Earthquakes and Structures

  • 제14권4호
  • /
  • Pages.361-377
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2092-7614(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2092-7622(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Alternative reliability-based methodology for evaluation of structures excited by earthquakes

  • Gaxiola-Camacho, J. Ramon (Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa) ;
  • Haldar, Achintya (Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona) ;
  • Reyes-Salazar, Alfredo (Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa) ;
  • Valenzuela-Beltran, Federico (Instituto de Ingenieria, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico) ;
  • Vazquez-Becerra, G. Esteban (Facultad de Ciencias de la Tierra y el Espacio, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa) ;
  • Vazquez-Hernandez, A. Omar (Department de Exploracion de Aguas Profundas, Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo)
  • 투고 : 2017.11.27
  • 심사 : 2018.03.11
  • 발행 : 2018.04.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

In this paper, an alternative reliability-based methodology is developed and implemented on the safety evaluation of structures subjected to seismic loading. To effectively elaborate the approach, structures are represented by finite elements and seismic loading is applied in time domain. The accuracy of the proposed reliability-based methodology is verified using Monte Carlo Simulation. It is confirmed that the presented approach provides adequate accuracy in calculating structural reliability. The efficiency and robustness in problems related to performance-based seismic design are verified. A structure designed by experts satisfying all post-Northridge seismic design requirements is studied. Rigidities related to beam-to-column connections are incorporated. The structure is excited by three suites of ground motions representing three performance levels: immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention. Using this methodology, it is demonstrated that only hundreds of deterministic finite element analyses are required for extracting reliability information. Several advantages are documented with respect to Monte Carlo Simulation. To showcase an applicability extension of the proposed reliability-based methodology, structural risk is calculated using simulated ground motions generated via the broadband platform developed by the Southern California Earthquake Center. It is validated the accuracy of the broadband platform in terms of structural reliability. Based on the results documented in this paper, a very solid, sound, and precise reliability-based methodology is proved to be acceptable for safety evaluation of structures excited by seismic loading.

키워드

과제정보

연구 과제 주관 기관 : National Science Foundation

참고문헌

  1. AISC (2011), Steel Construction Manual, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC).
  2. AISC 341-10 (2010), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC).
  3. Ang, A.H.S. and Cornell, C.A. (1974), "Reliability bases of structural safety and design", J. Struct. Div., 100(9), 1755-1769.
  4. ASCE/SEI 41-13 (2014), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA.
  5. ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2017), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA.
  6. Azizsoltani, H. and Haldar, A. (2017a), "A surrogate concept of multiple deterministic analyses of non-linear structures excited by dynamic loadings", Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Structural Safety & Reliability, Vienna, Austria.
  7. Azizsoltani, H. and Haldar, A. (2017b), "Intelligent computational schemes for designing more seismic damage-tolerant structures", J. Earthq. Eng., 1-28.
  8. Azizsoltani, H., Gaxiola-Camacho, J.R., and Haldar, A. (2018), "Site-specific seismic design of damage tolerant structural systems using a novel concept", B. Earthq. Eng., 1-25.
  9. Box, G.E., Hunter, W.G. and Hunter, J.S. (1978), Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building, Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
  10. Burks, L.S., Zimmerman, R.B. and Baker, J.W. (2015), "Evaluation of hybrid broadband ground motion simulations for response history analysis and design", Earthq. Spectra, 31(3), 1691-1710. https://doi.org/10.1193/091113EQS248M
  11. Cacciola, P. and Deodatis, G. (2011), "A method for generating fully non-stationary and spectrum-compatible ground motion vector processes", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 31(3), 351-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.09.003
  12. Cacciola, P. and Zentner, I. (2012), "Generation of responsespectrum-compatible artificial earthquake accelerograms with random joint time-frequency distributions", Probab. Eng. Mech., 28, 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2011.08.004
  13. Chen, W.F. and Kishi, N. (1989), "Semirigid steel beam-to-column connections: Data base and modeling", J. Struct. Eng., 115(1), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:1(105)
  14. Colson, A. (1991), "Theoretical modeling of semirigid connections behavior", J. Constr. Steel Res., 19(3), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(91)90045-3
  15. Ellingwood, B. (1980), Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58: Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures, US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  16. Elsati, M.K. and Richard, P. (1996), "Derived moment rotation curves for partially restrained connections", Struct. Eng. Rev., 8(2-3), 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0952-5807(95)00055-0
  17. Faravelli, L. (1989), "Response-surface approach for reliability analysis", J. Eng. Mech., 115(12), 2763-2781. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:12(2763)
  18. FEMA-350 (2000), Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  19. FEMA-351 (2000), Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  20. FEMA-352 (2000), Recommended Post-Earthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  21. FEMA-353 (2000), Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Fuidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  22. FEMA-355C (2000), State of the Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  23. FEMA-355F (2000), State of the Art Report on Performance Prediction and Evaluation of Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  24. FEMA P-58 (2012), Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  25. FEMA P-751 (2012), NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions: Design Examples, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  26. Gaxiola-Camacho, J.R., Azizsoltani, H., Villegas-Mercado, F.J. and Haldar, A. (2017), "A novel reliability technique for implementation of Performance-Based Seismic Design of structures", Eng. Struct., 142, 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.076
  27. Graves, R.W. and Pitarka, A. (2010), "Broadband ground-motion simulation using a hybrid approach", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 100(5A), 2095-2123. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100057
  28. Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000a), Probability, Reliability, and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design, Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
  29. Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000b), Reliability Assessment Using Stochastic Finite Element Analysis, Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
  30. Hinton, E. and Owen, D.R.J. (1986), Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice, Pineridge Press, Swansea, UK.
  31. Khuri, A.I. and Cornell, J.A. (1996), Response Surfaces: Designs and Analyses, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA.
  32. LATBSDC (2011), An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located In the Los Angeles Region, Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC).
  33. Mai, P.M., Imperatori, W. and Olsen, K.B. (2010), "Hybrid broadband ground-motion simulations: Combining long-period deterministic synthetics with high-frequency multiple S-to-S backscattering", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 100(5A), 2124-2142. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080194
  34. Mehrabian, A., Ali, T. and Haldar, A. (2009), "Nonlinear analysis of a steel frame", Nonlin. Anal. Theor. Meth. Appl., 71(12), e616-e623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2008.11.092
  35. Mehrabian, A., Haldar, A. and Reyes-Salazar, A. (2005), "Seismic response analysis of steel frames with post-North ridge connection", Steel Compos. Struct., 5(4), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2005.5.4.271
  36. Motazedian, D. and Atkinson, G.M. (2005), "Stochastic finitefault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95(3), 995-1010. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030207
  37. Nowak, A.S. and Collins, K.R. (2012), Reliability of Structures, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
  38. Reyes-Salazar, A. and Haldar, A. (1999), "Nonlinear seismic response of steel structures with semi-rigid and composite connections", J. Constr. Steel Res., 51(1), 37-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(99)00005-X
  39. Reyes-Salazar, A., Ruiz, S.E., Bojorquez, E., Bojorquez, J. and Llanes-Tizoc, M.D. (2016a), "Seismic response of complex 3D steel buildings with welded and post-tensioned connections", Earthq. Struct., 11(2), 217-243. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.2.217
  40. Reyes-Salazar, A., Soto-Lopez, M.E., Gaxiola-Camacho, J.R., Bojorquez, E. and Lopez-Barraza, A. (2014), "Seismic response estimation of steel buildings with deep columns and PMRF", Steel Compos. Struct., 17(4), 471-495. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2014.17.4.471
  41. Reyes-Salazar, A., Valenzuela-Beltran, F., De Leon-Escobedo, D., Bojorquez-Mora, E. and Barraza, A.L. (2016b), "Combination rules and critical seismic response of steel buildings modeled as complex MDOF systems", Earthq. Struct., 10(1), 211-238. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.1.211
  42. SCEC (2016), Broadband Platform; Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), USA.
  43. Schmedes, J., Archuleta, R.J. and Lavallee, D. (2010), "Correlation of earthquake source parameters inferred from dynamic rupture simulations", J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 115(B3), https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006689.
  44. Shields, M.D. (2014), "Simulation of spatially correlated nonstationary response spectrum-compatible ground motion time histories", J. Eng. Mech., 141(6), 04014161. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000884
  45. Shinozuka, M. and Deodatis, G. (1988), "Stochastic process models for earthquake ground motion", Probab. Eng. Mech., 3(3), 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-8920(88)90023-9
  46. Somerville, P.G. (1997) "Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project", SAC Joint Venture, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  47. Suarez, L.E. and Montejo, L.A. (2005), "Generation of artificial earthquakes via the wavelet transform", Int. J. Solid. Struct., 42(21), 5905-5919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.03.025
  48. TBI (2010), Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI).
  49. Yamamoto, Y. and Baker, J.W. (2013), "Stochastic model for earthquake ground motion using wavelet packets", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 103(6), 3044-3056. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120312
  50. Zeng, Y., Anderson, J.G. and Yu, G. (1994), "A composite source model for computing realistic synthetic strong ground motions", Geophys. Res. Lett., 21(8), 725-728. https://doi.org/10.1029/94GL00367

피인용 문헌

  1. Spectral Representation-Based Multidimensional Nonstationary Ground Motion Model for Seismic Reliability Analysis of Frame Structures vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5592249
  2. Comparison of classical and reliable controller performances for seismic response mitigation vol.20, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.3.353