KAntoniou MSC Thesis

Seismic fragility of RC frame and wall-frame dual buildings designed to EN- Eurocodes
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
Earthquake Engineering &/or Engineering Seismology

By
Kyriakos Antoniou
Supervisor(s): Prof. Michael N. Fardis
February, 2013
University of Patras
The dissertation entitled Seismic fragility of RC frame and wall-frame dual buildings designed to EN-Eurocodes by Kyriakos Antoniou, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering
Professor M. N. Fardis ________________
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Fragility curves are constructed for structural members of regular reinforced concrete frame and wall-frame buildings designed according to Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8. Prototype planand height- wise very regular buildings are studied with parameters including the height of the building, the level of Eurocode 8 design (in terms of design peak ground acceleration and ductility class) and for dual systems the percentage of seismic base shear taken by the walls. Member fragility curves are constructed based on the results of nonlinear static (pushover) analysis (SPO) and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) using 14 spectrum-compatible semiartificial accelerograms. Analysis is performed using three-dimensional structural models of the full buildings. These results are compared to fragility curves obtained from previous studies for a simplified analysis method using the lateral force method (LFM). The fragility curves are addressed on two member limit states; yielding and the ultimate deformation in bending or shear. The peak chord rotation and peak shear force demands at member ends are taken as damage measures; the peak ground acceleration (PGA) is used as seismic intensity measure. The probability of exceedance of each limit state is computed from the probability distributions of the damage measures (conditional on intensity measure) and of the corresponding capacities. The alternative methods yield results that are in good agreement for beams and columns in both frame and dual buildings and for the flexural behavior of walls. Results from the simplified procedure using the LFM shows that Medium Ductility Class walls are likely to fail in shear even before their design PGA. The dynamic analysis confirms to a certain extend the inelastic amplification of shear forces due to higher mode effects and shows that the relevant rules of Eurocode 8 are on the conservative side.
Keywords: Concrete buildings; Concrete walls; Eurocode 8; Fragility curves; Seismic Design
1
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Professor M. N. Fardis for his guidance and the time dedicated and G. Tsionis for his continuous support for the project.
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. 6 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 12 LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................. 14 1. 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 20 DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 22
2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5.
Building codes ..........................................................................................................22 Performance-based requirements ..............................................................................22 Intensity Measure ......................................................................................................23 Damage measures .....................................................................................................25 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies ...................................................26 Empirical Fragility Curves ................................................................................26 Expert Opinion method .....................................................................................27 Analytical Fragility Curves ...............................................................................28 Hybrid methods .................................................................................................30
2.5.1. 2.5.2. 2.5.3. 2.5.4. 2.6.

3.
Seismic safety assessment of RC buildings designed to EC8...................................30
DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS ................................................................................................ 32
3.1.
3
Typology of buildings ...............................................................................................32
Index
3.2. 3.3.
4.
Geometry of buildings ..............................................................................................32 Materials ...................................................................................................................34
DESIGN OF BUILDINGS ........................................................................................................... 35
4.1. 4.2. 4.3.
Actions on structure and assumptions.......................................................................35 Behaviour factors and local ductility ........................................................................36 Design procedure ......................................................................................................37 Sizing of beams and columns in frame systems ...............................................37 Sizing of beams, columns and walls in wall-frame (dual) systems ..................38
4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6.

5.
Dimensioning of Beams ............................................................................................39 Dimensioning of Columns ........................................................................................40 Dimensioning of Walls .............................................................................................42
ANALYSIS METHODS AND MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS ................................................ 46
5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

6.
Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis ......................................................................46 Incremental Dynamic Analysis .................................................................................47 Structural modelling for IDA and SPO .....................................................................51 Linear Static Analysis - Lateral Force Method .....................................................53
ASSESMENT OF BUILDINGS ................................................................................................... 57
6.1. 6.2. 6.3.

7.
Limit State of Damage Limitation (DL) ...................................................................57 Limit State of Near Collapse (NC) ...........................................................................60 Estimation of damage measure demands ..................................................................63
METHODOLOGY OF FRAGILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 64
7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4.

8.
Damage Measures .....................................................................................................64 Exclusion of unrealistic results for IDA ...................................................................65 Determination of variability......................................................................................65 Construction of fragility curves ................................................................................69
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 71
8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6.

4
Modal analysis results ...............................................................................................72 Median PGAs at attainment of the damage state for the three methods ...................74 Fragility curve results for wall-frame dual systems ..................................................76 Fragility curve results for frame systems ..................................................................91 Comparison between analysis methods ....................................................................96 Fragility results of walls in the ultimate state .........................................................111
Index
9.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 116
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 119 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... A1 APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................... B1 APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................................... C1
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 DEFINITION OF CHORD ROTATION [ADAPTED FROM FARDIS, 2009] ................................... 26 FIGURE 2.2 FLOWCHART TO DESCRIBE THE COMPONENTS OF THE CALCULATION OF ANALYTICAL
VULNERABILITY CURVE [ADAPTED FROM DUMOVA-JOVANOSKA (2004)] ................................... 29
FIGURE 3.1 PLAN OF WALL-FRAME (DUAL) BUILDINGS [PAPAILIA, 2011] ............................................ 33 FIGURE 3.2 GEOMETRY OF FRAME BUILDINGS [PAPAILIA, 2011] .......................................................... 33 FIGURE 3.3 STRUCTURAL 3D MODEL TAKEN FROM ANSRUOP FOR FIVE STOREY DUAL SYSTEM ...... 34 FIGURE 4.1CAPACITY DESIGN VALUES OF SHEAR FORCES ON BEAMS [CEN, 2004].............................. 40 FIGURE 4.2 CAPACITY DESIGN SHEAR FORCE IN COLUMNS [CEN 2004] ............................................... 42 FIGURE 4.3: DESIGN ENVELOPE FOR BENDING MOMENTS IN THE SLENDER WALLS (LEFT: WALL
SYSTEMS ; RIGHT: DUAL SYSTEMS ) [CEN 2004] .......................................................................... 43
FIGURE 4.4 DESIGN ENVELOPE OF THE SHEAR FORCES IN THE WALLS OF A DUAL SYSTEM [CEN 2004] ....................................................................................................................................................... 44 FIGURE 5.1 PSEUDO-ACCELERATION SPECTRA FOR THE SEMI-ARTIFICIAL INPUT MOTIONS COMPARED
TO THE SMOOTH TARGET SPECTRUM (SHOWN WITH THICK BLACK LINE) ..................................... 49
FIGURE 5.2 TIME-HISTORIES OF ACCELEROGRAMS USED IN THE ANALYSIS .......................................... 50 FIGURE 5.3 TAKEDA MODEL MODIFIED BY LITTON AND OTANI ............................................................ 51 FIGURE 5.4 STRUCTURAL MODEL FOR A FIVE STOREY DUAL BUILDING TAKEN FROM ANSRUOP ..... 53 FIGURE 5.5 STRUCTURAL MODEL FOR AN EIGHT STOREY DUAL BUILDING TAKEN FROM ANSRUOP 53 FIGURE 7.1 EXCLUSION OF UNREALISTIC RESULTS IN IDA (DAMAGE INDICES ABOVE CONTINUOUS
LINE ARE NEGLECTED) .................................................................................................................. 65
FIGURE 7.2 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION (COV) OF DM-DEMANDS FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME BUILDING
DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G .......................................................................................... 67
Index
FIGURE 7.3 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION (COV) OF DM-DEMANDS FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAMEEQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G .................................................... 68
FIGURE 8.1 FRAGILITY CURVES FOR FIVE-STOREY WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO PGA=0.20G AND DC M ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD ............................................................ 77 FIGURE 8.2 FRAGILITY CURVES OF WALLS FOR EIGHT-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT (LEFT) AND WALLEQUIVALENT BUILDING (RIGHT) DESIGNED TO
PGA=0.20G AND DC M ANALYZED USING IDA
METHOD......................................................................................................................................... 78
FIGURE 8.3 FRAGILITY CURVES OF WALLS FOR EIGHT-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT (LEFT) AND WALLEQUIVALENT BUILDING (RIGHT) DESIGNED TO
PGA=0.25G AND DC M ANALYZED USING IDA
METHOD......................................................................................................................................... 78
FIGURE 8.4 FRAGILITY CURVES OF WALLS FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED
TO PGA=0.20G AND DC M (LEFT) AND WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC H AND PGA=0.25G
(RIGHT) ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD ...................................................................................... 78 FIGURE 8.5 FRAGILITY CURVES OF WALLS FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT (LEFT) AND WALLEQUIVALENT (RIGHT) BUILDINGS DESIGNED TO DC H AND PGA=0.25G ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD......................................................................................................................................... 79
FIGURE 8.6 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE OF A FIVE-STOREY
FRAME-EQUIVALENT (LEFT), WALL-EQUIVALENT (MIDDLE) AND WALL SYSTEM (RIGHT) BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH IDA ...................................... 80
FIGURE 8.7 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE OF A FIVE-STOREY
FIGURE 8.8 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE OF A EIGHT-STOREY
FIGURE 8.9 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE OF A EIGHTSTOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT (LEFT), WALL-EQUIVALENT (MIDDLE) AND WALL SYSTEM (RIGHT) BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G ANALYZED WITH IDA ...................................... 81
FIGURE 8.10 FRAGILITY CURVES FOR MOST CRITICAL MEMBERS OF FIVESTOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
BUILDING DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD...................... 83
FIGURE 8.11 FRAGILITY CURVES FOR MOST CRITICAL MEMBERS OF FIVESTOREY WALL-EQUIVALENT
BUILDING DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD...................... 84
FIGURE 8.12 FRAGILITY CURVES FOR MOST CRITICAL MEMBERS OF FIVESTOREY WALL BUILDING
DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD ...................................... 85
Index
FIGURE 8.13 MEMBER FRAGILITY CURVES OF FRAME-EQUIVALENT DUAL SYSTEMS DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M FOR: (TOP) FIVE STOREY; (BOTTOM) EIGHT-STOREY USING IDA
METHOD......................................................................................................................................... 86
FIGURE 8.14 MEMBER FRAGILITY CURVES FOR WALL SYSTEMS DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M
CURVES OF: (TOP) FIVE STOREY; (BOTTOM) EIGHT-STOREY USING IDA METHOD ...................... 87
FIGURE 8.15 MEMBER FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT (FE), WALLEQUIVALENT (WE), WALL DUAL (WS) SYSTEM DESIGNED TO PGA=0.20G AND DC M USING SPO METHOD FOR MOST CRITICAL STOREY MEMBERS. ........................................................................ 88
FIGURE 8.16 FRAGILITY CURVES OF EIGHTSTOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND: (TOP) PGA=0.20G; (BOTTOM) PGA=0.25G ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD ................. 89 FIGURE 8.17 MEMBER FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A EIGHT-STOREY WALL-EQUIVALENT SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO DC M AND FOR PGA=0.20G AND PGA=0.25G USING IDA METHOD FOR MOST CRITICAL STOREY MEMBERS. ........................................................................................................ 90
FIGURE 8.18 MEMBER FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A FIVE-STOREY FRAME SYSTEM DESIGNED DC M AND
TO PGA=0.20G AND PGA=0.25G USING IDA METHOD FOR MOST CRITICAL STOREY MEMBERS. 91
FIGURE 8.19 MEMBER FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A FIVE-STOREY FRAME SYSTEM DESIGNED PGA=0.25G
AND TO DC M AND DC H USING IDA METHOD FOR MOST CRITICAL STOREY MEMBERS. ............ 92
FIGURE 8.20 FRAGILITY CURVES OF FIVE-STOREY BUILDINGS DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M

ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD: (TOP) FRAME BUILDINGS; (BOTTOM) FRAME-EQUIVALENT BUILDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 93

ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD: (TOP) FRAME BUILDINGS; (BOTTOM) WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 94

ANALYZED USING IDA METHOD: (TOP) FRAME BUILDINGS; (BOTTOM) WALL BUILDINGS ............ 95
FIGURE 8.23 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES IN YIELDING STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G (LEFT) AND WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC H AND PGA=0.25G (RIGHT). ............................................................................. 96
FIGURE 8.24 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES IN YIELDING STATE FOR EIGHT-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G (LEFT) AND WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G (RIGHT). ............................................................................ 97
FIGURE 8.25 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES IN YIELDING STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME BUILDING
DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M (LEFT) AND DC H (RIGHT). ............................................... 97
Index
FIGURE 8.26 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
FIGURE 8.27 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE FOR EIGHT-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
FIGURE 8.28 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME BUILDING
DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M (LEFT) AND DC H (RIGHT). ............................................... 98
FIGURE 8.29 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES IN YIELDING STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
FIGURE 8.30 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES IN YIELDING STATE FOR EIGHT-STOREY FRAMEEQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G (LEFT) AND WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G (RIGHT). ............................................................................ 99
FIGURE 8.31 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES IN YIELDING STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME BUILDING
DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G AND (LEFT) PGA=0.25G (RIGHT). ................................... 100
FIGURE 8.32 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY WALL -EQUIVALENT
BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G (LEFT) AND WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC
M AND PGA=0.25G (RIGHT). ....................................................................................................... 100 FIGURE 8.33 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC H AND PGA=0.25G (LEFT) AND WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC H AND PGA=0.25G (RIGHT). ........................................................................... 101
FIGURE 8.34 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE FOR EIGHT-STOREY FRAMEEQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G (LEFT) AND WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G (RIGHT). ......................................................... 101
FIGURE 8.35 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME BUILDING
DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G AND (LEFT) DC H AND PGA=0.25G (RIGHT). ................. 101
FIGURE 8.36 WALL FRAGILITY CURVES IN YIELDING STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
M AND PGA=0.20G (RIGHT). ....................................................................................................... 102 FIGURE 8.37 WALL FRAGILITY CURVES IN YIELDING STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT
M AND PGA=0.20G (RIGHT). ....................................................................................................... 102
Index
FIGURE 8.38 WALL FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE IN FLEXURE FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAMEEQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G (LEFT) AND WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC H AND PGA=0.25G (RIGHT). .......................................................... 103
FIGURE 8.39 WALL FRAGILITY CURVES IN ULTIMATE STATE IN FLEXURE FOR FIVE-STOREY WALL
BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G (LEFT) AND EIGHT-STOREY WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G (RIGHT). .......................................................................... 103
FIGURE 8.40 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY
FRAME-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G ANALYZED WITH IDA
(LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .................................................................................. 104 FIGURE 8.41 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY
WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G ANALYZED WITH IDA
(LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .................................................................................. 104 FIGURE 8.42 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE-STOREY
WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G ANALYZED WITH IDA (LEFT), SPO
(MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT)........................................................................................................ 105 FIGURE 8.43 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE FOR EIGHT-STOREY
FRAME-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH IDA
(LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .................................................................................. 105 FIGURE 8.44 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE FOR EIGHT -STOREY
WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH IDA
(LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .................................................................................. 106 FIGURE 8.45 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE FOR EIGHT -STOREY
WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH IDA (LEFT), SPO
(MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT)........................................................................................................ 106 FIGURE 8.46 BEAM FRAGILITY CURVES FOR A) YIELDING AND B) ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE -STOREY
FRAME BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH IDA (LEFT), SPO
(MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT)........................................................................................................ 107 FIGURE 8.47 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVESTOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH
IDA (LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .......................................................................... 108 FIGURE 8.48 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVESTOREY WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G ANALYZED WITH
IDA (LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .......................................................................... 108
10
Index
FIGURE 8.49 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVESTOREY WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.25G ANALYZED WITH IDA (LEFT),
SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .............................................................................................. 109 FIGURE 8.50 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE FOR EIGHTSTOREY FRAME-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH
IDA (LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .......................................................................... 109 FIGURE 8.51 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE FOR EIGHT STOREY WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH
IDA (LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .......................................................................... 110 FIGURE 8.52 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE FOR EIGHT STOREY WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH IDA (LEFT),
SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .............................................................................................. 110 FIGURE 8.53 COLUMN FRAGILITY CURVES FOR C) YIELDING AND D) ULTIMATE STATE FOR FIVE STOREY FRAME BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G ANALYZED WITH IDA (LEFT),
SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .............................................................................................. 111 FIGURE 8.54 FRAGILITY CURVES OF WALLS FOR THE ULTIMATE DAMAGE STATE IN SHEAR OF A FIVESTOREY WALL-EQUIVALENT BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G. ......................... 114
FIGURE 8.55 FRAGILITY CURVES OF WALLS FOR THE ULTIMATE DAMAGE STATE IN SHEAR OF A FIVESTOREY WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G. ............................................... 114
FIGURE 8.56 FRAGILITY CURVES OF WALLS FOR THE ULTIMATE DAMAGE STATE IN SHEAR OF A EIGHTSTOREY WALL BUILDING DESIGNED TO DC M AND PGA=0.20G. ............................................... 115
11
Index
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1: MATERIAL FACTORS AND VALUES ...................................................................................... 34 TABLE 4.1 BASIC VALUES OF THE BEHAVIOUR FACTOR, QO................................................................... 36 TABLE 4.2 BASIC FACTORED VALUES OF THE BEHAVIOR FACTOR, QO ................................................... 37 TABLE 4.3 DEPTHS OF BEAMS (HB) AND COLUMNS (HC) FOR FIVE-STOREY FRAME BUILDINGS [ADAPTED
FROM PAPAILIA, 2011] .................................................................................................................. 38
TABLE 4.4 DEPTHS OF BEAMS (HB) AND COLUMNS (HC) AND WALL LENGTHS (LW) FOR WALL-FRAME
DUAL BUILDINGS [ADAPTED FROM PAPAILIA, 2011]
.................................................................... 39
TABLE 5.1: ACCELEROGRAM RECORDS USED IN THE ANALYSIS............................................................ 48 TABLE 7.1 VALUES OF COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION FOR DM-CAPACITY VALUES ................................ 70 TABLE 7.2 VALUES OF COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION FOR DM-DEMAND VALUES .................................. 70 TABLE 8.1 MODAL PERIODS AND PARTICIPATING MASSES FOR FRAME SYSTEMS ................................. 72 TABLE 8.2 MODAL PERIODS AND PARTICIPATING MASSES FOR FRAME-EQUIVALENT DUAL SYSTEMS . 72 TABLE 8.3 MODAL PERIODS AND PARTICIPATING MASSES FOR WALL-EQUIVALENT DUAL SYSTEMS ... 73 TABLE 8.4 MODAL PERIODS AND PARTICIPATING MASSES FOR WALL DUAL SYSTEMS ......................... 73 TABLE 8.5 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE DAMAGE STATE IN 5-STOREY FRAME SYSTEMS74 TABLE 8.6 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE DAMAGE STATE IN 5-STOREY FRAMEEQUIVALENT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 74
TABLE 8.7 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE DAMAGE STATE IN 5-STOREY WALLEQUIVALENT DUAL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 75
TABLE 8.8 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE DAMAGE STATE IN 5-STOREY WALL SYSTEMS . 75 TABLE 8.9 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE DAMAGE STATE IN 8-STOREY FRAMEEQUIVALENT DUAL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 75
12
Index
TABLE 8.10 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE DAMAGE STATE IN 8-STOREY WALLEQUIVALENT DUAL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 76
TABLE 8.11 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE DAMAGE STATE IN 8-STOREY WALL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................................................... 76 TABLE 8.12 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE ULTIMATE DAMAGE STATE FOR WALLS IN 5STOREY BUILDINGS
..................................................................................................................... 112
TABLE 8.13 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE ULTIMATE DAMAGE STATE FOR WALLS IN 8STOREY BUILDINGS
..................................................................................................................... 112
TABLE 8.14 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE ULTIMATE DAMAGE STATE IN SHEAR FOR
WALLS IN 5-STOREY BUILDINGS .................................................................................................. 113
TABLE 8.15 MEDIAN PGA (G) AT ATTAINMENT OF THE ULTIMATE DAMAGE STATE IN SHEAR FOR
WALLS IN 8-STOREY BUILDINGS .................................................................................................. 113
13
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Ac Ecd Ecm (EI)b,i (EI)c,i Fb Fi FV,Ed G Hcl Hi Hst Ic Is Iw Kc Ks Lb Lcl,i Ls MEb MEc MEdo
cross section area design value of the modulus of elasticity of concrete secant modulus of elasticity of concrete effective rigidity of the beams in storey i effective rigidity of the columns in storey i total lateral seismic shear (base shear) seismic horizontal force in storey i total vertical load permanent (dead) load clear height of a column transverse storey forces which represent the effect of the inclination i storey height the moment of inertia of concrete cross section the second moment of area of reinforcement, about the centre of area of the concrete second moment of area (uncracked concrete section) of shear wall factor for effects of cracking, creep etc. factor for contribution of reinforcement bay length beam clear span in storey i shear span of a member seismic bending moment at beam ends seismic bending moment at column ends bending moment at the base of a wall, as obtained from the elastic analysis for the design seismic action
14
Index
Mel MRd,b,iMRd,b,j+ MRdo My N NEd PGA PGV Q Qd QEq S Sa Sa,ds SD Sd(T) Se(T) T T1 Tc Teff VCD,c VEc Vg+q,o VN Vo VR,c VR,cycl VR0 VRs VS Vtot,base Vwall,base X 15
elastic seismic moment at the end of the element design value of negative beam moment resistance at end design value of positive beam moment resistance at end flexural capacity at the base section of a wall yield moment axial force design value of the applied axial force Peak ground acceleration Peak ground velocity imposed (live) load load for the persistent and transient design situation Combination of actions for seismic design situations soil factor according to EC8 Spectral acceleration spectral acceleration necessary to cause the certain damage state to occur Spectral displacement Design spectrum elastic response spectrum vibration period of a single-degree-of-freedom system fundamental period of vibration of a building corner period at the upper limit of the constant acceleration region of the elastic spectrum effective period of vibration capacity-design shear of the columns seismic shear force at column ends shear force at end regions of interior beams due to quasi-permanent gravity loads contribution of the element axial load to its shear resistance shear force due to gravity loads shear force at diagonal cracking of a member shear resistance under cyclic loading shear capacity before plastic hinging the contribution of transverse reinforcement to shear resistance shear demand before plastic hinging total base shear of the building the fraction of the building total base shear taken by the walls random variable
Index
al a 1
tension shift effectiveness factor for confinement by transverse reinforcement is the value by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied in order to first reach the flexural resistance in any member in the structure, while all other design actions remain constant zero-one variable for the type of loading ratio of elastic moduli (steel-to-concrete) design ground acceleration on type A ground according to EC8 reduction factor for height reduction factor for number of members zero-one variable accounting for the slippage of longitudinal bars from the anchorage zone beyond the end section zero-one variable width of compression zone the centreline spacing of longitudinal bars (indexed by i) laterally restrained by a stirrup corner or a cross-tie along the perimeter of the cross-section width of confined core of a column or in the boundary element of a wall wall web thickness coefficient of variation effective depth of a section distance of the center of the compression reinforcement from the extreme compression fibres mean tension bar diameter normalised compressive strength of the masonry units design value of concrete compressive strength characteristic value of concrete compressive strength mean value of concrete compressive strength specified compressive strength of the mortar design value of steel yield strength characteristic value of steel yield strength yield stress of the longitudinal bars mean value of steel yield strength yield stress of transverse steel depth of a cross section beam depth column depth depth of confined core of a column or in the boundary element of a wall
acy aem g ah am asl av b bi bo bwo cv d d1 dbL fbc fcd fck fcm fmc fyd fyk fyL fym fyw h hb hc ho 16
Index
hw ig k1; k2 l l0 lw m maxVi,d,b meff mi n nst nflx q qo s xy z zi i MRd,b MRd,c u
wall height radius of gyration of the uncracked concrete section relative flexibilities or rotational restrains at member ends 1 and 2 clear height of compression member between end restrains effective length of a member wall length mean of the non-logarithmized variables of a lognormal distribution capacity design shear at the end regions of interior beams effective mass of a building mass of floor i relative normal force for the design value of the applied axial force number of storeys number of flexible frames per one stiff behaviour factor basic values of the behaviour factor standard deviation of the non-logarithmized variables of a lognormal distribution neutral axis depth at flexural yielding length of the internal lever arm of a member the height of the mass, , above the level of application of the seismic action (foundation or top of a rigid basement) interstorey drift from mid-height of the storey i to the mid-height i+1 of the frame rotation of restraining member for bending moment M sum of beam design flexural capacities sum of column design flexural capacities the value by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied in order to form plastic hinges in a number of sections sufficient for the development of overall structural instability, while all other design actions remain constant the normalised composite log-normal standard deviation lower bound factor for the horizontal design spectrum dispersion of the capacity (in terms of standard deviation) dispersion of the demand (in terms of standard deviation) dispersion of the spectral value (in terms of standard deviation) partial factor for concrete partial factor for permanent action partial factor for variable action
D R S Sp c g q 17
Index
Rd s i RV sV,el s u y s u um y ym 1 2
pl
factor accounting for steel strain hardening partial factor for steel the displacement of floor from an elastic analysis of the structure for the set of lateral forces capacity design magnification factor uncertainty factor for shear capacity demand uncertainty factor for shear failure (prior to the formation of a plastic hinge) uncertainty factor of the chord rotation demand capacity uncertainty factor uncertainty factor for the yielding chord rotation damping correction factor with a reference of for 5% viscous damping member chord rotation mean chord rotation demand ultimate chord rotation the expected chord rotation capacity chord rotation at yielding the expected chord rotation value at yielding factor which depends on concrete strength class factor which depends on axial force and slenderness slenderness ratio normal distribution mean ratio of the plastic part of the rotation demand at the end of the member to the value at yielding curvature ductility factor axial load ratio, positive for compression reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions neutral axis depth at yielding geometric reinforcement ratio ratio of the tension reinforcement ratio of the compression reinforcement steel ratio of diagonal reinforcement in each diagonal direction ratio of transverse steel parallel to the loading direction the transverse reinforcement ratio ratio of web reinforcement normal distribution standard deviation basic value of the inclination taking account for the geometric imperfections
y 1 2 d s w 0 18
Index
eff i y 2 1 2
effective creep ratio of concrete inclination taking account for the geometric imperfections yield curvature factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable action factor for combination value of a variable action mechanical reinforcement reinforcement ratio of tension and web longitudinal
mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression longitudinal reinforcement
19
Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
This study deals with the seismic fragility of members for frame and wall-frame buildings designed in accordance to EN-Eurocode 2 and 8. Prototype plan- and height-wise very regular buildings are studied. Parameters include the number of storeys, the level of Eurocode 8 design (in terms of design peak ground acceleration and ductility class) and for wall-frame dual systems the percentage of seismic base shear taken by the walls. The fragility curves relate seismic ground motion to structural damage which is important in order to denote the damage probability of the members in a structure. Fragility curves are important for estimating the risk from potential earthquakes and for predicting the economical impact for future earthquakes. They can be used for emergency response and disaster planning by national agencies and by insurance companies for estimating the overall loss after an earthquake event. Fragility curves can be used to mitigate risk by improving the seismic codes. Fragility curves are constructed for generic members for each building assuming a lognormal distribution. The probability of exceedance of each limit state is computed from the probability distributions of the damage measures (conditional on intensity measure) and of the corresponding capacities. The intensity measure (IM) used for the construction of the fragility curves is the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the damage measures are the peak chord rotation and the peak shear force demands at member ends. Seismic performance is addressed on two damage states; the yielding and the ultimate deformation in bending or shear. The estimations for the peak response quantities and capacities for each member are according to Eurocode 8 Part 3 [CEN, 2005]. The fragility curves are developed by using the analysis results obtained from threedimensional structural models of the full buildings using nonlinear incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and nonlinear static (pushover) analysis (SPO). IDA is carried out using fourteen semi-artificial spectrum-compatible ground motion records scaled in order to cover a range of ground motion intensities. SPO is carried out using the inverted triangular distribution pattern and the N2 method [Fajfar et. al., 2000] is being employed to combine the results of the static pushover analysis with the response spectrum analysis of an equivalent single degree-of-freedom system to compute the IM for each step of the analysis.
20
Introduction
Dispersions used for the construction of fragility curves from IDA take into account explicitly model uncertainties for the estimation of the damage measure demands taken from the analysis. Estimates for the dispersions of the damage measure demands for the SPO method are taken from previous studies. Both methods use estimates for the damage measure capacities based on previous studies. The results of a simplified method using the lateral force method (LFM) taken from Papailia [2011] is compared against the results from SPO and IDA. The LFM is performed by using simplified models under the assumption that all beam ends in a storey have the same elastic seismic moments and inelastic chord rotation demands. Vertical elements are considered to have negligible bending moments due to gravity loads and the axial force variation due to seismic action is neglected in interior columns. The shear force demands taken from the LFM are amplified to take into account higher mode effects. Discussion will focus on the differences between geometric and design parameters of the buildings and the differences between the alternative analysis methods. The walls of buildings designed according to Eurocode 8 for Medium Ductility Class is an important point of the discussion since according to the results using the lateral force method they fail in shear before their design PGA.
21
Chapter 2: Definitions and Background
2. DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND

A brief introduction for various definitions and a review of previous studies is found in this Chapter. 2.1. Building codes The analysis, design and assessment of the buildings were performed in accordance to the European Standards; Eurocode 2 [CEN, 2004a], Eurocode 8 - Part 1 [CEN, 2004b] and Part 3 [CEN, 2005]. Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8 Part 1 were published by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) in December of 2004. Eurocode 2 is for the design of concrete structures and Eurocode 8 Part 1 is for the seismic design of new buildings. Eurocode 8 Part 3 was published by CEN in June 2005 for the seismic retrofit and assessment of structures. Since March 2010 all CEN member countries use the ENEurocodes. 2.2. Performance-based requirements Performance-based earthquake engineering allows for design to meet more than one performance level thus replacing the traditional design against collapse. The performance level is the condition of the facility or structure after a seismic event. The seismic event is identified by the annual probability of exceedence known as the seismic hazard level. In EN-Eurocodes the performance levels are associated to the Limit States of the structure. The Ultimate Limit State concerns the safety of people and the Serviceability Limit State concerns the comfort of its occupants and the function and use of the structure. According to Eurocode 8 Part 1 [CEN, 2004] the following two Limit States (or performance levels) are considered: 1. No-(local)- collapse: It is considered as the Ultimate Limit State. This limit state protects life against rare seismic events by preventing the collapse of structural members. The seismic action associated with this limit state is the design seismic action having 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (mean return period of 475 years). 2. Damage Limitation. It is considered as the Serviceability Limit State, where the structural or non structural damage is limited under frequent seismic events. The structure is expected not to have any permanent deformations and should retain its
22
strength and stiffness. The seismic action associated with this limit state is the damage limitation seismic action with 10% probability of being exceeded in 10 years (mean return period of 95 years). Eurocode 8 Part 3 [CEN, 2005] for the assessment and retrofitting of structures has fully adopted the performance-based approach for three performance levels: 1. Damage Limitation (DL), structural elements are not significantly yielded and retain their strength and stiffness and the structure has negligible permanent drifts and no repairs are required. It is recommended that the performance objective should be reached for a 20% probability of exceedence in 50 years (return period of 225 years). 2. Significant Damage (SD), which corresponds to the no-(local)-collapse according to EC8-Part 1, where the structure is significantly damaged but retains some residual lateral strength and stiffness and its vertical load bearing capacity. Non-structural components are damaged and moderate drifts are present. The structure will be able to survive aftershocks of moderate intensity. It is recommended that the performance objective should be reached for a 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years (return period of 475 years). 3. Near Collapse (NC), the structure is heavily damaged with large permanent drifts and little residual lateral strength or stiffness is retained although the vertical elements are still able to retain vertical loads. The structure would most probably not be able to survive another earthquake. It is recommended that the performance objective should be reached for a 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years (return period of 2475 years). This study is addressed on two limit states; the yielding and the ultimate. The yielding corresponds to the Damage Limitation limit state and the ultimate corresponds to the Near Collapse limit state as defined by Eurocode 8 Part 3 [CEN, 2005]. 2.3. Intensity Measure An Intensity Measure (IM) is the ground motion parameter that is being used in order to relate the ground motion to the damage of the building. The selected parameter should be able to correlate the ground motion to the damage of the buildings. Intensity measures can be divided into instrumental IM and non-instrumental IM. For non-instrumental IM, macroseismic data are used in computing the empirical vulnerability of structures. Macroseismic data is expressed in different macroseismic intensity scales, which identify the effects of ground motion, and is taken from observation of damage due to earthquake ground motion and its effects on the earths surface, people and structures. Macroseismic intensity scale is a qualitative scale expressed in terms of Roman numerals representing different intensity levels. An advantage of this type of intensity measure is that it is directly related to the vulnerability of the buildings and there is no requirement to take instrumental measurements. The gathered data depends on the area where it is collected and how far away this area is from the epicenter.
23
The most important IMs for non-instrumental seismicity are the MSK: Medvedev-SponheurKarnik Intensity scale [Medvedev and Sponheuer, 1969], the MMI: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale [Wood and Neumann, 1931], the European Macroseismic Sclae (EMS98) [Grnthal, 1998] and the MCS: Mercalli Cancani Sieberg [Sieberg, 1923]. The MCS was proposed as the development of the Mercalli scale and includes twelve degrees from I Instrumental to XII Cataclysmic. MMI scale is composed of twelve degrees. MSK goes from I No perceptible to XII Very catastrophic. Previous studies made use of the non-instrumental intensity measures using the empirical vulnerability procedures to produce post-earthquake damage statistics [Calvi et al., 2006]. Such studies include Braga et al. [1982] where the damage probability matrices have been developed based on damage data obtained from the Irpinia 1980 earthquake. The buildings were separated in three classes and the matrices were based on the MSK scale for each class. Di Pasquale et al. [2005] updated Bragas study and changed the MSK scale to the MCS scale because the Italian seismic catalogue is based on this intensity measure. Dolce et. al. [2003] have adapted the damage probability matrices with an additional vulnerability class using the EMS98 scale, which takes into account the buildings constructed after 1980. Singhal and Kiremidjian [1996] developed fragility curves and damage probability matrices using the Modified Mercalli Intensity. In instrumental intensity measures, instruments are used in order to record the ground motion and then recorded accelerograms are processed to get the appropriate measurement. The instrumental intensity measures include the Peak ground Velocity (PGV), the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), the Peak Ground Displacement (PGD), the Spectral Acceleration at the first mode of vibration Sa(T1,5%) and the spectral displacement Sd. PGV correlates well with the earthquake magnitude and gives useful information on the ground-motion frequency content and strong-motion duration which influence the seismic demands of the structure [Akkar and zen, 2006]. The Spectral Acceleration at the first mode of vibration Sa(T1) is often used since it is well suited for structures that are sensitive to the strength of the frequency content near its first mode frequency [Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002]. These instrumental intensity measures were used in reference studies such as Kircil and Polat [2006] where elastic pseudo-spectral acceleration was considered as an intensity measure in developing fragility curves for RC frame buildings. Akkar et al. [2005] constructed fragility functions for RC buildings using PGV as the IM since maximum inelastic displacements are better correlated with PGV than with PGA and PGV has a good correlation with MMI for large amplitude earthquakes. Borzi et al. [2006] used PGA as the intensity measure for the vulnerability analysis of RC buildings. PGA was used since it is consistent with the parameter used in seismic hazard maps in the current codes. More complicated IMs have been introduced such as the vector-valued IMs by Baker [2005] which consists of two parameters; the spectral acceleration and epsilon. Epsilon is found to be able to predict the structural response. It is defined as the difference between spectral acceleration of a record and the mean of the ground motion prediction equation at a given
24
period. Neglecting the effect of epsilon gives conservative estimates on the response of the structure. The ground motion IM that is being used in this study is the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). The reason for this choice is due to the simplicity of its use and due to the fact that the results can be easily compared against the design acceleration of the structures. 2.4. Damage measures Damage measure (DM) is a scalar quantity that can be deducted from the analysis and characterizes the response of the structural model due to seismic loading. Selecting a suitable DM depends on the application and the structure. The damage measures for members that are used in reference studies include: The peak chord rotation demand at member end The peak shear force demand The local Park and Ang Damage Index [1985]. The node rotations Displacement ductility,
The Park and Ang Damage index takes into account the damage due to maximum deformation and the damage due to repeated cycles of inelastic deformation. The displacement ductility is associated with the inelastic response and is defined as the ratio of the maximum displacement to the yield displacement. Common damage measures selected for the assessment of buildings as a whole include: The residual deformation The global Park and Ang Damage Index [1985] Maximum base shear The peak roof drift Interstorey drift ratio The peak interstorey drift angle , = (1 ) Peak floor accelerations
The peak interstorey drift angle is used for structural damage of buildings and relates well to joint rotations. The peak floor accelerations are used for damage to non-structural components in multi-storey buildings. [Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002]. The Interstorey drift ratio is the ratio of the maximum storey displacement over the storey height. It gives significant information on the structural and non-structural damage. Examples of reference studies that used the DMs above include Singhal and Kiremidjian [1996], where the global damage index based on Park and Ang [1985], in order to develop fragility curves and damage probability matrices for RC frame structures. zer and Erberik [2008] developed fragility curves for the damage measure of the maximum interstorey drift
25
ratio and a softening index (SI) which was originally proposed by DiPasquale and Cakmak [1987]. SI takes a value according to the stiffness change due to inelastic action. In another reference study, Borzi et al. [2006] based the building limit conditions on displacements which are well correlated with building damage. For the purposes of this study the damage measures used are the peak chord rotations at a member end and the peak shear force demands. The chord rotation at a member end is defined as the angle between the tangent to the member section there and the chord connecting the two members ends as shown in Figure 2.1. When plastic hinge forms in the member end, the chord rotation is equal to the plastic hinge rotation.
Figure 2.1 Definition of chord rotation [adapted from Fardis, 2009]
2.5. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies Different methodologies for the seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings are used according to the data available and the uncertainties considered. These methods include the empirical, expert opinion, analytical and hybrid methods. 2.5.1. Empirical Fragility Curves Empirical methods for the vulnerability assessment of buildings are based on the damage observed after a seismic event. The two main types of empirical methods are the damage probability matrices (DPM) and the continuous vulnerability functions. DPM is a form of conditional probability of obtaining a damage level due to the IM. The continuous vulnerability functions illustrate the probability of exceeding a given damage state as a function of the seismic IM. The advantages of using empirical fragilities are that the observed damage from the earthquakes is the most realistic way to model fragility and takes into account many uncertainties such as soil-structure-interaction and variability of the structural
26
capacity. The disadvantages are that the empirical vulnerability functions require that the survey forms are not incomplete and the way post-processing is done with the data should not be deficient. These curves need to be derived for buildings in the same region and should account for damage subjected after a specific earthquake event. Often undamaged buildings are not recorded so when deriving the vulnerability analysis it is difficult to assess the total number of buildings in the analysis [SYNER-G, 2012]. Empirical vulnerability cannot model the evaluation of retrofit options and do not cover all building types and values of IM. [Calvi et al. 2006]. Sabetta et al. [1998] developed vulnerability curves from post earthquake damage surveys and estimated ground motion. The damage surveys of nearly 50000 buildings after earthquake events in Italy together with estimates of strong ground motion parameters from attenuation relationships was used for the development of fragility curves. The binomial distribution of the damage was plotted as a function of PGA, Arias Intensity and Effective Peak Acceleration for three structural classes and six damage levels according to the MSK macroseismic scale. Effective Peak Acceleration is defined as the mean response spectral acceleration divided by a factor of 2.5. Sarabandi et. al. [2004] developed empirical fragility functions from recent earthquakes with data taken from the Northridge, California earthquake in 1994 and the Chi-Chi earthquake in 1999 in Taiwan. Buildings situated near the strong motion recording stations were used in the assessment and were divided into two groups according to their distance from the recording station. Empirical fragility curves are produced for steel moment frames, concrete frames, concrete shear walls, wood frame and unreinforced masonry buildings. Rota et al. [2006] developed typological fragility curves from post-earthquake survey data on the damage observed on the buildings after Italian earthquakes from the past three decades. 150,000 survey building records have been post processed to define the empirical damage probability matrices for different building typologies. Typological fragility curves have been obtained using advanced nonlinear regression methods. Typological risk maps were then developed for both single damage state and for average loss parameters after combining the hazard definitions, fragility curves and inventory data. 2.5.2. Expert Opinion method Exert opinion method is a method to construct fragility curves based on the judgment and information taken by experts. The probability of damage for different building typologies covering a range of ground motion intensities are taken from the opinion of experts. The advantage of the method is that it is not affected by the quantity and quality of the structural damage data and statistics. The main disadvantage is that the method is restricted on the knowledge and experience of the experts consulted. The study of Kostov et a. [2007] produced damage probability matrices for buildings in Sofia according to the EMS-98. The damage probability matrices were then converted in vulnerability curves.
27
2.5.3. Analytical Fragility Curves This method features a more detailed vulnerability assessment with direct physical meaning. The analytical fragility curves are computed by constructing appropriate structural models which express the probability of damage computed under increasing seismic intensity. Figure 2.2 summarizes the basic procedures that are being followed in order to calculate the analytical vulnerability curves or damage probability matrices. The advantage of this method is that it provides results that are very close to reality. One of the main disadvantages of analytical vulnerability curves is that they are computationally demanding and time consuming. Also the capability of modelling the structure significantly affects the reliability of the results. Eurocode 8 - Part 3 [CEN, 2005] provides guidelines for the assessment of existing buildings which may be used to develop analytical fragility curves. The methods of analysis include the lateral force analysis, the modal response spectrum analysis, the nonlinear static pushover analysis, the nonlinear time-history dynamic analysis. The nonlinear static method applies forces to the model which includes the nonlinear properties of the elements. The nonlinear dynamic analysis although time consuming gives results that are closer to reality. Also it allows the influence of the variability of the accelerogram to be taken into account. These methods are performed in order to compute the seismic action effects. In order to choose the type of analysis to be performed and the appropriate confidence factor values EC8 - Part 3 defines three knowledge levels: KL1: Limited Knowledge KL2: Normal Knowledge KL3: Full Knowledge
The factors that determine the knowledge levels are the geometrical properties of the structural system and non structural elements, the details (regarding the reinforcement in reinforced concrete members, the connections between steel members, the floor diaphragm connection to lateral resisting structure etc.) and the mechanical properties of the constituent materials used. For the purpose of this study analytical fragility curves have been developed using nonlinear time-history dynamic analysis and nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. The buildings assessed belong to the Full knowledge level (KL3) of Eurocode 8 Part3 since all geometrical properties, details and mechanical properties of the materials are known.
28
Figure 2.2 Flowchart to describe the components of the calculation of analytical vulnerability curve [adapted from Dumova-Jovanoska (2004)]
Existing studies for the computation of seismic fragility curves for RC buildings that are based on the analytical method include the following. Singhal and Kiremidjian [1996] developed fragility curves and damage probability matrices using Monte Carlo simulation for low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise RC frames using Park and Ang (1985) damage index to identify different degrees of damage. The analysis was based on nonlinear dynamic analysis where the ground motion is characterized by spectral acceleration. For the computation of damage probability matrices the modified Mercalli intensity was used as the ground motion parameter. B. Borzi et. al. [2006] use analytical methods where the nonlinear behavior of a random population of RC buildings was defined with simplified pushover and displacement based procedures. The vulnerability curves were generated by comparing the displacement capacities by the pushover analysis with the displacement demands obtained from response spectrum of each building in the random population. The vulnerability curves were formulated using the conditional probability of exceeding a certain damage limit state in terms of the IM. Dumova et.al [2000] evaluated the vulnerability curves/ damage probability matrices using analytical methods for frame-wall RC buildings designed according to the Macedonian design
29
code. Two sets of buildings were analyzed; six storey frame buildings and sixteen storey frame-wall buildings. Nonlinear time-history analysis was performed for a set of synthetic time histories and the response of the structure to the earthquake excitation was defined according to modified Park and Ang (1985) damage model using five damage states to express the condition of damage. The probability of occurrence of damage was assumed to be normal probabilistic distribution. Masi [2003] employed analytical methods for the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing RC frame buildings (bare, regularly infilled and pilotis) designed only to gravity loads for buildings representative of the Italian building block of the past 30 years designed according to the building codes at the period of their construction. The analysis was performed using nonlinear time-history analysis using artificial and natural accelerograms. The vulnerability was characterized through the use of European Macroseismic Scale. Kiril and Polat [2006] evaluated the behavior of mid-rise RC frame buildings using analytical methods. The building stock represented buildings of 3, 5 and 7 storeys that were designed according to the (1975) Turkish seismic code. In this study only yielding and collapse damage levels are considered and they were determined analytically under the effect of twelve artificial accelerograms using incremental dynamic analysis. The yielding and collapse capacities are evaluated by statistical methods to develop fragility curves in terms of elastic pseudo-spectral acceleration. Lognormal distribution is assumed for the construction of the fragility curves. 2.5.4. Hybrid methods Hybrid damage probability matrices and vulnerability functions combine damage observed after earthquakes with damage obtained from analytical methods. This method is advantageous when there is lack of observational data. Also post-earthquake damage data can be used to calibrate the analytical model. Observational data can reduce the computational effort that would normally be required to perform complete analytical analysis. Kappos et. al. [1998] developed the damage probability matrices using a hybrid procedure where data from past earthquakes was combined with results of nonlinear dynamic analysis for typical Greek buildings designed for the 1959 codes. The results of the dynamic analysis were used in order to obtain a global damage index and correlated with loss in terms of cost of repair. Observational damage from the 1978 Thessaloniki earthquake was combined with the analytical damage results. 2.6. Seismic safety assessment of RC buildings designed to EC8 The efficacy of Eurocode 8 and design provisions and the expected performance has been evaluated in the past. The following studies were performed for the seismic safety assessment of RC buildings. Panagiotakos and Fardis [2004] evaluated the performance of RC buildings designed according to Eurocode 8 using nonlinear analysis. RC frames of 4, 8 and 12 storeys were
30
designed for a PGA of 0.2g or 0.4g and to the three ductility classes. The limit states are considered as in EC8 for the life-safety (475 years) and the damage limitation (95 years) and are evaluated through nonlinear seismic response analysis. It was found that the design to Ductility Class High (DC H) or Medium (DC M) is more cost effective than DC Low even in moderate seismicity and more cost effective than the 2000 Greek national codes. It was also found that the large differences in material quantities and detailing of the alternative designs do not translate into large differences in performance. Rivera and Petrini [2011] investigate the efficacy of the Eurocode 8 force-based design provisions for RC frames. This study evaluates whether the RC buildings that are designed according to the EC8 provisions have the expected performance. Four, eight and sixteen storey RC frame buildings were designed and analyzed using the EC8 response spectrum analysis. Nonlinear time-history analysis was performed to determine the seismic response of the structures and validate the EC8 forced base designs. The results indicate that the design of flexural members in medium-to-long period structures is not significantly influenced by the choice of effective member stiffness. However the interstorey drift demands calculated are significantly affected. Design storey forces and interstorey drift demands found using the codes force base procedure varied substantially from the results of the nonlinear time-history analysis. From the results it was concluded that EC8 may yield life-safe designs. Also the seismic performance of RC frame buildings of the same type and ductility class can be highly non-uniform. Rutenberg and Nsieri [2005] evaluated the seismic shear demand in ductile cantilever wall systems. Two aspects were considered; (1) Single walls or a system of equal-length walls and (2) resisting system consisting of walls of different length. The results of the parametric studies showed that DC M and DC H walls designed to EC8 provisions are in need of revision since for DC M walls the inelastic amplification which takes into account the higher mode effects as required in EC8 is under-conservative whereas the amplification used for DC H walls according to the detailed procedure per Keintzel [1990] overestimates the shear demand in walls for most cases..
31
Chapter 3: Description of Buildings
3. DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS
For the scope of this study pure frame and wall-frame (dual) reinforced concrete buildings were analyzed and assessed. Two analysis methods were performed: nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analysis of the structures comprising different design and geometric parameters. The parameters, methods and assumptions made when modelling the structures are explained and discussed in this section. 3.1. Typology of buildings The design and detailing of the frame and the wall-frame (dual) buildings correspond to certain design parameters including: Number of storeys: 5 and 8 storeys Seismic Design level per EC8 for Ductility class o Medium Ductility Class (DC M) o High Ductility Class (DC H) Seismic Design level per EC8 for design PGA o 0.20g o 0.25g For wall-frame dual buildings, the fraction of the seismic base shears taken by the walls: Frame-equivalent dual system 0.35Vtot,base Vwall,base 0.50Vtot,base Wall-equivalent dual system 0.50Vtot,base Vwall,base 0.65Vtot,base Wall system Vwall,base 0.65Vtot,base
3.2. Geometry of buildings The buildings are regular in plan and in elevation having storey height of Hst=3.0m, where all storeys are of the same height. The buildings consist of five bays along the two horizontal directions of bay length Lb=5.0m with the same bay length throughout the plan. The buildings consist of square columns, beams of width 0.3m and slab thickness of 150mm. The size of columns is constant throughout all storeys and the size of beams is constant throughout each storey. The perimeter beams and exterior columns have half the elastic rigidity of interior ones and corner columns have one quarter of elastic rigidity of interior ones.
32
In wall-framed dual systems two walls on each direction are placed as shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.3 sharing the same displacements with the frame. The geometry of the frame building is illustrated in Figure 3.2 for a five- and eight-storey building. The beam and column depths and wall lengths for wall-frame buildings are shown in Table 4.4 and the beam and column depths for frame buildings are shown in Table 4.3.
Figure 3.1 Plan of wall-frame (dual) buildings [Papailia, 2011]
Figure 3.2 Geometry of frame buildings [Papailia, 2011]
33
Figure 3.3 Structural 3D model taken from ANSRuop for five storey dual system
3.3. Materials The material strengths and partial factors are taken according to Annex C of Eurocode 2 [CEN,2004a]. The structural materials consist of concrete of class C25/30, having a nominal strength of 25MPa and Tempocore steel of grade S500 (Class C). The following table provides the material properties for steel and concrete and their partial factors.
Table 3.1: Material factors and values
Partial factors Partial factor for Concrete Partial factor for Steel Concrete compressive strength Design compressive strength Mean concrete compressive strength Mean axial tensile concrete strength Secant modulus of elastic of concrete Design value of modulus of elasticity Concrete Cover SteelS500 Characteristic yield strength of reinforcement Design yield strength of reinforcement Mean yield strength of reinforcement Design value of modulus of elasticity of steel fyk fyd= fyk/s fym=1.15 fyk Es 500MPa 434.78MPa 575 MPa 200000 MPa c s ConcreteC25/30 fck fcd=ccfck/ c fcm=fck+8MPa fctm Ecm Ecd=Ecm/ cE cnom 25 MPa 16.67MPa 33MPa 2.56 MPa 30470 MPa 25392 MPa 30mm 1.5 1.15
For the seismic vulnerability assessment the mean values for material strengths are being used (fym=575MPa for reinforcing steel and fcm=33MPa for concrete).
34
Chapter 4: Design of Buildings
4. DESIGN OF BUILDINGS
4.1. Actions on structure and assumptions The actions considered in the analysis correspond to the seismic design situation and the persistent and transient design situation according to EN1990. The combination of vertical actions for the seismic design situation is: QEQ = G + 2 Q Where, 2 G Q quasi-permanent value of a variable action factor (=0.3) permanent load (=7 kN/m2) imposed load (=2 kN/m2) ( 4.1)
The combination for the persistent and transient design situation according to EN1990 is given by : Qd=max(g G+ g Q ; g G+ o g Q) where: 0 g q is the reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions (=0.85) is the factor for combination value of a variable action (=0.7) is the partial factor for permanent action (=1.35) is the partial factor for variable action (=1.5) ( 4.2)
The permanent load acting on the structure is 7kN/m2, which includes the weight of the slab, finishing, partitions and facades and the weight of the beams, columns and walls. The occupancy loads (live loads) amount to 2kN/m2.
35
The design of the building was taken from Papailia [2011] where the lateral force method is used to proceed with the design according to EC8 [CEN,2004b]. In order to compute the base shear force, as required by the lateral force method, the design spectrum and the fundamental period is used. The design spectrum is computed by the use of the behaviour factor q obtained as explained in the section below and the fundamental period of the structure is obtained by the Rayleigh quotient. In concrete buildings the stiffness of the load bearing elements are evaluated by taking into account the effects of cracking. The cracking effect corresponds to the yielding initiation of the reinforcement. In Eurocode 8 [CEN, 2004], this simplification can be taken into account by assuming that the flexural and shear stiffness properties are one half of the initial uncracked stiffness of the element. 4.2. Behaviour factors and local ductility In force-based design according to EC8 [CEN,2004b], the use of the behaviour factor accounts for a simplification in design where the forces found by elastic analysis are reduced. The values of the basic behaviour factor for buildings designed to DC M and DC H are given in Table 4.1 for frame systems, wall-frame systems and uncoupled wall systems. Uncoupled wall systems are defined as wall systems which are linked by a connecting medium which is not effective in flexure.
Table 4.1 Basic values of the behaviour factor, qo
DC M Frame system, wall-frame system Uncoupled Wall system 3.0 u/1 3.0
DC H 4.5 u/1 4.0 u/1
Where, 1 the value by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied to reach the flexural resistance in any member in the structure while other design actions remain constant. u the value by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied to form plastic hinges in a number of sections sufficient for the development of structural instability, while all other design actions remain constant. The ratio of u/1 for frame or frame-equivalent dual system may be taken equal to 1.3, for wall-equivalent systems equal to 1.2 and for wall system with two uncoupled walls per horizontal direction equal to 1.0. Thus the basic values of the behaviour factor, qo, are:
36
Table 4.2 Basic factored values of the behavior factor, qo
Frameequivalent / Frame systems DC M DC H 3.9 5.85
Wall-equivalent 3.6 5.4
Wall systems 3.0 4.0
4.3. Design procedure This section describes the procedure that was followed for the sizing of beams, columns and walls. 4.3.1. Sizing of beams and columns in frame systems The sizing of beams and columns in frame systems was performed according to Eurocode 8 [CEN,2004b] and Eurocode 2 [CEN,2004a]. The sizing of the beams and the columns was taken from Papailia [2011]. The procedure to size the member is described in this section. Eurocode 2 [CEN,2004a] gives a simplified criterion for the slenderness ratio of isolated columns: = io lim = 20
g
ABC n
( 4.3)
Where, ig l0 is the radius of gyration of the uncracked concrete section is the effective length
n Is the normalised axial force taken as n=Ned/ Ac fcd and Ned is the design value of the applied axial force. The default values for A, B and C are A=0.7, B=1.1 and C=0.7. The effective length is given by: = . Where, ki is the column rotational stiffness at the end node i relative to the total restraining stiffness of the members framing in the plane of bending. =

2 1 + 10 1 ; 1 + 1+1 + 1 2
1 + 1+2
( 4.4)
+4
( 4.5)
37
Where, Lcl is the clear length of a beam framing into node i
, is the cracked flexural rigidity, taking into account creep , = +

( ) 20 2 1+
( 4.6)
Es and Is are the elastic modulus and the moment of inertia of the sections reinforcement with respect to the centroid of the section. Ic is the moment of inertia of the uncracked gross concrete section and K2 is : 2 = 170 = 170
1

0.20
( 4.7)
The effective length of the column and the size of the section are both unknown at the beginning, thus iterations are performed after dimensioning of the top beam reinforcement at the supports. In pure frame systems the depths of the columns and beams are chosen iteratively as the minimum values meeting the requirements of Eurocode 2 [CEN,2004a] and Eurocode 8 [CEN,2004b]. This takes into account the above implementation for the slenderness limit to meet the negligible second order effects and the 0.5% storey drift limit per EC8 under the damage limitation seismic action, where the 50% of the design seismic action is taken. In the following table the sizes of the beams and columns are presented for different design parameters (ductility class and design PGA)
Table 4.3 Depths of beams (hb) and columns (hc) for five-storey frame buildings [adapted from Papailia, 2011]
Design PGA 0.20g 0.25g DC M/H M/H
hb (m) 0.40 0.45
hc (m) 0.55 0.55
4.3.2. Sizing of beams, columns and walls in wall-frame (dual) systems In dual (wall-frame) buildings the lateral force procedure according to EC8 [CEN,2004b] was performed and iterated until certain criteria were met. The sizing of the members is taken from Papailia [2011]. The depths of columns (hc) and beams (hb) and the length of the walls (lw) were chosen iteratively to meet the following requirements according to EC8 [CEN,2004b]:
38
Meet the storey drift ratio of 0.5% according to Eurocode 8 [CEN, 2004b]. To cover the three cases for the requirements of the wall to total base shear fraction following the different behavior factors and design rules per EC8: o Frame-equivalent dual system 0.35Vtot,base Vwall,base 0.50Vtot,base o Wall-equivalent dual system 0.50Vtot,base Vwall,base 0.65Vtot,base o Wall system Vwall,base 0.65Vtot,base
In the following table the sizes of the beams and columns and the length of the walls are presented for different design parameters (wall base shear fraction, ductility class and design PGA)
Table 4.4 Depths of beams (hb) and columns (hc) and wall lengths (lw) for wall-frame dual buildings [adapted from Papailia, 2011]
Design PGA 0.20g
DC
5 storeys hb (m) hc (m) 0.40 lw (m) 1.5 2.0 2.5 Vwall,b (%) 37 53 65 44 57 73/81
8 storeys hb (m) 0.45 hc (m) 0.45 lw (m) 2.0/3.0/3.0 b 4.0/0.50 0.45 2.0/3.0/4.0/5.5b Vwall,b (%) 42/63/73 76/40/61/74/90
M/H a
0.40
0.25g
M/H a
0.45
0.45
2.0 2.5 3.5/3.5 b
When DC M and DC H have different fraction of base shear and wall length, this is distinguished with a slash, where the left hand side is the DC M and the right hand side the DC H.
b
Wall width is 0.5m. In all other cases wall width is 0.25m.
4.4. Dimensioning of Beams The longitudinal reinforcement for ULS in bending in beams is designed for the persistentand-transient and the seismic design situations using the lateral force method. The reinforcement in the effective beam flange was taken to be 500mm2. For the seismic design situation, the dimensioning of the end regions of the beams is done in accordance to the capacity design rules computed using the design base shears at the member ends, according to EC8 [CEN,2004b]. The beam design shear forces were determined under the transverse load through the seismic design situation and the end moments, Mi,d, which correspond to the formation of plastic hinges. The end moments Mi,d depend on the moment resistances of the columns it is connected to and the moment resistance of the beams itself. It can be found using: , = , min(1,
39

( 4.8)
Where, Rd MRb,i factor accounting for steel strain hardening, equal to 1.0 of DC M and 1.2 for DC H. design value of the beam moment resistance at end i
MRc sum of the column design moment of resistance. MRb sum of the beam design moment of resistance, framing to the point. Thus the capacity design shear at the member ends corresponds to: , = Where, VEd,i capacity design shear at the member ends.
1, +2,
+ + ,0
( 4.9)
+ ,0 Shear force at the end regions due to the transverse quasi-permanent loads under the design seismic situation.
Figure 4.1Capacity design values of shear forces on beams [CEN, 2004]
4.5. Dimensioning of Columns The vertical reinforcement of the columns for the ULS in bending was designed for the axial load taken from the actions of the seismic design situation. The detailing rules according to Eurocode 8 [CEN, 2004] are taken into account for each seismic design level. The dimensioning for the end regions of the columns is computed in accordance to the capacity design rule through the design shear forces. The design shear forces are based on the element equilibrium under the end moments Mi,d which correspond to the formation of plastic hinges as shown in Figure 4.2. The end moments are computed by taking into account the moment resistances of the beams to which it is connected and the moment resistances of the column itself.
40
The end moments Mi,d are determined through: , = , min(1, Where, Rd factor accounting for steel strain hardening and the confinement of the concrete of the compression zone of the section, equal to 1.1. MRc,i MRc design value of the column moment resistance at end i sum of the column design moment of resistance.

( 4.10)
MRb sum of the beam design moment of resistance, framing to the point. Thus the capacity design shear at the member ends corresponds to: , = Where, VEd,i capacity design shear at the end regions. clear height of column.
1, +2,
( 4.11)
41
Figure 4.2 Capacity design shear force in columns [CEN 2004]
4.6. Dimensioning of Walls The design shear force and moments for the walls are according to the capacity design principles and their calculation is explained below according to EC8 [CEN,2004b]. The values for the axial force are computed from the analysis of the structure in the seismic design situation using the lateral force method. The design bending moment diagram along the height of slender walls should be given by an envelope of the bending moment diagram from analysis, with a tension drift, as shown in Figure 4.3. Slender walls are defined as walls having a height to length ratio greater than 2.0. The envelope is assumed to be linear since there are no discontinuities over the height of the building. It takes into account potential development of moments due to higher mode inelastic response after the formation of plastic hinge at the bottom of the wall, thus the region above this critical height is designed to remain elastic.
42
KEY: a b a1 moment diagram from analysis design envelope tension drift

Figure 4.3: Design envelope for bending moments in the slender walls (left: wall systems ; right: dual systems ) [CEN 2004]
The design envelope of shear forces, as shown in Figure 4.4, takes into account the uncertainties of higher modes. The flexural capacity at the base of the wall MRd exceeds the seismic design bending moment derived from the analysis, MEd. Thus the design shear found for the analysis, , is magnified by the magnification factor i.e. the ratio of MRd/MEd. The magnification factor depends on the ductility class of the structure. The design base shear is thus computed by:
VEd =
( 4.12)
Where, For walls in DC M buildings the magnification factor, is taken as 1.5 For walls in DC H buildings the magnification factor, is taken as: = . Where, Rd overstrength factor taken as 1.2
2
+ 0.1
( ) 2 (1 )
( 4.13 )
Se(T1) ordinate of the elastic response spectrum at fundamental period Se(TC) ordinate of the elastic response spectrum at corner period
43
KEY: a b c A B shear diagram from analysis magnified shear diagram design envelope Vwall,base Vwall,topVwall,base/2
Figure 4.4 Design envelope of the shear forces in the walls of a dual system [CEN 2004]
At the critical regions of the wall the curvature ductility factor is required in order to calculate the confining reinforcement within boundary elements. The curvature ductility factor is now the product of the basic behaviour factor qo found in Section 4.2 and the ratio of the design bending moment from the analysis MEd, to the design flexural resistance MRd. This confining reinforcement should extend vertically up to a height hcr of the critical region and horizontally along the length lc of the boundary element. The length of this boundary element is the measure from extreme compression fibre to the point where spalling occurs in concrete due to large compressive strains. As a minimum the boundary region should be taken as being larger than 0.15.lw or 1.5.bw. The wall critical region height, hcr, is estimated using the following relationship: hw 2lw H for : nst 6 cl 6 2 Hcl for : nst 7
hcr =max lw ,
( 4.14)
44
Where, nst hw Hcl the number of storeys the wall height is the clear storey height. The base is defined as the level of the foundation or the top of the basement storey. is the length of the cross section of the wall
lw
Above the height of the critical region, hcr, the rules of EN1992 apply for the dimensioning of vertical and horizontal reinforcement.
45
Chapter 5: Structural modelling and analysis methods
5. ANALYSIS METHODS AND MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS

For the construction of the fragility curves different analysis methods were performed each following different modelling assumptions. For the purpose of this study two methods were performed; the nonlinear static pushover analysis and the nonlinear dynamic analysis. The results from these methods were then compared against a simplified method following the lateral force analysis method by Papailia [2011]. The following section explains the procedure and assumptions for the analysis methods and structural models. 5.1. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis Static pushover (SPO) analysis is performed for the evaluation of the buildings according to Eurocode 8 Part 1 [CEN,2004b]. SPO is performed using the structural model assumptions determined in Chapter 5.3 and using the computational software of ANSRuop. SPO is essentially an extension of the lateral force method of static analysis, but in the nonlinear regime. This method simulates the inertial forces due to a horizontal component of the seismic action. These lateral forces Fi increase throughout the analysis and are applied in small steps on the mass mi in proportion to the pattern of horizontal displacements, i . The magnitude of the lateral loads is controlled by and magnified in each step. = i (5.1)
According to EC8 [CEN,2004b], pushover analysis can be performed using the modal pattern which simulates the inertial forces of the first mode shape in the elastic regime. Since the buildings in the current study meet the conditions of the linear static analysis an inverted triangular lateral load pattern is applied. In this method the horizontal displacements i are such that i = zi , where zi is the height of the mass mi above the level of the application of the seismic action. The N2 method is employed according Fajfar et. al. [2000] as adopted in EC8 [CEN,2004b]. This method combines the pushover analysis of the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) model with the response spectrum analysis of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system. This method is formulated in the acceleration displacement format thus it enables the visualization of the relations between various quantities controlling the seismic response. Thus using this method the ground accelerations at the top of the soil are related to seismic
46
demands for every step of the analysis. The demands are then compared against the limit states according to Eurocode 8 Part 3 [CEN, 2005], therefore the PGA value that causes yielding and ultimate chord rotations and the ultimate shear force for each member on the structure is computed. Also the damage indices (ratio of the damage measure demand to the damage measure capacity for a member) can be easily obtained for every step of the analysis and used to construct fragility curves. 5.2. Incremental Dynamic Analysis Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is a method by Vamvatsikos and Cornell [2002] where seismic demands are estimated accurately through a series of nonlinear time-history analyses using several ground motion records scaled to multiple levels of intensity. IDA is used in order to uncover the structural models behavior in the elastic phase, the yielding and the nonlinear inelastic phase. The damage measures that are of interest are the peak chord rotation demands and the shear force demands at member ends. IDA is performed using the structural model assumptions determined in Chapter 5.3 and using the computational software of ANSRuop. As defined by Vamvatsikos and Cornell [2002], the scale factor (SF) is the scalar used in order to uniformly scale up or down the amplitude of the accelerogram. The accelerograms are scaled by a scalable Intensity Measure (IM) (i.e. excitation PGA).
= . (5.2)
Where, 1 is the scaled accelerogram time-history record is the unscaled accelerogram time-history record is the scale factor
The records were scaled so that they cover a range of PGA values which range from 0.05g to 0.95g with a step of 0.05g. The total number of analyses performed for each building sums up to 266 having 14 analyses for each of the 19 selected IM points. Eurocode 8-Part 3 [CEN, 2005] requires at least seven nonlinear dynamic analyses and then the average response quantities from these analyses are used as the damage measure damands. For this study 14 records have been selected as shown in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.2 in order to take into account the differences in the characteristics of the ground motion. Seven historic earthquakes were used to get semi-artificial bidirectional ground motion records for two horizontal directions X and Y. Each accelerogram is modified to be compatible with a smooth 5%- damped elastic response spectrum. The spectrum consists of an acceleration sensitive part for the periods of 0.2 to 0.6 sec, a velocity controlled part from 0.6 to 2 sec and a displacement control part from 2 and beyond. The pseudo-acceleration spectra for the 14
47
accelerogram records are compared to the smooth 5%-damped elastic spectrum for a PGA of 1g as shown in Figure 5.1. The damping matrix C is taken to be of Rayleigh type where C=aoM+a1K. ao and a1 are the mass and stiffness proportional damping coefficients respectively. These are obtained using the modal periods of the first and the second periods of the structure with the highest participating mass in the horizontal direction. A damping ratio of 5% is used and thus with the use of Rayleigh damping the viscous damping ratio is lower than 5% between the range of 1 and 2 and higher outside this range. The numerical integration of the equation of motion was performed using the Newmark method and the Newton-Rapson algorithm for the solution algorithm for the nonlinear analysis problem.
Table 5.1: Accelerogram records used in the analysis
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Event Imperial Valley, 1979 Imperial Valley, 1979 Loma Prieta, 1989 Loma Prieta, 1989 Kalamata, 1986 Kalamata, 1986 Montenegro, 1979 Montenegro, 1979 Friuli, 1976 Friuli, 1976 Montenegro, 1979 Montenegro, 1979 Imperial Valley, 1940 Imperial Valley, 1940
Station BondsCorner BondsCorner Capitola Capitola Kalamata Kalamata Herceg Novi Herceg Novi Tolmezzo Tolmezzo Ulcinj (2) Ulcinj (2) Elcentro Array #9 Elcentro Array #9
Component 140 230 000 090 X Y X Y X Y X Y 180 270
48
.
Figure 5.1 Pseudo-acceleration spectra for the semi-artificial input motions compared to the smooth target spectrum (shown with thick black line)
49
Figure 5.2 Time-histories of accelerograms used in the analysis
50
5.3. Structural modelling for IDA and SPO ANSRuop is the computational tool that is used in order to perform the modelling, seismic response analysis and evaluation of the structures [Kosmopoulos et al., 2005]. It is an improved and expanded version of ANSR-I which was developed at UC Berkeley [Mondkaret al., 1975]. The software is used for the analysis of reinforced concrete structures and consists of a user interface where the user can perform the various tasks. ANSRuop was used to perform nonlinear time-history analysis and nonlinear static pushover analysis. This section will explain the modelling assumptions taken for the members and the structure. Key points of the modelling of the reinforced concrete members are: For the modelling of all the reinforced concrete members inelasticity is lumped at the ends. For monotonic loading the reinforced concrete members follow a bilinear Moment curvature envelope and for the cyclic loading the members follow the Takeda hysteretic rules [Takeda et. al., 1970], modified to Litton [1975] and Otani [1974]. The chord rotations and moments are calculated in accordance to the EC8 [CEN,2004b], taking into account the confinement of the members.
Figure 5.3 Takeda model modified by Litton and Otani
Element elastic stiffness is taken as equal to the secant stiffness at yielding (EIeff). In order to find this value the shear span at the yielding end of the element is required. The shear span of the columns and the beams is taken as half the clear length between the beam-tocolumn joints within the plane of bending. In positive or negative bending it is the average secant-to-yielding stiffness at the two end sections. For walls the secant-to-yielding stiffness of the bottom section is used with a shear span ratio of one-half the height from the bottom of the section to the top of the wall in the building. The walls are modelled as cantilever walls. Axial load acts on the walls due to its selfweight and the floor loads. No mass is assigned due to its self-weight since it is taken into account by the mass taken from the floor loads. Masses for beams and columns are lumped at the nearest node of the element and are taken from the action of the permanent and imposed loads acting uniformly on the floors. No self-weight is assigned to the frame since it is taken into account in the floor loads.
51
Key points of the modelling of the structure are: The perimeter beam and exterior columns are modelled such that they have half the elastic rigidity of interior ones. Thus both interior and exterior beam and columns have the same seismic chord rotations demands whereas perimeter beam and exterior columns have half the elastic seismic moments of interior ones. Corner columns have one-quarter of elastic rigidity of interior ones thus the corner columns have one quarter of the elastic seismic moments of interior ones. This was modelled by applying an elastic seismic moment modification factor equal to 0.5 or 0.25 accordingly. One component of seismic action is considered along the X-axis direction. The translational degree of freedom (DOF) parallel to the direction of the seismic action (UX) is constrained for all nodes on each floor such that walls and frame share the same displacements. Since the building is symmetric with no torsional effects, the translational horizontal DOF perpendicular to the direction of the seismic action (UZ) and the rotational DOF in the vertical axis (RY) and the horizontal axis parallel to the direction of the seismic action (RX) are restrained. The translational DOF in the vertical axis (UY) and the rotational DOF in the horizontal axis perpendicular to the direction of the seismic action (RZ) are free. Prismatic beams are used where effective beam width is used for the contribution of the stiffness of the slab. The effective flange width of the T- beams on either side of the beam is taken to be 0.6m having a constant width over the whole span of the beam. The flange width is determined according to Eurocode 2 [CEN 2004a]. The strength and stiffness of the columns or walls are modelled independently in the two bending planes. The axial load variation is taken into account for the variation of the flexural properties. Columns support the gravity loads within a tributary area extending up to beam mid-span. All permanent and imposed loads per unit floor produce triangular distribution of loads on beams. P- effects are considered in the analysis through the linearized geometric stiffness matrix of columns. Due to the buildings symmetry only half of the building was used in the analysis to reduce computational demands having a building plan of 25m x 12.5m. The beams perpendicularly connected to the line of symmetry have half their length (2.5m) and no columns are located on the line of symmetry. (see Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5) Columns and walls are assumed fixed at ground level. Joints are considered rigid.
52
Figure 5.4 Structural model for a five storey dual building taken from ANSRuop
Figure 5.5 Structural model for an eight storey dual building taken from ANSRuop
5.4. Linear Static Analysis - Lateral Force Method The linear elastic (equivalent) static analysis lateral force method was performed by Papailia [2011] in order to carry out the design and the evaluation of the buildings for the construction of the fragility curves. The method was performed according to Eurocode 8 Part 1 [CEN,2004b], where the horizontal component of the seismic action is distributed with an assumed linear mode shape along the height of the building. This method is applied to buildings which are both regular in plan and in elevation, if the building response is not affected by higher modes. The base shear of the structure is determined according to the mass of the building and the design or elastic spectrum at the 1st translational mode of the structure. The design spectrum is used for the design of the buildings and the elastic spectrum for the assessment.
= , (5.3)
Where meff
53
is the effective mass of the building associated with the gravity loads
Se(T1) the elastic horizontal ground acceleration response spectrum at the fundamental period Sd(T1) the design spectrum at the fundamental period According to EC8, the elastic response spectrum Se(T) is defined by: = + . ( . )
5.4) = . 5.5) : = .

( 5.6) ( 5.7)
: = .
Where, S T Tc is the soil factor is the damping correction factor the period of vibration of linear SDOF system the corner period of the constant spectral acceleration branch the design ground acceleration on type A ground
The design response spectrum Sd(T1) is defined by: =

.(
( 5.8) ( 5.9)
= .
= .
. = .

( 5.10)
:
5.11)

54
is the behaviour factor is the lower bound factor for the horizontal design spectrum
All spectrums are computed by taking spectrum as Type 1 of soil class C, thus T C=0.6sec and the soil factor is 1.15. For the computation of the fundamental period of the structure the Rayleigh quotient is being used:
=

(5.12)
Where, i mi Fi i is the index of the degree of freedom, is the mass of the floors is the lateral force applied to the corresponding degree of freedom is the displacement obtained from the elastic analysis.
The base shear calculated in (5.3) is distributed along the height of the building. The distribution of the lateral forces is given by:
=

(5.13)
Where zi , zj is the height of the masses mi, mj above the level of application of the seismic action. According to EC8, if T1<2Tc and the building has more than two storeys then Fi is multiplied by a factor of 0.85. The simplifying assumptions for the lateral force analysis method are as follows:
55
Members considered in wall-frame or frame buildings are the interior columns and beams and walls in wall-frame buildings. All beam ends in a storey of a frame have the same elastic seismic moments and inelastic chord rotation demands. Perimeter beams have one-half the rigidity of interior ones for the same storey but the same inelastic seismic chord rotation demands. Interior columns have the same elastic seismic moments and inelastic chord rotation demands. Exterior columns have one-half the elastic seismic moments of the interior columns for the same storey but the same inelastic seismic chord rotation demands. The axial force variation due to seismic action is neglected in interior columns. The assessment of the seismic response is performed using the secant-to-yield-point rigidity according to CEN [2005]. Vertical elements are considered fixed at ground level and as having negligible bending moments due to gravity loads. Beam column joints and floor diaphragms are taken as rigid.
P- effects are considered in the analysis.
56
Chapter 6: Assessment of Buildings
6. ASSESMENT OF BUILDINGS
The assessment of the buildings is done by the procedure according to Eurocode 8 - Part 3 [CEN, 2005]. The estimation of the damage measure capacities for each limit state and computation of the damage measure demands for each analysis method are described in this chapter. Two limit states are considered as specified by EC8 Part3 [CEN,2005] for Damage Limitation which accounts for the yielding of the elements and the No collapse state which accounts for the ultimate or collapse limit of the elements. The equations given in this chapter are used for the assessment of the buildings and are adopted in the computational software ANSRuop and by Papailia [2011] for the simplified analysis using the lateral force method. 6.1. Limit State of Damage Limitation (DL) According to Eurocode 8 Part 3 [CEN, 2005], the capacity used for this limit state is the yielding bending moment under the design value of the axial force. In order to compute the yielding moment of the members, first the yield curvature should be calculated, which is identified with the yielding of the tension reinforcement. The yield curvature, , is given by: = Where, fyL is the yield stress of the longitudinal bars

1
( 6.1)
is the neutral axis depth at yielding (normalized to the section effective depth, d), given by: = (2 2 + 2 )1/2 Where, A and B
57
( 6.2)
is the ratio of the elastic moduli (steel to concrete) , Ec are given by:
Es

(1+ 1 ) 2
= 1 + 2 + + Where, 1 and 2
= 1 + 2 1 +
( 6.3)
the ratios of the tension and compression reinforcement respectively. The area of any diagonal steel reinforcement is added multiplied by the cosine of their angle. the ratio of the web reinforcement the ratio of the distance of the centre of compression reinforcement from the extreme compression fibre to the width of the compression zone, 1 . is the axial load
For members of high axial load ratio, =/cfc, the curvature is: =
1.8
( 6.4)
where the neutral axis depth at yielding, , is the same as before, but A and B becomes = 1 + 2 + 1.8
= 1 + 2 1 +
(1+ 1 ) 2
( 6.5)
The lower of the two values becomes the yield curvature. Thus the yield moment can be computed as:
3
= {
1+ 1 2
1 1 2
1 1 + 1 2 +
1 1
( 6.6)
The chord rotation at yielding according to Biskinis and Fardis [2010], adopted in Eurocode 8 Part 3 is evaluated by: For beams and columns with rectangular sections,
+ 3
= For walls,
+ 0.0014 1 + 1.5
+ asl
( 6.7)
= Where,
58
+ 3
+ 0.0013 + asl
( 6.8)
y avz
is the yield curvature of the end section is the tension drift of the bending moment diagram where: o av = 1, if yield moment at the section exceeds the product of LV and the shear resistance of the member considered without shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2 (CEN 2004). My > VR,c Lv. av = 0 if otherwise. o z is the length of the internal lever arm taken equal to z = d-d1 in beams and columns, z = 0.8h in walls with rectangular section.
asl
asl=1 if slippage of longitudinal bars from anchorage zone beyond the end section is possible. The contribution of bar pull-out from joints to the fixed end rotation at member ends is considered when asl=1. asl=0 if slippage is not possible
fy and fc d Ls/h dbL
steel yield stress and concrete strength respectively the effective depth of the full section. shear span ratio the mean diameter of the tension reinforcement.
The first term of the above equations relate to the theoretical yield curvature. It takes into account the shift rule where the yielding of the tension reinforcement shifts up to the point of the first diagonal crack leading to an increase in yield chord rotation. The second term of the above expression relates to the experimental chord rotation at flexural yielding and the third term of the expression accounts for the slippage of the longitudinal bars from the anchorage zone to the end of the section. For verifications carried out in terms of deformations, deformation demands obtained from the analysis of the structural model require the use of the estimation of the effective cracked stiffness of concrete at yielding. Thus according to EC8 [CEN,2005] the secant stiffness to the member yield-point is used: = Where, My is the yield moment using the mean material strengths.
3
( 6.9)
LV is the member shear span which is the ratio of M/V at the member ends, thus it is the distance of the member end to the point of zero moments. y
59
is the yield chord rotation
6.2. Limit State of Near Collapse (NC) The value of the total chord rotation capacity at ultimate of concrete members under cyclic loading is taken from Biskinis and Fardis [2010] which is also adopted in Eurocode 8- Part 3. The flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotation is equal to:
= y +
( 6.10)
Where

the plastic part of the chord rotation capacity of concrete members under cyclic loading
= 1 0.525acy
1 + 0.6asl
h
1 0.2
v max 0.01; 2 max 0.01; 1
0.052max 1.5; min 10; bw
min(9; h )
Lv
1/3
0.2
25
1.225100
( 6.11) Where,

is equal to 0.022 for heat-treated (Tempcore) steel is equal to zero for monotonic loading and one for cyclic loading. is equal to one if there is slip in the longitudinal reinforcement bars from their anchorage beyond the section of maximum moment or zero if there is not. is the depth of the member is the shear span ratio at the end of the section =N/bhfc where b is the width of compression zone and N is the axial force is the mechanical reinforcement ratio of the tension and compression longitudinal reinforcement respectively, including web reinforcement 1 = 1 + / and 2 = 2 / the concrete compressive strength and the stirrup yield strength (MPa) respectively obtained as mean values.
acy asl
h LV=M/V 1 , 2 Where, and
=Asx/bwsh is the ratio of transverse steel parallel to the direction x of the loading,
60
sh
is the stirrup spacing. the steel ratio of the diagonal reinforcement in each diagonal direction the confinement effectiveness factor which is equal to:
= 1 2
1 2
1 6
( 6.12)
Where, bi the dimension of confined core to the centreline of the hoop the centreline spacing of longitudinal bars laterally restrained by a stirrup corner or a cross tie along the perimeter of the cross section.
According to Eurocode 8 - Part 3 [CEN, 2005], the cyclic shear strength, VR as controlled by the stirrups, for beams, columns and walls is according to the following expression. (units are MN and meters). =
2 min ; 0.55 + 1 0.05 5;
. 0.15 0.5; 100 ( 6.13)
0.165;+ Where, h x LV=M/V N Ac

is the depth of the cross section is the compression zone depth is the ratio of moment/shear at the end of the section is the compression axial force is the cross sectional area taken as bwd for a rectangular web of width bw and structural depth of d. the concrete compressive strength (MPa) obtained as mean values. For primary seismic elements it is divided by a partial factor for concrete. the longitudinal reinforcement ratio the plastic demand of ductility demand, which is the ratio of the plastic part of the chord rotation, , normalized to the chord rotation at yielding, y. is the contribution of the transverse reinforcement to shear resistance taken equal to
Vw
61
= Where, z the transverse reinforcement ratio length of the internal lever arm
( 6.14)
yield stress of the transverse reinforcement. For primary seismic elements it is divided by the partial factor for steel
The shear strength of a concrete wall, , should not exceed the value which corresponds to the failure due to web crushing, , . This limit under cyclic loading is given by the following expression (units are in MN and meters) , =
0.85 1 0.06 5;
1 + 1.8 0.15;
1+
0.25max 1.75;100)10.22; ( 6.15) fc is in MPa, bw and z are in meters and VR,max is in MN. If web crashing occurs prior to flexural yielding then the shear strength under cyclic loading is obtained when = 0. If the shear span ratio at the end section in a concrete column is less than or equal to 2 (Ls/h 2.0) then its shear strength, , should not exceed the value which corresponds to failure by the crushing of the web along the diagonal of the column after flexural yielding, , , which under cyclic loading may be calculated as: , =
4 7 1 0.02 5;
1 + 1.35
1 + 0.45 (100 )
40; 2 ( 6.16)
Where is the angle between the diagonal and the axis of the column: tan = 2 .
62
6.3. Estimation of damage measure demands Demands are obtained from the analysis of the structural model for the seismic action depending on the analysis method. It is reminded that the damage measure demands in this study are the peak chord rotation and shear force demands. The peak chord rotation is defined as the member drift ratio; the deflection at the end of the shear span divided by the shear span. In the nonlinear time-history analysis the wall shear force demands in wall-frame buildings are not amplified to capture the effects of higher modes since they are taken into account in the analysis. In the lateral force method by Papailia [2011] once plastic hinge starts forming in the base of the wall the shear force demands are amplified to take into account higher mode effects according to the proposal in Keintzel [1990] adopted also by CEN [2004a] for DC H walls. Once plastic hinges starts forming in the structure the shear forces in beams and columns are calculated from the plastic mechanism and the yield moments of the sections.
63
Chapter 7: Methodology of Fragility Analysis
7. METHODOLOGY OF FRAGILITY ANALYSIS

The seismic fragility curves of regular reinforced concrete frame and wall-frame buildings are studied. Three-dimensional models of the full buildings are used in order to construct the fragility curves using the nonlinear static pushover analysis (SPO) and the dynamic analysis (IDA). These results are then compared against the fragility curves obtained using the lateral force method by Papailia [2011]. The results are presented in terms of fragility curves for two member limit states of yielding and ultimate deformation in bending or shear. 7.1. Damage Measures The damage measures (DM) used in order to obtain the fragility curves in this study are the chord rotations and the shear force demands. The chord rotations are found for the two damage states of yielding and ultimate conditions and the shear forces are found for the ultimate condition due to shear failure. The shear forces are taken from outside or inside the plastic hinge. The mean values for the capacities of the two damage states are obtained using Eurocode 8 Part 3 [CEN,2005] and are consistent with the capacities for flexure of Biskinis and Fardis [2010a,b] and for shear of Biskinis et al. [2004] as presented in Chapter 6. The values for DM-demand for each member are obtained through the deterministic seismic analysis (for the three seismic analysis methods). The damage measure demands obtained from the LFM are taken for each IM through a deterministic static analysis using an inverted triangular pattern as presented in Papailia [2011]. In the dynamic analysis (IDA) the mean damage measure demands from the 14 semiartificial accelerogram dynamic analyses are obtained for each IM (i.e. the excitation PGA). The damage measure demands obtained for the SPO analysis are obtained from deterministic nonlinear static analysis using the inverted triangular distribution pattern.
All analysis procedures follow the methods and approaches provided by CEN (2005) and the mean material properties were used (fcm=fck+8MPa and fym=1.15fyk, see Section 3.3).
64
7.2. Exclusion of unrealistic results for IDA Certain damage measure demands obtained from IDA are much higher than the capacities of the members. This may lead to erroneous response estimates. This error comes from numerical instability thus this may lead to unrealistic response values. These values need to be neglected when calculating the mean and variance values of these damage indices which are required to construct the fragility curves. Therefore, damage indices (ratio of the DMdemands to DM-capacities) larger than a threshold of 200% of the mean damage indices per IM (i.e. excitation PGA) are neglected when calculating the statistical parameters. Figure 7.1 shows an example where the damage indices above the continuous line on the plot (i.e. the threshold) are neglected. The zero-value damage indices are due to incomplete analyses and are also neglected.
Figure 7.1 Exclusion of unrealistic results in IDA (damage indices above continuous line are neglected)
7.3. Determination of variability The coefficient of variation (CoV) reflects all the variability and uncertainty regarding the used models, materials and geometries and the characteristics of seismic input. The variation of the DM-capacities reflects the uncertainty in the models that are used to estimate the mean capacity values and the scatter of the material and the geometric properties. These CoV values are taken from Biskinis et al. [2004] and Biskinis and Fardis [2010a,b], and are presented in Table 7.1. The CoV values for the DM-demands used for the SPO and LFM are different than the ones taken for IDA:
65
The CoV values for the damage measure demands used for IDA are found explicitly from the analysis. In the dynamic analysis the variability of the DM-demand of the 14 semi-artificial accelerograms cover the variability of the ground motion and of damage measure demand. For the computation of the fragility curves using the LFM and SPO the CoV values for DM-demands cannot be found explicitly from the analysis. Thus the CoV values for the chord rotation demands are based on extensive comparisons of inelastic to their elastic estimates of chord rotation demands in height wise regular multi-storey buildings by Panayiotakos and Fardis [1999], Kosmopoulos and Fardis [2007]. The coefficient of variation values for the shear force demands listed are based on parametric studies. These CoV values are presented in Table 7.2.
The CoV values per storey in terms of intensity measure (i.e. PGA) obtained from IDA are presented in Appendix C1. On the same plots the straight line represents the CoV values for the damage measure demands and the CoV values of the spectral value taken from Table 7.2. Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 illustrate examples of the dispersion values per IM (i.e. PGA) for a frame and a wall-frame dual building. It can be observed that the CoV-values determined through IDA are lower than the ones determined from previous studies (shown in a straight line on the plot representing CoV-values of DM-demand and spectral value). Also the mean dispersions of DM-demands for beams and columns are slightly higher in wall-frame buildings than in frames. There is a larger scatter of CoV-values in the storeys of dual buildings compared to pure frame.
66
Figure 7.2 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands for five-storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
67
Figure 7.3 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands for five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
68
7.4. Construction of fragility curves For the construction of fragility curves the probability of a damage measure (DM) demand to exceed a certain DM-capacity is expressed in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). PGA was used instead of other intensity measures in order to be consistent with the use of the design acceleration as a design parameter. As mentioned previously the members fragilities are expressed for the damage states of yielding and ultimate. The member yielding or ultimate damage state in flexure is reached when the chord rotation at the member end exceeds the yielding or ultimate flexural capacity. The shear failure is when the shear force exceeds the shear capacity of the member, where the shear capacity is a function of the rotation ductility demand at the member end. The fragility of the member is obtained for each IM (i.e. PGA) from deterministic analysis and is the conditional-on-IM probability that the demand of the given damage measure will exceed its capacity. It is assumed that the fragility curves are expressed in log-normal distribution. Based on this assumption the cumulative probability of occurrence can be expressed as: = 1

2 + 2 2 +
( 7.1)
Where, D C is the damage measure demand (DM- demand) is the threshold damage measure capacity for a limit state (DM- capacity) is the mean damage index for each IM. The damage indices obtained using IDA are the mean of the 14 damage indices per IM (i.e. PGA). The damage indices for the SPO and LFM are found from the analysis. is the standard normal distribution are the standard deviation for the capacity and the demand, such that = 2 2 ln (1 + ) and = ln (1 + ). it is the standard deviation for the spectral value ( ) given in Table 7.2. 2 = ln (1 + ). It is not used for IDA, since dispersion is taken explicitly from the analysis; i.e. = 0 for IDA. is the coefficient of variation for the DM-capacity values found in Table 7.1. is the coefficient of variation for the DM-demand values and values from Table 7.2. For the IDA method they are found explicitly from the analysis.
69
is the coefficient of variation for the spectral value.

Table 7.1 Values of coefficient of variation for DM-capacity values
Capacity 1 2 3 4 5 6 Beam or column chord rotation at yielding Beam or column chord rotation at ultimate
CoV 0.33 0.38
Shear resistance in diagonal tension (inside or outside 0.15 plastic hinge) Wall chord rotation at yielding of the base Wall chord rotation at ultimate of the base Wall shear resistance in diagonal compression 0.40 0.32 0.175
Table 7.2 Values of coefficient of variation for DM-demand values
Demand 1 2 3 4 5 6
CoV
Beam chord rotation demand, for given spectral 0.25 value at the fundamental period Column chord rotation demand, for given spectral 0.20 value at the fundamental period Wall chord rotation demand, for given spectral 0.25 value at the fundamental period Beam shear force demand, for given spectral value 0.10 at the fundamental period Column shear force demand, for given spectral 0.15 value at the fundamental period Wall shear force demand, for given spectral value at the fundamental period 0.20
Spectral value, for given PGA and fundamental 0.25 period
70
Chapter 8: Results and Discussion
8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results from the analysis of the structural models and the member fragility curves for the types of buildings examined are discussed in this chapter. Section 8.1 presents the modal analysis results from the three-dimensional structural models. Section 8.2 indicates the median PGAs (g) at attainment of the damage states of each member for the three analysis methods. Section 8.3 discusses the fragility results for wall-frame dual systems and Section 8.4 for frame systems. The differences in fragility curves according to the different design parameters (see Section 3.1) are further discussed. Section 8.5 presents the comparison of the member fragility curves for the three different analysis methods. It is reminded that the methods of analysis include the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) and the Static Pushover Analysis (SPO) and these were compared against a simplified method using the Lateral force method (LFM) by Papailia [2011]. In the current chapter only indicative results will be shown in order to draw conclusions on the results of the analysis. Appendix A1 presents the member fragility curves of all the examined buildings analysed using IDA and in Appendix A2 using the SPO analysis. Appendix A3 presents the wall member fragility curves for shear ultimate state for the different methods. In LFM analysis wall fragility curves for shear failure include results with and without inelastic amplifications to take into account higher mode effects. Appendix B1 presents the member fragility curves for the three different methods and Appendix B2 presents the comparison of the member fragility curves for the most critical member for the three methods. Appendix C1 presents the coefficient of variation values per IM (i.e. excitation PGA) used in the construction of the fragility curves and Appendix C2 presents the damage indices (ratio of DM-demands to DM-capacities) per IM for each member.
71
8.1. Modal analysis results The modal periods and participating masses of the structural model used for the three modes with the largest modal participation mass percentage is given in the following tables. The modal periods of the structure are obtained using the effective stiffness of the members using the structural software of ANSRuop.
Table 8.1 Modal periods and participating masses for frame systems
Storeys 5
Design PGA 0.20g
DC M
Mode 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
T (sec) 1.91 0.56 0.27 1.72 0.52 0.26 1.69 0.51 0.26
0.25g
0.25g
Effective modal mass (%) 78.17 12.72 5.31 79.21 11.88 5.35 80.08 11.46 4.98
Table 8.2 Modal periods and participating masses for frame-equivalent dual systems
Storeys 5
Design PGA 0.20g
DC M
Mode 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
T (sec) 1.99 0.56 0.26 1.66 0.45 0.20 1.63 0.46 0.22 2.61 0.72 0.33 2.50 0.70 0.34
0.25g
0.25g
0.20g
0.25g
Effective modal mass (%) 75.42 13.22 6.03 73.60 14.37 5.62 74.4 13.44 6.32 70.87 13.92 6.22 71.72 13.03 5.98
72
Table 8.3 Modal periods and participating masses for wall-equivalent dual systems
Storeys 5
Design PGA 0.20g
DC M
Mode 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
T (sec) 1.83 0.48 0.23 1.46 0.37 0.15 1.50 0.40 0.17 2.49 0.67 0.29 2.32 0.67 0.33
0.25g
0.25g
0.20g
0.25g
Effective modal mass (%) 73.12 14.59 6.63 71.52 15.84 6.64 72.39 15.19 6.64 69.62 14.58 6.50 69.13 13.68 6.45
Table 8.4 Modal periods and participating masses for wall dual systems
Storeys 5
Design PGA 0.20g
DC M
Mode 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
T (sec) 1.62 0.39 0.16 1.24 0.28 0.11 1.15 0.25 0.10 2.11 0.51 0.21 1.92 0.46 0.19 1.57 0.33 0.13
0.25g
0.25g
0.20g
0.25g
0.25g
Effective modal mass (%) 70.66 16.46 6.88 69.22 17.65 7.19 68.56 18.14 7.30 67.57 16.12 6.77 67.34 16.45 6.81 65.22 17.77 7.17
73
The modal analysis results illustrate that the buildings designed for higher design peak ground acceleration or ductility class generally slightly reduces the fundamental period of the structure is; i.e. making the structure stiffer. As the proportion of total base shear taken by the walls increases, the effective modal mass percentage decreases at the first mode and increases for higher modes. Design for a higher PGA reduces effective modal mass percentage at the fundamental period and increases at the higher modes. 8.2. Median PGAs at attainment of the damage state for the three methods The median PGAs at attainment of the damage states for the members indicate clearly the differences between the three analysis methods and the differences when designing to different design parameters (Table 8.5 to Table 8.11). The median PGAs indicate the PGA values for 50% probability of exceeding a certain damage state in each member. A dash (-) indicates that the median PGA is larger than 1g. Member median PGA at attainment of the damage state is presented for members in flexure and in shear. Discussion on the results shown in these tables is made in Section 8.3, Section 8.4 and Section 8.5.
Table 8.5 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the damage state in 5-storey frame systems
design PGA 0.20g
DC M
0.25g
0.25g
Analysis Beam Beam Beam Column Column Column method Yielding Ultimate Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Ultimate (flex) (shear) (flex) (shear) LFM 0.14g 0.65g 0.84g SPO 0.12g 0.70g 0.69g IDA 0.14g 0.74g 0.85g LFM 0.16g 0.79g 0.74g 0.95g SPO 0.16g 0.78g 0.70g IDA 0.19g 0.74g 0.81g LFM 0.13g 0.70g 0.68g SPO 0.17g 0.80g 0.60g IDA 0.19g 0.83g 0.64g -
Table 8.6 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the damage state in 5-storey frame-equivalent systems
design PGA
0.20g
DC
M
0.25g
0.25g
Analysis Beam Beam Column Column Wall Wall Wall method Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Ultimate (flex) (flex) (flex) (shear) LFM 0.14g 0.62g 0.35g 0.09g 0.35g 0.25g SPO 0.13g 0.75g 0.42g 0.82g 0.06g 0.29g IDA 0.18g 0.82g 0.52g 0.08g 0.38g 0.94g LFM 0.18g 0.83g 0.39g 0.94g 0.11g 0.43g 0.19g SPO 0.19g 0.68g 0.52g 0.09g 0.39g IDA 0.22g 0.75g 0.46g 0.10g 0.43g 0.39g LFM 0.14g 0.83g 0.38g 0.10g 0.44g 0.38g SPO 0.16g 0.77g 0.44g 0.09g 0.41g IDA 0.19g 0.94g 0.44g 0.10g 0.47g 0.90g
74
Table 8.7 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the damage state in 5-storey wall-equivalent dual systems
design PGA 0.20g
DC M
0.25g
0.25g
Analysis Beam Beam Column Column Wall Wall Wall method Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Ultimate (flex) (flex) (flex) (shear) LFM 0.14g 0.73g 0.38g 0.98g 0.10g 0.38g 0.19g SPO 0.18g 0.87g 0.46g 0.95g 0.09g 0.37g IDA 0.19g 0.71g 0.45g 0.11g 0.45g 0.42g LFM 0.19g 0.95 0.43g 0.11g 0.44g 0.18g SPO 0.25g 0.53g 0.11g 0.43g IDA 0.25g 0.84g 0.46g 0.13g 0.46g 0.37g LFM 0.14g 0.83g 0.38g 0.10g 0.44g 0.38g SPO 0.20g 0.81g 0.48g 0.09g 0.45g IDA 0.22g 0.76g 0.40g 0.11g 0.45g 0.53g
Table 8.8 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the damage state in 5-storey wall systems
design PGA 0.20g
DC M
0.25g
0.25g
Analysis Beam Beam Column Column Wall Wall Wall method Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Ultimate (flex) (flex) (flex) (shear) LFM 0.17g 0.84g 0.42g 0.11g 0.41g 0.17g SPO 0.19g 0.78g 0.47g 0.11g 0.39g IDA 0.20g 0.65g 0.38g 0.13g 0.39g 0.33g LFM 0.22g 0.47g 0.13g 0.53g 0.19g SPO 0.29g 0.61g 0.16g 0.54g IDA 0.24g 0.51g 0.18g 0.39g 0.29g LFM 0.25g 0.57g 0.17g 0.71g 0.51g SPO 0.24g 0.95g 0.72g 0.18g 0.62g IDA 0.28g 0.54g 0.20g 0.57g 0.72g
Table 8.9 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the damage state in 8-storey frame-equivalent dual systems
design PGA 0.20g
DC M
0.25g
Analysis Beam Beam Column Column Wall Wall Wall method Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Ultimate (flex) (flex) (flex) (shear) LFM 0.14g 0.64g 0.35g 0.09g 0. 31g 0.58g SPO 0.25g 0.86g 0.76g 0.07g 0.29g IDA 0.27g 0.84g 0.77g 0.09g 0.39g 0.88g LFM 0.14g 0.78g 0.33g 0.09g 0.33g 0.51g SPO 0.28g 0.77g 0.71g 0.06g 0.30g IDA 0.31g 0.94g 0.77g 0.09g 0.40g 0.77g
75
Table 8.10 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the damage state in 8-storey wall-equivalent dual systems
design PGA 0.20g
DC M
0.25g
Analysis Beam Beam Column Column Wall Wall Wall method Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Ultimate (flex) (flex) (flex) (shear) LFM 0.13g 0.70g 0.44g 0.11g 0.43g 0.18g SPO 0.24g 0.88g 0.83g 0.10g 0.47g IDA 0.29g 0.70g 0.67g 0.12g 0.53g 0.61g LFM 0.20g 0.92g 0.38g 0.12g 0.48g 0.18g SPO 0.27g 0.82g 0.83g 0.12g 0.50g IDA 0.30g 0.81g 0.57g 0.14g 0.54g 0.67g
Table 8.11 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the damage state in 8-storey wall systems
design PGA 0.20g
DC M
0.25g
Analysis Beam Beam Column Column Wall Wall Wall method Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Yielding Ultimate Ultimate (flex) (flex) (flex) (shear) LFM 0.17g 0.89g 0.49g 0.12g 0.47g 0.18g SPO 0.22g 0.84g 0.84g 0.13g 0.47g IDA 0.24g 0.74g 0.64g 0.14g 0.39g 0.29g LFM 0.20g 0.44g 0.14g 0.53g 0.19g SPO 0.37g 0.94g 0.56g 0.13g 0.50g IDA 0.35g 0.84g 0.45g 0.14g 0.40g 0.35g
8.3. Fragility curve results for wall-frame dual systems The fragility curves of members for prototype plan- and height-wise very regular reinforced concrete wall-frame buildings are discussed in this section for the results obtained from IDA and SPO. Parameters that were studied include the number of storeys, the level of Eurocode 8 design (in terms of design peak ground acceleration and ductility class) and the percentage of seismic base shear taken by the walls. The member fragility curves of all the buildings examined for the analysis performed using nonlinear dynamic analysis are presented in Appendix A1 and for nonlinear static pushover analysis in Appendix A2. Figure 8.1, Figure 8.13, Figure 8.14, Figure 8.16, Figure 8.20, Figure 8.21 and Figure 8.22 refer to examples of wall-frame buildings. The first column in each set concerns the beams, the second the column and the third the walls. The first row in each set is for yielding and the second for ultimate state. The fragility curves of beams and columns for the wall-frame systems are presented for the ultimate state in flexure since it is more critical than shear failure. In frame systems the envelope of flexural and shear ultimate damage state for beams and columns is presented. Fragility curves of walls in the ultimate state are the envelope of the ultimate damage state in flexure and shear.
76

1 0.5 0 Beams are much 0 more likely 0.2 to reach 0.4 the ultimate 0.6 damage 0.8 state than 1 columns. (see
The conclusions for the wall-frame (dual) systems are:
Figure 8.1).
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Figure 8.1 Fragility curves for five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to PGA=0.20g and DC M analyzed using IDA method
Walls are the most critical members in every design scenario for both yielding and ultimate damage state. For the analysis performed using IDA, wall failure is usually more critical in shear than in flexure, except in the following cases: o Eight-storey frame-equivalent and wall-equivalent dual systems (see Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.3). o Five-storey frame-equivalent system designed to 0.20g and DC M (see Figure 8.4 (left)). o Five-storey buildings designed to 0.25g and DC H. (see Figure 8.4 (right) and Figure 8.5). The wall fragility curves of wall-equivalent dual buildings in the ultimate state are similar for shear and flexure failure. (see Figure 8.2 to Figure 8.4)
77
Figure 8.2 Fragility curves of walls for eight-storey frame-equivalent (left) and wallequivalent building (right) designed to PGA=0.20g and DC M analyzed using IDA method
Figure 8.3 Fragility curves of walls for eight-storey frame-equivalent (left) and wallequivalent building (right) designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M analyzed using IDA method
Figure 8.4 Fragility curves of walls for five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to PGA=0.20g and DC M (left) and wall building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g (right) analyzed using IDA method
78
Figure 8.5 Fragility curves of walls for five-storey frame-equivalent (left) and wall-equivalent (right) buildings designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g analyzed using IDA method
The fragility curves of beams and columns, for the results taken from IDA method, are presented for frame-equivalent, wall-equivalent and wall systems in Figure 8.6, Figure 8.7, Figure 8.8 and Figure 8.9. As it can be observed, the fragility results of beams for both damage states show that the middle-storey beams have the highest fragility. The top-storey beams have the lowest in the yielding state and the first-storey beams the lowest in the ultimate state (see Figure 8.6 and Figure 8.8). The first-storey columns are the most critical in five-storey buildings (see Figure 8.7) and the first- and topstorey columns in eight-storey buildings (see Figure 8.9). The middle-storey columns are the least fragile in all buildings for both damage states (see Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.9). As the proportion of the total base shear taken by the wall increases, the fragility of the middle-storey columns in both damage states increases. This observation holds for five- and eight-storey wall-frame buildings (see Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.9). As the proportion of the total base shear taken by the wall increases, the fragility of the lower- and top-storey beams does not significantly change in the yielding state and increases in the ultimate state. This observation holds for five- and eight-storey wallframe buildings (see Figure 8.6 and Figure 8.8).
79
x 10 Chapter 8: Results and Discussion 8 6 4 2 0
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.6 Beam fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state of a five-storey frame-equivalent
x 10 (left), wall-equivalent (middle) and wall system (right) building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g 8 6 4 2 0
-3
analyzed with IDA

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.7 Column fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state of a five-storey frameequivalent (left), wall-equivalent (middle) and wall system (right) building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA
80

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.8 Beam fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state of a eight-storey frame-equivalent (left), wall-equivalent (middle) and wall system (right) building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
analyzed with IDA

1st 5th 2nd 6th 3rd 7th 4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.9 Column fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state of a eight-storey frame-equivalent (left), wall-equivalent (middle) and wall system (right) building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g analyzed with IDA
81
The differences between fragility curves for different design parameters are: 1) Design ductility class Design to DC M in lieu of DC H the fragility of beams may reduce against yielding and increase against ultimate state. However, such effects are neither systematic nor marked (see Figure 8.10, Figure 8.11 and Figure 8.12). Design to DC M in lieu of DC H column fragility is reduced in frame-equivalent and wall-equivalent systems (see Figure 8.10 and Figure 8.11) but increased in wall systems (see Figure 8.10, Figure 8.11 and Figure 8.12). Wall fragility in the yielding damage state does not significantly change and in the ultimate damage state (the envelope of flexure and shear collapse) is higher for DC M walls. (see Figure 8.10, Figure 8.11 and Figure 8.12)
82
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
DC M
DC H
Figure 8.10 Fragility curves for most critical members of fivestorey frame-equivalent building designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M analyzed using IDA method
83
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
DC M
DC H
Figure 8.11 Fragility curves for most critical members of fivestorey wall-equivalent building designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M analyzed using IDA method
84
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
DC M
DC H
Figure 8.12 Fragility curves for most critical members of five storey wall building designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M analyzed using IDA method
2) Height of the building Taller buildings exhibit lower fragilities for beams and columns and similar fragilities for walls in both damage states (see Figure 8.13). The latter is observed except in the case of the eight-storey wall building designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M which has lower fragility for beams but higher fragility for columns and walls. (see Figure 8.14)
85
1 0.5 0 Chapter 8: Results and Discussion 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure 8.13 Member fragility curves of frame-equivalent dual systems designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M for: (top) five storey; (bottom) eight-storey using IDA method
86
1 0.5 0 0 0.2 Chapter 8: Results and Discussion
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure 8.14 Member fragility curves for wall systems designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M curves of: (top) five storey; (bottom) eight-storey using IDA method
3) Proportion of total base shear taken by the wall Wall-equivalent dual and wall buildings have similar fragilities for beams and columns but lower than frame-equivalent dual systems since the deformation demand of the frame is higher. Wall-equivalent dual systems are in-between but closer to wall dual systems. (see Figure 8.15 - Wall ultimate damage state is presented for both (f) flexure and (g) shear collapse ). As the proportion of total base shear taken by the wall increases, the walls in yielding and ultimate damage state in flexure have lower fragilities but higher for the ultimate state in shear. (see Figure 8.15).
87
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
FE
WE
WS
Figure 8.15 Member fragility curves for a five-storey frame-equivalent (FE), wall-equivalent (WE), wall dual (WS) system designed to PGA=0.20g and DC M using SPO method for most critical storey members.
88
4) Design peak ground acceleration (PGA) Design for a higher PGA reduces fragility of beams in both damage states and may slightly increase fragility of columns; however this effect is neither systematic nor marked. Wall fragility is not significantly changed when designing for higher PGA. (see Figure 8.16 and Figure 8.17)
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4 3rd 0.6 7th 0.8 4th 8th 1
Figure 8.16 Fragility curves of eightstorey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and: (top) PGA=0.20g; (bottom) PGA=0.25g analyzed using IDA method
89
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4 0.5 PGA=0.20g
0.6 0.7 PGA=0.25g
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.17 Member fragility curves for a eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and for PGA=0.20g and PGA=0.25g using IDA method for most critical storey members.
90
8.4. Fragility curve results for frame systems The construction of fragility curves of plan- and height-wise very regular reinforced concrete frame buildings were also examined. Parameters that were studied include the level of Eurocode 8 design (in terms of ductility class and design PGA). The following conclusions can be drawn based on the results of the frame systems: Frames give satisfactory fragility results even beyond their design PGAs. (see Table 8.5) Beams yield before their design PGA whereas the columns remain elastic well beyond the design PGA. Also beams are much more likely to reach the ultimate damage state than columns. (see Figure 8.18 to Figure 8.22 and Table 8.5). Design for higher PGA reduces only slightly the fragilities of beams and columns in yielding damage state and may increase fragility in the ultimate damage state (see Figure 8.18). Design to DC M instead of DC H may reduce slightly the fragility of beams and columns against yielding, but may increase that of beams against ultimate. (see Figure 8.19) Wall-frame (dual) systems have, in general, higher fragility than frame systems for columns and lower for beams (see Figure 8.20, Figure 8.21 and Figure 8.22).
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4 0.5 PGA=0.20g
0.6 0.7 PGA=0.25g
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.18 Member fragility curves for a five-storey frame system designed DC M and to PGA=0.20g and PGA=0.25g using IDA method for most critical storey members.
91
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
DC M
DC H
Figure 8.19 Member fragility curves for a five-storey frame system designed PGA=0.25g and to DC M and DC H using IDA method for most critical storey members.
92
1 0.5 0 0 Discussion 0.2 Chapter 8: Results and
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure 8.20 Fragility curves of five-storey buildings designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M analyzed using IDA method: (top) frame buildings; (bottom) frame-equivalent buildings
93
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure 8.21 Fragility curves of five-storey buildings designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M analyzed using IDA method: (top) frame buildings; (bottom) wall-equivalent buildings
94
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure 8.22 Fragility curves of five-storey buildings designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M analyzed using IDA method: (top) frame buildings; (bottom) wall buildings
95
8.5. Comparison between analysis methods As described in previous chapters the methods of analysis performed for the construction of member fragility curves are the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) and the Static Pushover Analysis (SPO). These fragility curves were then compared against results taken from a simplified analysis using the lateral force method (LFM) by Papailia [2011]. Conclusions and observations about the comparison between each analysis method can be made from the median PGA at the attainment of each damage state (see Table 8.5 to Table 8.11) and the fragility curves as illustrated in Appendix B1 for all the examined buildings. Also Appendix B2 presents the fragility comparisons of the three methods for the most critical members. Comparing the three methods the following observations can be made:
1 1
Examples of beam fragility curves in the yielding damage state for the three methods (LFM, SPO and IDA) for the most critical members are presented in Figure 8.23 and 0.5 0.5 buildings and Figure 8.25 for frame buildings. It can be Figure 8.24 for wall-frame observed that the three methods yield similar results. In five-storey buildings the fragility results of beams in the yielding damage state 0 0 taken from LFM are slightly higher than SPO and IDA (see Figure 8.23 and Figure 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 1 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1 1.2 1.4 8.25). In eight-storey buildings there is a larger difference between fragility results taken from LFM and the other two methods. (see Figure 8.24)
LFM (>1) LFM (=1) LFM (>1) SPO LFM (=1) IDA SPO IDA
Figure 8.23 Beam fragility curves in yielding state for five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g (left) and wall-equivalent building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g (right).
96
0.5
0.5
0 Results and Discussion 0 Chapter 8: 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6

LFM (>1)
0.2 0.8
0.4 1
0.6 1.2
0.81.4
1.2
1.4
LFM (=1) LFM (>1)
SPO LFM (=1)
IDA SPO
IDA
0.5
0.5
Figure 8.24 fragility0.4 curves in yielding state eight-storey frame-equivalent designed1.4 to 0 Beam 0.2 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 for 0.4 1 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1building 1.2 DC M and PGA=0.20g (left) and wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g (right).
Figure 8.25 Beam fragility curves in yielding state for five-storey frame building designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M (left) and DC H (right).
The fragility curves of beams in the ultimate damage state, for the most critical members, illustrate that the three methods have similar results (Figure 8.26 and Figure 8.27 for wall-frame buildings and Figure 8.28 for frame buildings). The method with the highest or lowest fragility is neither marked nor systematic.
97
0.5
0.5
08: Results and Discussion 0 Chapter 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6

LFM (>1)
0.2 0.8
0.4 1
0.6 1.2
0.81.4
1.2
1.4
LFM (=1) LFM (>1)
SPO LFM (=1)
IDA SPO
IDA
0.5
0.5
Figure 8.26 fragility curves 0 in0.6 ultimate state for five-storey frame-equivalent building designed1.4 to 0 Beam 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.4 1 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1 1.2 DC M and PGA=0.25g (left) and wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g (right).
0.5
0.5
Figure 8.27 fragility 0.4 curves in ultimate state eight-storey frame-equivalent designed to 0 Beam 0.2 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 for 0.4 1 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1building 1.2 1.4 DC M and PGA=0.20g (left) and wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g (right).
Figure 8.28 Beam fragility curves in ultimate state for five-storey frame building designed to PGA=0.25g and DC M (left) and DC H (right).
98
Chapter 8: Results and Discussion 1 1
Examples of the fragility curves for the columns in yielding damage state for the most
0.5 0.5 critical members taken from results of the three methods are presented in Figure 8.29
and Figure 8.30 for wall-frame buildings and in Figure 8.31 for frame buildings. The results obtained for the columns in yielding damage state using IDA and SPO in five0 0 for both frame and wall-frame buildings (see Figure 8.29 storey buildings match well 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 1 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1 1.2 1.4 and Figure 8.31). In eight-storey wall-frame buildings the fragilities obtained through LFM have higher fragilities than the other two methods (see Figure 8.30).
0.5
0.5
Figure0 8.29 Column in yielding for 0.2 fragility 0.4 curves 0 0.6 0.2 0.8state 0.4 1five-storey 0.6 1.2 frame-equivalent 0.81.4 1 building 1.2 designed 1.4 to DC M and PGA=0.25g (left) and wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g (right).
Figure 8.30 Column fragility curves in yielding state for eight-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g (left) and wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g (right).
99
0.5
0.5
0 8: Results and Discussion 0 Chapter 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6

LFM (>1)
0.2 0.8
0.4 1
0.6 1.2
0.81.4
1.2
1.4
LFM (=1) LFM (>1)
SPO LFM (=1)
IDA SPO
IDA
Figure 8.31 Column fragility curves in yielding state for five-storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g and (left) PGA=0.25g (right).
Examples of column fragility curves in ultimate damage state for the most critical members are shown for the three analysis methods in Figure 8.32, Figure 8.33 and 1Figure 8.34 for wall-frame 1 buildings and in Figure 8.35 in frame buildings. In fivestorey wall-frame buildings the fragility curves for the columns in their ultimate damage state obtained using IDA and SPO match well, whereas the ones taken from 0.5the LFM are slightly 0.5 lower (see Figure 8.32, Figure 8.33). In eight-storey wall-frame buildings the three methods yield similar fragility results (see Figure 8.34). In fivestorey frame buildings the fragility curves for the columns in their ultimate damage 0state obtained using IDA 0 and LFM match well, whereas the ones taken from the SPO 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 1 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1 1.2 1.4 are slightly higher (see Figure 8.35).
Figure 8.32 Column fragility curves in ultimate state for five-storey wall -equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g (left) and wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g (right).
100
0.5
0.5
08: Results and Discussion 0 Chapter 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6

LFM (>1)
0.2 0.8
0.4 1
0.6 1.2
0.81.4
1.2
1.4
LFM (=1) LFM (>1)
SPO LFM (=1)
IDA SPO
IDA
0.5
0.5
Figure 8.33 curves ultimate state for frame-equivalent designed to 0 Column 0.2fragility 0.4 0in 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4five-storey 1 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1 building 1.2 1.4 DC H and PGA=0.25g (left) and wall-equivalent building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g (right).
0.5
0.5
Figure 8.34 curves in ultimate state 0.4 for eight-storey 0 Column 0.2 fragility 0.4 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 1 0.6 1.2 frame-equivalent 0.81.4 1 building 1.2 designed 1.4 to DC M and PGA=0.25g (left) and wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g (right).
Figure 8.35 Column fragility curves in ultimate state for five-storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g and (left) DC H and PGA=0.25g (right).
101
Chapter 8: Results and Discussion 0.5 0.5
Fragility curves in wall-frame buildings for walls in the yielding damage state taken 0 the three methods are 0 shown in Figure 8.36 and Figure 8.37. The three methods for 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 1 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1 1.2 1.4 yield similar results; the results taken from IDA have the lowest fragilities and the ones taken from SPO and LFM match well. (see Figure 8.36 and Figure 8.37).
0.5
0.5
Figure Wall fragility in yielding for 0 8.360.2 0.4 curves 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 state 0.4 1 five-storey 0.6 1.2 frame-equivalent 0.81.4 1 building 1.2 designed 1.4 to DC M and PGA=0.25g (left) and wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g (right).
Figure 8.37 Wall fragility curves in yielding state for five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g (left) and wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g (right).
Examples of fragility curves for the walls in the ultimate damage state in flexure are illustrated in Figure 8.38 and Figure 8.39. The three methods yield similar results (see Figure 8.38) except in five- and eight-storey wall dual systems where fragilities obtained from IDA are slightly higher. (see Figure 8.39).
102
0.5
0.5
0 Results and Discussion 0 Chapter 8: 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6

LFM (>1)
0.2 0.8
0.4 1
0.6 1.2
0.81.4
1.2
1.4
LFM (=1) LFM (>1)
SPO LFM (=1)
IDA SPO
IDA
0.5
0.5
Figure 8.38 Wall fragility curves in ultimate state in flexure for five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to and PGA=0.25g ) and 0.2 wall-equivalent designed to DC1 H and PGA=0.25g 0 DC M 0.2 0.4 (left 0 0.6 0.8 0.4 1 building 0.6 1.2 0.81.4 1.2 1.4 (right).
Figure 8.39 Wall fragility curves in ultimate state in flexure for five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g (left) and eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g (right).
Figure 8.40 to Figure 8.53 present the beam and column fragility curves for the three methods in the yielding and ultimate damage state for both wall-frame and frame buildings. The first column in each set concerns the fragility curves obtained from IDA the second from SPO and the third are obtained from LFM. The first row in each set is for yielding and the second is for ultimate damage state. The fragility results of beams in the yielding damage state show that the middle-storey beams have the highest fragility whereas the top-storey beams have the lowest fragility for the three analysis methods in all the buildings examined (see Figure 8.40 to Figure 8.45). The fragility results for the beams in the ultimate damage state show that middlestorey beams have highest fragility for all three methods. The first-storey beams in the ultimate damage states for IDA results and top-storey beams for SPO and LFM results
103
have the lowest fragilities. These observations hold for five- and eight-storey buildings and for the three ranges of the ratio of total base shear taken by the walls in wall-frame -3 x 10 Figure 8.40 to Figure 8.45) and for all frame buildings (see Figure buildings8 (see 8.46).
6 4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
x 10 Figure 8.40 Beam 8 fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state for five-storey frame-equivalent
-3
building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
6 4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.41 Beam fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state for five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
104
x 10 Discussion Chapter 8: Results8 and 6 4 2 0
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.42 Beam fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state for five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.4
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.43 Beam fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state for eight-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
105

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.44 Beam fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state for eight -storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.4
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.45 Beam fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state for eight -storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
106
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.46 Beam fragility curves for a) yielding and b) ultimate state for five -storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
The fragility curves of columns in five-storey wall-frame and frame buildings, for the results taken from IDA and SPO, show that the first-storey columns have the highest fragility and the top-storey columns have the lowest. The fragility curves for the results taken from the LFM shows that the middle-storey columns have the highest fragilities and the top-storey columns the lowest. These observations hold for the three ranges of the ratio of total base shear taken by the wall (see Figure 8.47, Figure 8.48, Figure 8.49 for wall-frame building and Figure 8.53 for frame buildings). The fragility results of columns in eight-storey wall-frame buildings for the results taken from IDA and SPO show that the first- and top-storey columns have the highest fragility and the middle-storey columns have the lowest. The fragility curves of eightstorey buildings for columns in yielding damage state show that the results taken from LFM are higher than IDA and SPO. These observations hold for all three ranges of the ratio of total base shear taken by the walls (see Figure 8.50, Figure 8.51 and Figure 8.52). Fragility curves of columns for the non-critical members in wall-frame buildings for results taken from LFM have higher fragilities than for the results taken from IDA and those taken from SPO are lower than the ones obtained from IDA. These observations hold for five- and eight- storey wall-frame buildings for all three ranges of the ratio of total base shear taken by the walls (see Figure 8.47, Figure 8.48 and Figure 8.49) Fragilities of columns for the non-critical members in frame buildings for results taken from LFM have higher fragilities than for the results taken from SPO and those taken from SPO are higher than the ones obtained from IDA (see Figure 8.53).
107
x 10 Chapter 8: Results and Discussion 8 6 4 2 0
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
x 10 Figure 8.47 Column 8 fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state for five-storey frame-equivalent
-3
building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
6 4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.48 Column fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state for five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
108
x 10 Discussion Chapter 8: Results and 8 6 4 2 0
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.49 Column fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state for five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.4
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.50 Column fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state for eight-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
109

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.51 Column fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state for eight -storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.4
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.52 Column fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state for eight -storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
110
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 8.53 Column fragility curves for c) yielding and d) ultimate state for five -storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g analyzed with IDA (left), SPO (middle) and LFM (right).
8.6. Fragility results of walls in the ultimate state As previously explained the fragility curves are obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis (IDA), nonlinear static analysis (SPO) and from a simplified analysis using the lateral force method (LFM) by Papailia [2011]. The fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear obtained using the SPO is the envelope of the fragility curves for each storey. Higher mode effects on wall shear demands are already taken into account in IDA. The shear demands obtained from the LFM are amplified by a factor (eq. 4.13) which takes into account higher mode effects. This amplification is used for both DC M and DC H walls following a detailed procedure according to Keintzel [1990] also adopted in Eurocode 8 [CEN, 2004b]. The median PGAs at attainment of the ultimate damage state of walls are presented in Table 8.12 and Table 8.13. The ultimate damage state indicates the envelope of the shear and flexural failure for IDA and LFM; i.e. the lowest median PGA at attainment of the ultimate damage state between flexure and shear failure. LFM results presented use inelastic amplification due to higher mode effects.
111
Table 8.12 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the ultimate damage state for walls in 5-storey buildings
design PGA
0.20g 0.25g 0.25g
DC
M M H
Analysis method
LFM IDA LFM IDA LFM IDA
Frameequivalent
0.25g 0.38g 0.19g 0.39g 0.38g 0.47g
Wallequivalent
0.19g 0.42g 0.18g 0.37g 0.38g 0.45g
Wall systems
0.17g 0.33g 0.19g 0.29g 0.51g 0.57g
Table 8.13 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the ultimate damage state for walls in 8-storey buildings
design PGA
0.20g 0.25g
DC
M M
Analysis method
LFM IDA LFM IDA
Frameequivalent
0.31g 0.39g 0.33g 0.40g
Wallequivalent
0.18g 0.53g 0.18g 0.54g
Wall systems
0.18g 0.29g 0.19g 0.35g
The conclusions on the walls for the ultimate damage state (maximum of flexure and shear failure) in wall-frame buildings are: Wall fragilities for the results obtained from LFM (where inelastic amplification for the higher mode effects is used) show that the DC M walls in wall-equivalent and wall dual systems may fail in shear before their design PGA. DC M walls in frame-equivalent systems fail beyond their design PGA in most cases. (see Table 8.12 and Table 8.13) Results taken from dynamic analysis (IDA) show that DC M walls fail at PGA values 1.6 to 1.9 times their design PGA in frame-equivalent systems, 1.5 to 2.5 times their design PGA in wall-equivalent systems and 1.2 to 1.4 times their design PGA in wall systems (see Table 8.12 and Table 8.13) The fragility results obtained for the DC H walls show that for the results obtained from the LFM they fail at PGA values 1.5 to 2 times higher than their design PGA and 1.8 to 2.2 times their design PGA for results obtained from IDA. (see Table 8.12 and Table 8.13).
The median PGAs at attainment of the shear failure of walls are presented in Table 8.14 and Table 8.15. The values shown include the results obtained from IDA and the LFM. The results taken from the LFM are shown for both amplified LFM(>1) and non-amplified LFM(=1) shear demands. Examples of wall fragilities in the ultimate damage state in shear are presented in Figure 8.54, Figure 8.55 and Figure 8.56 for the results taken from (a) LFM with inelastic amplification of shear demands due to higher modes, b) LFM without the inelastic amplification of shear
112
demands, c) incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and d) the static pushover analysis (SPO). These figures are fully presented in Appendix A3 for all the examined buildings. The conclusions on walls for the ultimate damage state in shear for wall-frame buildings are: The results taken from the dynamic analysis are in-between the LFM results with and without inelastic amplification of shear demands due to higher modes. (see Figure 8.54, Figure 8.55, Figure 8.56, Table 8.14 and Table 8.15). The latter applies for both DC M and DC H walls, except in five- and eight-storey frame-equivalent buildings and eightstorey wall-equivalent systems (see Table 8.14 and Table 8.15) The dynamic analysis (IDA) confirms to a certain extent the inelastic amplification of shear forces due to higher modes in both DC M and DC H walls and show that the relevant rules of Eurocode 8 are on the conservative side. The latter was also observed for DC H walls in Ruttenberg and Nsieri [2006] and Kappos and Antoniadis [2007]. The fragility curve results taken from SPO match well with the other two methods up to yielding. Beyond yielding there is no significant increase in shear force demands. (see Figure 8.54, Figure 8.55 and Figure 8.56 ).
Table 8.14 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the ultimate damage state in shear for walls in 5-storey buildings
design PGA
0.20g
DC
M
Analysis method
LFM (>1) IDA LFM (=1)
Frameequivalent
0.25g 0.94g 0.41g 0.19g 0.39g 0.39g 0.38g 0.90g 0.61g
Wallequivalent
0.19g 0.42g 0.52g 0.18g 0.37g 0.52g 0.38g 0.53g 0.61g
Wall system
0.17g 0.33g 0.54g 0.19g 0.29g 0.74g 0.51g 0.72g 0.98g
0.25g
0.25g
Table 8.15 Median PGA (g) at attainment of the ultimate damage state in shear for walls in 8-storey buildings
design PGA
0.20g
DC
M
Analysis method
LFM (>1) IDA LFM (=1) LFM (>1) IDA LFM (=1)
Frameequivalent
0.58g 0.88g 0.58g 0.51g 0.77g 0.52g
Wallequivalent
0.18g 0.61g 0.20g 0.18g 0.67g 0.20g
Wall system
0.18g 0.29g 0.44g 0.19g 0.35g 0.60g
0.25g
113
Figure 8.54 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
Figure 8.55 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
114
Figure 8.56 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
115
Chapter 8: Conclusions
9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study deals with the seismic fragility curves of reinforced concrete frame and wall-frame (dual) buildings designed according to Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8 [CEN, 2004a,b]. Prototype plan- and height- wise very regular buildings are studied with parameters including the height of the building, the level of Eurocode 8 design (in terms of design peak ground acceleration and ductility class) and for dual systems the percentage of seismic base shear taken by the walls. The member fragilities were constructed using two different methods; incremental nonlinear dynamic analysis (IDA) and nonlinear static (pushover) analysis (SPO). These methods were performed using a three-dimensional structural model of the full buildings. IDA is performed using 14 spectrum-compatible semi-artificial accelerograms and SPO is performed using inverted triangular load pattern. The N2 method is employed to combine the results of the SPO with the response spectrum analysis of an equivalent single degree-of-freedom system to relate the damage measure demands for each analysis step to the intensity measure (i.e. peak ground acceleration). A simplified analysis using the lateral force method (LFM) by Papailia [2011] was compared against SPO and IDA. The results of the three analysis methods are presented in the form of fragility curves for two member limit states; yielding and ultimate deformation in bending or shear. The structural damage of members is expressed in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) as the intensity measure (IM) since it is easier to compare it against the design PGA of the buildings. The damage measures (DM) taken are the peak chord rotation and the shear force demands at member ends. The probability of exceedance of each limit state is computed from the probability distributions of the damage measures (conditional on intensity measure) and of the corresponding capacities. Dispersions for DM-demands are taken explicitly from the analysis for IDA method and estimates of dispersions of DM-demands are taken from previous studies for the SPO and the LFM. All three methods use estimates for the damage measure capacities based on previous studies. It can be observed that the CoV-values determined through IDA are slightly lower than the ones determined from previous studies. The dispersions of DM-demands taken from IDA for beams and columns have a larger scatter in the storeys in dual buildings than in frame buildings and their mean is slightly higher.
116
The results taken from Papailia [2011] using the LFM indicate that the walls in buildings designed according to Eurocode 8 and Medium Ductility Class are likely to fail in shear even before the design PGA. The shear force demands taken from the LFM in concrete walls are amplified to consider higher modes effects. Results from the nonlinear static (pushover) and dynamic analysis were used to better understand the seismic behavior of regular dual or frame buildings and the inelastic amplification of shear force demands in concrete walls due to higher modes. In wall-frame dual buildings the following conclusions and observations are made for the results obtained from IDA and SPO: Walls are the most critical members for both yielding and ultimate damage states. Beams are much more likely to reach ultimate damage state than columns. Design to DC M in lieu of DC H may reduce the fragility of beams against yielding and increase fragility of columns. However, these effects are neither systematic not marked. Wall fragility against yielding does not significantly change and is higher in DC M walls in the ultimate damage state. Design to a higher PGA reduces the fragilities of beams and slightly increases those of columns. Wall fragilities do not significantly change. As the proportion of the total base shear taken by the wall increases the beams, columns and walls in flexure have lower fragilities but walls in shear ultimate state have higher fragilities. Taller buildings generally exhibit lower fragilities for beams and columns and similar fragilities for walls.
The conclusions made on frame buildings for the results obtained from IDA and SPO are: Frame buildings give satisfactory fragility results even beyond their design PGA. Beams yield before their design PGA whereas the columns remain elastic well beyond the design PGA. Beams are much more likely to reach yielding and collapse than in columns. Design to DC M instead of DC H may reduce slightly the fragility of beams and columns against yielding, but may increase that of beams against ultimate Design for higher PGA reduces only slightly the fragilities of beams and columns in yielding state and may increase fragility in the ultimate state. Wall-frame (dual) systems have, in general, higher fragility than frame systems for columns and lower for beams.
The conclusions when comparing the alternative analysis methods are: The alternative methods yield results that are in good agreement with either damage state of columns and beams in both frame and dual buildings and to the flexural behavior of walls. Larger differences are observed in eight-storey wall-frame dual buildings for columns in yielding state where the fragility results taken from LFM are higher than IDA and SPO.
117
Wall fragilities for the results obtained from LFM (where inelastic amplification for the higher mode effects is used) show that the DC M walls in wall-equivalent and wall dual systems may fail in shear before their design PGA. Walls in frame-equivalent systems are likely to fail at PGA values beyond the design PGA. Results taken from dynamic analysis (IDA) show that DC M walls fail at PGA values 1.6 to 1.9 times their design PGA in frame-equivalent systems, 1.5 to 2.5 times their design PGA in wall-equivalent systems and 1.2 to 1.4 times their design PGA in wall systems. The fragility results obtained for the DC H walls show that they fail at PGA values 1.5 to 2 times higher than the design PGA for the results obtained from the LFM and 1.8 to 2.2 times the design PGA for results obtained from dynamic analysis (IDA). The fragility curve results for wall shear failure taken from SPO match well with the other two methods up to yielding. Beyond yielding there is no significant increase in shear force demands. The results taken from the dynamic analysis (IDA) are in-between the LFM results with and without inelastic amplification of shear demands due to higher modes. The latter applies in both DC M and DC H walls, except in five- and eight-storey frameequivalent buildings and eight-storey wall-equivalent systems. The dynamic analysis confirm to a certain extent the inelastic amplification of shear forces due to higher modes in both DC M and DC H walls and show that the relevant rules of Eurocode 8 are on the conservative side. The latter was also observed for DC H walls in Ruttenberg and Nsieri [2006] and Kappos and Antoniadis [2007].
118
References
REFERENCES
Akkar S., Sucuaglu H., M.EERI and Yakut. A. [2005] Displacement based fragility functions for Low- and Mid- rise ordinary concrete buildings, Earthquake Spectra Vol. 21, No. 4. Akkar S. and zen ., [2006] Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands for SDOF systems, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 34:1551-1571. Baker J. W. and Cornell C.A. [2005] A vector valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34, 1193-1217. Baker J. W. [2007] Probabilistic Structural Response Assessment using vector-valued Intensity Measures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 36, 1861-1883. Biskinis D. and Fardis M. N. [2010] Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members with continuous or lap-spliced bars, Structural Concrete Journal of the fib, Vol. 11, No. 2, 93-108 Biskinis D. and Fardis M. N. [2010] Deformations at flexural yielding of members with continuous or lap-spliced bars, Structural Concrete Journal of the fib, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2010, 127-138 Biskinis D.E., Roupakias G.K. and Fardis M.N. [2004], Degradation of Shear Strength of RC Members with Inelastic Cyclic Displacements, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 6, pp.773-783 Borzi B., Pinho R., and Crowley H. [2006] Simplified pushover based vulnerability analysis for large scale assessment of RC buildings, Engineering Structures, Vol.30, 804-820 Braga, F., Dolce M., and Liberatore D. [1982] A statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing review of the MSK-76 scale, Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, Vol. 7. CEN [2002] EN1990 Eurocode Basis of structural design, European Committee for Standardization, April 2002, Brussels, Belgium
119
References
CEN [2004] EN1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, December 2004, Brussels, Belgium CEN [2004] EN1998-1 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, December 2004, Brussels, Belgium CEN [2005] EN1998-3 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardization, June 2005, Brussels, Belgium Calvi G. M., R.Pinho, Magenes G., Bommer J. J., Restrepo-Velez L. F. and Crowley H. [2006] Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years, Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 472, Vol. 43, No. 3, September 2006, pp 75-104 DiPasquale E., Cakmak A.S. [1987] Detection and Assessment of seismic structural damage Technical Report,NCEER-87-0015, State University of New York at Buffalo Dumova-Jovanoska E. [2000] Fragility curves for reinforced concrete structures in Scopje region, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 19(6), 455-466, 2000 Dolce M., Masi A., Marino M. and Vona M., [2003] Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1: 115 140 Fardis M. N. [2009] Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of concrete buildings, Spinger, London New York Fardis M.N. [1994] Eurocode 8: reinforced concrete, special session on EC8 Proceedings of 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, Vienna, pp 29452950 Grnthal G. [1998] Cahiers du Centre Europen de Godynamique et de Sismologie: Volume 15 European Macroseismic Scale 1998, European Centre for Geomechanics and Seismology, Luxemburg Kappos A.J., Antoniadis P. [2007] A contribution to seismic shear design of RC walls in dual structures. Bull Earthq Eng, 5(3):443466 Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K. [1998] Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment, Nat Hazards, 17(2):177192 Keintzel E. [1990] Seismic design shear forces in RC cantilever shear wall structures, European Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, 7-16.
120
References
Kiril M. S. and Polat Z. [2006] "Fragility Analysis of Mid-Rise R/C Frame Buildings", Engineering Structures, 28(9):1335-1345
Kosmopoulos A. and Fardis M.N. [2007], Estimation of Inelastic Seismic Deformations in Asymmetric Multistory RC Buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 9, 1209-1234 Kostov M. Vaseva E., Kaneva A. Koleva N, Varbanov G. Stefanov D., Darvarova E. [2007] An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with application to different European towns RISK-UE WP13 Litton R.W. [1975] A contribution to the analysis of concrete structures under cyclic loading, PhD Thesis, Dept Civil Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA Masi A. [2003] Seismic vulnerability assessment of gravity load designed RC frames, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1: 371-395, 2003 Mondkar D.P., Powell G.H. [1975] ANSR-1, general purpose program for nonlinear structural response EERC 75-37 (2nd ed.) Univ. California, Earthquake Eng. Res. Center, Berkeley, CA
zer B. AY and Erberik M. A. [2008] Vulnerability of Turkish low-rise and mid-rise reinforced concrete frame structures Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(S2):2-11,2008. Otani S. [1974] Inelastic analysis of R/C frame structures, ASCE J. Structural Div, 100 pp.1433-1449.
Papailia A. [2011] Seismic fragility curves of RC buildings, MSc Thesis, University of Patras Park Y.J. and Ang Ah-S [1985] Mechanic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete, Journal of Structural Engineerring, 722-739. Panagiotakos T. B. and Fardis M. N. [1999] Estimation of Inelastic Deformation Demands in Multistory RC Buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, Feb. 1999, 501-528 Panagiotakos T. B. and Fardis M. N. [2004] Seismic performance of RC frames designed to Eurocode 8 or to the Greek Codes 2000, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2: 221-259 Rota M., Penna A., Strobbia C. L. [2007] Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves, Soil dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28 933-947 Rutenberg A, Nsieri E [2006] The seismic shear demand in ductile cantilever wall systems and the EC8 provisions, Bull Earthquake Engineering, 4(1):121
121
References
Rivera J. and Petrini L. [2011], On the design and seismic response of RC frame buildings desgined to Eurtocode 8, Bull Earthquake Engineering, 9:1593-1616 2011 Sabetta F., Goretti A. and Lucantoni A. [1998]. Empirical Fragility Curves from Damage Surveys and Estimated Strong Ground Motion, 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam. Sarabandi P., Pachakis D., King S. and Kirmidjian A. [2004], Empirical fragility functions from recent earthquakes, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver Canada. Singhal and Kiremidjian [1996], Method of Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Structural Damage, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol.122. No. 12. Sieberg [1923] Erdbebenkunde, Fisher, Jena 102-104 SYNER-G [2011] Systematic seismic vulnerability and risk analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructures safety gain Project No. 244061 Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. [2002]. Incremental dynamic analysis, Journal. of Earthquake Eng and Structural Dynamics, 1-23. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. [2002] The incremental dynamic analysis and its application to performance-based earthquake engineering, 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,London
122
Appendices
APPENDIX A
A1. Fragility curves using Incremental Dynamic analysis Appendix A1 presents the member fragility curves of each examined buildings for the two damage states of yielding and ultimate for the analysis performed using Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). The sub-figures (a) and (b) refer to the beam yielding and ultimate damage state in flexure, (c) and (d) refer to column yielding and ultimate damage state in flexure. In wall-frame dual buildings (e) and (f) refer to wall yielding and ultimate damage state in flexure and (g) refers to wall ultimate damage state in shear. In frame buildings (e) and (f) refer to beam and column ultimate damage state in shear respectively.
A1
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 1 Fragility curves of five-storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA
A2
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 2 Fragility curves of five-storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A3
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 3 Fragility curves of five-storey frame building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A4
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 4 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA
A5
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 5 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A6
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 6 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A7
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 7 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA
A8
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 8 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A9
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 9 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A10
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 10 Fragility curves of five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA
A11
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 11 Fragility curves of five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A12
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 12 Fragility curves of five-storey wall building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A13
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 13 Fragility curves of eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA
A14
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 14 Fragility curves of eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A15
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 15 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA
A16
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 16 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A17
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 17 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA
A18
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 18 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA
A19
Appendices
A2. Fragility curves using Static Pushover Analysis Appendix A2 presents the member fragility curves of each examined building for the two damage states of yielding and ultimate for the analysis performed using nonlinear static (pushover) analysis (SPO). The sub-figures (a) and (b) refer to the beam yielding and ultimate damage state in flexure, (c) and (d) refer to column yielding and ultimate damage state in flexure. In wall-frame dual buildings (e) and (f) refer to wall yielding and ultimate damage state in flexure and (g) refers to wall ultimate damage state in shear. In frame buildings (e) and (f) refer to beam and column ultimate damage state in shear respectively.
A20
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 19 Fragility curves of five-storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using SPO
A21
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 20 Fragility curves of five-storey frame building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A22
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 21 Fragility curves of five-storey frame building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A23
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 22 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using SPO
A24
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 23 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A25
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 24 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A26
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 25 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using SPO
A27
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 26 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A28
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 27 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A29
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 28 Fragility curves of five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using SPO
A30
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 29 Fragility curves of five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A31
Appendices
1 0.5 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Figure A. 30 Fragility curves of five-storey wall building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A32
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 31 Fragility curves of eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using SPO
A33
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 32 Fragility curves of eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A34
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 33 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using SPO
A35
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 34 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A36
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 35 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using SPO
A37
Appendices
1 0.5 1st 0 0 5th 0.2
2nd 6th 0.4
3rd 0.6 7th 0.8
4th 8th 1
Figure A. 36 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using SPO
A38
Appendices
A3. Fragility curves of walls in shear Appendix A3 presents the fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear using the alternative methods of analysis. The sub-figures (a) and (b) refer to the lateral force method with and without inelastic amplification respectively which takes into account the higher mode effects. (=1) indicates that the shear demand taken from LFM is not amplified for higher mode effects and (>1) indicates that the shear demands taken from LFM are amplified for higher mode effects. (c) and (d) refer to the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and the static pushover analysis (SPO) respectively.
Figure A. 37 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey frameequivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
A39
Appendices
Figure A. 38 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey frameequivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g.
Figure A. 39 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey frameequivalent building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g.
A40
Appendices
Figure A. 40 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey wallequivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
A41
Appendices
Figure A. 43 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
A42
Appendices
Figure A. 44 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g.
Figure A. 45 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a five-storey wall building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g.
A43
Appendices
Figure A. 46 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a eight-storey frameequivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
Figure A. 47 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a eight-storey frameequivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g.
A44
Appendices
Figure A. 48 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a eight-storey wallequivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
Figure A. 49 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a eight-storey wallequivalent building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g.
A45
Appendices
Figure A. 50 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
Figure A. 51 Fragility curves of walls for the ultimate damage state in shear of a eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g.
A46
Appendices
APPENDIX B
B1. Fragility curves - comparison of three methods Appendix B1 presents the fragility curves of members for the three methods of analysis. The methods of analysis include 1) the Incremental Dynamic Analysis, 2) Static Pushover Analysis and 3) the lateral force method. The plots illustrate the two damage states of yielding and ultimate. The sub-figures (a) and (b) refer to the beam yielding and ultimate state (c) and (d) refer to column yielding and ultimate state. In wall-frame systems (e) and (f) refer to wall yielding and ultimate state respectively. The ultimate state for all members is the envelope of the ultimate damage state in shear and in flexure.
B1
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
4 1) Incremental Dynamic Analysis 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
2) Static Pushover Analysis
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
3) Lateral Force Method
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 1 Coefficient Fragility curves of five-storey frame systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B2
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 2 Fragility curves of five-storey frame systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B3
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 3 Fragility curves of five-storey frame systems designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B4
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 4 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent dual systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B5
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 5 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent dual systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B6
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 6 Fragility curves of five-storey frame-equivalent dual systems designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B7
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 7 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent dual systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B8
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 8 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent dual systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B9
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 9 Fragility curves of five-storey wall-equivalent dual systems designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B10
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 10 Fragility curves of five storey wall dual systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B11
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 11 Fragility curves of five-storey wall systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g using IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B12
Appendices
8 6
x 10
-3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8 6
x 10
-3
4 2 0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 12 Fragility curves of five-storey wall systems designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g for IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B13
Appendices
0.4 0.3
1) Incremental Dynamic Analysis
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 13 Fragility curves of eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g for IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B14
Appendices
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 14 Fragility curves of eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g for IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B15
Appendices
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 15 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall-equivalent dual systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g for IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B16
Appendices
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 16 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall-equivalent dual systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g for IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B17
Appendices
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 17 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g for IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B18
Appendices
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure B. 18 Fragility curves of eight-storey wall systems designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g for IDA, SPO and LFM analysis
B19
Appendices
B2. Fragility curves - comparison of three methods for most critical members
Appendix B2 presents the comparison of fragility curves of the most fragile members for the three methods of analysis. The methods of analysis include the lateral force method (LFM), nonlinear static Pushover Analysis (SPO) and the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA). The two damage states of yielding and ultimate are presented in each sub-figures where (a) and (b) refer to the beam yielding and ultimate state in flexure (c) and (d) refer to column yielding and ultimate state in flexure (e) and (f) refer to wall yielding and ultimate state in flexure and (g) refers to the wall ultimate state in shear.
B20
Appendices
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
LFM
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 19 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM, SPO and IDA for a five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
B21
Appendices
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
LFM
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 20 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM, SPO and IDA for a five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g.
B22
Appendices
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
LFM
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 21 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM, SPO and IDA for a five-storey system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g.
B23
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 22 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g.
B24
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 23 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g.
B25
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 24 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g.
B26
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 25 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
B27
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 26 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
B28
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 27 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
B29
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 28 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
B30
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 29 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
B31
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 30 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a five-storey wall building designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
B32
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 31 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
B33
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 32 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
B34
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 33 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a eight-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
B35
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 34 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a eight-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
B36
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 35 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
B37
0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Appendices
LFM (>1)
LFM (=1)
SPO
IDA
Figure B. 36 Fragility curves for most critical members for results taken from LFM with (>1) and without (=1) inelastic amplification to higher modes, SPO and IDA for a eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25
B38
Appendices
APPENDIX C
C1. Coefficient of variation per Intensity measure Appendix C1 presents the Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands as a function of intensity measure (i.e. PGA). The CoV values illustrated are taken from the nonlinear timehistory analysis (IDA) and are shown for each floor. On the same plot the dispersion values used in LFM and the SPO methods are shown in a straight line. These are the member dispersions due to damage measure demands and the dispersion of the spectral value. (see Table 7.2). In frame buildings the sub-figures (a) and (b) refer to the CoV values for beam yielding and ultimate state in flexure (c) for beam ultimate state in shear. (e) and (f) refer to the CoV values for column yielding and ultimate state in flexure and (g) for column ultimate state in shear. In wall-frame buildings the sub-figures (a) and (b) refer to the CoV values for beam yielding and ultimate state in flexure and (c) and (d) for column yielding and ultimate state in flexure. (e) and (f) refer to the CoV values for wall yielding and ultimate state in flexure and (g) for wall ultimate state in shear.
C1
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 1 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C2
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 2 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C3
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 3 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey frame system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C4
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 4 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C5
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 5 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C6
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 6 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C7
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 7 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through in IDA and CoV values used for SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C8
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 8 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through in IDA and CoV values used for SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C9
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 9 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through in IDA and CoV values used for SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C10
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 10 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through in IDA and CoV values used for SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey wall dual buildings designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C11
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 11 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for five-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C12
Appendices
60
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 12 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a five-storey wall dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C13
Appendices
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 13 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C14
Appendices
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 14 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for eight-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C15
Appendices
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 15 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for an eight-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C16
Appendices
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 16 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for an eight-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C17
Appendices
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 17 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C18
Appendices
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1st 5th
2nd 6th
3rd 7th
4th 8th
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure C. 18 Coefficient of variation (CoV) of DM-demands determined through IDA and CoV used in SPO and LFM (straight line) for a eight-storey wall building designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C19
Appendices
C2. Damage indices per Intensity measure Appendix C2 presents the damage indices (ratio of the damage measure demands to the damage measure capacities) taken explicitly from IDA as a function of the intensity measure (i.e. PGA). Each point on the plots represents the damage index for one record accelerogram for either the yielding or ultimate damage state of the member. Each record is presented in different markers as shown in Figure C. 19. The sub-figures (a) to (e) refer to the storey of the member from the first- to fifth-storey in a five-storey building and (a) to (h) refer to the storey of the member from the first- to the eighth-storey in an eight-storey building.
Figure C. 19 Legend for damage index plots where each point represents a single earthquake record
C20
Appendices
Figure C. 20 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C21
Appendices
Figure C. 21 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C22
Appendices
Figure C. 22 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C23
Appendices
Figure C. 23 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C24
Appendices
Figure C. 24 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at shear damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C25
Appendices
Figure C. 25 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at shear damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C26
Appendices
Figure C. 26 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C27
Appendices
Figure C. 27 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C28
Appendices
Figure C. 28 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C29
Appendices
Figure C. 29 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C30
Appendices
Figure C. 30 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at shear damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C31
Appendices
Figure C. 31 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at shear damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C32
Appendices
Figure C. 32 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C33
Appendices
Figure C. 33 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C34
Appendices
Figure C. 34 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C35
Appendices
Figure C. 35 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C36
Appendices
Figure C. 36 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at shear damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C37
Appendices
Figure C. 37 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at shear damage state of five-storey frame system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C38
Appendices
Figure C. 38 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C39
Appendices
Figure C. 39 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C40
Appendices
Figure C. 40 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C41
Appendices
Figure C. 41 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C42
Appendices
Figure C. 42 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C43
Appendices
Figure C. 43 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C44
Appendices
Figure C. 44 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C45
Appendices
Figure C. 45 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C46
Appendices
Figure C. 46 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C47
Appendices
C48
Appendices
Figure C. 48 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C49
Appendices
Figure C. 49 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C50
Appendices
Figure C. 50 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C51
Appendices
Figure C. 51 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C52
Appendices
Figure C. 52 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of five-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C53
Appendices
Figure C. 53 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C54
Appendices
Figure C. 54 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C55
Appendices
Figure C. 55 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C56
Appendices
Figure C. 56 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C57
Appendices
Figure C. 57 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C58
Appendices
Figure C. 58 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C59
Appendices
Figure C. 59 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C60
Appendices
Figure C. 60 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C61
Appendices
Figure C. 61 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C62
Appendices
Figure C. 62 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C63
Appendices
Figure C. 63 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall-equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C64
Appendices
Figure C. 64 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall -equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C65
Appendices
Figure C. 65 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall -equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C66
Appendices
Figure C. 66 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall -equivalent dual system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C67
Appendices
Figure C. 67 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of five-storey wall -equivalent system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C68
Appendices
Figure C. 68 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C69
Appendices
Figure C. 69 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C70
Appendices
Figure C. 70 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C71
Appendices
Figure C. 71 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C72
Appendices
Figure C. 72 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C73
Appendices
Figure C. 73 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C74
Appendices
Figure C. 74 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C75
Appendices
Figure C. 75 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C76
Appendices
Figure C. 76 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C77
Appendices
Figure C. 77 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C78
Appendices
Figure C. 78 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C79
Appendices
Figure C. 79 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C80
Appendices
Figure C. 80 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C81
Appendices
Figure C. 81 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C82
Appendices
Figure C. 82 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of five-storey wall system designed to DC H and PGA=0.25g
C83
Appendices
Figure C. 83 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C84
Appendices
Figure C. 84 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C85
Appendices
Figure C. 85 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C86
Appendices
Figure C. 86 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C87
Appendices
C88
Appendices
Figure C. 88 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C89
Appendices
Figure C. 89 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C90
Appendices
Figure C. 90 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C91
Appendices
Figure C. 91 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C92
Appendices
Figure C. 92 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of eight-storey frame-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C93
Appendices
Figure C. 93 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C94
Appendices
Figure C. 94 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C95
Appendices
Figure C. 95 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C96
Appendices
Figure C. 96 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C97
Appendices
Figure C. 97 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C98
Appendices
Figure C. 98 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C99
Appendices
Figure C. 99 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C100
Appendices
Figure C. 100 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of eight-storey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C101
Appendices
Figure C. 101 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of eightstorey wall-equivalent system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C102
Appendices
C103
Appendices
Figure C. 103 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of eight-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C104
Appendices
Figure C. 104 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C105
Appendices
Figure C. 105 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of eight-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C106
Appendices
Figure C. 106 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of eightstorey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.20g
C107
Appendices
C108
Appendices
Figure C. 108 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at yielding damage state of eight-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C109
Appendices
Figure C. 109 Damage indices for each floor for a beam member at ultimate damage state of eight-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C110
Appendices
Figure C. 110 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at yielding damage state of eight-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C111
Appendices
Figure C. 111 Damage indices for each floor for a column member at ultimate damage state of eightstorey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C112
Appendices
Figure C. 112 Damage indices for each floor for a wall member at a) yielding b) ultimate c) shear ultimate damage state of eight-storey wall system designed to DC M and PGA=0.25g
C113
MSc Dissertation 2013
Seismic fragility of RC frame and wall-frame dual buildings designed to EN-Eurocodes Kyriakos Antoniou

KAntoniou MSC Thesis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

KAntoniou MSC Thesis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Seismic fragility of RC frame and wall-frame dual buildings designed to EN- Eurocodes

Earthquake Engineering &/or Engineering Seismology

Supervisor(s): Prof. Michael N. Fardis

Professor M. N. Fardis ________________

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5.

2.5.1. 2.5.2. 2.5.3. 2.5.4. 2.6.

Seismic safety assessment of RC buildings designed to EC8...................................30

DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS ................................................................................................ 32

Typology of buildings ...............................................................................................32

Geometry of buildings ..............................................................................................32 Materials ...................................................................................................................34

DESIGN OF BUILDINGS ........................................................................................................... 35

4.1. 4.2. 4.3.

4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6.

ANALYSIS METHODS AND MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS ................................................ 46

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

ASSESMENT OF BUILDINGS ................................................................................................... 57

6.1. 6.2. 6.3.

METHODOLOGY OF FRAGILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 64

7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 71

8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 116

PGA=0.20G AND DC M ANALYZED USING IDA

PGA=0.25G AND DC M ANALYZED USING IDA

FIGURE 8.20 FRAGILITY CURVES OF FIVE-STOREY BUILDINGS DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M

FIGURE 8.21 FRAGILITY CURVES OF FIVE-STOREY BUILDINGS DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M

FIGURE 8.22 FRAGILITY CURVES OF FIVE-STOREY BUILDINGS DESIGNED TO PGA=0.25G AND DC M

M AND PGA=0.20G (RIGHT). ....................................................................................................... 102

IDA (LEFT), SPO (MIDDLE) AND LFM (RIGHT). .......................................................................... 108

hw ig k1; k2 l l0 lw m maxVi,d,b meff mi n nst nflx q qo s xy z zi i MRd,b MRd,c u

mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression longitudinal reinforcement

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

2. DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Figure 2.1 Definition of chord rotation [adapted from Fardis, 2009]

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Chapter 2: Definitions and Background

Chapter 3: Description of Buildings

Chapter 3: Description of Buildings

Figure 3.1 Plan of wall-frame (dual) buildings [Papailia, 2011]

Figure 3.2 Geometry of frame buildings [Papailia, 2011]

Chapter 3: Description of Buildings

Chapter 4: Design of Buildings

Chapter 4: Design of Buildings

DC H 4.5 u/1 4.0 u/1

Chapter 4: Design of Buildings

Table 4.2 Basic factored values of the behavior factor, qo

Frameequivalent / Frame systems DC M DC H 3.9 5.85

Wall-equivalent 3.6 5.4

Wall systems 3.0 4.0

Chapter 4: Design of Buildings

Where, Lcl is the clear length of a beam framing into node i

, is the cracked flexural rigidity, taking into account creep , = +

Design PGA 0.20g 0.25g DC M/H M/H

hb (m) 0.40 0.45

hc (m) 0.55 0.55

Chapter 4: Design of Buildings