Abstract: Non-linear dynamic time history analysis is
considered as the most advanced and comprehensive analytical
method for evaluating the seismic response and performance of
multi-degree-of-freedom building structures under the influence of
earthquake ground motions. However, effective and accurate
application of the method requires the implementation of advanced
hysteretic constitutive models of the various structural components
including masonry infill panels. Sophisticated computational research
tools that incorporate realistic hysteresis models for non-linear
dynamic time-history analysis are not popular among the professional
engineers as they are not only difficult to access but also complex and
time-consuming to use. In addition, commercial computer programs
for structural analysis and design that are acceptable to practicing
engineers do not generally integrate advanced hysteretic models
which can accurately simulate the hysteresis behavior of structural
elements with a realistic representation of strength degradation,
stiffness deterioration, energy dissipation and ‘pinching’ under cyclic
load reversals in the inelastic range of behavior. In this scenario,
push-over or non-linear static analysis methods have gained
significant popularity, as they can be employed to assess the seismic
performance of building structures while avoiding the complexities
and difficulties associated with non-linear dynamic time-history
analysis. “Push-over” or non-linear static analysis offers a practical
and efficient alternative to non-linear dynamic time-history analysis
for rationally evaluating the seismic demands. The present paper is
based on the analytical investigation of the effect of distribution of
masonry infill panels over the elevation of planar masonry infilled
reinforced concrete [R/C] frames on the seismic demands using the
capacity spectrum procedures implementing nonlinear static analysis
[pushover analysis] in conjunction with the response spectrum
concept. An important objective of the present study is to numerically
evaluate the adequacy of the capacity spectrum method using
pushover analysis for performance based design of masonry infilled
R/C frames for near-field earthquake ground motions.
Abstract: Building loss estimation methodologies which have
been advanced considerably in recent decades are usually used to
estimate socio and economic impacts resulting from seismic structural
damage. In accordance with these methods, this paper presents the
evaluation of an annual loss probability of a reinforced concrete
moment resisting frame designed according to Korean Building Code.
The annual loss probability is defined by (1) a fragility curve obtained
from a capacity spectrum method which is similar to a method adopted
from HAZUS, and (2) a seismic hazard curve derived from annual
frequencies of exceedance per peak ground acceleration. Seismic
fragilities are computed to calculate the annual loss probability of a
certain structure using functions depending on structural capacity,
seismic demand, structural response and the probability of exceeding
damage state thresholds. This study carried out a nonlinear static
analysis to obtain the capacity of a RC moment resisting frame
selected as a prototype building. The analysis results show that the
probability of being extensive structural damage in the prototype
building is expected to 0.01% in a year.
Abstract: A capacity spectrum method (CSM), one of methodologies to evaluate seismic fragilities of building structures, has been long recognized as the most convenient method, even if it contains several limitations to predict the seismic response of structures of interest. This paper proposes the procedure to estimate seismic fragility curves using an incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) rather than the method adopting a CSM. To achieve the research purpose, this study compares the seismic fragility curves of a 5-story reinforced concrete (RC) moment frame obtained from both methods; an IDA method and aCSM. Both seismic fragility curves are similar in slight and moderate damage states whereas the fragility curve obtained from the IDA method presents less variation (or uncertainties) in extensive and complete damage states. This is due to the fact that the IDA method can properly capture the structural response beyond yielding rather than the CSM and can directly calculate higher mode effects. From these observations, the CSM could overestimate seismic vulnerabilities of the studied structure in extensive or complete damage states.