4.7 Article

Empirical seismic fragility assessment with explicit modeling of spatial ground motion variability

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages 479-489

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.06.027

Keywords

Fragility assessment; Ground motion variability; Seismic fragility; Vulnerability; Empirical fragility; Seismic loss estimation; Bayesian analysis; Ground motion uncertainty; Seismic risk assessment; Reinforced concrete buildings

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The earthquake risk to a group of structures can be managed effectively only if accurate fragility models are available. Fragility models are utilized for estimating the likelihood of specific damage states being sustained by the structures given that they are subjected to a specific ground motion intensity. In this study, a new framework is proposed for establishing empirical fragility models for groups of structures based on observed damage distribution. The novelty of the proposed framework method is that it explicitly takes into account the uncertainty arising from the absence of instrumental recordings of the peak motion intensities that had affected the considered structures. Correlation structure of the unknown peak motion intensities experienced by the affected structures and the known peak motions measured at the strong motion stations sites are utilized for this purpose. This correlation structure is established using geospatial ground motion variability models. As an example of the application of the proposed framework, fragility models for multi-story reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings are presented. In this application, the damage observations made after the November 17th, 1999 M7.1 Duzce and the May 1st, 2003 M6.4 Bingol earthquakes that occurred in-Turkey are considered. The results from the example application demonstrate the effectiveness of the method in establishing fragility models. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available