Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations

Tiziana Rossetto, Pierre Gehl, Stylianos Minas, Arash Nassirpour, Joshua Macabuag, Philippe Duffour, John Douglas

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution book

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Several capacity spectrum assessment methods exist for determination of structural performance of building models subjected to earthquake loading. The repetition of such analysis for earthquakes of increasing intensity will result in the derivation of analytical fragility functions. A comparison of three capacity spectrum assessment approaches (N2, SPO2IDA and FRACAS) has been carried out, highlighting the advantages and limitations of the approaches. Two experimental case studies have been chosen to evaluate the IM-EDP (Sa-Sd, ISDmax%) estimates obtained from the three different capacity spectrum procedures, as well as from non-linear time-history analyses (NLTHA). It is found that all three approaches perform well in estimating the response of a simple steel frame, but that FRACAS provides the best estimate of the response of an irregular reinforced concrete frame. It is concluded that further comparisons of the capacity spectrum approaches with large-scale experiments on structures are required to draw more general conclusions.
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationVulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk
Subtitle of host publicationQuantification, Mitigation, and Management
EditorsMichael Beer, Siu-Kui Au, Jim W. Hall
Place of PublicationReston, Virginia
PublisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Pages1665-1674
Number of pages10
ISBN (Print)9780784413609
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Jul 2014
Event2nd International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management, ICVRAM 2014 and the 6th International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis, ISUMA 2014 - Liverpool, United Kingdom
Duration: 13 Jul 201416 Jul 2014

Conference

Conference2nd International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management, ICVRAM 2014 and the 6th International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis, ISUMA 2014
CountryUnited Kingdom
CityLiverpool
Period13/07/1416/07/14

Fingerprint

Sensitivity analysis
Earthquakes
Reinforced concrete
Steel
Experiments

Keywords

  • structural performance
  • earthquake
  • experimental case study

Cite this

Rossetto, T., Gehl, P., Minas, S., Nassirpour, A., Macabuag, J., Duffour, P., & Douglas, J. (2014). Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations. In M. Beer, S-K. Au, & J. W. Hall (Eds.), Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Quantification, Mitigation, and Management (pp. 1665-1674). Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.167
Rossetto, Tiziana ; Gehl, Pierre ; Minas, Stylianos ; Nassirpour, Arash ; Macabuag, Joshua ; Duffour, Philippe ; Douglas, John. / Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations. Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Quantification, Mitigation, and Management. editor / Michael Beer ; Siu-Kui Au ; Jim W. Hall. Reston, Virginia : American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2014. pp. 1665-1674
@inproceedings{f39f709529a748fab412ff35a1619a22,
title = "Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations",
abstract = "Several capacity spectrum assessment methods exist for determination of structural performance of building models subjected to earthquake loading. The repetition of such analysis for earthquakes of increasing intensity will result in the derivation of analytical fragility functions. A comparison of three capacity spectrum assessment approaches (N2, SPO2IDA and FRACAS) has been carried out, highlighting the advantages and limitations of the approaches. Two experimental case studies have been chosen to evaluate the IM-EDP (Sa-Sd, ISDmax{\%}) estimates obtained from the three different capacity spectrum procedures, as well as from non-linear time-history analyses (NLTHA). It is found that all three approaches perform well in estimating the response of a simple steel frame, but that FRACAS provides the best estimate of the response of an irregular reinforced concrete frame. It is concluded that further comparisons of the capacity spectrum approaches with large-scale experiments on structures are required to draw more general conclusions.",
keywords = "structural performance, earthquake, experimental case study",
author = "Tiziana Rossetto and Pierre Gehl and Stylianos Minas and Arash Nassirpour and Joshua Macabuag and Philippe Duffour and John Douglas",
note = "This material may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This material may be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.167",
year = "2014",
month = "7",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1061/9780784413609.167",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780784413609",
pages = "1665--1674",
editor = "Michael Beer and Siu-Kui Au and Hall, {Jim W.}",
booktitle = "Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
address = "United States",

}

Rossetto, T, Gehl, P, Minas, S, Nassirpour, A, Macabuag, J, Duffour, P & Douglas, J 2014, Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations. in M Beer, S-K Au & JW Hall (eds), Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Quantification, Mitigation, and Management. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Virginia, pp. 1665-1674, 2nd International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management, ICVRAM 2014 and the 6th International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis, ISUMA 2014, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 13/07/14. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.167

Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations. / Rossetto, Tiziana; Gehl, Pierre; Minas, Stylianos ; Nassirpour, Arash; Macabuag, Joshua; Duffour, Philippe; Douglas, John.

Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Quantification, Mitigation, and Management. ed. / Michael Beer; Siu-Kui Au; Jim W. Hall. Reston, Virginia : American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2014. p. 1665-1674.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution book

TY - GEN

T1 - Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations

AU - Rossetto, Tiziana

AU - Gehl, Pierre

AU - Minas, Stylianos

AU - Nassirpour, Arash

AU - Macabuag, Joshua

AU - Duffour, Philippe

AU - Douglas, John

N1 - This material may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This material may be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.167

PY - 2014/7/7

Y1 - 2014/7/7

N2 - Several capacity spectrum assessment methods exist for determination of structural performance of building models subjected to earthquake loading. The repetition of such analysis for earthquakes of increasing intensity will result in the derivation of analytical fragility functions. A comparison of three capacity spectrum assessment approaches (N2, SPO2IDA and FRACAS) has been carried out, highlighting the advantages and limitations of the approaches. Two experimental case studies have been chosen to evaluate the IM-EDP (Sa-Sd, ISDmax%) estimates obtained from the three different capacity spectrum procedures, as well as from non-linear time-history analyses (NLTHA). It is found that all three approaches perform well in estimating the response of a simple steel frame, but that FRACAS provides the best estimate of the response of an irregular reinforced concrete frame. It is concluded that further comparisons of the capacity spectrum approaches with large-scale experiments on structures are required to draw more general conclusions.

AB - Several capacity spectrum assessment methods exist for determination of structural performance of building models subjected to earthquake loading. The repetition of such analysis for earthquakes of increasing intensity will result in the derivation of analytical fragility functions. A comparison of three capacity spectrum assessment approaches (N2, SPO2IDA and FRACAS) has been carried out, highlighting the advantages and limitations of the approaches. Two experimental case studies have been chosen to evaluate the IM-EDP (Sa-Sd, ISDmax%) estimates obtained from the three different capacity spectrum procedures, as well as from non-linear time-history analyses (NLTHA). It is found that all three approaches perform well in estimating the response of a simple steel frame, but that FRACAS provides the best estimate of the response of an irregular reinforced concrete frame. It is concluded that further comparisons of the capacity spectrum approaches with large-scale experiments on structures are required to draw more general conclusions.

KW - structural performance

KW - earthquake

KW - experimental case study

UR - https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784413609

U2 - 10.1061/9780784413609.167

DO - 10.1061/9780784413609.167

M3 - Conference contribution book

SN - 9780784413609

SP - 1665

EP - 1674

BT - Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk

A2 - Beer, Michael

A2 - Au, Siu-Kui

A2 - Hall, Jim W.

PB - American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

CY - Reston, Virginia

ER -

Rossetto T, Gehl P, Minas S, Nassirpour A, Macabuag J, Duffour P et al. Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations. In Beer M, Au S-K, Hall JW, editors, Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Quantification, Mitigation, and Management. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2014. p. 1665-1674 https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.167