Effect of ground motion selection methods on seismic collapse fragility of RC frame buildings. (14th March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Koopaee, Mohammad E.; Dhakal, Rajesh P.; MacRae, Gregory
• Is Part Of: Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics. Volume 46:Number 11(2017)
• Page Start: 1875
• Page End: 1892
• Publication Date: 2017-03-14
• Subjects: fiber‐element modelling -- collapse fragility -- ground motion selection -- seismic collapse probability; Structural dynamics -- Periodicals; Earthquake engineering -- Periodicals; 624.1762
• DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2891
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0098-8847

Abstract

Summary: Variation in the seismic collapse fragility of reinforced concrete frame buildings predicted using different ground motion (GM) selection methods is investigated in this paper. To simulate the structural collapse, a fiber‐element modelling approach with path‐dependent cyclic nonlinear material models that account for concrete confinement and crushing, reinforcement buckling as well as low cycle fatigue is used. The adopted fiber analysis approach has been found to reliably predict the loss in vertical load carrying capacity of structural components in addition to the sidesway mode of collapse due to destabilizing P–Δ moments at large inelastic deflections. Multiple stripe analysis is performed by conducting response history analyses at various hazard levels to generate the collapse fragility curves. To select GMs at various hazard levels, two alternatives of uniform hazard spectrum (UHS), conditional mean spectrum (CMS) and generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) are used. Collapse analyses are repeated based on structural periods corresponding to initial un‐cracked stiffness and cracked stiffness of the frame members. A return period‐based intensity measure is then introduced and applied in estimating collapse fragility of frame buildings. In line with the results of previous research, it is shown that the choice of structural period significantly affects the collapse fragility predictions. Among the GM selection methods used in this study, GCIM and CMS methods predict similar collapse fragilities for the case study building investigated herein, and UHS provides the most conservative prediction of the collapse capacity, with approximately 40% smaller median collapse capacity compared to the CMS method. The results confirm that collapse probability prediction of buildings using UHS offers a higher level of conservatism in comparison to the other selection methods. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.