Simplified Seismic Fragility Analysis of Structures With Two Types of Friction Devices

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2000; 29: 1153}1175
Simpli"ed seismic fragility analysis of structures with two types

of friction devices
Silvia L. Dimova*R and Kazuta Hirata

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Central Laboratory for Seismic Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, PO Box 27,
Soxa 1582, Bulgaria
Abiko Research Laboratory CRIEPI, 1646 Abiko, Abiko-city, Chiba 270}11, Japan
SUMMARY
This paper presents a method and results of seismic fragility estimation of frame structures with friction
devices and with friction devices and restrictors. The seismic intensity parameter, de"ned as the mean value
of the pseudovelocity spectrum in a speci"ed periods band, is proved to allow the use of linear regression
analysis of the response parameters of the considered non-linear structures on seismic intensity. A simpli"ed
method of fragility estimation is proposed, based on the concept of &mean seismic excitation' and linear
regression of the seismic response parameters on seismic intensity parameter. The key risk contributors for
the system with friction devices and for the system with friction devices and restrictors are identi"ed
on the basis of the fragility analysis, and recommendations for improvement of the seismic response of
the respective systems are derived. The results of the fragility study show that when the initial &bare' frame
is retro"tted by rigidly connected bracings the e!ect is much lower than in the case of connecting the
bracings by friction devices and especially by friction devices and restrictors. Copyright 2000 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: seismic fragility; seismic intensity; regression analysis; friction devices; restrictors of displace-
ments; seismic retro"tting
1. INTRODUCTION
Incorporation of friction devices in structures is an innovative method for non-traditional seismic

protection, aiming at avoiding or minimizing the inelastic deformations in the main structure
members. The developments in research and analysis of systems with friction devices have shown
its improved seismic resistance, reduction of repair costs, potentiality of application in seismic
* Correspondence to: Silvia L. Dimova, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Central Laboratory for Seismic Mechanics and
Earthquake Engineering, P.O. Box 27, So"a 1582, Bulgaria
R E-mail: silvia@bas.bg
Contract/grant sponsor: Japan Science and Technology Corporation.
Received 20 July 1999

Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 22 February 2000
1154 S. L. DIMOVA AND K. HIRATA
retro"tting of buildings. As have been shown recently by Dimova [1] it is possible to improve
substantially the dynamic response of systems with friction devices by introducing restrictors of
the relative displacements of the sliding surfaces. The study [1] have shown that the system with
friction devices and restrictors exhibits equally stable response during both, the short period and
the long period seismic excitations. These positive results motivate probabilistic safety assessment
and comparison of the responses of the system with friction devices and restrictors and of system
with friction devices.
The presence of non-conservative non-linearities, such as hysteresis due to friction devices, does
not allow to apply in seismic fragility analysis the fundamental probabilistic solution approach in
which either time-domain superposition or frequency-domain superposition are often used. In
recent years, simulations are very often used for the analysis of non-linear random vibrations.
According to Yang [2], the basic concept of simulation methods consists of: generating a large
number of sample input excitations based on the speci"ed random excitation process; analysing
the non-linear response corresponding to each sample excitation; analysing the statistics and
probability characteristics of the non-linear structural response on the basis of all the sample
solutions.
During the last decade, simulation methods are developed and extensively used in the
probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants [3}8] and failure probability of
structures with degrading sti!ness [9}11]. In connection with the di!erent structural control
techniques, such methods are developed for base-isolated structures with isolators
behaving inelastically under design earthquake motion, as reported by Hirata et al. [12}15].
Equivalent stochastic linearization method and Monte Carlo simulations are used by Dorka
and Pradlwarter [16] to determine the safety indices of a frame structure retro"tted by
friction devices. Safety of an earthquake retro"tting scheme for large panel buildings by
hysteretic devices is determined by Dorka et al. [17] by the use of Monte Carlo simulations. In
the two above-mentioned studies calculations are performed for the seismic excitation of "xed
intensity.
This paper addresses the seismic fragility (i.e. conditional probability of failure for a given
intensity of the seismic excitation) estimation of frame structures with two types of friction
devices. The simulation method used by Hirata et al. [14] for seismic fragility estimation of
base-isolated structure is applied and extended.
2. USE OF FRICTION DEVICES AND FRICTION DEVICES AND RESTRICTORS

FOR SEISMIC PROTECTION
2.1. Friction devices

Implementation of friction devices in proper locations of the structure leads to an arti"cial
increase of its energy dissipation potentiality. There is a variety of design proposals, such as
implementation of friction devices as base-isolation devices (overviewed in detail by Kelly [18],
Buckle and Mayes [19], Nagarajaiah et al. [20, 21], Warburton [22]), their distribution along the
height of the structure (overviewed by Dimova et al. [23]), as well as their use for reducing the
earthquake response of adjacent buildings (discussed by De Angelis and Ciampi [24]). As shown
by Dorka and Conversano [25], implementation of such devices is especially favourable for
seismic retro"tting of existing buildings because it requires a limited structural intervention.
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2000; 29:1153}1175
SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC FRAGILITY ANALYSIS 1155
Design criteria for use of friction damped bracings are given by Dowdel and Chery [26], Vulcano
and Mazza [27], Antonucci et al. [28].
The problems, associated with existing methods for treatment of friction forces are discussed by
Beucke and Kelly [29], Dimova et al. [23], Dimova [30]. Velocity model, which allows an easy
incorporation of non-uniform friction coe$cient during the sliding phase, gives possibility of
modeling the &pinching' of the hysteresis loops, as recorded during the experimental tests of
steel}steel interfaces. Numerical studies of the seismic response of a multistorey frame structure
with friction devices [31], show that considering the decrease of friction coe$cient with the
growth of the relative velocity of sliding surfaces during the sliding phase leads to signi"cant
increase of the relative displacement of the sliding surfaces (up to 21 per cent) and considerable
increase of the storey drifts (up to 11 per cent). This phenomenon should be taken into account in
designing friction devices and the decrease of the friction coe$cient should be considered when
studying the dynamic behaviour of structures with friction devices.
2.2. Friction devices and restrictors

A system with friction devices and restrictors could be considered as a multistage system of
seismic protection, obtained by a combination of system with friction devices and system
with joint connections [32}35]. Seismic behaviour of a system with friction devices and res-
trictors is studied by Dimova [1] for the case of a four-storey steel frame. Two construction
schemes of the restriction of the relative displacement a of the sliding surfaces are proposed, as

follows:
(a) welding of angle ties to the beam, which restrict the maximum displacement of the top of
the bracing relative to the beam (Figure 1(a)), as proposed by Tzenov [37] for system with
joint connections. In order to prevent the prestressed bolts from shear, the gap size
a between the beam and the top of the bracing should be smaller than the length of the

slotted holes;
(b) introduction of unprestressed &bearing' bolts in slotted holes with a smaller size in parallel
to the prestressed bolts in slotted holes, which corresponds to the maximum relative
displacement of the sliding surfaces a (Figure 1(b)). This way of construction could be

related to the &safety hook' proposed by Roik et al. [38] which prevents the prestressed
Figure 1. Schemes of restriction of the relative displacement of the sliding surfaces.
bolts in the considered friction-grip device from shearing, when unexpectedly strong
ground motion occurs.
The numerical simulations show that such system of seismic protection exhibits equally
stable response during both, the short-period and the long-period seismic excitation [1]. The
action of restrictors gives the possibility to reduce moment response in the columns thus
preventing inelastic deformations, while in the initial &bare' frame, in the frame with "xed bracing
and in the system with friction devices inelastic deformations occur during considered seismic
excitations.
3. BACKGROUND OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
3.1. Structural model

A study of the fragility of the system with friction devices and restrictors and the system with
friction devices is performed for the case of a four-storey braced frame (Figure 2). It is designed
after a moment resisting steel frame, investigated by Robinson [39]. In each storey steel friction
devices with prestressed bolts in slotted holes are introduced in the manner, described by Pall and
Marsh [36]. According to Pall and Marsh [36] the devices are designed to slide before yielding
occurs in the other structural elements of the frame. The bracings are assumed to act both in
tension and compression and are hinged to the connecting plate. The restriction of the maximum
relative displacement a of the sliding surfaces is assumed to be set according to one of the ways,

described in Section 2.2.
The structure has the following dimensions: storey masses m "m "m "41610 kg,

m "40820 kg; second moments of area I "7117.5 cm, I "8740.8 cm, I "12 486 cm,

I "15 567 cm, I "1210 cm; cross-section A "32 cm; bracing masses m "m "

m "m "93.7 kg.

Friction forces are modelled by the use of the velocity method and the magnitude of the friction
coe$cient k during the sliding phase decreases with the growth of the relative velocity of the
sliding surfaces (Figure 3(a)). This piecewise linear representation of k leads to the following
Figure 2. Four storey frame (dimensions in meters).
Figure 3. (a, b) Modelling of friction coe$cient and action of restrictors.
expression of the friction force F :

F "c (xR !xR ) for "xR !xR "(e (1)

F "F sgn(xR !xR )!F k\ c*[(xR !xR )!e sgn(xR !xR )] for "xR !xR "*e

(2)
where x and x are the displacements of the upper and of the lower sliding surfaces, k is the

maximum value of the friction coe$cient k (see Figure 3(a)), F "Pk is the maximum

friction force, P is the normal force acting on the friction interface, c "Pk e\, c*"tga,

c*'0, according to the denotation of the angle a given in Figure 3(a) and e is a positive constant
chosen su$ciently small in order to describe as better as possible the sticking phase.
Numerical simulations in this study are performed for e"0.001 m/s, c*"tga"0.05 s/m and
k "0.15 in accordance with the studies by Dimova et al. [23] and Zinoviev [40]. The normal

force acting on the friction device stems partly from the dead load of the frame and mainly from
pressing forces introduced by the prestressed bolts. Maximum friction force mobilized is con-
sidered to be 200 kN in all four friction devices.
The action of restrictors is modeled by uniaxial link "nite element. Whenever the relative
displacement of the sliding surfaces exceeds a preliminary "xed value a , initial zero sti!ness of

the element increases to a value of k as shown in Figure 3(b). The magnitude of the sti!ness of the
J
restrictors is taken to be very high (k "2.0;10 kN/m), thus practically allowing no relative
J
displacement of the sliding surfaces. In the following numerical simulations the value of
a "0.005 m is considered to permit the development of energy dissipation through friction.

Also, such a value of a gave good results in the study of the e!ectiveness of the system with joint

connections [33].
Viscous damping in the structure is considered by introducing a Rayleigh proportional
damping matrix [C]"t[K], where [K] is the sti!ness matrix and t"¹ m/n with ¹ the natural

period of the frame. A typical viscous damping coe$cient for steel structures m"0.02 is used.
Further, in the comparative study of the seismic response and fragility of all the possible
structural modi"cations (as outlined in Figure 4), the following abbreviations are introduced:
FBS (#exible basic system)*initial &bare' frame with "rst natural period of 1.0 s;
RBS (rigid basic system)*frame with "xed bracing, with "rst natural period of 0.31 s.
FRS (friction system)*braced frame with friction devices without restrictors;
FRSR (friction system and restrictors)*braced frame with friction devices and restrictors.
Figure 4. Structural modi"cations.
3.2. Seismic response parameters for fragility estimation

On the basis of the aseismic design requirements and the experience of non-linear analysis of steel
frame structures, the following seismic response parameters are considered in each ith storey:
(i) storey drifts D ,

G
(ii) maximum moment M in the columns which have uniform cross-section;
G
(iii) axial force N in the bracings of FRSR and RBS.
G
Axial force in the bracings of the FRS is not considered to be a critical parameter, because it
remains almost constant during the sliding of the friction device (the contribution of the inertial
force due to the bracings mass is negligible). This way, when properly designed the braces of the
FRS practically cannot su!er buckling failure even for considerably strong seismic intensities.
The fragility of restricting devices (bolts or angle ties) is not considered, because they are
assumed to be designed for a shear force larger than that causing the buckling of bracings.
Since the fragility analysis in this paper is directed to the potentiality of the considered
structures to withstand seismic excitations without damage of the main frame members, the
considered seismic capacities (shown in Table I) correspond to the elastic limit. The seismic
capacity for storey drifts is set to be 0.0122 m (1/250 of the storey height) according to the
Table I. Seismic capacities.
Storey M of columns N of bracings

FBS FRSR, FRS, RBS FRSR RBS
kN m kN m kN kN
1 166.571 169.404 626.144 1339.887

2 174.795 176.913 648.149 1361.892
3 160.062 161.633 665.026 1378.769
4 168.278 168.962 689.620 1403.363
provisions of the Bulgarian Codes for design of buildings and structures in seismic regions [49].
The seismic capacity of columns is related to the yield moment M . The values of M for yielding

stress p "2.85;10 kN/m are calculated taking into the account the axial force by the dead

load. The axial force capacity values N in the bracings of FRSR are calculated considering the

hinge connection to the connecting plate in order to provide proper conditions for the slotted
bolted connections. For this reason Nb for FRSR are smaller than the corresponding axial force
capacities for RBS where rigid connection of the bracings is considered (Table I). Axial force
capacities are calculated taking into account the axial forces by the dead load, too.
4. SELECTION OF SEISMIC INTENSITY PARAMETER FOR FRAGILITY ANALYSIS
In the seismic fragility analysis of nuclear power plants usually the conditional probability of
failure is expressed as a function of the peak ground acceleration A which is considered to

describe well the ground motion intensity}response relationship, as reported by Kennedy and
Ravindra [3]. For base isolated fast breeder reactor structures Hirata et al. [12, 15] expressed the
seismic fragility as a function of the peak ground velocity < . Hirarta et al. evaluated the

conditional probability of failure for base-isolated reactor building using spectral pseudovelocity
S (¹"2.0 s) as the ground motion intensity parameter [14]. The considered ¹"2.0 s is the

fundamental period of the reactor corresponding to tangential sti!ness of the bi-linear
load}displacement relationship of isolators after yielding, which is considered to be equivalent
sti!ness in the region where the ductility factor is considerably large.
In the present study the following ground motion parameters are considered as seismic
intensity parameters, i.e. peak ground acceleration A , peak ground velocity < , spectral

pseudovelocity S and spectral acceleration S with damping h 5 per cent of critical. Since the

considered MDOF non-linear systems (FRSR and FRS) exhibit "rst periods of free vibrations
which depend on the amplitude of vibration and vary between 0.31 s (the natural period of RBS)
and 1.0 s (the natural period of FBS), the average values S and S in the periods band of

0.3}1.0 s of S and S , respectively, are considered as seismic intensity parameters of FRSR and

FRS. The seismic intensity parameters for FBS and RBS are the S and S values corresponding

to their "rst natural periods.
Twenty observed earthquake records (see Table II) are used to investigate the correlation
between the response of the considered systems, and the above-mentioned seismic intensity
Table II. Earthquake records used for regression analysis.
No. Earthquake Record Date A < S S S S

( y.m.d.) ¹"0.31 s¹"1.0 s
m/s m/s m/s m/s m/s m/s
1 Ibaraki NKMNEW 82.07.23 4.376 0.576 0.696 0.940 0.874 8.496

2 Izu Pen. NRYNEW 80.06.29 6.036 0.498 0.590 0.712 0.788 8.327
3 Izu Pen. MNZRNS 80.06.29 11.06 0.880 0.917 1.244 1.415 16.803
4 Aomori FRFSNS6 83.06.21 7.541 0.582 1.288 1.046 1.052 12.611
5 Aomori SRNKEW 83.06.21 2.118 0.160 0.291 0.430 0.328 3.524
6 Yamanashi HTSMEW 83.08.08 2.482 0.186 0.242 0.490 0.479 4.981
7 Yamanashi HTSMNS 83.08.08 3.460 0.246 0.281 0.819 0.473 4.503
8 Izu Pen. NSMTNS 80.06.29 12.17 0.716 1.044 1.857 1.331 13.952
9 Akita FRFSNS5 83.05.26 22.42 1.304 2.008 2.771 3.032 34.485
10 Izu Pen. YSRDNS 80.06.29 15.97 0.779 1.013 1.710 1.712 18.787
11 Ibaraki NAMEEW 82.07.23 10.35 0.494 1.368 0.935 1.112 13.625
12 Yamanashi STJMNS 83.08.08 8.282 0.324 0.771 0.576 0.643 7.162
13 Kobe H11705N 95.01.17 8.206 0.924 0.779 2.452 1.835 19.023
14 Kobe H11705E 95.01.17 6.192 0.759 0.513 2.143 1.643 16.647
15 Imp. Valey El Centro NS 40.05.18 3.417 0.381 0.333 0.904 0.632 6.555
16 Olympia Olympia NS 49.04.13 3.185 0.337 0.397 0.391 0.515 6.032
17 San Fernando Pacoima Dam
S74W 71.02.09 1.055 0.590 0.704 1.178 1.199 13.810
18 Northridge Vincent L 94.01.17 4.229 0.084 0.079 0.093 0.084 0.9695
19 Park"eld Cholame N65E 66.06.27 4.796 0.758 0.292 0.771 0.925 9.919
20 San Fernando Pacoima Dam
S16E 71.02.09 11.48 1.145 0.799 1.938 1.206 13.649
parameters. Records 1}12 are scaled to 10 and 20 times as large as the original records while
records 13}20 are used with their original intensity. In this way, wide range of values of seismic
intensity parameters, such as A , < , S (S ) and S (S ) is considered.

Linear regression analysis is performed for the seismic response parameters of the considered
structures on these seismic intensity parameters. The goal of the regression analysis is to derive
a prediction equation that describes the functional relationship between dependent variable
> and independent variable X (i.e. >I "f [X], where >I is the predicted value of > for a given
value of X). Although the prediction equation for the regression could be presented by higher-
order functions, these expressions will di!er signi"cantly from each other and will not lead to
a general result. The aim of linear regressions is to create a low-cost model of the &real situation',
which duplicates its essential properties and could be easily used as a predictive tool. As
a measure of the goodness of "t the coe$cient of determination R is used. It is de"ned as

R"
L (>I !>M )
G G
L (> !>M )
G G
(3)
where > is the value of the seismic response parameter obtained from the ith simulation, >I is
G
the predicted value of > for a given value of seismic intensity parameter, and >M is the mean
value of > .
G
Figure 5. (a) Regression of the second storey drift of FRSR and FRS on peak ground acceleration; (b)
regression of the second storey drift of FRSR and FRS on mean spectral pseudovelocity.
The coe$cient of determination represents the proportion of the total variation in > that is
accounted for by the regression line [41]. R could be treated also as a parameter proportional to

the amount of scatter in the sample points about the regression line and thus is a measure of the
strength of bivariate association [41].
In Figures 5(a) and 5(b) are illustrated regression results for the second storey drift of FRSR
and FRS on A and S , respectively. In both cases of FRSR and FRS, response correlates

withS better than with A . Coe$cients of determination, obtained from the linear regression

analysis are presented in Table III. R of the regression between response parameters of FBS and

RBS on S are not presented in the table, because they coincide with those on S , since for elastic

spectra S "uS , where u is the natural frequency. The coe$cients of determination obtained for

RBS ("rst natural period of 0.31 s) show that its response parameters correlate well with A and

do not correlate with < . On the contrary, the response parameters of FBS ("rst natural period of

1.0 s) correlate well with < and do not correlate with A. These results con"rm that in the

low-period band the response spectra should be normalized to A and in the middle-period band

Table III. Coe$cients of determination for linear regression analysis for observed accelerograms.
Parameter Storey FRSR RBS
A < S S A < S

Storey 1 0.7995 0.7925 0.9018 0.8710 0.7468 0.4868 0.9701
drift 2 0.8187 0.8004 0.9003 0.8694 0.7191 0.4547 0.9631
D 3 0.8093 0.8227 0.8608 0.8358 0.6949 0.4346 0.9536
G
4 0.6981 0.7893 0.7530 0.7478 0.6879 0.4268 0.9461
Max 1 0.7972 0.7921 0.9018 0.8713 0.7494 0.4898 0.9704
moment 2 0.6851 0.7558 0.8712 0.8634 0.6824 0.5044 0.9188
in 3 0.7907 0.8132 0.8487 0.8228 0.6945 0.4332 0.9532
col. M 4 0.6764 0.7753 0.7328 0.7296 0.6879 0.4262 0.9453
G
Axial 1 0.4587 0.7751 0.8953 0.8591 0.6503 0.4868 0.9701
force 2 0.4903 0.7785 0.8942 0.8568 0.6344 0.4547 0.9631
in 3 0.4871 0.7891 0.8801 0.8422 0.6123 0.4346 0.9536
brac. N 4 0.4793 0.7974 0.8324 0.8124 0.6038 0.4268 0.9461
G
FRS FBS
Storey 1 0.5875 0.7605 0.8306 0.8975 0.5702 0.7807 0.9629
drift 2 0.5529 0.7132 0.8242 0.8871 0.5602 0.7671 0.9548
D 3 0.5112 0.6706 0.7967 0.8612 0.5886 0.7655 0.9610
G
4 0.5259 0.6395 0.7982 0.8665 0.6320 0.7784 0.9615
Max 1 0.5954 0.7671 0.8338 0.9004 5777 0.7822 0.9624
moment 2 0.5685 0.7173 0.8342 0.8950 0.5566 0.7640 0.9599
in 3 0.5125 0.6737 0.7979 0.8616 0.5950 0.7648 0.9613
col. M 4 0.5293 0.6317 0.7992 0.8661 0.6413 0.7786 0.9587
G
they should be normalized to < . On the basis of statistical study, Nau and Hall [42] determined

the low-period band from 0.11 to 0.5 s and middle period band from 0.5 to 5 s. The response
characteristics of both RBS and FBS correlate much better with the corresponding values of the
seismic intensity parameter S (and, respectively, with S ), than with the seismic excitation

characteristics A and < .

The response characteristics of FRSR exhibit slightly bigger coe$cients of determination on
the mean value of spectral acceleration S , than on the mean value of spectral pseudovelocity

S . On the contrary, the responses of FRS correlate better with S , than with S . The choice of

S as seismic intensity parameter for fragility analysis of linear systems such as RBS and FBS and

S as a seismic intensity parameter for fragility analysis of non-linear systems such as FRSR and

FRS is supported also by the following reasons:
(i) S is a basis of the Housner's spectrum intensity S [43], de"ned as the area under the
'
spectrum curve between periods of 0.1 and 2.5 s. Nau and Hal [42] proved that S is a very
'
good normalizing factor as for elastic response spectra, as well as for inelastic ones, in the
periods range of 0.5}5 s. The seismic intensity parameter S could be considered as a kind

of S calculated for the period band *¹ (from 0.31 to 1.0 s in the considered case) and
' G
normalized to *¹ . In this way, S relates S and also gives information for the shape of
G '
S in the considered period band *¹ .
G
(ii) for zero damping oscillator the Fourier amplitude spectrum (FAS) of the accelerogram is
the upper limit of S [44]. Since FAS may be interpreted as a measure of the total energy in

the end of the earthquake within the undamped oscillator, thus S and S also re#ect this

quantity for small values of damping.
(iii) FAS, divided by 2n, is the ground acceleration amplitude intensity at a given circular
frequency of - per unit of - as mentioned by Clough and Pensien [45]. This way S and

S for small values of damping directly relate the ground acceleration amplitude charac-

teristics, too.
A system with friction devices (FRS) could be considered as a system with degrading sti!ness in
which yielding is concentrated in the friction devices. The good correlation between the seismic
response of FRS and S gives reasons for further investigation of this seismic intensity estimate

for implementation in fragility analysis and as a normalizing parameter for linear and non-linear
response spectra. As to determination of an appropriate period band *¹ for the estimation of
G
S for systems with degrading sti!ness, it could be taken between the "rst natural period of the

initial (undamaged) structure and the "rst natural period of the structure with sti!ness, equivalent
to some appropriate sti!ness degradation of critical members.
5. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF FRAGILITY ESTIMATION
The present study is based on a method for the estimation of reliability for elasto-plastically
behaving structures under strong earthquake motions, using reliability index, as "rst proposed by
Kanda [46, 47] and developed by Hirata et al. [12}15] for base-isolated structures. According to
this method safety margin of a member of the structure for the present level of seismic intensity is
de"ned as a ratio of its seismic capacity to its seismic response. Safety margin S (e) concerning

some seismic response parameter for a given seismic intensity e is de"ned as the ratio of its seismic
capacity R to the seismic response parameter S(e), i.e.
S (e)"R/S(e) (4)

and the probability of failure P is

P (e)"Prob(R/S(e)(1) (5)

Under the assumption that R and S are log-normally distributed, Equation (5) leads to the
following expression for fragility as a function of the seismic intensity parameter e:

ln S (e)!ln R
P (e)"
(6)
(b#b

where P (e) is the probability of failure as a function of the seismic intensity parameter e,
is the

cumulative function of standard normal distribution, S (e) and R are the median values of the

seismic response S(e) and seismic capacity R, respectively, and b and b are the log-normal

standard deviations of R and S(e), respectively.
For a variate a which follows log-normal distribution, the median value a and lognormal

standard deviation ba could be expressed by its mean k and coe$cient of variation d as [48]
? ?
k
a " ? (7)
(1#d
?
and
b"ln(1#d ) (8)
? ?
Thus having the regression equation of the seismic response S(e) on the chosen seismic intensity
parameter e (see Section 4) one can express the seismic fragility of the structural members by the
use of Equation (6). It gives the possibility to consider the randomness inherent in the structural
response to seismic excitations (accounted by b ) and the randomness in structural capacity

(accounted by b ). The e!ect of modelling uncertainty herewith is not taken into account. When

needed, it could be expressed in the manner, for example as a present con"dence interval [3, 14].
6. ESTIMATION OF FRAGILITY OF THE CONSIDERED STRUCTURAL

MODIFICATIONS
6.1. Coezcients of variation of response for a xxed intensity of seismic excitation

The fragility of the considered structures is estimated for seismic loading speci"ed by the response
spectrum of the Bulgarian Codes [49] for second category of soils, as shown in Figure 6. From
this spectrum 20 arti"cial accelerograms are generated and made use of for the response analyses.
Their pseudovelocity spectra for h"5 per cent are also shown in Figure 6. The mean values of the
accepted seismic intensity parameters of these arti"cial accelerograms are as follows:
SM (¹"0.31 s, h"5 per cent)"0.3194 m/s,

SM (¹"1.0 s, h"5 per cent)"0.4596 m/s,

SM (¹"0.31}1.0 s, h"5 per cent)"0.4285 m/s.

Seismic responses of FRSR, FRS, RBS and FBS for the generated accelerograms are calculated
and the obtained coe$cients of variation (c.o.v.) are shown in Table IV.
The linear systems RBS and FBS exhibit almost equal c.o.v. for the three considered seismic
response parameters and #oor slab displacements in all the storeys. Although the non-linear
systems FRSR and FRS show almost similar c.o.v. of the #oor slabs displacements, there is
a considerable di!erence in the c.o.v. of storey drifts and moments in the upper storeys. Numerical
results show that in the third storey the restrictors in FRSR act only during four of the 20 seismic
excitations considered and in the fourth storey sliding of friction damper does not occur in FRSR
and FRS during all the excitations. This way, the storey drifts whose maxima usually do not
coincide with the maxima of the #oor slab displacements, increase considerably in the moments
Figure 6. Target and generated response spectra.
Table IV. Coe$cients of variation of structural response to generated accelerograms.
System Storey Floor slab Storey drift Max moment Axial force in
displacement D in columns M bracings N
G G G
1 0.05525 0.05525 0.04793 0.16840
FRSR 2 0.08571 0.08453 0.08353 0.21110
3 0.13030 0.39712 0.46281 0.19690
4 0.13571 0.36909 0.30935 0.18656
1 0.11150 0.11150 0.10755 3.8873.10\
FRS 2 0.14021 0.15892 0.16056 7.3478.10\
3 0.14895 0.30381 0.25927 4.3061.10\
4 0.14495 0.05455 0.04221 0.04254
1 0.11558 0.11558 0.11484 0.11558
RBS 2 0.14889 0.12217 0.12190 0.12208
3 0.12095 0.12779 0.12794 0.12779
4 0.12193 0.11773 0.11622 0.11774
1 0.20200 0.20200 0.20058
FBS 2 0.20280 0.20507 0.20444 No
3 0.20250 0.19968 0.19956 bracings
4 0.20228 0.15725 0.20435
when the storey drift in the next storey and the respective #oor slabs displacements are con"ned
by the action of restrictors and/or the sticking in friction devices. The maximum moment in the
columns in a given storey depends on the storey drift and this way shows similar c.o.v.
6.2. Regression analysis of structural response on seismic intensity parameter

The response of the considered structural systems (FRSR, FRS, RBS and FBS) is calculated for 11
di!erent seismic intensities, ranging between 1 and 4 times the initial intensity of generated
accelerograms. In order to reduce the number of calculations of structural response, assumption
for &mean seismic excitation' is made. More precisely, it is assumed that the seismic excitation
which causes responses closest to the mean values in the original seismic intensity, will cause
mean responses in all the other considered intensities and the c.o.v. will not change (see Figure 7).
Under this assumption the regression lines of the response of the linear systems FBS and RBS on
seismic intensity could be easily calculated (two points are needed to obtain the straight lines
characterizing their response}intensity relationships) and only the response of FRSR and FRS
should be calculated to all the considered 11 levels of seismic intensity for one accelerogram. The
structural responses at the initial intensity show that the accelerogram No. 16 represents the best
&mean seismic excitation' concept for all the considered structures, as shown in Figure 8 for the
second storey drift.
The coe$cients of determination R obtained by the linear regression analysis of the response

of FRSR and FRS on S are shown in Table V. Only in the fourth storey R is lower than 0.95,

because in the range of the small intensities the friction dampers and the restrictors do not work.
For the linear systems FBS and RBS the coe$cients of the regression lines on S with R"1.0 are

found from two points of seismic intensity parameter S . In this way, by specifying the regression

coe$cients, the mean value of every seismic response parameter is determined in the considered
range of seismic intensity. The linear regression equations
>I "b X#b (9)

for some of the seismic response parameters of FRSR and all of the seismic response parameters
of FRS have a negative free member b . The analysis of the zero crossings of these lines of the

seismic intensity axis have shown that these points are in very low seismic intensities where no
exceedance of seismic capacity is expected. This fact gives reason to accept zero seismic response
values in the case where the seismic response value is calculated negative.
Figure 7. Concept of &mean seismic excitation'.
Figure 8. Second storey drift responses to generated accelerograms.
Table V. Coe$cients of determination of linear regression analysis for

arti"cial accelerograms.
Storey 1 2 3 4
Storey drifts D
G
FRSR 0.99544 0.99219 0.97848 0.86781
FRS 0.97947 0.97183 0.97461 0.91478
Max moments M
G
FRSR 0.99490 0.98749 0.94532 0.85857
FRS 0.98049 0.96938 0.98118 0.90497
Axial forces in bracins N
G
FRSR 0.99790 0.99219 0.99835 0.96552
The above proposed concept of &mean seismic excitation' and linear regression of the response
of FRSR and FRS on S is proved by setting some value of S higher than the initial one, for

example S "1.0 m/s. Using the linear regression equations the predicted response is found.

The generated twenty arti"cial accelerograms are scaled to S "1.0 m/s and the mean responses

are obtained from the 20 calculated responses of FRSR and FRS, respectively. The calculated and
the predicted mean values are compared in Table VI.
The results obtained show very good agreement except for the prediction for the fourth storey
response of FRS, where the friction device starts to act for intensities of S "0.8 and higher, so

the regression line is derived for di!erent quantities of response in the considered intensities band
and exhibit comparatively low coe$cient of determination, as shown in Table V. These results
could be improved by a more appropriate choice of the range of seismic intensities in which the
regression analysis will be performed. For example, if the regression lines for the fourth storey
drift and moment of the FRS are obtained for seismic intensity S '0.8 m/s, the predicted values

Table VI. Comparison of calculated and predicted mean values of the response of FRSR and FRS.
Parameter Storey FRSR FRS
Calculated Predicted Error (%) Calculated Predicted Error (%)
Di 1 1.42807 1.45770 #2.07 2.16978 2.54370 #17.23

(cm) 2 1.41961 1.43512 #1.09 2.57492 2.96720 #15.23
3 1.30324 1.28624 !1.30 2.06348 2.2936 #11.15
4 1.20415 1.08246 !10.11 0.63537 1.12451 #76.98
Mi 1 140.788 143.746 #2.10 212.171 246.883 #16.36
(kN m) 2 93.827 96.032 #2.35 181.617 204.210 #12.44
3 81.369 77.859 !4.31 134.047 141.482 #5.54
4 77.229 65.865 !14.71 34.478 70.668 104.97
Ni 1 981.138 1012.540 #3.2
(kN) 2 972.200 988.586 #1.68
3 849.177 861.216 #1.42
4 744.422 654.116 !12.13
become D4"0.78531 cm and M4"47.985 kN m and the respective errors are #23.60 and
#39.17 per cent thus reducing the prediction error more than 2.6 times.
As will be shown in Section 6.3, almost all key risk contributors for each of the considered
structures are related to their response in the "rst or the second storey, so the obtained
comparative results between the predicted and calculated mean values show, that it is possible to
predict well the structural response of FRSR and FRS by the proposed concept. Moreover, an
error in the predicted mean response was already introduced with the choice of wave No. 16
which "tted not exactly with the calculated mean responses of all the considered structures in all
the storeys. In this context, the proposed concept which allows a considerable reduction of the
number of calculations, gives the possibility to concentrate the calculational e!orts in obtaining
more exact &mean seismic excitation' by considering a higher number of accelerograms. In this
way the coe$cients of variation of structural response parameters, needed for fragility estimation,
will be calculated more precisely, too.
6.3. Fragility estimation

The fragility is estimated for each of the considered structures for every considered seismic
response parameter. The coe$cient of variation of the seismic capacities d is set to be 0.15

according to the Japanese design guidelines for limit state design of steel structures [50]. The
results are shown in Figures 9}12 for each structural system.
As can be seen from Figure 9, the key seismic risk contributor for FBS are the storey drifts in
the second and third storeys with P "0.95 for S "0.230 m/s for D and P "0.95 for

S "0.245 m/s for D . Thus P of FBS is close to 1.0 for seismic excitation with SM (¹"1.0 s,

h"5 per cent)"0.4596 m/s implied in response spectra shown in Figure 6.
The most vulnerable seismic response parameters of RBS (Figure 10) are the "rst storey drift
D1 and the axial force N1 in the "rst storey bracings. RBS will withstand the seismic excitation
with the response spectrum magnitude SM (¹"0.31 s, h"5 per cent)"0.3194 m/s with

Figure 9. Fragilities of FBS.
Figure 10. Fragilities of RBS.
P "0.06 for the "rst story drift D1 and P less than 10\ for the axial force in the "rst storey

bracings N1.
The key risk contributors for FRS (Figure 11) are the "rst storey drift and the second storey
drift. Di!erent from the case of FRS, the vulnerable seismic response parameters of FRSR (Figure
12) are the axial force in the "rst storey bracings and the axial force in the second storey bracings
for P '0.14. For P (0.14 the key risk contributors of FRSR become the storey drifts in the

fourth and third stories. This result is a consequence of the high values of the c.o.v. (up to 0.397)
for the third and fourth storey drifts. FRSR and FRS will withstand the seismic excitation with
the response spectrum parameter SM (¹"0.31}1.0 s, h"5 per cent)"0.4285 m/s considered in

Section 6.1 with P "0.03 and P "0.1;10\, respectively.

The above identi"cation of the key risk contributors gives the possibility to clarify the ways
of improving the structural seismic safety. For FRS it would be optimization of the value of
maximum friction force in the di!erent storeys. FRSR exhibits risk contributors in the range of
Figure 11. Fragilities of FRS.
Figure 12. Fragilities of FRSR.
the relatively small fragilities due to the big scatter of the seismic response parameters which
normally do not contribute to the vulnerability of the structure}storey drifts and related to them
moments in the upper storeys. This result also naturally calls for optimization of the design values
of the maximum friction force in the height of the structure to provide simultaneous action of the
restrictors and/or friction devices in all the storeys for a given seismic intensity. Regarding
the axial forces in the "rst and second storey bracings, the seismic behaviour of FRSR could be
improved by designing the restricting elements (bolts or angle ties) to break before the axial force
in the bracings will reach its critical value. This way even after the break of restrictors FRSR will
have redundant seismic resistance by behaving like FRS and will keep its ability to dissipate
energy.
In order to compare the fragilities of the di!erent structures their &envelope' fragility curves, i.e.
the fragility curves of the most vulnerable seismic response parameters are compared in Figure 13.
The envelope fragility of FRS consists of the fragility curve of the "rst storey drift till
Figure 13. Comparison of &envelope' fragilities on normalized intensity.
S "0.57 m/s and from the second storey drift fragility curve for S '0.57 m/s. The envelope

fragility of FRSR consists of the fragility curve of the third storey drift till S "0.63 m/s and

from the axial force in the "rst storey bracings fragility curve for S '0.63 m/s. Since the mean

values of the seismic intensity parameters (see Section 6.1) of the generated accelerograms are
di!erent for the di!erent structures, the seismic intensity for each system is normalized as
S "S /S (10)
C G
where S is the normalized seismic intensity, S comprises the values of intensity considered in
C
fragility estimation of each structure, and S are the mean values of the seismic intensity
G
parameters calculated for those generated from the design response spectrum waves (Figure 6), as
follows:
S "SM (¹"1.0 s, h"5 per cent)"0.4596 m/s for FBS;

G
S "SM (¹"0.31 s, h"5 per cent)"0.3194 m/s for RBS;
G
S "SM (¹"0.31}1.0 s, h"5 per cent)"0.4285 m/s for FRSR and FRS.
G
Thus, the plot in Figure 13 represents the &envelope' fragility of each system in terms of the
normalized seismic intensity S . The most compromised system is FBS, which will be damaged

with P close to 1.0 for seismic intensity equal to 0.6 of the initial one. All the considered braced

frames will withstand the input motion with the original intensity with P less than 0.06, but the

two systems with friction devices and especially FRSR show higher seismic safety than RBS.
When the initial &bare' frame is retro"tted by rigidly connected bracings the e!ect is lower, than in
the case of connecting the bracings by friction devices (till P "0.78) and especially by friction

devices and restrictors. RBS will be damaged with P "0.5 for S "1.346. For this value of the

normalized intensity FRS exhibits P "0.231 and FRSR!P "0.104. FRSR will be damaged

with P "0.99 for seismic intensity equal to 2.41 times of the original one. These results

conclusively show that the installation of restrictors of the relative displacements of the sliding
surfaces of friction devices contributes substantially to the seismic safety of the structure.
Figure 14. Comparison of fragilities of the "rst storey bracing of FRSR on normalized intensity for recorded
and generated accelerograms.
Figure 15. Comparison of fragilities of the second storey drift of FRS on normalized intensity for recorded
and generated accelerograms.
When using the mean seismic excitation concept, regression analysis of seismic response
parameters on seismic intensity is performed for one accelerogram. The used seismic intensity
parameters SM and SM (described in Section 6.1) for only one accelerogram are linearly propor-

tional to its peak acceleration A . In this case the fragility on the normalized seismic intensity

S calculated on SM and SM coincides with the fragility on the normalized seismic intensity

S calculated on A , as shown in Figures 14 and 15 for the fragility of the "rst storey bracing of

FRSR (N1) and second storey drift of FRS (D2), respectively. Herewith arises the question what is
the meaning of introduction of the proposed seismic intensity parameters SM and SM . To answer

this question fragility of the above considered seismic response parameters N1 and D2 is
calculated for 20 recorded accelerograms used in Section 4 with di!erent spectral content and
intensity by use of linear regression on S and A . It is assumed that the coe$cients of variation

of the response parameters coincide with those for generated accelerograms given in Table IV.
The comparison of the fragilities on the normalized intensity conclusively shows that the fragility
calculated for the speci"ed target response spectrum gives an estimate of the fragility for the
recorded accelerograms with di!erent spectral content, when the latter is calculated on S (see

Figures 14 and 15).
7. CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions from the presented estimation of seismic fragility of structures with two
types of friction devices could be summarized as follows:
1. Seismic intensity parameter, de"ned as the mean value of the pseudovelocity spectrum in the
periods band of the "rst natural periods of the initial &bare' frame and frame with "xed
bracings, gives possibility to use linear regression analysis of the response parameters of the
considered non-linear structures on seismic intensity.
2. Simpli"ed method of fragility estimation, based on the concept of &mean seismic excitation'
in the estimation of the mean response value and linear regression of the seismic response
parameters on seismic intensity parameter allows to reduce considerably the computational
time. A comparison between the mean values of the response parameters predicted by this
concept and calculated mean responses shows very good agreement. This comparison shows
that the seismic response of the system with friction devices and restrictors is more
predictable, than those of the system with friction devices.
3. The fragility analysis gave the possibility to identify the key risk contributors for the
system with friction devices and for the system with friction devices and restrictors. On
the basis of these results the seismic resistance of these systems could be increased by
optimization of the value of maximum friction force in the di!erent storeys. The seismic
behaviour of the system with friction devices and restrictors could be improved also by
designing the restricting elements (bolts or angle ties) to break before the axial force in the
bracings will reach its critical value. Even after the break of restrictors the system will have
a redundant seismic resistance and will keep its ability to dissipate energy in the friction
devices.
4. The comparative fragility analysis, based on normalized seismic intensity, shows that when
the initial &bare' frame is retro"tted by rigidly connected bracings, the e!ect is much lower,
than in the case of connecting the bracings by friction devices and especially by friction
devices and restrictors.
5. The seismic response of the systems with friction devices could be substantially improved by
introducing restrictors of the relative displacements of the sliding surfaces. The system with
friction devices and restrictors exhibits higher seismic safety, than the system with friction
devices and could be proposed for further development and application.
6. The calculated fragility by the proposed simpli"ed method for accelerograms com-
patible with a given seismic response spectrum on the normalized intensity gives also an
estimate of the fragility for seismic excitations with di!erent spectral content, when the
latter is calculated on the above proposed mean value of the pseudovelocity spectrum.
The use of the peak ground acceleration as seismic intensity parameter for seismic
excitations with di!erent spectral content does not give precise enough estimation of the
fragility.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The "rst author gratefully acknowledges the "nancial support from the Japan Science and Technology
Corporation under STA fellowship.
REFERENCES
1. Dimova SL. Seismic protection of frame structures by friction devices with restrictors. Proceedings of the 11th ECEE,
Paris, 1998; (on CD).
2. Yang CY. Random <ibration of Structures. Wiley: New York, 1986.
3. Kennedy RP, Ravindra MK. Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies. Nuclear Engineering and Design
1984; 79: 47}68.
4. US NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). An approach to the quanti"cation of seismic margins in nuclear power
plants. N;REG/GR-4334, 1985.
5. IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. The role of probabilistic safety assessment and probabilistic safety
criteria in NPP safety. Safety Series, No 106, Vienna, Austria, 1992.
6. IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. Probabilistic safety assessment (INSAG-6). Safety Series, No. 75,
Vienna, Austria, 1992.
7. Lederman L, Niehaus F, Tomic B. Probabilistic safety assessment past, present and future. An IAEA perspective.
Nuclear Engineering Design 1996; 160: 273}285.
8. Kafka P. Probabilistic safety assessment: quantitative process to balance design manufacturing and operation for
safety of plant structures and systems. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1996; 165: 333}350.
9. Penzien J, Liu SC. Nondeterministic analysis of nonlinear structures subjected to earthquake excitations. Proceedings
of the 4th =CEE, vol. 1, Section A-1, Santiago, Chile, 1969.
10. Ruiz P, Pensien J. Probabilistic study of behaviour of structures during earthquakes. EERC Report No 69-3,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, CA, 1969.
11. SchueK ler GI (ed.). Structural Dynamics. Recent Advances. Springer: Berlin, 1991.
12. Hirata K, Kobayashi Y, Kameda H, Shiojiri H. Fragility of seismically isolated FBR structure. Nuclear Engineering
and Design 1991; 128: 227}236.
13. Hirata K, Shirahama K, Somaki T. Structural reliability of seismic isolation system. From Probabilistic Mechanics
and Structural and Geotechnical Reliability, 6th Speciality Conference, EM, ST, GTDiv/ASCE, 57}60, Denver, CO,
1992.
14. Hirata K, Ootori Y, Somaki T. Seismic fragility analysis for base-isolated structure. Journal of Structural and
Constructive Engineering, AIJ 1993; 452: 11}19 (in Japanese).
15. Hirata K, Somaki T. Fragility estimation of an isolated FBR structure considering the ultimate state of rubber
bearings. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1994; 147: 183}196.
16. Dorka UE, Pradlwarter HJ. Reliability based retro"tting of RC frames with hysteretic devices, In Structural Safety
& Reliability. SchueK ller, Shinozuka, Yao (eds), Balkema: Rotterdam, 1994; 1545}1552.
17. Dorka UE, Ji A, Dimova S. Earthquake safety of large panel buildings retro"tted with hysteretic devices. Proceedings
of ICOSSAR, Kyoto, Japan, 1998; 1533}1538.
18. Kelly JM. Aseismic base isolation: review and bibliography. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1986; 5(4):
202}217.
19. Buckle IC, Mayes RL. Seismic isolation: history, application and performance * a world overview. Earthquake
Spectra 1990; 6(2): 161}202.
20. Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn AM, Constantinou MC. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of three-dimensional base isolated
structures (3D-BASIS). Report No NCEER-89-0019, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
University of New York at Bu!alo, 1989.
21. Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn AM, Constantinou MC. 3D-BASIS: nonlinear dynamic analysis of three-dimensional base
isolated structures: Part II. Report No NCEER-91-0005, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
University of New York at Bu!alo, 1991.
22. Warburton GB. Reduction of <ibrations. ¹he third Mallet}Milne ¸ecture. Wiley: New York, 1992.
23. Dimova SL, Meskouris K, Kraetzig WB. Numerical technique for dynamic analysis of structures with friction devices.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1995; 24: 881}898.
24. De Angelis M, Ciampi V. E!ectiveness of dissipative connections on improving earthquake response of adjacent
buildings. Proceedings of the 10th ECEE, vol. 3. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995; 1891}1896.
25. Dorka UE, Conversano GA. Seismic retro"t of allstate building. Report of the IABSE Symposium, San Francisco,
1995; 145}150.
26. Dowdel DJ, Cherry S. Optimal seismic response control of friction damped structures. Proceedings of the 10th ECEE.
Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995; 2051}2056.
27. Vulcano A, Mazza F. Earthquake damage mitigation of R.C. frames by using damped steel braces. Proceedings of the
EERC-C;RE Symposium in honor of <.<. Bertero, ;CB/EERC-97/05, 1997; 199}203.
28. Antonucci R, Giacchetti R, Di Matteo G. Design parameters optimization for R.C. structures incorporating energy
dissipation bracings. Proceedings of the EERC-C;RE Symposium in honor of <.<. Bertero, ;CB/EERC-97/05, 1997;
211}215.
29. Beucke KE, Kelly JM. Equivalent linearizations for practical hysteretic systems, International Journal of Non-¸inear
Mechanics 1985; 23(4): 211}238.
30. Dimova SL. Comparison and veri"cation of two techniques for friction forces representation. Computers & Structures
1996; 60(1): 11}19.
31. Dimova SL. Modeling of friction forces with decreasing friction coe$cient during the sliding phase. Proceedings of the
Mouchel Centenary Conference on Innovation in Civil and Structural Engineering, Cambridge, England, 1997; 330}336.
32. Tzenov L. Reduction of the seismic vulnerability of structures. Doctor1s ¹hesis, CLSMEE-BAS, So"a, 1983 (in
Bulgarian).
33. Dimova SL. System with joint connections subjected to dynamic excitations. PhD ¹hesis, BAS, So"a, 1987 (in
Bulgarian).
34. Olariu I. Passive control and base isolation: state-of-the-art lecture. Proceedings of the 10th ECEE, Balkema:
Rotterdam, 1995; 703}713.
35. Dimova SL, Tzenov L. Analysis of a system of special seismic protection to real strong ground motion. Proceedings of
the 9th ECEE, 1990; 7-B: 50}55.
36. Pall AS, Marsh C. Response of friction damped braced frames. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 1982; 108:
1313}1323.
37. Tzenov L. Seismically Protected Structure. License No. 26752, INRA, So"a, 1982 (in Bulgarian).
38. Roik K, Dorka UE, Dechent P. Vibrational control of structures under earthquake loading by three stage friction
grip elements. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1988; 16: 501}521.
39. Robinson RH. Inelastic design of steel frames to resist seismic loads. ESSB Report No. 11, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1977.
40. Zinoviev V. (ed.). Short ¹echnical Handbook, Part 1. State Publishers of Technical and Theoretical Literature,
Moscow, 1952 (in Russian).
41. Size WB. (ed.). ;se and Abuse of Statistical Methods in the Earth Sciences. Oxford University Press: New York, 1987.
42. Nau JM, Hall WJ. Scaling methods for earthquake spectra. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1984; 110(7):
1533}1548.
43. Housner GW. Behaviour of structures during earthquakes. Journal of the Engineering of Mechanical Division, ASCE
1959; 85(EM4): 109}129.
44. Clough RW, Pensien J. Dynamics of Structures (1st edn). McGraw Hill: New York, 1975.
45. Clough RW, Pensien J. Dynamics of Structures (2nd edn). McGraw Hill: New York, 1993.
46. Kanda J. Probability-based seismic margin index for inelastic members of reactor buildings. ¹ransactions of the 8th
SMiR¹, M1K2/5, 1985; 353}359.
47. Kanda J, Iwasaki R, Sunohara H. Stochastic evaluation of inelastic seismic response of a simpli"ed reactor building
model. ¹ransactions of the 9th SMiR¹, K1, 1987; 403}408.
48. Ang ZH-S, Tang WH. Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, Basic Principles, vol. 1. Wiley: New
York, 1975.
49. Bulgarian Committee for Area and Village Arrangement and Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Regulations for design of
buildings and structures in seismic regions. So"a, 1987 (in Bulgarian).
50. Architectural Institute of Japan. Recommendations for limit state design of steel structures (draft), 1998.

Simplified Seismic Fragility Analysis of Structures With Two Types of Friction Devices

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

Simplified Seismic Fragility Analysis of Structures With Two Types of Friction Devices

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2000; 29: 1153}1175

Simpli"ed seismic fragility analysis of structures with two types

Silvia L. Dimova * R and Kazuta Hirata

Incorporation of friction devices in structures is an innovative method for non-traditional seismic

Contract/grant sponsor: Japan Science and Technology Corporation.

Received 20 July 1999

2. USE OF FRICTION DEVICES AND FRICTION DEVICES AND RESTRICTORS

2.1. Friction devices

2.2. Friction devices and restrictors

Figure 1. Schemes of restriction of the relative displacement of the sliding surfaces.

3. BACKGROUND OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

3.1. Structural model

Figure 2. Four storey frame (dimensions in meters).

Figure 3. (a, b) Modelling of friction coe$cient and action of restrictors.

expression of the friction force F :

Figure 4. Structural modi"cations.

3.2. Seismic response parameters for fragility estimation

(i) storey drifts D ,

Table I. Seismic capacities.

Storey M of columns N of bracings

1 166.571 169.404 626.144 1339.887

4. SELECTION OF SEISMIC INTENSITY PARAMETER FOR FRAGILITY ANALYSIS

Table II. Earthquake records used for regression analysis.

No. Earthquake Record Date A < S S S S

m/s m/s m/s m/s m/s m/s

1 Ibaraki NKMNEW 82.07.23 4.376 0.576 0.696 0.940 0.874 8.496

Parameter Storey FRSR RBS

5. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF FRAGILITY ESTIMATION

and the probability of failure P is

6. ESTIMATION OF FRAGILITY OF THE CONSIDERED STRUCTURAL

6.1. Coezcients of variation of response for a xxed intensity of seismic excitation

SM (¹"0.31 s, h"5 per cent)"0.3194 m/s,

Figure 6. Target and generated response spectra.

Table IV. Coe$cients of variation of structural response to generated accelerograms.

6.2. Regression analysis of structural response on seismic intensity parameter

>I "b X#b (9)

Figure 7. Concept of &mean seismic excitation'.

Figure 8. Second storey drift responses to generated accelerograms.

Table V. Coe$cients of determination of linear regression analysis for

Parameter Storey FRSR FRS

Calculated Predicted Error (%) Calculated Predicted Error (%)

Di 1 1.42807 1.45770 #2.07 2.16978 2.54370 #17.23

6.3. Fragility estimation

Figure 9. Fragilities of FBS.

Figure 10. Fragilities of RBS.

Figure 11. Fragilities of FRS.

Figure 12. Fragilities of FRSR.

Figure 13. Comparison of &envelope' fragilities on normalized intensity.

S "SM (¹"1.0 s, h"5 per cent)"0.4596 m/s for FBS;

Вам также может понравиться

Silvia L. Dimova*R and Kazuta Hirata

m/s m/s m/s m/s m/s m/s