp)

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the forward PBEE

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the forward PBEE

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the forward PBEE

(FEMA P-58, 2012)

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the forward PBEE

FR , Loss ( x) P( DV dv | dm x) G (dv | dm)

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

The backward PBEE

(dv) G (dv | im) | d (im) |

(dm) G (dm | im) | d (im) |

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the backward PBEE

(edp) G (edp | im) | d (im) |

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the backward PBEE

G (dm | edp) G (edp | im) FR , Capacity ( x) FR , Demand ( x)

(dm) G (dm | im) | d (im) |

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Fragility functions in the backward PBEE

The decision fragility

G (dv | dm) G (dm | edp) G (edp | im)

(dv) G (dv | im) | d (im) |

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12

Analytical fragility functions in PBEE

Research Center of Reliability And Risk Engineering (RARE),

The Sixth Kwang-Hua Forum, Shanghai, 2014-12-12