fragility functions of elements at risk (wp3) · 2013-03-26 · syner-g final workshop, milano,...

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 1

Fragility functions of elements at risk

(WP3)

Amir M. Kaynia, NGI (WP3 Leader)

Sotiris Argyroudis, AUTH

Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Analysis

for Buildings, Lifeline Networks

and Infrastructures Safety Gain


3.1 Fragility of buildings:

3.1.1 Fragility of RC buildings (UPAV)

3.1.1 Fragility of masonry buildings (UPAV)

3.2 Fragility of elements within utility networks:

3.2.1 Fragility of elements of electric power systems (UROMA)

3.2.2 Fragility of elements of gas and oil pipeline systems (BRGM)

3.2.3 Fragility of elements of water and waste-water systems (AUTH)

3.3 Fragility of elements within transportation infrastructures:

3.3.1 Fragility of elements of roadway bridges (UPAV)

3.3.2 Fragility of elements of road networks (NGI)

3.3.3 Fragility of elements of railway networks (NGI)

3.3.4 Fragility of elements of harbour systems (AUTH)

3.4 Fragility of elements within critical facilities:

3.4.1 Fragility of elements of health-care facilities (UROMA)

3.4.2 Fragility of elements of fire-fighting system (AUTH)

WP3 tasks


Existing fragility curves

USA

(1997- ) (1998- )

Europe

(2001-2004) (2003-2006)

National research projects

• Italy: DPC-Eucentre convention, RELUIS

• Greece: SRM-LIFE (2003-2007), AsProGe (2003-2007)

Numerous research efforts (worldwide)


- Review available fragility curves (typology, damage scales,

intensity measures, performance indicators)

- Select fragility curves based on SYNER-G taxonomy, through:

- Adapt/modify of existing ones

- Validation studies

- Develop new fragility curves

- Fragility Function Manager Tool (store, harmonize, compare)

- Link with SYNER-G software/code

SYNER-G contribution


WP3 Tasks & Deliverables

Τ3.1 Fragility of

buildings

D3.1

Fragility Function

Manager tool

Τ3.2 Fragility of

elements within

utility networks

Τ3.3 Fragility of elements

within transportation

infrastructures

Τ3.4 Fragility of

elements within

critical facilities

SΤ3.1.1 RC

buildings (UPAV,

UPAT, JRC, METU)

SΤ3.1.2 Masonry

buildings (UPAV,

UPAT, JRC, METU)

D3.2

SΤ3.2.1 Electric

power (UROMA)

SΤ3.2.2 Gas and oil

(BRGM)

SΤ3.2.3 Water and

waste-water

(AUTH)

SΤ3.3.1 Bridges

(UPAT)

SΤ3.3.2 Road

(NGI, AUTH)

SΤ3.3.3 Railway

(NGI, AUTH)

SΤ3.3.4 Harbor

(AUTH)

SΤ3.4.1 Health-care

(UROMA)

SΤ3.4.2 Fire-

fighting (AUTH)

D3.3

D3.4

D3.5 D3.6

D3.7

D3.8

D3.9 D3.10

D3.11

Completed

To be completed (WP7)

D 3.12

(Synthetic, M36) Reference Report #4 www.syner-g.eu > Deliverables


Fragility Curves

• Constitute one of the key elements in seismic probabilistic risk assessment.

• Relate the seismic intensity to the probability of reaching or exceeding a level of

damage (e.g. minor, moderate, extensive, collapse) for each element at risk.

• Usually described by a lognormal probability distribution function.

Different approaches:

- Empirical

- Expert Judgment

- Analytical

- Hybrid

1.0

0.0

Damage

Probability

Seismic

Motion

Complete Damages NOT

FUNCTIONAL

Minor damage

FUNCTIONALITY

IMi

Ρf

Ρc


FRM/FRMM/P/E/C-CM/D/FS-FSM/RS-RSM/HL-NS/CL

Force Resisting Mechanism (FRM)

FRM Material (FRMM)

Plan (P)

Elevation (E)

Cladding (C)

Cladding Material (CM)

Detailing (D)

Floor System (FS)

Floor System Material (FSM)

Roof System (RS)

Roof System Material (RSM)

Height Level (HL)/Number of Stories (NS)

Code Level (CL)

Taxonomy of Buildings


FRM/FRMM/P/E/C-CM/D/FS-FSM/RS-RSM/HL-NS/CL

Force Resisting Mechanism (FRM) Moment Resisting Frame, Bearing Wall..

FRM Material (FRMM) Masonry, Concrete, Fired Brick, Stone..

Plan (P) Regular, Irregular..

Elevation (E) Regular/irregular geometry..

Cladding (C) Regular/irregular vertically..

Cladding Material (CM) Fired brick, glazing, open first floor..

Detailing (D) Ductile, non-ductile, with tie-rods..

Floor System (FS) Rigid, flexible..

Floor System Material (FSM) RC, steel, timber..

Roof System (RS) Peaked, flat..

Roof System Material (RSM) Timber, thatch..

Height Level (HL)/Number of Stories (NS) Low, mid, high-rise, 1, 2, 3..

Code Level (CL) None, low code, mid code, high code..

Taxonomy of Buildings


Taxonomy of Bridges MM1-MM2/TD1-TD2-DC/DSS/PDC/TP1-NP/TS1-TS2-HP/SP-SC/TCA/SK/BC/FT/SDL

Material (MM1)

Material (MM2)

Type of deck (TD1)

Type of deck (TD2)

Deck characteristics (DC)

Deck structural system (DSS)

Pier to deck connection (PDC)

Type of pier (TP1)

Number of piers per column (NP)

Type of section of piers (TS1)

Type of section of piers (TS2)

Height of pier (HP)

Spans (SP)

Span characteristics (SC)

Type of connection to abutments (TCA)

Skew (SK)

Bridge configuration (BC)

Foundation type (FT)

Seismic design level (SDL)


Taxonomy of Bridges MM1-MM2/TD1-TD2-DC/DSS/PDC/TP1-NP/TS1-TS2-HP/SP-SC/TCA/SK/BC/FT/SDL

Material (MM1) concrete, masonry, steel, iron, wood, mixed

Material (MM2) reinforced concrete, pre-stressed concrete, unreinforced masonry, …

Type of deck (TD1) girder, arch, suspension, cable-stayed, moveable

Type of deck (TD2) solid slab, slab with voids, box girder, modern arch, ancient arch, …

Deck characteristics (DC) width

Deck structural system (DSS) simply supported, continuous

Pier to deck connection (PDC) monolithic, isolated, combination

Type of pier (TP1) single-column pier, multi-column pier

Number of piers per column (NP)

Type of section of piers (TS1) cylindrical, rectangular, oblong, wall-type

Type of section of piers (TS2) solid, hollow

Height of pier (HP)

Spans (SP) single-span, multi-span

Span characteristics (SC ) number of spans, span length

Type of connection to the abutments (TCA) free, monolithic, isolated

Skew (SK) straight, skewed

Bridge configuration (BC) regular or semi-regular, irregular

Foundation type (FT) shallow foundation, deep foundation

Seismic design level (SDL) no seismic design, low-code, medium-code, high-code


Past Earthquake Damages

1. ground shaking

2. ground failure (liquefaction, fault displacement, slope instability).

Damage due to landslide Damage due to liquefaction Damage due to fault offset


Past Earthquake Damages

3. Interactions


Classification of Damage States

Definition of damage states for roadway

elements (embankments, trenches,

abutments, slopes) in SYNER-G

• qualitative/empirical, based on post-

earthquake damage statistics

• quantitative, based on damage indices

that define limit states of the structure

Permanent Ground Deformation (m)

Damage State min max mean

DS1. Minor 0.02 0.08 0.05

DS2. Moderate 0.08 0.22 0.15

DS3. Extensive/Complete 0.22 0.58 0.40

Damage state Description Serviceability

DS1 Minor/ Slight minor cracking and spalling and other minor distress to tunnel

liners

Open to traffic, closed or partially closed during inspection,

cleaning and possible repair works

DS2 Moderate Ranges from major cracking and spalling to rock falls

Closed during repair works for 2 to 3days

DS3 Heavy Collapse of the liner or surrounding soils to the extent that the tunnel is blocked either

immediately or within a few days after the main shock

Closed for a long period of time

Description of damage states for tunnels (ALA 2001)


Recommended IMs for

different systems (D2.12)

Appropriate

earthquake intensity

measures (IM)

- best captures the response of

each element

- minimizes the dispersion of

response

- depends on the approach for

derivation of fragility curves


Fragility Functions - Buildings

Methodologies

Reinforced Concrete

Masonry


Fragility Functions - Buildings

Intensity Measure Types

Reinforced Concrete

Masonry


Fragility curves -

Literature Review

Example of

review form

for buildings


Example of

review form

for bridges

Reviewer UPAT

Element at risk Bridge Element Code RDN01

Reference Choi et al, 2004

Method Analytical – nonlinear dynamic

Function Lognormal

Typology Multi-span RC and steel bridges

Damage states No Minor Moderate Major Collapse

Minor cracking, spalling of abutment; cracks in shear keys; minor spalling and cracks at hinges; minor spalling at column; minor cracking at deck

Moderate cracking and spalling of column; cracked shear keys or bent bolts of connection; moderate settlement of approach

Column degrading; connection losing bearing support; major settlement of approach

Column collapsing and connection losing all bearing support

Column μ < 2.0 μ < 4.0 μ < 7.0 μ > 7.0

Steel bearing δ < 6 mm δ < 20 mm δ < 40mm δ > 40 mm

Expansion bearing δ < 50 mm δ < 100 mm δ < 150mm δ > 150 mm

Fixed dowel δ < 100 mm δ < 150 mm δ < 255mm δ > 255 mm

Expansions dowel δ < 30 mm δ < 100 mm δ < 150mm δ > 150 mm

Functionality states

Seismic intensity parameter

Peak ground acceleration

Background 3-span simply supported or continuous highway bridges Schematic bridges, typical for Central and Southeastern United States, designed to modern USA code The numerical model included pile foundations, active and passive behaviour of abutments and pounding between deck sections Different span lengths, 100 artificial accelerograms

Figures

Deck type: (a) continuous (MSC) precast (b) continuous steel (c) simply supported (MSSS) precast (d) simply supported steel

Parameters (median values, β values)

Comments Vulnerability curves were produced for each component and then combined to

provide fragility curves for the complete bridge structure.

Literature Review


• ATC (1985)

• Avşar et al. (2011)

• Azevedo et al. (2010)

• Banerjee and Shinozuka (2008)

• Basöz et al. (1999)

• Cardone et al. (2011)

• Ceresa et al. (2012)

• Choe et al. (2009)

• Choi et al. (2004)

• Elnashai et al. (2004)

• FEMA (2010)

• Franchin et al. (2006)

• Gardoni et al. (2003)

• Jeong and Elnashai (2007)

• Karim and Yamazaki (2001, 2003)

• Kibboua et al. (2011)

• Kim and Shinozuka (2004)

• Kurian et al. (2006)

• Lupoi et al. (2004, 2005)

• Mackie and Stojadinovic (2004, 2007)

• Marano et al. (2006)

• Monti and Nisticò (2002)

• Moschonas et al. (2009)

• Nateghi and Shahsavar (2004)

• Nielson and DesRoches (2007)

• Padgett and DesRoches (2009)

• Qi'ang et al. (2012)

• Saxena et al. (2000)

• Shinozuka et al. (2000)

• Shirazian et al. (2011)

• Sullivan (2010)

• Yamazaki et al. (2000)

• Yi et al. (2007)

• Zhang et al. (2008)

Variation of fragility curve parameters for the same typology

Literature Review – RDN01 Road Bridges

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

66%14%

11% 7% 2%

PGASpectral accelerationPGVSpectrum intensityReturn period

44%

24%

18%

12% 3%

MDOF nonlinear dynamicSDOF nonlinear dynamicCapacity spectrumEmpiricalExpert opinion

21

Methodologies Intensity Measure types

Fragility Functions – Bridges


Fragility Functions – Bridge Damage States

22

Definition of damage states for piers and bearings

Damage measure Reference Slight Moderate Extensive Complete

Drift ratio, δ/h Banerjee and Shinozuka (2008) 1.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5%

Yi et al. (2007) 0.7% 1.5% 2.5% 5.0%

Curvature, φ Avşar et al. (2011) φy φu

Cardone et al. (2008) φy 0.5φu φu

Choi et al. (2004) φy 2.0φy 4.0φy 7.0φy

Jeong and Elnashai (2007) φy φu

Nielson and DesRoches (2007) 1.3φy 2.1φy 3.5φy 5.2φy

Zhang et al. (2008) φy 2.0φy 4.0φy 7.0φy

Rotation, θ Qi’ang et al. (2012) θy 2.0θy 6.0θy 11.0θy

Saxena et al. (2000) θy 2.0θy 6.0θy 11.0θy

Shinozuka et al. (2000a) θy 2.0θy

Yi et al. (2007) θy 1.3θy 2.6θy

Displacement Monti and Nisticò (2002) 0.5δu 0.7δu δu

Shear deformation

of bearings, γ

Moschonas et al. (2009) 0.2 1.5 2.0 5.0

Zhang et al. (2008) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pro

babili

ty

Peak ground acceleration (g)

Pier yielding Pier 1 L Pier 2 L Pier 3 L

Pier 1 T Pier 2 T Pier 3 T

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pro

babili

ty


Pier ultimate Pier 1 L Pier 2 L Pier 3 L


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pro

babili

ty


Bearings Pier 1 L Pier 2 L Pier 3 L


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pro

babili

ty


Angle V<120km/h Angle, 120<V<200km/hAngle, V>200km/h Curvature, V<120km/hCurvature, 120<V<200km/h Curvature, V>120km/h

Typologies:

Deck-pier connection: monolithic; through elastomeric bearings; combination

Transverse translation at the abutments: free; constrained

Pier cross-section: hollow rectangular;

wall-type; circular

Level of seismic design: EC2; EC8

Number of spans: 2; 3; 4; 6

Pier height: 10 m; 25 m

Damage measures: pier chord

rotation & shear force, bearing & deck

deformation

Damage states: yielding (limited use);

near collapse

Intensity measure: PGA

23

Numerical Analyses: Road and Railway Bridges

six-span bridge with continuous deck supported

on bearings and constrained transverse

translation at the abutments, designed to EC2


Empirical curves: GAS06 Pipeline

Repair rate per km (ALA, 2001):

24

PGV in cm/s PGVKRR 002416.01

80% leaks

20% breaks

Wave

propagation K1: corrective factor based on pipe properties


Repair rate per km (ALA, 2001):

25

PGD in cm 319.0

2 58.2 PGDKRR

20% leaks

80% breaks

Ground

failure

Empirical curves: GAS06 Pipeline

K1: corrective factor based on pipe properties


• Katayama et al, 1975

• Eguchi, 1983

• ATC-13, 1985

• Isoyama & Katayama, 1982

• Memphis, Tennessee, 1985

• Wang et al, 1991

• O’ Rourke & Ayala, 1993

• Eidinger et al. 1995, Eidinger, 1998

• Isoyama, 1998

• O’Rourke et al,1998

• O’Rourke & Leon, 1999

• Eidinger & Avila, 1999

• Isoyama et al, 2000

• Toprak, 1998

• Hung, 2001

• O’Rourke & Deyoe, 2004

• Porter et al, 1991

• Honegger & Eguchi, 1992

• Heubach, 1995

• Eidinger et al,1999

• ΑLA, 2001a,b

• Yeh et al. 2006

• Ballantyne & Heubach, 1996

• O’Rourke et al, 2012

Empirical relation:

pipe material;

Peak Ground Velocity (PGV);

Repair rate per km

Empirical relation:

pipe material;

Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD);

Repair rate per km

Fragility curves - Literature Review

WSN05 Water Pipes


Lefkas earthquake, 2003 (Mw=6.4)

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Legend

waterfsecond

! waterfailures

Waterpipes(PGVPGDEID)

break

leak

full-function

¯

240 0 240120 m

P8 P9

P10

P4

P3

P2

P1

P5

P6

P7

Recorded damages (points)

Estimated damages (lines)

(Eidinger & Avila 1999)

Validation Studies: WSN05 Water Pipes

Break

Leak

No damage

Wave Propagation (PGV) Permanent Deformations (PGD)


HAZUS/NIBS (2004) – expert judgment

Roads with two traffic lanes

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

PGD (m)

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f exceed

an

ce

slight damage moderate damage extensive/complete

Roads with four or more traffic lanes

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

PGD (m)

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f exceed

an

ce

slight damage moderate damage extensive/complete

validation based on (limited) recorded damages from past earthquakes in Greece

Validation Studies: RDN06 Road pavements


a Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4

Location: Golemi street-City of Lefkas

b Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4

Location: Sikelianou street -City of Lefkas

c Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4

Location: Road in Marina of Lefkas

d Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4

Location: Road in channel entrance from Aktio to Lefkas

e Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4

Location: Coastal road in Vasiliki

f Earthquake: Kozani, 13/5/1995, M=6.6

Location: Approach road to Rymnio bridge

g Earthquake: Peloponnisos, 8/7/2008, Μ=6.5

Location: Coastal road in Vrahneika

h Earthquake: Peloponnisos, 8/7/2008, Μ=6.5

Location: Road to Alissos

















































29

The validation indicates a good agreement between the

estimated and observed damage states.

Validation Studies: RDN06 Road pavements


Numerical analyses: RDN01 Roadway bridges Typologies:

continuous deck; with intermediate joints

Deck-pier connection: monolithic; through elastomeric bearings; combination

Intensity Measure: Peak Ground Acceleration

Damage Scale: Yielding - limited (emergency) use; Near collapse

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pro

babili

ty


Pier yielding Pier 1 L Pier 2 L Pier 3 L


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pro

babili

ty


Pier ultimate Pier 1 L Pier 2 L Pier 3 L


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pro

babili

ty


Bearings Pier 1 L Pier 2 L Pier 3 L


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pro

babili

ty


Angle V<120km/h Angle, 120<V<200km/hAngle, V>200km/h Curvature, V<120km/hCurvature, 120<V<200km/h Curvature, V>120km/h

six-span bridge with continuous

deck supported on bearings and

constrained transverse translation

at the abutments, designed to EC2


Numerical analyses: Geotechnical structures

`

Dam

age In

dex

Intensity Measure ln IMmi

ln D

I (d

si)

βD

βD

Evolution of damage with earthquake intensity measure (IM) and definition of threshold median value (IMmi)

for the damage state i (dsi). Definition of standard deviation (βD) due to variability of input motion (demand).


Numerical analyses: RDN07 Abutments

Typologies: Cantilever wall

Height (h): 6; 7.5 m

Ground depth (H): 50 m

Ground types (EC8): C; D

Intensity Measure: PGA free field

Damage Scale:

Minor; Moderate; Extensive/Complete

Damage Measures:

Settlement on the backfill

Analysis:

1D equivalent linear analysis (EERA)

2D dynamic FE models (PLAXIS)

5 records (x 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5g)

t2

t3

L

h

Backfill

Bedrock

SoilH

t1

200kN

EQ

Bridge deck

Argyroudis et al 2013


Numerical analyses: RDN07 Abutments

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f d

am

ag

e

PGA free field (g)

Minor damage-h=6.0m

Moderatedamage-h=6.0m

Extensivedamage-h=6.0m

Minor damage-h=7.5m



Soil C

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Pro

babili

ty o

f .

dam

ag

e

PGA free field (g)

Minor damage-h=6.0m



Minor damage-h=7.5m



Soil C

Soil D


Potable Water System (Sub-Task 3.2.3) Numerical analyses: RDN02 Tunnels (in alluvial)

Typologies:

Circular (Bored); Rectangular (Cut & Cover)

Ground depth: 30; 60; 120 m

Ground types (EC8): B; C; D

Intensity Measure: PGA free field

Damage Scale: Minor; Moderate; Extensive

Damage Measure: exceedance of lining strength capacity

Analysis:

1D equivalent linear analysis (EERA)

> 3 records x 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7g

seismic ground deformations

2D FE models (PLAXIS) – Psevdostatic analysis

Elasto-plastic soil behaviour

Argyroudis & Pitilakis 2012


Potable Water System (Sub-Task 3.2.3) Numerical analyses: RDN02 Tunnels (in alluvial)


Potable Water System (Sub-Task 3.2.3) Numerical analyses

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f d

am

ag

e

PGA free field (g)

Minor damage-h=4m

Moderatedamage-h=4m

Extensivedamage-h=4m

Minor damage-h=2m

Moderatedamage-h=2m

Extensivedamage-h=2m

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Pro

babili

ty o

f d

am

ag

e

PGA free field (g)

Minor damage-h=4.0m



Minor damage-h=6.0m



Soil C

Soil D

RDN04 Trenches

RDN03 Embankments


Potable Water System (Sub-Task 3.2.3) Fault tree analysis:

Physical components of Health Care Facilities

Object Demand Distr. Mean cv References

Cylinders Acceleration LN 0.50g 0.25 Expert judgment

Pipes Drift LN 0.90% 0.25 Kuwata and Takada, 2003

Probabilistic characterization of the capacity of the medical gas system

HCS03-5: Medical Gas


38

Fragility Function Manager Tool

Store, Visualize, Manage large number of fragility functions sets


THANK YOU

FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

fragility functions of elements at risk (wp3) · 2013-03-26 · syner-g final workshop, milano,...

Documents