PROBABILISTIC PROCEDURE FOR THE SEISMIC EVALUATION OF SOME INDUSTRIAL RC STRUCTURES

Viorel POPA1
1

Tudor POSTELNICU1

Technical University of Civil Engineering, Bucharest, Department of Structural Engineering

Keywords: seismic, probabilistic, hazard, dynamic, nonlinear, damage, performance

1 INTRODUCTION
The rehabilitation of existing seismic vulnerable buildings represents one of the most difficult tasks that the design professionals have to face in seismic areas. The number of existing buildings is by far much larger than the number of the new ones and the knowledge progress in the earthquakeengineering, imposes that an increasing number of buildings to be considered vulnerable. In these circumstances the development of new methods for the structural performance assessment of existing buildings becomes very important. The paper presents the application of a full probabilistic procedure, developed by Cornell & al. (2001) for determining the structural performance of a widely spread category of buildings in Romania, namely the industrial single level precast halls. The procedure which is a performance based assessment method takes into account the variability of the main parameters that characterize the ground motion and structural behavior.

2 THEORETICAL FUNDAMENTALS
Likewise in other assessment methods the performance checking consists in the comparison between a parameter that characterize the structural capacity and the corresponding parameter that defines the seismic demand. The procedure operates with three main random elements. First of them is the intensity measure (IM) of the ground motions. The spectral acceleration at the fundamental vibration period of the structure (determined for 5% damping), Sa, was chosen to describe the ground motion intensity. The Sa values can be associated with different hazard levels using site specific hazard functions, that provide the mean annual probability that a random value Sa equals or exceeds a certain level sa. The second element is the damage measure (D). Usually the lateral drift can be used to describe the structural and nonstructural damage level. Given that the analyzed structure is a single level one the top displacement was chosen as damage measure. The third element is the structural capacity (C). To be able to directly compare the capacity with the demand the capacity was expressed in the same form as the damage measure. As mentioned above Sa can be related to the hazard level using hazard functions. These functions, usually available for different sites, are developed by seismologists. To establish a relation between the intensity measure, Sa, and the damage measure, D, is the duty of the structural engineer. This structure specific damage hazard function provides the annual probability that the damage measure, D, will exceed a certain level, d: HD (d) = P D d S a = x dH( x )

(1)

If the damage hazard function is combined with the capacity, C, one can determine the annual probability of the performance level not being met, PPL: PPL = P[C d] dHD(d)

(2)

The above relations are not convenient for common engineering practice. To simplify them, one can assume that, in the vicinity of the value that makes the capacity to be reached, the median demand D can be approximated by a power function:

b D = a (S a )

(3)

Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) was considered to relate the damage measure with the spectral acceleration and to determine the a and b values. Also, for Sa values situated in the vicinity of value corresponding to the capacity, the hazard curve can be represented by:
H(S a ) = k o (S a ) k

(4)

where, ko constant depending on the site seismicity k logarithmic slope of the hazard curve Considering that the damage measure, D, and the capacity, C, are both lognormal distributed about their median, D and C , and following the assumptions made above, the mean value of PPL can be found:
C = H (S a ) e 2 1 h
2

PPL or,

1 k2 2 2 2 2 (DR +DU +CR +CU ) 2 b2

(5)

PPL = H (Sa ) e where,

Sa
C

1 k2 2 2 2 2 ( DR + DU + CR + CU ) 2 b2

(6)

spectral acceleration corresponding to the median capacity, C

C

C C H (Sa ) median value of hazard corresponding to Sa

H (Sa ) mean value of hazard

h
b

DR

DU

CR

CU

standard deviation in hazard coefficient that represents the demand increase as a function of hazard (b=1 is consistent with the equal displacement rule) standard deviation in demand due to randomness in response. This value was determined by performing several nonlinear dynamic analyses using different site-specific ground motion records. These records were scaled to result in the same spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure. Then DR was computed by making statistics of the demand values assuming them to have a lognormal distribution. standard deviation in demand due to uncertainties in the model. The procedure used to determine it is similar to the one used for DR only that, this time, a single ground motion have been used for the investigation of several analytical models of the real structure through nonlinear dynamic analysis. These models were generated using sample data of the uncertain parameters considered to have a decisive influence on the structural response. standard deviation in capacity due to randomness in the response. To compute CR several values of the capacity, C, associated with different ground motion records should be determined for a single analytical model. standard deviation in capacity due to uncertainties in the model. To determine CU, the capacity, C, was computed using several sets of sample data of the uncertain parameters considered to have a decisive influence on the structural capacity. Statistics of C values were performed assuming them to have a lognormal distribution around their median.

In a simplified form the procedure is presented in Figure 1.

Sa

H(Sa ) = k o (Sa )k

D = a (Sa )b

H(Sa )(mean annual frequency)

Fig. 1.

If the PPL is set to be equal to the performance objective, Po, the relation above yields to a more convenient load resistance design factor (LRDF) checking format as follows:
1 k2 2 ( CR 2 + CU 2 ) 2 b

e or,

C e

1 k2 ( DR 2 + DU 2 ) 2 b2

DS a

Po

(7)

o C DS a .

(8)

In a graphical form the procedure in presented in Figure 2.

Sa

H(Sa ) = k o (Sa )k D = a (Sa )b

H(Sa )(mean annual frequency)

Fig. 2.

3 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYZED STRUCTURES

Several single level industrial halls have been analyzed. They were made up of precast RC elements. The structural system consists of prefabricated beam hinged on prefabricated columns. The halls had been realized upon typified projects carried out between 1970 and 1980, according to the provisions of the Romanian seismic design code P13/70. Two structures have been selected as examples. They represent the limits of the common domain: - structures with 24.00 x12.00 m spans and the height 5,40 m - structures with 12.00 x 6.00 m spans and the height 4,80 m Only the checking for the transversal frame (along the maximum span) is reported. The buildings were erected in Bucharest. The city was recognized at the design time as being placed in a seismic area. The design base shear force used to design the structural members was 8% of the build weight. The halls schemes, together with the characteristics column sections and their vertical loads are displayed in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Precast roof shells

Precast hinged beam Precast column 12.00 (24.00) 12.00 (24.00)

Fig. 3. Transversal frame

Central column 422+818 Perimetral column 428+820 Central column 428+1220 Perimetral column 1228+422

500

450

450

400 650

700

600 N = 899 kN b)

N = 337 kN a)

N = 203 kN

N = 1256 kN

Fig. 4. Columns dimensions and reinforcement details: a) 12.00 m span b) 24.00 m span

4. PERFORMANCE PREDICTION USING THE PROBABILISTIC PROCEDURE

To be able to apply the dynamic nonlinear analysis an analytical model of the structure had to be created. Considering that most of the building weight is located at top, the structure has been modeled as a single degree of freedom system. The behavior of the rectangular RC columns has been approximated through a bilinear free displacement relationship. The initial stiffness has been computed considering the cracked RC elements properties. The time-history analysis was conducted using Drain 2DX. A preliminary analysis offered the dynamic characteristics of the structures. The fundamental vibration periods resulted 0.97s for the 12m span hall and 1.27s for the hall 24m span hall. The checking procedure has been applied for three levels of the ground motion intensity. Ground motions associated with mean recurrence intervals of 20, 50 and 475 years have been considered. The performance objectives defined by these hazard levels combined with the collapse prevention performance level are defined by FEMA 273 as limited objectives. The aim of this work was to check the structures capacity to meet the requirements of these limited performance objectives. In other words, the structure ability to avoid collapse has been checked for three hazard levels. Both the capacity and the demand had to be computed for each intensity level. The problem solution involves the calculation of all the factors involved in Eq. 7. The following steps have been completed: (i) The relationship between the intensity measure, Sa, and damage measure, the top displacement, D, have been determined using IDA. 11 ground motions, all recorded in Bucharest, have been considered. Each record was scaled to 50 different levels of intensity to produce Sa values ranging from 0,2 m/s2 to 10 m/s2. The 11 curves obtained for each hall are represented in Figure 5.

600

10 9
2

10 9

Spectral acceleration (m/s 2)

Spectral acceleration (m/s

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.000

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.000

0.250

0.500

0.250

0.500

Top Displacement (m)

Top Displacement (m)

a)
10 9

Fig. 5. IDA curves. a) 12.00 m span 10 24.00 m span b)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mean
2

b)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.0000 Mean 50% STDEV

Spectral acceleration (m/s

Spectral acceleration (m/s

50%

STDEV

0.2500 Top Displacem ent (m )

0.5000

0 0.000

0.250 Top Displacem ent (m )

0.500

a)

Fig. 6. Statistics of IDA curves. a) 12.00 m span b) 24.00 m span

b)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.000
2. 11 0 D = 0 .0035 S a

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.000
1 . 647 D = 0 . 0091 S a 1 . 773 D = 0 . 0091 S a
2

Spectral acceleration (m/s

D = 0. 022 S a

1. 023

D = 0 . 023 S a 1 . 012

Spectral acceleration (m/s

0 . 909 D = 0. 0304 S a

0.250 Top Displacem ent (m )

0.500

0.250 Top Displacem ent (m )

0.500

a) b) Fig. 7. Power functions fitted on the median IDA curve a) 12.00 m span b) 24.00 m span

(ii)

Statistics of these curves have been performed, considering a lognormal distribution of the response values. The mean and the median curve together with the standard deviation in demand due to the randomness in response, DR, are presented in Figure 6. The power function which serves for the approximation of the median demand, D , given in Eq. 3, was determined for each level of interest of the ground motion intensity. The results are presented in Figure 7. To compute DU and CU, the concrete compressive strength and the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement have been selected as the uncertain parameters having a decisive influence on the structural response. Their cumulative distribution functions were used to generate 30 sample sets. To compute DU, for each set the analytical model characteristics such as the yielding moment, the initial stiffness and the strain hardening ratio have been computed. This resulted in 30 analytical models for each analyzed structure. For each model, the nonlinear dynamic analysis provided the peak values of the top displacement. Then, assuming a lognormal distribution of these values, the standard deviation in demand due to uncertainty in the model, DU has been computed. The next step is the calculation of the dispersion in the capacity due to uncertainty in the model, CU. For each combination (fc, fy) the yielding and ultimate bending moments and the corresponding curvatures u and y at the bottom sections of the columns have been computed. The ratios u/y for the central column of each structure computed for different samples (fc,fy) are displayed in Figure 8. Assuming a common, simplified, curvature distribution over the height of the columns, the top displacement capacity has been computed for each model. CU has been computed by performing statistics of the computed capacity values assuming them to have a lognormal distribution around their median. The standard deviation in capacity due do randomness in response, CR, had to be determined also. The displacement criterion (DM based approach) was selected to define the attainment of the desired performance level. This means that the capacity is considered to be attained if the DM equals (or exceeds) the value associated with the considered performance level: DM CDM . As a result CDM does not depend on the ground motion and CR is equal to 0. The hazard level is represented by the hazard curves for the city of Bucharest. (Lungu & al. 2002) To apply the procedure spectral accelerations associated with different mean return intervals had to be determined together with the logarithmic slope of the hazard curve, k. Assuming that the hazard representation can be approximated, at least in the vicinity of the Sa value that makes the capacity to be reached, by a power function (Eq. 4) k can be determined by considering two convenient hazard levels around the desired Sa and their corresponding spectral acceleration values. H ln 1 H 2 k= S ln 2 S 1 where: H1 and H2 hazard levels S1 and S2 spectral acceleration associated with H1, H2

(iii) (iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

(9)

(viii)

o The final step consists in the computation of the C / D Sa ratios for each ground motion intensity level. This express the confidence factor associated with the ground motions characterized by the mean return intervals mentioned above. The results are displayed in Table 1. In Figure 9 is represented the variation of the confidence factor corresponding to a continuous variation of the mean return interval. One can see that the capacity of the two analysed structures corresponds to the spectral acceleration values associated ground motion with mean return intervals of 110 and 100 years, respectively.

24-32 16-24 8-16 0-8 32 24 16 8 26.13 23.13 20.13 313 17.13 fc (Mpa) 353 393 433 14.13 473 513 553 593 11.13 633 20

15-20 10-15 5-10 0-5

15 10 5

26.13 23.13 20.13 17.13 313 353 393 433 14.13 473 513 553 593 11.13 633

u / y

u /y

fc (Mpa)

fy (Mpa)

fy (Mpa)

a)

b) Fig. 8. u/y ratios for the central columns. a) 12.00 m span b) 24.00 m span

500 450 400 Mean Recurence Interval 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 Mean Recurence Interval

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Confidence factor Confidence factor ,

a) b) Fig. 9. Confidence factors for different recurrence intervals a) 12.00 m span b) 24.00 m span Table 1: Analysis results
12.00 m span structure Hazard Mean 1k 2 SA (from D C ( CR + 2CU ) Level Return e median) (median) (median) e 2 b (Median) Period 20 0.0500 3.195 0.076 0.165 0.987 50 475 0.0200 0.0021 4.486 7.646 0.108 0.255 0.165 0.165 0.981 0.984
1k 2 DR + 2 DU 2b

C 0.1623 0.1614 0.1619

Ratio 2.133 1.399 0.561

1.0075 1.0703 1.1299

> > <

0.076 0.115 0.289

24.00 m span structure Hazard Mean SA (from D C 1k 2 Level Return ( CR + 2CU ) median) (median) (median) e 2b (Median) Period 20 0.0500 3.033 0.072 0.131 0.994 50 475 0.0200 0.0021 4.342 7.558 0.107 0.250 0.131 0.131 0.995 0.991

1k

e 2b

2 DR

+2 DU

C 0.1304 0.1305 0.1301

Ratio 1.811 1.178 0.451

1.0031 1.0332 1.1552

> > <

0.072 0.111 0.288

5. CONCLUSIONS. FURTHER OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The paper presented some results of a study devoted to the seismic assessment of a widely spread category of buildings in Romania: the one level precast RC halls. Most of these halls were erected based on typified design projects. The study aims at the safety of these buildings that have been designed using a seismic code, now considered surpassed (this code have been issued before the 1977 Vrancea earthquake). The evaluation have been conducted using a variant of the probabilistic procedure developed by Cornell & al. The way to apply the procedure is presented for two structures, representing the limits of the common domain in Romania: 12.00 x 6.00 and 24.00 x 12.00. The buildings were considered to be located in Bucharest. The seismicity of the Bucharest area is characterised in the current Romanian seismic design code by a 0.2g peak ground acceleration associated with a 50%/50years probability of exceedance. The verifying criterion was the structural damage directly related to the ultimate lateral top displacement. The application of the probabilistic procedure showed that the structures experience a relatively small ductility. Median values of the displacement ductility between 2 and 3 were obtained for all the investigated columns. Despite of this, the structure proved to have the capacity to withstand future seismic events with intensities associated with relatively large mean return periods. In the case of the 12.00 x 6.00 halls the demand does not exceed the capacity for ground motions associated with110 years mean return intervals. In the other case, the 24.00 x 6.00 halls, the interval was 100 years. Considering the level of knowledge at the design time it can be considered that this performance can be considered satisfactory. The results encourage the authors to extend the application of the procedure for the entire domain of industrial halls. All dimensional types and all seismic zones will be investigated. The structural safety will be assessed based on specific criteria for ultimate and serviceability limit state. The effects of other uncertain factors, such as the concrete ultimate strain in compression, the development of the plastic hinge, etc., will be taken into consideration. In the end, based on the obtained results, strengthening measures will be recommended for each dimensional type and seismic zone. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [1] Cornell C.A., Vamvatsikos D., Jalayer F., Luco N., Seismic Reliability of Steel Frames, Proc. of 9th IFIP WG 7.5 Working Conference on Reliability and Optimisation of Structural Systems [2] Vamvastsikos D., Cornell C.A., Incremental Dynamic Analysis, preprint of an article submitted for publication in Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics [3] FEMA 350. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000 [4] Lungu D., Vacareanu R., Aldea A., Arion A., Cornea T., Seismic hazard of the city of Bucharest, RISK-UE Program: An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with application to different European towns, Report, April 2002.