A risk-consistent approach to determine EN1998 behaviour factors for lateral load resisting systems

Vamvatsikos, Dimitrios; Bakalis, Konstantinos; Kohrangi, Mohsen; Pyrza, Stella; Castiglioni, Carlo Andrea; Kanyilmaz, Alper; Morelli, Francesco; Stratan, Aurel; D’Aniello, Mario; Calado, L.; Proença, Jorge; Degée, Hervé; Hoffmeister, Benno; Pinkawa, Marius; Thanopoulos, Pavlos; Vayas, Ioannis

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.106008

Cited by 38 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Still, this is not just a question of how, but also a question of how many. For example, Porter et al (2015) suggest using one to seven index buildings to represent any single class and Vamvatsikos et al (2019) have employed three archetypes for European steel concentrically-braced frames, while Silva et al (2014b) and Babič and Dolšek (2015) used 100 models per archetype for Portuguese RC moment frames and archetypes of industrial precast building classes, respectively. Where do we draw the line when limited resources are available?…”

Section: Vulnerability Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Challenges and Future Trends in Analytical Fragility and Vulnerability Modeling

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lack of empirical data regarding earthquake damage or losses has propelled the development of dozens of analytical methodologies for the derivation of fragility and vulnerability functions. Each method will naturally have its strengths and weaknesses, which will consequently affect the associated risk estimates. With the purpose of sharing knowledge on vulnerability modeling, identifying shortcomings in the existing methods, and recommending improvements to the current practice, a group of vulnerability experts met in Pavia (Italy) in April 2017. Critical topics related to the selection of ground motion records, modeling of complex real structures through simplified approaches, propagation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainties, and validation of vulnerability results were discussed, and suggestions were proposed to improve the reliability and accuracy in vulnerability modeling.

show abstract

Section: Vulnerability Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Challenges and Future Trends in Analytical Fragility and Vulnerability Modeling

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In W 2 , we are focusing more on the collapse and near-collapse state of the structure, assigning 20% of the total weight to each of the three highest IM levels, while equally distributing the remaining 40% to the seven lower ones. For W 3 , we disregarded the lowest four IM levels by assigning zero weights and designated linearly increasing weights from the fifth to the tenth level, giving increasingly more significance to the higher IM s. To also investigate CS selection at a single IM level, as employed, for example, in the work of Vamvatsikos et al (2019), three simpler weighting schemes were employed by setting 100% weight on the IM level with an exceedance probability of 30%, 10%, and 2% in 50 years. In all cases, selection was performed via the computationally efficient algorithm of Jayaram et al (2011) for CS( SAT 1 ) and its modified version for CS( AvgSA ) by Kohrangi et al (2017a).…”

Section: Implementation Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-level conditional spectrum-based record selection for IDA

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is widespread to evaluate the seismic response of structures. It employs one records set scaled to multiple intensity levels (IMLs) to estimate the structural response distribution. However, the dominating earthquake scenarios differ with the intensity, and a single set introduces bias that increases with scaling. The response is, however, better estimated using multiple stripe analysis (MSA) by selecting multiple hazard consistent record sets at different IMLs via, for example, conditional spectrum (CS) method. Still, IDA remains a popular tool, and would benefit from a single “good” set that would be more amenable to scaling with minimal bias. We explore alternatives of a “multi-level” CS (CSML) scheme, whereby the seismic properties of multiple IMLs are combined to derive a single set. Combined with advanced IMs, CSML provides a viable trade-off between the more accurate and complex method of CS–MSA versus the conceptually and practically simpler IDA.

show abstract

“…Recently, more sophisticated techniques have been developed to assess seismic performance of structures, including conditional spectrum record selection, and estimation of collapse intensities with improved intensity measure (IM) such as spectral acceleration averaged over a period range (Eads et al, 2013; Kohrangi et al, 2017; Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002). It is also reported that for the high-rise structural systems, the use of spectral ordinates that rely on the fundamental period only has been proven to be inadequate (Vamvatsikos et al, 2020). However, this study adopts FEMA P695 methodology without modification because this method has been widely used to revise design criteria and to estimate seismic performance factors (Haselton et al, 2011; Hwang and Lignos, 2017; NIST GCR 12-917-20, 2012).…”

Section: Seismic Collapse Performance Of Model Smfsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic collapse performance of steel special moment frames designed using different analysis methods

Kim

Han

2020

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building structures designed according to current seismic design codes should satisfy the seismic performance objectives specified in codes during big earthquake events. ASCE 7-16 specifies that risk category I and II structures should have a probability of collapse less than 10% against the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) shaking hazard. ASCE 7-16 provides four analysis methods to calculate the seismic demands on structures. In this study, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-story steel special moment frames (SMFs) are designed using the two most popular elastic analysis methods: the equivalent lateral force (ELF) method and the modal response spectrum analysis (RSA) method. The collapse probabilities of these structures are estimated against MCE shaking hazards according to FEMA P695. It is observed that the collapse probabilities of these structures vary according to analysis methods used for design. To improve the seismic collapse performance of SMFs, a modified method is proposed.

show abstract

A risk-consistent approach to determine EN1998 behaviour factors for lateral load resisting systems

Cited by 38 publications

References 32 publications

Current Challenges and Future Trends in Analytical Fragility and Vulnerability Modeling

Current Challenges and Future Trends in Analytical Fragility and Vulnerability Modeling

Multi-level conditional spectrum-based record selection for IDA

Seismic collapse performance of steel special moment frames designed using different analysis methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About