Probabilistic Seismic Vulnerability of Indian Code-Compliant RC Frame
Publication: Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 27, Issue 3
Abstract
The study’s primary purpose is to compare the analysis procedures of simple deterministic and comprehensive probabilistic techniques. Nonlinear static pushover analysis is considered to assess the RC frame’s seismic response and evaluate the influence of uncertainties in the material’s mechanical properties on the seismic response. A simulation-based procedure was adopted to generate a fragility curve for a 4-story RC frame building designed per the Indian standard for Seismic zone V. The traditional, straightforward deterministic approach was used to calculate the spectral displacement from the derived capacity curve. The thresholds for the different limit states, namely, slight, moderate, extensive, and complete damage, were determined. The concrete and steel strength properties were taken as the random variables. The structural response of the RC frame was analyzed using the Monte Carlo approach. The obtained results show an increase in the uncertainty and structural responses in the probabilistic analysis compared with the deterministic technique. The importance of approaching the building’s fragility and expected damage assessment concerns from a probabilistic perspective is a crucial finding of this study.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Kaushik Gondaliya, upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Ministry of Education, Government of India.
References
Aguilar-Meléndez, A., L. G. Pujades, A. H. Barbat, M. G. Ordaz, J. de la Puente, N. Lantada, and H. E. Rodríguez-Lozoya. 2019. “A probabilistic approach for seismic risk assessment based on vulnerability functions: Application to Barcelona.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 17 (4): 1863–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0516-4.
ASCE. 2017. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE/SEI 41-13. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Baker, J. W. 2007. “Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground motion scaling.” Pac. Conf. Earthquake Eng. 56 (3): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
Baker, J. W. 2015. “Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis.” Earthquake Spectra 31 (1): 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M.
Barbat, A. H., L. G. Pujades, and N. Lantada. 2006. “Performance of buildings under earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 21 (8): 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2006.00450.x.
Barbat, A. H., L. G. Pujades, and N. Lantada. 2008. “Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: Application to Barcelona.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 28 (10–11): 851–865.
Barbat, A. H., L. G. Pujades, N. Lantada, and R. Moreno. 2010. “Erratum to ‘Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using a capacity spectrum based method: Application to Barcelona’ [Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28, 10-11, (2008), 851-865].” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 30 (8): 767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.12.014.
Bhosale, A. S., R. Davis, and P. Sarkar. 2017. “Vertical irregularity of buildings: Regularity index versus seismic risk.” J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. 3 (3): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000900.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1987a. Design loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and structures. Dead loads—Code of practice. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1987b. Design loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and structures. Imposed loads—Code of practice. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2000. Plain and reinforced concrete—Code of practice. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2016a. Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: Part 1. General provisions and buildings. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2016b. Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete—Code of practice. New Delhi, India: BIS.
Choudhury, T., and H. B. Kaushik. 2018a. “Seismic fragility of open ground storey RC frames with wall openings for vulnerability assessment.” Eng. Struct. 155 (Jun): 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.023.
Choudhury, T., and H. B. Kaushik. 2018b. “Seismic response sensitivity to uncertain variables in RC frames with infill walls.” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (10): 04018184. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002190.
Choudhury, T., and H. B. Kaushik. 2019. “Treatment of uncertainties in seismic fragility assessment of RC frames with masonry infill walls.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 126 (Jul): 105771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105771.
Comartin, C., R. Niewiarowski, and C. Rojahn. 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Redwood, CA: Applied Technology Council.
CSI (Computers and Structures Inc). 2021. Structural analysis program, SAP2000: Advanced, static and dynamic finite element analysis of structures. Berkeley, CA: CSI.
FEMA. 2009. Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2018. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Franchin, P., P. E. Pinto, and P. Rajeev. 2010. “Confidence factor?” J. Earthquake Eng. 14 (7): 989–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460903527948.
Humar, J. M., D. Lau, and J. R. Pierre. 2001. “Performance of buildings during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28 (6): 979–991. https://doi.org/10.1139/l01-070.
Hurtado, J. E., and A. Barbat. 1998. “Monte Carlo techniques in computational stochastic mechanics.” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 5 (1): 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02736747.
Jain, S. K., et al. 2001. “Preliminary observations on the origin and effects of the January 26, 2001 Bhuj (Gujarat, India) earthquake.” EERI Spec. Earthquake Rep. 35 (2): 16.
Jeong, S. H., A. M. Mwafy, and A. S. Elnashai. 2012. “Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of code-compliant multi-story RC buildings.” Eng. Struct. 34 (Jan): 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.10.019.
Kennedy, R. P., C. A. Cornell, R. D. Campbell, S. Kaplan, and H. F. Perla. 1980. “Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant.” Nucl. Eng. Des. 59 (2): 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(80)90203-4.
Lantada, N., L. G. Pujades, and A. H. Barbat. 2009. “Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation. A comparison.” Nat. Hazards 51 (3): 501–524.
Manafpour, A. R., and P. K. Moghaddam. 2014. “Probabilistic approach to performance-based seismic design of RC frames.” In Vulnerability, uncertainty, and risk: Quantification, mitigation, and management, 1736–1745. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.174.
Priestley, M. N., F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York: Wiley.
Pujades, L. G., A. H. Barbat, R. González-Drigo, J. Avila, and S. Lagomarsino. 2012. “Seismic performance of a block of buildings representative of the typical construction in the Eixample district in Barcelona (Spain).” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 10 (1): 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9207-5.
Rajeev, P., and S. Tesfamariam. 2012. “Seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete buildings with consideration of irregularities.” Struct. Saf. 39 (Nov): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.06.001.
Ranganathan, R. 1999. Structural reliability analysis and design. Mumbai, India: Jaico.
Rizzano, G., and I. Tolone. 2009. “Seismic assessment of existing RC frames: Probabilistic approach.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (7): 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:7(836).
Silva, V., H. Crowley, H. Varum, R. Pinho, and M. Marques. 2014. “Investigation of the characteristics of the Portuguese moment-frame RC building stock.” In Vulnerability, uncertainty, and risk: Quantification, mitigation, and management, 1726–1735. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.173.
Straub, D., and A. Der Kiureghian. 2008. “Improved seismic fragility modeling from empirical data.” Struct. Saf. 30 (4): 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2007.05.004.
Surana, M., Y. Singh, and D. H. Lang. 2018. “Seismic characterisation and vulnerability of building stock in hilly regions.” Nat. Hazard. Rev. 19 (1): 04017024. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000275.
Van Rossum, G., and F. L. Drake. 2009. Python 3 reference manual. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace.
Vargas, Y. F., L. G. Pujades, A. H. Barbat, and J. E. Hurtado. 2013. “Capacity, fragility and damage in reinforced concrete buildings: A probabilistic approach.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 11 (6): 2007–2032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9468-x.
Vargas, Y. F., L. G. Pujades, A. H. Barbat, and J. E. Hurtado. 2018. “Probabilistic seismic damage assessment of RC buildings based on nonlinear dynamic analysis.” Open Civ. Eng. J. 9 (1): 344–350. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874149501509010344.
Vargas Alzate, Y. F., L. G. Pujades Beneit, A. H. Barbat, J. E. Hurtado Gomez, S. A. Diaz Alvarado, and D. A. Hidalgo Leiva. 2018. “Probabilistic seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete buildings considering directionality effects.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 14 (6): 817–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1385089.
Vargas-Alzate, Y. F., N. Lantada, R. González-Drigo, and L. G. Pujades. 2020. “Seismic risk assessment using stochastic non-linear models.” Sustainability 12 (4): 1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041308.
Vargas-Alzate, Y. F., L. G. Pujades, A. H. Barbat, and J. E. Hurtado. 2019. “An efficient methodology to estimate probabilistic seismic damage curves.” J. Struct. Eng. 145 (4): 04019010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002290.
Wessa, P. 2021. “Free statistics software.” Accessed July 1, 2017. https://www.wessa.net/.
Xue, B., and J. L. Le. 2016. “Stochastic computational model for progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (7): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001485.
Zentner, I., M. Gündel, and N. Bonfils. 2017. “Fragility analysis methods: Review of existing approaches and application.” Nucl. Eng. Des. 323 (Nov): 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.12.021.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 27 • Issue 3 • August 2022
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 21, 2021
Accepted: Feb 28, 2022
Published online: May 7, 2022
Published in print: Aug 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Oct 7, 2022
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Florin Pavel, Robert Vladut, Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi, Correlation of Soil Conditions with Seismic Damage of Structures in Craiova, Romania, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 10.1061/PPSCFX.SCENG-1489, 29, 3, (2024).
- Abhilash Singh, Subhrajit Dutta, Nirmalendu Debnath, A Case Study on the Seismic Evaluation of a Low-Rise Existing RC Building in Northeast India, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 10.1061/PPSCFX.SCENG-1469, 29, 3, (2024).
- Twinsy N. Palsanawala, Sandip A. Vasanwala, Vishisht Bhaiya, Kaushik M. Gondaliya, Seismic Fragility of RC Wall-Frame Buildings Using the DDBD Approach for Vulnerability Assessment, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 10.1061/PPSCFX.SCENG-1286, 28, 4, (2023).