FRACAS: A capacity spectrum approach for seismic fragility assessment including record-to-record variability

Rossetto, Tiziana; Gehl, Pierre; Minas, Stylianos; Galasso, Carmine; Duffour, Philippe; Douglas, John; Cook, O. H.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.043

Cited by 64 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The model from HAZUS (FEMA 2012) was considered for the evaluation of the building recovery. Figure 11 shows, as expected, higher values for the total losses computed using SPO2FRAG (Baltzopoulos et al 2017), as compared to the ones obtained using FRACAS (Rossetto et al 2016). What is more interesting is that the results show a contrasting situation-based on the results from FRACAS it was economically feasible to increase the design peak ground acceleration from 0.24 g in the 2006 seismic design code to 0.30 g in the 2013 seismic design code, but it is not economically feasible to make another increase (at least for planning horizons smaller than 50 years).…”

Section: Life-cycle Analysissupporting

confidence: 54%

“…The first approach-SPO2FRAG (Baltzopoulos et al 2017)-relies on the pushover curve of the structure in order to derive the fragility functions. The second approach-FRACAS (Rossetto et al 2016)-derives the fragility functions based on the inelastic time-history analyses of equivalent single-degreeof-freedom systems using scaled ground motion recordings. In the SPO2FRAG approach, the results of incremental dynamic analysis are approximated via the SPO2IDA algorithm developed by Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2006) and an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom approximation of the structural system.…”

Section: Assessment Of Structural Fragilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pushover curves computed for each of the 24 structures are then transformed into equivalent elasticperfectly plastic curves that are used as input in both SPO2FRAG (Baltzopoulos et al 2017) and FRACAS (Rossetto et al 2016). A lateral load pattern based on the PGA peak ground acceleration, F frames, W shear walls The ground motion intensity measure (IM) used in SPO2FRAG is the spectral acceleration corresponding to the eigenperiod of the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom, while in the case of FRACAS, we selected the corresponding peak ground acceleration.…”

Section: Assessment Of Structural Fragilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Life-Cycle and Seismic Fragility Assessment of Code-Conforming Reinforced Concrete and Steel Structures in Bucharest, Romania

Pavel

Calotescu

Stănescu

et al. 2018

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the fragility of reinforced concrete and steel structures in Bucharest, a city of high seismic hazard, designed using the recent building codes in Romania, is assessed. A total of 24 reinforced concrete and steel structures with heights varying from five stories to 13 stories were analyzed. Their seismic fragility was evaluated using two procedures from the literature. In the first procedure (SPO2FRAG), the fragility was derived based on the pushover curves using the SPO2IDA algorithm, while in the second procedure (FRACAS), the fragility was derived from nonlinear time-history analyses. The analyzed structures were designed for three levels of peak ground accelerations, corresponding to mean return periods of 100, 225, and 475 years. Subsequently, the damage assessment of the analyzed structures was performed using ground motions generated from a Monte-Carlo simulated earthquake catalogue for the Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source. The damage degrees that were estimated using the SPO2FRAG approach are higher than those estimated using the FRACAS approach. The life-cycle analysis of the structures shows that a further increase of the design peak ground acceleration for Bucharest is feasible from an economic point of view using the SPO2FRAG results. However, based on the FRACAS results, the opposite conclusion can be drawn. Finally, generic lognormal fragility functions are proposed as a function of building height and structural system.

show abstract

Section: Life-cycle Analysissupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Assessment Of Structural Fragilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessment Of Structural Fragilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life-Cycle and Seismic Fragility Assessment of Code-Conforming Reinforced Concrete and Steel Structures in Bucharest, Romania

Pavel

Calotescu

Stănescu

et al. 2018

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is difficult to assess the appropriateness of these simplifications from the published literature. It is also noted that none of the studies have taken the step of simplifying the earthquake response analysis through use of a pushover‐based approach, despite this being a common approximation made in the development of seismic fragility functions (eg, and).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative assessment of nonlinear static and dynamic methods for analysing building response under sequential earthquake and tsunami

Rossetto

Barra²,

Petrone³

et al. 2019

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of different dynamic and static approaches for assessing building performance under sequential earthquakes and tsunami. A 10‐storey reinforced concrete seismically designed Japanese vertical evacuation structure is adopted as a case study for the investigation. The case study building is first assessed under sequential earthquake and tsunami nonlinear response history analyses: the first time this is done in the literature. The resulting engineering demand parameters are then compared with those obtained when the analysis procedure is systematically simplified by substituting different static approaches for the nonlinear response history analyses in both the earthquake and tsunami loading phases. Different unloading approaches are also tested for the cases when an earthquake pushover is adopted. The results show that an earthquake nonlinear response history analysis, followed by a transient free vibration and a tsunami variable depth pushover, provides the best alternative to full dynamic analyses in terms of accuracy and computational efficiency. This structural analysis combination is recommended and has the advantage that it does not require the tsunami inundation time history to be known in advance. The proposed double pushover approach is instead deemed only suitable for the collapse assessment of regular low to mid‐rise buildings and for the development of collapse fragility functions. An important observation made is that sustained earthquake damage seems not to affect the tsunami resistance of the case study building when the fully dynamic analysis is carried out for the sequential loading. This observation will be the subject of future work.

show abstract

“…The findings revealed that floor level fragility decreased with an increase in height and the ratio from both approaches satisfied the codified limits. Tiziana Rossetto ,Pierre Gehl, Stylianos Minas,Carmine Galasso, Philippe Duffour, John Douglas, Oliver Cook (2016) [24] describes development of fragility curve based on capacity spectrum assessment method as FRACAS.A comparison of maximum inter-storey drift (MIDR) response obtained from FRACAS and non linear time history analysis for two case-study buildings subjected to 150 natural accelerograms. The fragility curve demonstrates well the inelastic record-to-record variability obtained based on FRACAS.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review - Fragility Analysis of Multi-Storey Regular R.C Building

Apte¹

2018

IJRASET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The uncertain nature of future ground motions is leading to the development of probabilistic structural damage estimation procedures. The fragility curve method is a useful method for estimating the structural damage for certain type of structure under the effect of potential earthquakes. Earthquake response analysis is basically done either by non-linear static procedure or non-linear dynamic procedure. Non-linear static procedure may or may not be based on record to record variability, however non-linear dynamic procedure are based on record to record variability. Based on structural response results the two parameters mean and standard deviation are obtained for development of fragility curve. Keywords: Non-linear static procedure, non-linear dynamic procedure, record to record variability, probabilistic structural damage, fragility curve I. INTRODUCTIONOver the past 40 years, major changes regarding seismic design procedures have occurred. Historically, seismic design procedures were based primarily on forces and the strength necessary to resist them largely because that is what dead and live loads are traditionally designed for. It was believed that the strength of a structure was synonymous with the performance of a structure. Research conducted during the 1970's and 1980's focused on determining the ductility of structural systems and incorporating this into the design requirements, but the overall design methods were still based on resisting forces. In the 1990's, a new design method based on desired levels of displacements, instead of forces, was introduced and has been the focus of research since then. The new design method, referred to as performance-based design, was developed to overcome shortcomings in the previous force-based design methodology. Through history, we had recognized that earthquakes caused in big disasters to structures which hadn't any elements to resist the horizontal force produced from earthquakes. There is a concept in the design of structures that was seismic design concept based primarily on forces and the strength necessary to resist them largely because that is what dead and live loads are traditionally designed for. So, there was a need for developing the field of design for structures which will be subjected to lateral load specially earth quakes loads. For analysis of structures subjected to seismic loading, methods such as static and dynamic methods came into existence which could be performed on varied software such sap2000,ansys etc. Further, to estimate the probabilistic damage in structure, damage states are defined and fragility curves are designed on basis of certain ground motion parameters. Fragility curve is one of the novel methods to analyze the probability of yielding or failure of structures thus simplifying seismic analysis.

show abstract

FRACAS: A capacity spectrum approach for seismic fragility assessment including record-to-record variability

Cited by 64 publications

References 20 publications

Life-Cycle and Seismic Fragility Assessment of Code-Conforming Reinforced Concrete and Steel Structures in Bucharest, Romania

Life-Cycle and Seismic Fragility Assessment of Code-Conforming Reinforced Concrete and Steel Structures in Bucharest, Romania

Comparative assessment of nonlinear static and dynamic methods for analysing building response under sequential earthquake and tsunami

A Review - Fragility Analysis of Multi-Storey Regular R.C Building

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About