Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Mathematical sustainability assessment framework of earthquake-induced steel building population

  • Seo, Junwon (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota State University) ;
  • Hatlestad, Alan J. (University of Wyoming) ;
  • Kimn, Jung-Han (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, South Dakota State University) ;
  • Hu, Jong Wan (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Incheon National University)
  • Received : 2020.05.14
  • Accepted : 2021.10.15
  • Published : 2021.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The ability to estimate the probability a building population under seismic events will be sustainable is timely, useful in appropriately allocating earthquake mitigation funds earmarked for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement. A building population is considered sustainable if actual cost incurred is less than a target cost at a given ground motion intensity level such as a certain level of spectral accelerations. The purpose of this study is to construct a mathematical framework coupled with Gompertz and power functions to determine the probability of sustainability of building population subjected to seismic events as a function of target repair-cost ratios. The framework accounts for the exceedence probability of certain earthquake occurrence in 50 years and the fragility data created by joint response surface metamodels (RSMs) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). The fragility data for a population of L-shaped Steel Moment-Frame (LSMF) buildings located in the Central United States and the probability of spectral acceleration exceedence for the target region are used for this study. The probability of sustainability of the LSMF buildings built from pre-1970, between 1970 and 1990, and post-1990 are determined through the developed framework. The mathematical and graphical relationship between the probability of sustainability of the building population under a broad range of spectral accelerations and its target repair-cost ratio are determined. Key findings show that the buildings built in the post-1990 are more sustainable than those built from the pre-1970.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a grant (19CTAP-C152266-01) from Technology Advancement Research Program (TARP) funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government.

References

  1. Bayat, M. and Zahrai, S.M. (2017), "Seismic performance of mid-rise steel frames with semi-rigid connections having different moment capacity", Steel Compos. Struct., 25(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2017.25.1.001
  2. Berger, R. (1981), "Comparison of the gompertz and logistic equations to describe plant disease progress", Phytopathology, 71, 716-719. https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-71-716
  3. Braganca, L., Mateus, R. and Koukkar H. (2010), Building sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2.
  4. Cornbleet, P.J. and Gochman, N. (1979), "Incorrect least-squares regression coefficients in method-comparison analysis", Clinical Chem., 25(3), 432-438. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/25.3.432.
  5. Cramer, C.H., Gomberg, J.S., Schweig, E.S., Waldron, B.A. and Tucker, K. (2004), The Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, Seismic Hazard Maps. US Geological Survey Open-File Report, 4, 1294.
  6. Dolce, M., Kappos, A., Masi, A., Penelis, G. and Vona, M. (2006). "Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies", Eng. Struct., 28(3), 357-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.009.
  7. Dong Y., Frangopol, D.M. and Saydam, D. (2013), "Time-variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 42(10), 1451-1467. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2281.
  8. Dong, Y. and Frangopol, D.M. (2016a), "Performance-based seismic assessment of conventional and base-isolated steel buildings including environmental impact and resilience", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 45(5), 739-756. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2682.
  9. Dong, Y. and Frangopol D.M. (2016b), "Probabilistic timedependent multihazard life-cycle assessment and resilience of bridges considering climate change", J. Perform. Constr. Fac., 30(5), 04016034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000883.
  10. Dukes, J., Mangalathu, S., Padgett, J.E. and DesRoches, R. (2018), "Development of a bridge-specific fragility methodology to improve the seismic resilience of bridges", Earthq. Struct., 15(3), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.3.253.
  11. Elnashai, A.S., Papanikolau, V. and Lee, D.H. (2011), "ZEUS Non-linear: A System for Inelastic", Analysis of Structures V1.9.0, UIUC, Urbana-Champaign, IL, .
  12. Frangopol, D.M., Lin, K.Y. and Estes, A.C. (1997), "Life-cycle cost design of deteriorating structures", J. Struct. Eng., 123, 1390-1401. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:10(1390).
  13. Hamada, M. and Wu, J. (2000), Experiments: planning, analysis, and parameter design optimization, Wiley New York.
  14. Hazus-MH, F. (2003), Flood Model: Technical Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  15. Hwang, H.H. and Jaw, J.W. (1990), "Probabilistic damage analysis of structures", J. Struct. Eng., 116(7), 1992-2007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:7(1992).
  16. Idels, L. (2008), Harvesting fisheries management strategies with modified effort function [pre-print].
  17. Jeon, J.S., Mangalathu, S. and Lee, SY. (2019), "Seismic fragility curves for California concrete bridges with flared two-column bents", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 17(7), 4299-4319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00621-4.
  18. Kia, M., Banazadeh, M. and Bayat, M. (2018), "Rapid seismic vulnerability assessment by new regression-based demand and collapse models for steel moment frames", Earthq. Struct., 14, 203-214. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.3.203.
  19. Linzell, D.G. and Nadakuditi, V.P. (2011), "Parameters influencing seismic response of horizontally curved, steel, I-girder bridges", Steel Compos. Struct., 11(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2011.11.1.021.
  20. Liu, Z., Zhou, C. and Xue, J. (2019), "Study on seismic performance of steel frame with archaized-style under pseudo-dynamic loading", Earthq. Struct., 17(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.17.1.039.
  21. Mangalathu, S., Jeon, J.S. and Jiang, J. (2019), "Skew adjustment factors for fragilities of California box-girder bridges subjected to near-fault and far-field ground motions", J. Bridge Eng., 24 (1), 04018109. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001338.
  22. Menon, A., Mehrotra, K., Mohan, C.K. and Ranka, S. (1996), "Characterization of a class of sigmoid functions with applications to neural networks", Neural Networks, 9(5), 819-835. https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(95)00107-7.
  23. Padgett, J.E. and Tapia, C. (2013), "Sustainability of natural hazard risk mitigation: Life cycle analysis of environmental indicators for bridge infrastructure", J. Infrastruct. Syst., 19(4), 395-408. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000138.
  24. Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P., Powers, P.M., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Frankel, A.D., Zeng, Y., RezaeianE, S., Harmsen, S. and Boyd, O. (2014), Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps, Open-File Report 2014-1091. US Geological Survey.
  25. Pinto, P.E. (2012), Probabilistic performance-based seismic design: Technical report, fib Federation internationale du beton.
  26. Prestandared, F. (2000), commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA356). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 7.
  27. Rix, G. and Fernandes-Leon, J. (2004), Synthetic ground motions for Memphis, TN. Æ http://www.ce.gatech.edu/research/maegroundmotionae (Jul. 5, 2008).
  28. Rogers, L.P. and Seo, J. (2017), "Vulnerability sensitivity of curved precast-concrete I-girder bridges with various configurations subjected to multiple ground motions", J. Bridge Eng., 22(2), 04016118. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000973.
  29. Seo, J., Duenas-Osorio, L., Craig, J.I. and Goodno, B. J. (2012), "Metamodel-based regional vulnerability estimate of irregular steel moment-frame structures subjected to earthquake events", Eng. Struct., 45, 585-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.003.
  30. Seo, J., Hatlestad, A.J., Kimn, J.H. and Hu, J.W. (2019), "Application of mathematical functions for seismic increment fragility determination", Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng., https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2019.1665106.
  31. Seo, J. and Linzell D. (2013), "Use of response surface metamodels to generate system level fragilities for existing curved steel bridges", Eng. Struct., 52, 642-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.023.
  32. Seo, J. and Linzell D. "Horizontally curved steel bridge seismic vulnerability assessment", Eng. Struct., 34, 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.09.008
  33. Seo, J., Rogers, L.P., Hu, J.W. (2018), "Computational seismic evaluation of a curved prestressed concrete I-girder bridge equipped with shape memory alloy", Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng., 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2018.1492972.
  34. Seo, J. and Park, H. (2017), "Probabilistic seismic restoration cost estimation for transportation infrastructure portfolios with an emphasis on curved steel I-girder bridges", Struct. Saf., 65, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2016.12.002.
  35. Shinozuka, M., Feng, M., Kim, H., Uzawa, T. and Ueda, T. (2003), Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Report. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, MCEER-03-0002.
  36. Shiu, P. (1989), Power versus exponential. The Mathematical Gazette, 73, 25-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3618199
  37. Song, L.L., Guo, T. and Shi, X. (2019), "Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of self-centering concrete frames under mainshock-aftershock excitations", Steel Compos. Struct., 33(5), 641-652. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2019.33.5.641.
  38. Taiyari, F., Mazzolani, F.M. and Bagheri, S. (2019), "Seismic performance assessment of steel building frames equipped with a novel type of bending dissipative braces", Steel Compos. Struct., 33(4), 525-535. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2019.33.4.525.
  39. Vandekerckhove, J., Matzke, D. and Wagenmakers, E.J. (2015), Model comparison and the principle of parsimony. Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology, 300-319.
  40. Werner, S., Jernigan, J.B., Taylor, C.E. and Hwang, H. (1995), "Seismic vulnerability assessment of highway systems", NCEER Bulletin, 9, 1-11.
  41. Werner, S.D., Taylor, C.E., Cho, S., Lavoie, J.P., Huyck, C.K., Eitzel, C., Chung, H. and Eguchi, R.T. (2006), Redars 2 methodology and software for seismic risk analysis of highway systems.
  42. Yilmaz, T. and Banerjee, S. (2018), "Impact spectrum of flood hazard on seismic vulnerability of bridges", Struct. Eng. Mech., 66(4), 515-529. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2018.66.4.515.