Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, via Ferrata 1, Pavia, Italy
article
info
Article history:
Received 31 July 2009
Received in revised form
11 December 2009
Accepted 13 January 2010
Available online 1 February 2010
Keywords:
Fragility curves
Seismic vulnerability
Masonry buildings
Nonlinear analysis
Monte Carlo simulation
abstract
A new analytical approach for the derivation of fragility curves for masonry buildings is proposed. The
methodology is based on nonlinear stochastic analyses of building prototypes. Since such structures
are assumed to be representative of wider typologies, the mechanical properties of the prototypes are
considered as random variables, assumed to vary within appropriate ranges of values. Monte Carlo
simulations are then used to generate input variables from the probability density functions of mechanical
parameters. The model is defined and nonlinear analyses are performed. In particular, nonlinear static
(pushover) analyses are used to define the probability distributions of each damage state whilst nonlinear
dynamic analyses allow to determine the probability density function of the displacement demand
corresponding to different levels of ground motion. Convolution of the complementary cumulative
distribution of demand and the probability density function of each damage state allows to derive fragility
curves.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The evaluation of seismic vulnerability of existing buildings has
become really relevant in the last decades due to the frequent
occurrence of earthquakes, which have demonstrated that the
number of victims and the amount of economic losses depend
significantly on the seismic behaviour of structures.
Masonry structures are a much diffused type of construction
which can be built rapidly, cheaply and often without any plan
or particular technical competence. Indeed, this is one of the most
common housing types built across the world and will continue to
be so in the foreseeable future. Masonry also represents the structural type of a large architectural heritage that needs to be preserved. Moreover, old unreinforced masonry buildings constitute
the large majority of most urban aggregates in several seismicprone countries.
The main characteristics of masonry buildings are high rigidity, low tensile and shear strength, low ductility and low capacity
of bearing reverse loading. These are the main reasons for the frequent collapse of masonry buildings during earthquakes, often responsible for a considerable number of casualties.
1313
Fig. 1. Identification of the yield, cracking and ultimate drifts on the pushover curve
(envelope of forcedisplacement curve from cyclic shear testing) of a single pier and
its bilinear approximation.
1314
Fig. 3. Prototype building located in Benevento: A picture (left) and the plan of a storey (right).
1315
Table 1
Parameters derived from calibration based on experimental results.
T1-1
T1-2
T1-3
T1-4
T2-5
T2-6
Min
Max
G (MPa)
fv o (MPa)
()
G c ( )
()
(%)
500
500
500
500
700
750
500
750
0.105
0.105
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.2
0.105
0.2
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.08
8
10
4
6
8
6
4
10
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.78
0.72
0.52
0.6
0.56
0.6
0.52
0.78
the results are available in the literature. Among others, the tests
carried out by Faella et al. [26] have been selected. They consist in
in-plane cyclic shear-compression tests carried out on specimens
made of cement mortar and tuff units obtained from demolished
buildings erected in Naples in the last 2 centuries.
Tests have been performed on three types of masonry piers, all
with 1250 1300 500 mm (h l t) dimensions, differing for
the applied axial load and the constructive details:
1316
Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental test results (grey thin curve) and numerical
simulations (black thick curve) for the different tested specimens: T11, T12, T13
from top to bottom.
Table 2
Parameters ranges adopted.
E (MPa) G (MPa) fm (MPa) fv o (MPa) ()
Min 1350
Max 1890
500
750
1.2
2.7
0.105
0.2
0.05
0.08
Gc ()
() v (%) f (%)
4
10
0.2
0.4
0.52
0.78
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental test results (grey thin curve) and numerical
simulations (black thick curve) for the different tested specimens: T14, T25, T26
from top to bottom.
1317
Table 3
Parameters used in the stochastic analyses.
Mean
Std. dev.
E (MPa)
G (MPa)
fm (MPa)
fv o (MPa)
()
Gc ()
( )
v (%)
f (%)
1620
135
625
62.5
1.95
0.375
0.1525
0.02375
0.065
0.0075
7
1.5
0.3
0.05
0.65
0.065
0.8
0.08
Table 4
First cracking parameters derived from experimental tests.
T1-1
T1-2
T1-3
T1-4
T2-5
T2-6
Min
Max
s (%)
y (%)
1.72
1.99
1.62
1.60
2.05
1.69
1.60
2.05
0.65
1
1.07
1.16
0.68
0.85
0.65
1.16
Table 5
Parameters used in the stochastic analyses.
Mean
Std. dev.
s (%)
y (%)
1.825
0.1125
0.905
0.1275
Fig. 7. Results of the second set of stochastic pushover analyses, with identification
of the mean and mean plus or minus one standard deviation curves.
Fig. 8. Identification of global damage states based on the second set of pushover
analyses.
1318
the figure. Such areas correspond to the integral of the joint probability distributions.
The probability density functions associated to each of the four
considered damage states have hence been determined. They are
summarised in Fig. 11.
6. Incremental dynamic analyses
6.1. Selection of accelerograms
In order to carry out incremental dynamic analyses, an appropriate set of acceleration time histories is required. As well known,
accelerograms may be selected from data banks of real accelerograms or alternatively they can be generated synthetically. The advantage of real records over artificial or synthetic accelerograms is
that genuine records of ground motion shaking are more realistic
since they carry all the ground motion characteristics (amplitude,
frequency, energy content, duration, number of cycles and phase)
and reflect all the factors that influence accelerograms (source,
path and site).
In this study, the accelerograms adopted for the dynamic
analyses have been selected from online strong motion record
databases (www.isesd.cv.ic.ac.uk/, peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/, db.
cosmos-eq.org), with the constraint of the spectrum-compatibility
with a target response spectrum.
A single-record time history analysis cannot fully capture the
behaviour of a building, since results may be strongly dependent
on the record chosen (e.g. [29]). So, a minimum of 7 accelerograms
must be applied to the structure to be allowed to use average
results instead of the most unfavourable ones, as suggested by
several modern seismic codes [17,30,31] and by research works
(e.g. [32]).
The 7 real spectrum-compatible accelerograms used for time
history analyses are plotted in Fig. 12. They have been selected
through an algorithm based on a Monte Carlo random selection
of groups of accelerograms: the program automatically combines
the records downloaded from the strong motion databases and
identifies the set best reproducing the target response spectrum.
The approach followed is described in detail in [33].
Finally, the selected accelerograms have to be scaled to the
target PGA in order to have a good fitting of the mean response
Fig. 10. Scheme of the procedure used for the identification of drift-dependent limit state probabilities.
1319
Fig. 11. Probability density functions of the different considered damage states.
Fig. 12. Spectrum-compatible real accelerograms used for time history analyses.
1320
Fig. 14. Comparison of standard deviation values obtained with mean mechanical
parameters and 7 accelerograms, with stochastic parameters and only 1 accelerogram and combining the two cases.
Fig. 13. Comparison of the mean response spectrum of the selected records and
the code spectrum.
Fig. 16. Identification of maximum displacement demand (mean and mean plus or
minus one standard deviation) for a PGA of 0.1 g.
1321
Fig. 17. Derivation of the fragility points for a PGA = 0.25 g, from convolution of pdf of limit states and complementary CDF of demand.
Table 6
Parameters of the lognormal distributions fitting the analytical fragility points.
DS
DS1
DS2
DS3
DS4
2.026
1.645
1.351
1.169
0.362
0.273
0.218
0.175
1 FD|PGA () fC ()d
(1)
1322
Fig. 18. Lognormal fragility curves fitting the analytically derived points.
The definition of the probability distributions of global displacement limit states through nonlinear static analyses on stochastically defined structural models;
The identification of the variability of material characteristics
based on the analytical simulation of the results of cyclic experimental tests;
The nonlinear dynamic capability of the structural software,
which allows to carry out accurate analyses of the whole structure with a reasonable computational effort;
The definition of the probability distribution of displacement
demand through the use of a set of real spectrum-compatible
accelerograms for performing time history analyses, which allow to include all the ground motion characteristics (amplitude, frequency, energy content, duration, number of cycles
and phase) and reflect all the factors influencing accelerograms
(source, path and site).
Due to the definition of the damage state DS1, the obtained
fragility curves predict a null damage for values of PGA smaller
than 0.05 g. This is not always realistic, since in many cases damage
has been observed for lower values of ground motion. One of
the reasons of this lower estimated vulnerability is related to the
definition of the damage state DS1 based on visual interpretation
of experimental tests, in which typically the external surface of
the tested specimens is not painted nor plastered and hence low
levels of damage are not easy to detect. On the other hand, in
1323
[17] OPCM 3274. Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20
Marzo 2003: Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione
sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni
in zona sismica. GU n. 72 del 8-5-2003, with further modifications in OPCM
3431. 2005 [in Italian].
[18] Rossetto T. Vulnerability curves for the seismic assessment of reinforced concrete building populations. Ph.D. dissertation. London: Imperial College; 2004.
[19] Rubinstein RY. Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. New York: Wiley;
1981.
[20] Pinto PE, Giannini R, Franchin P. Methods for seismic reliability analysis of
structures. Pavia (Italy): IUSS Press; 2004.
[21] Zrate F, Hurtado J, Oate E, Rodrguez J. STAC program: Stochastic analysis
computational tool, CIMNE, Centro Internacional de Mtodos Numricos en
la Ingeniera. Barcelona, Espaa: 2002.
[22] Lagomarsino S, Penna A. A nonlinear model for pushover and dynamic analysis
of masonry buildings. In: Proc. int. conf. computational and experimental
engineering and sciences. 2003.
[23] Penna A, Cattari S, Galasco A, Lagomarsino S. Seismic assessment of masonry
structures by nonlinear macro-element analysis. In: Proc. 4th int. seminar
SAHC. 2004.
[24] Lagomarsino S, Galasco A, Penna A. Nonlinear macro-element dynamic analysis of masonry buildings. In: Proc. ECCOMAS conf. computational methods
in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. 2007.
[25] Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. On dynamic response of masonry panels.
Gambarotta L, editor. Proc. Nat. Conf. La meccanica delle murature tra teoria
e progetto. 1996 [in Italian].
[26] Faella G, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Comportamento sperimentale di pannelli
in muratura di tufo sottoposti ad azioni orizzontali di tipo ciclico. In: Proc. 5th
it. conf. earthquake engineering. 1991 [in Italian].
[27] ENV 1998-3 2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings.
[28] Galasco A, Lagomarsino S, Penna A. On the use of pushover analysis for
existing masonry buildings. In: Proc. 1st ECEES. 2006. Paper No. 1080.
[29] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2002;31:491514.
[30] UBC Uniform Building Code. Structural engineering design provisions. In:
International conference of building officials, vol. 2. 1997.
[31] ENV 1998-1 2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Part 1: General rules. seismic actions and rules for buildings.
[32] Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB, Douglas J. The selection and scaling of real earthquake
accelerograms for use in seismic design and assessment. In: Proc. ACI Int. conf.
seismic bridge design and retrofit. La Jolla(California): American Concrete
Institute; 2003.
[33] DallAra A, Lai CG, Strobbia C. Selection of spectrum-compatible real accelerograms for seismic response analyses of soil deposits. In: Proc. 1st ECEES. 2006.
Paper No. 1240.
[34] Bommer J, Acevedo AB. On the use of real earthquake accelerograms as input
to dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng 2004;8(Special Issue 1):4391.
[35] FEMA. HAZUS earthquakes loss estimation methodology. Washington: US
federal emergency management agency; 1999.
[36] Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ, Chryssanthopoulos MK. Seismic reliability of RC frames
with uncertain drift and member capacity. ASCE J Struct Eng 1999;103847.