Explicit modelling of collapse for Dutch unreinforced masonry building typology fragility functions
- PDF / 2,604,459 Bytes
- 23 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 89 Downloads / 208 Views
Explicit modelling of collapse for Dutch unreinforced masonry building typology fragility functions Damian N. Grant1 · Jamie Dennis2 · Richard Sturt3 · Giovanni Milan2 · David McLennan3 · Pedro Negrette2 · Rene da Costa2 · Michele Palmieri2 Received: 28 April 2020 / Accepted: 30 July 2020 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract The development of seismic fragility functions for buildings generally relies on simplified modelling methods and the use of indirect engineering demand parameters (EDPs) for the determination of collapse or other damage states. The collapse response of real buildings, particularly those that have not been specifically designed for seismic resistance, can often be driven by local failures that may not be captured in simplified models. Furthermore, the use of EDP thresholds to indicate damage states may not be consistent with multiple possible failure modes, which may be triggered by different characteristics of the ground shaking or variations in model parameters. This paper demonstrates the use of non-linear finite element models including explicit progressive collapse simulation for the development of fragility functions. It presents an overview of the method developed and its application to an unreinforced masonry (URM) building typology in the Groningen region of the Netherlands, where induced seismicity risk is currently being evaluated. Multiple index buildings were selected to represent the variations in geometry, material properties, and connection types found within the typology. For each index building, Latin Hypercube sampling was used to generate batches of several hundred realisations of an LS-DYNA time-history analysis, each selecting from a set of 100 hazard-consistent ground motions, and varying material properties and other uncertain variables according to pre-assigned probability distributions. Automation was used in model generation, running analyses and in post-processing to allow the required computation with minimal analyst intervention. The main output from each analysis was a normalised debris cover estimate, which describes the extent of damage observed in the model and is correlated with life safety risk. Regression analyses were carried out directly on threshold levels of debris cover identified building collapse. Fragility functions were developed for the URM terraced house typology by combining results from the individual index buildings together. Keywords Fragility functions · Unreinforced masonry buildings · Debris cover · Explicit collapse assessment · LS-DYNA
* Damian N. Grant [email protected] Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
1 Introduction Fragility and vulnerability functions are used in probabilistic seismic risk analysis to assess the likelihood and consequences of damage or collapse in buildings. Fragility functions can be developed on the basis of empirical data, analytical modelling or expert judgement (Rossetto et al. 2015). Analytical methods are
Data Loading...
