Collapse Fragility of Steel Structures Subjected to Earthquake Mainshock-Aftershock Sequences
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 140, Issue 12
Abstract
This paper investigates the collapse probability of mainshock-damaged steel buildings in aftershocks, as an essential part of developing a framework to integrate aftershock seismic hazard into performance-based engineering (PBE). Analytical studies were conducted utilizing structural degradation models derived from existing publicly available NEEShub data. During earthquake events, aftershocks have the potential to cause severe damage to buildings and threaten life safety even when only minor damage is present from the mainshock. While aftershocks are normally somewhat smaller in magnitude, their ground motion intensity is not always smaller. Aftershocks may have a higher peak ground acceleration than the mainshock, even longer duration, and significantly different energy content as a result of the change in their location relative to the site. To date, the description of seismic hazard in PBE has not included the probability of aftershocks. In this study, the structural degradation model of a four-story code-compliant steel moment-resisting frame is calibrated using existing publicly available NEEShub data. Three approaches to generate collapse fragility for the steel building that sustain a certain state of damage from a mainshock are used to investigate the effect of damage states from mainshocks on the structural collapse capacity. It is found that structural collapse capacity may reduce significantly when the building is subjected to a high intensity mainshock. As a result, the structure is likely to collapse even if only a small aftershock follows the mainshock. In addition, the effects of mainshock records, fault types and spectral shapes of aftershocks on the structural collapse capacity, are evaluated, respectively.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Nicolas Luco at United States Geological Survey for the discussion during the preparation of this paper. The research described in this paper was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation (NSF) CMMI Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation under Grant No. CMMI-1100423. The support is gratefully acknowledged. However, the writers take sole responsibility for the views expressed in this paper, which may not represent the position of the NSF or their respective institutions.
References
Abrahamson, N., and Silva, W. (2008). “Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground-Motion Relations.” Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 67–97.
Alliard, P. M., and Léger, P. (2008). “Earthquake safety evaluation of gravity dams considering aftershocks and reduced drainage efficiency.” J. Eng. Mech., 12–22.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (2005). “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.” Including Supplement No. 1, AISC, Chicago, IL.
ASCE-41. (2006). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE-7. (2002). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), Reston, VA.
ATC-58. (2011). Development of next generation performance-based seismic design procedures for new and existing building, 75% draft ATC-58-1, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
ATC-63. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Redwood City, CA.
Baker, J. W., and Cornell, A. C. (2005). “A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 34(10), 1193–1217.
CESMD. (2012). “Center for engineering strong motion data.” 〈http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/〉 (Aug. 28, 2012).
Goulet, C. A., et al. (2007). “Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building—from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 36(13), 1973–1997.
Haselton, C. B., Baker, J. W., Liel, A. B., and Deierlein, G. G. (2011). “Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon.” J. Struct. Eng., 332–344.
Ibarra, L. F., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). “Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations.”, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
IBC. (2003). International building code, International Code Council (ICC), Falls Church, VA.
Lew, M., Naeim, F., Huang, S. C., Lam, H. K., and Carpenter, L. D. (2000). “Geotechnical and geological effects of the 21 September 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, Taiwan.” Struct. Des. Tall. Spec. Build., 9(2), 89–106.
Li, Q., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2007a). “Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under main shock–aftershock earthquake sequences.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 36(3), 405–427.
Li, Y., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2007b). “Reliability of woodframe residential construction subjected to earthquakes.” Struct. Saf., 29(4), 294–307.
Li, Y., Song, R., van de Lindt, J. V., Nazari, N., and Luco, N. (2012). “Integration of aftershock seismic hazard into performance-based engineering.” 15th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Li, Y., Yin, Y., Ellingwood, B. R., and Bulleit, W. M. (2010). “Uniform hazard versus uniform risk bases for performance-based earthquake engineering of light-frame wood construction.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 39(11), 1199–1217.
Lignos, D. G., and Krawinkler, H. (2009). “Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations.”, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Lignos, D. G., and Krawinkler, H. (2011). “Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading.” J. Struct. Eng., 1291–1302.
Lignos, D. G., Krawinkler, H., and Whittaker, A. S. (2011). “Prediction and validation of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a 4-story steel moment frame.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 40(7), 807–825.
Luco, N., Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C. A. (2004). “Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock.” Proc., 13th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
OpenSees. (2012). “The open system for earthquake engineering simulation.” 〈http://opensees.berkeley.edu/〉 (Sep. 5, 2012).
Parker, M., and Steenkamp, D. (2012). “The economic impact of the Canterbury earthquakes.” Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin, 75(3), 13–25.
PEER. (2011). “Pacific earthquake engineering research center PEER strong motion database.” 〈http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/spectras/16318/unscaled_searches/new〉 (Oct. 1, 2011).
Pei, S., and van de Lindt, J. W. (2009). “Methodology for earthquake-induced loss estimation: An application to woodframe buildings.” Struct. Saf., 31(1), 31–42.
Reasenberg, P. A., and Jones, L. M. (1994). “Earthquake aftershocks: update.” Science, 265(5176), 1251–1252.
RMS. (2008). “Reconnaissance report: The 2008 wenchuan earthquake: Risk management lessons and implications.” Risk Management Solutions, Newark, CA.
Scholz, C. H. (2002). The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2010). “Magnitude 8.8—offshore Bio-bio, Chile.” 〈http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us2010tfan/#summary〉 (Apr. 5, 2012).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2011). “Magnitude 9.0—near the east coast of Honshu, Japan.” 〈http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0001xgp/#summary〉 (Apr. 5, 2012).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2012). “Magnitude 8.6—off the west coast of Northern Sumatra.” 〈http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc000905e.php#summary〉 (Jun. 6, 2012).
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). “Incremental dynamic analysis.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 31(3), 491–514.
van de Lindt, J. W. (2008). “Experimental investigation of the effect of multiple earthquakes on woodframe structural integrity.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Construct., 111–117.
Yeo, G. L., and Cornell, C. A. (2005). “Stochastic characterization and decision bases under time-dependent aftershock risk in performance-based earthquake engineering.”, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Yeo, G. L., and Cornell, C. A. (2009). “Building life-cycle cost analysis due to mainshock and aftershock occurrences.” Struct. Saf., 31(5), 396–408.
Yin, Y. J., and Li, Y. (2010). “Seismic collapse risk of light-frame wood construction considering aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties.” Struct. Saf., 32(4), 250–261.
Zareian, F., and Krawinkler, H. (2007). “Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 36(13), 1901–1914.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 140 • Issue 12 • December 2014
Copyright
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Aug 31, 2012
Accepted: Dec 2, 2013
Published online: Jun 4, 2014
Discussion open until: Nov 4, 2014
Published in print: Dec 1, 2014
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.