Evaluation of the Collapse Capacity Ratio of the Near Fault to the Far Fault and Its Effect on Collapse Risk in Terms of Pulse Period and Formability

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University, Tehran South Branch, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The seismic collapse capacity of a structure is a critical factor in earthquake risk assessment within engineering
practices. Conventionally, evaluating this capacity involves intricate and time-consuming incremental dynamic
analyses. However, recent progress has brought forth alternative, streamlined methodologies grounded in the use of
structural behavior curves. This study employs the application of these innovative approaches to comprehensively
assess the seismic collapse capacity of structures. Embracing advancements, it strives to enhance the efficiency and
precision of seismic risk assessments in engineering practices.
In addition to the efficiency of assessment methodologies, it is imperative that the calculation of seismic collapse
capacity aligns with the specific demands of the construction site. This ensures that the seismic risk falls within the
established allowable limits. This consideration becomes particularly critical for construction sites located in close
proximity to fault zones. In such areas, the presence of directivity pulses heightened attention to seismic collapse
capacity. Recognizing that structural ductility and the pulse period ratio in the near-fault are primary factors
influencing seismic collapse capacity, which is demanded in site, this study delves into a detailed numerical
investigation of these critical elements. Subsequently, the seismic collapse capacity demanded in the near-fault is
meticulously estimated based on these considerations.
The extensive investigations undertaken in this study yield insightful revelations. It is evident that heightened
structural ductility correlates with an augmentation of seismic collapse capacity, both in the near-fault and far-fault
scenarios. Conversely, a reduction in seismic collapse capacity in the near-fault is discerned as the pulse period ratio
increases concerning the fundamental period of the structure. To conduct a comprehensive evaluation, the ratio of
seismic collapse capacity in the near-fault to that in the far-fault is calculated, taking into account both ductility and
pulse period ratio. This derived parameter, denoted as γ, is then employed to estimate the seismic collapse capacity
demanded in the near-fault. This analysis contributes valuable insights to the understanding of seismic behavior in
both near-fault and far-fault regions.
For the assessment of seismic collapse capacity demand at construction sites, the study recommends the
utilization of a lower bound of the ratio of near-fault to far-fault seismic collapse capacity. This lower bound,
associated with lower ductility and a higher pulse period ratio, is not just conservative but also robust. Importantly,
this cautious approach ensures that an increase in this parameter does not significantly escalate the demand at the
construction site. Such a calculated and conservative estimation of seismic collapse capacity demanded contributes
to a more resilient seismic risk assessment for structures situated in near-fault zones.
In conclusion, the results indicate that for the assessment of seismic collapse capacity that is demanded at
construction sites in near-fault zones, utilizing a lower bound of the ratio of near-fault to far-fault seismic collapse
capacity, associated with lower ductility and higher pulse period ratio, is sufficiently conservative. Moreover, an
increase in this parameter does not significantly escalate the demand at the construction site.
This approach ensures a cautious estimation of seismic collapse capacity demand, contributing to a more robust
seismic risk assessment for structures in near-fault zones.

Keywords

References

Abrahamson, N. (1998). Seismological aspects of near-fault ground motions. Proceedings of the 5th Caltrans Seismic Research Workshop. Sacramento, CA, United States of America: California Department of Transportation Engineering Service Center.
ACI (2019). ACI 318-19 Building Code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute eBooks. Farmington Hills, MI, United States of America: American Concrete International. https://doi.org/10.14359/51716937.
ASCE (2016). Minimum design loads for buildings    and other structures: ASCE-SEI 7-16. American Society of Civil Engineers eBooks. Author. https://doi.org/ 10.1061/ 9780784412916.
ATC (2009). Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors: FEMA P69. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL.
Baker, J.W. (2007). Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1486-1501. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060255.
Baker, J. W., & Cornell, C. A. (2008). Vector-valued intensity measures for pulse-like near-fault ground motions. Engineering Structures, 30(4), 1048-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.009.
Baltzopoulos, G. (2015). Structural Performance Evaluation in Near-Source Conditions (Ph.D. Dissertation). Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II.
Baltzopoulos, G., Baraschino, R., Iervolino, I., & Vamvatsikos, D. (2017). SPO2FRAG: software for seismic fragility assessment based on static pushover. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 15(10), 4399-4425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0145-3.
Baltzopoulos, G., & Vamvatsikos, D. (2016). Analytical modelling of near-source pulse-like seismic demand for multi-linear backbone oscillators. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 45(11), 1797-1815. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2729.
BHRC (2015). Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings : Standard No. 2800 (4th Edition). Building and Housing Research Center.
Champion, C.P., & Liel, A.B. (2012). The effect of near‐fault directivity on building seismic collapse risk. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(10), 1391-1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1188.
Cox, K., & Ashford, S.A. (2002). Characterization of Large Velocity Pulses for Laboratory Testing. Retrieved from https://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/ peer_reports/reports_2002/0222.pdf.
De Luca, F., Vamvatsikos, D., & Iervolino, I. (2012). Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(4), 523-543. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2225.
Eads, L., Miranda, E., Krawinkler, H., & Lignos, D. G. (2012). An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(1), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2191.
Ellingwood, B.R., & Wen, Y.K. (2005). Risk-benefit-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 7(2), 56-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.191.
Haselton, C.B., Liel, A.B., Deierlein, G.G., Dean, B.S., & Chou, J.H. (2011). Seismic collapse Safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: Assessment of ductile moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering-Asce, 137(4), 481-491. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st. 1943-541x.0000318.
Judd, J.P., & Charney, F.A. (2014). Earthquake risk analysis of structures. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014, Porto, Portugal.
Kohrangi, M., Bazzurro, P., & Vamvatsikos, D. (2021a). Seismic risk and loss estimation for the building stock in Isfahan. Part I: exposure and vulnerability. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19(4), 1709-1737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01036-2.
Kohrangi, M., Bazzurro, P., & Vamvatsikos, D. (2021b). Seismic risk and loss estimation for the building stock in Isfahan: part II—hazard analysis and risk assessment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19(4), 1739-1763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01037-1.
Lazar, N., & Dolšek, M. (2014). A closed form solution for seismic risk assessment incorporating intensity bounds. Engineering Structures, 78, 78-89. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.011.
Liel, A.B., Haselton, C.B., & Deierlein, G.G. (2011). Seismic Collapse Safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: Comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering-asce, 137(4), 492-502. https://doi.org/ 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000275.
Liel, A.B., Luco, N., Raghunandan, M., & Champion, C.P. (2015). Modifications to risk-targeted seismic design maps for subduction and near-fault hazards. International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering. https://doi.org/ 10.14288/1.0076228.
Luco, N., Ellingwood, B.R., Hamburger, R.O., Hooper, J., Kimball, J., & Kircher, C.A. (2007). Risk-Targeted versus Current Seismic Design Maps for the Conterminous United States. SEAOC 2007 Convention Proceedings. Retrieved from http://geohazards.usgs. gov/ designmaps/us/inc/SEAOCConventionRevs.pdf.
Shahi, S.K., & Baker, J.W. (2014). An efficient algorithm to identify strong velocity pulses in multi-component ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(5), 2456-2466.
Somerville, P., Smith, N.F., Graves, R., & Abrahamson, N.A. (1997). Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological Research Letters, 68(1),   199-222. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.199.
Tehranizadeh, M., & Shanehsazzadeh, H. (2012). Directivity effect on near-fault amplification factor. Iran-US Joint Seismic Workshop.
Tehranizadeh, M., & Shanehsazzadeh, H. (2013).   Near-fault amplification factor by using wavelet method. Research, Development and Practice in Structural Engineering and Construction.
Uniformly distributed random numbers - MATLAB rand. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.mathworks. com/help/matlab/ref/rand.html.
Vamvatsikos, D. (2002). Seismic Performance, Capacity and Reliability of Structures as Seen Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Retrieved from http://mortezarazi.persiangig.com/document/codes/IDA%20BOOK%20BY%20CORNELL.pdf.
Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. (2002). The incremental dynamic analysis and its application          to performance-based earthquake engineering. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Retrieved from http://ci. nii.ac.jp/naid/10020952556.
Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C.A. (2006). Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(9), 1097-1117. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.573.
Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision (2014). Instruction for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings: Publication No 360 (First Edition). Tehran, Iran (Islamic Republic of): Office of Deputy for Strategic Supervision, Department of Technical Affairs.
Yousefi, M., & Taghikhany, T. (2014). Incorporation of directivity effect in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and disaggregation of Tabriz city. Natural Hazards, 73(2), 277-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11069-014-1096-5.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 05 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 13 September 2022
  • Accept Date: 03 October 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics