Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using experimental data to reduce the single-building sigma of fragility curves: case study of the BRD tower in Bucharest, Romania

  • Technical Papers
  • Published:
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The lack of knowledge concerning modelling existing buildings leads to signifiant variability in fragility curves for single or grouped existing buildings. This study aims to investigate the uncertainties of fragility curves, with special consideration of the single-building sigma. Experimental data and simplified models are applied to the BRD tower in Bucharest, Romania, a RC building with permanent instrumentation. A three-step methodology is applied: (1) adjustment of a linear MDOF model for experimental modal analysis using a Timoshenko beam model and based on Anderson’s criteria, (2) computation of the structure’s response to a large set of accelerograms simulated by SIMQKE software, considering twelve ground motion parameters as intensity measurements (IM), and (3) construction of the fragility curves by comparing numerical interstory drift with the threshold criteria provided by the Hazus methodology for the slight damage state. By introducing experimental data into the model, uncertainty is reduced to 0.02 considering S d (f 1) as seismic intensity IM and uncertainty related to the model is assessed at 0.03. These values must be compared with the total uncertainty value of around 0.7 provided by the Hazus methodology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldea A, Iiba M, Demetriu S and Kashima T (2007), “Evidence of Soil-structure Interaction from Earthquake Records at a High-rise Building Site in Bucharest,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, paper 1523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldea A, Kashima T, Lungu D, Vacareanu R, Koyama S and Arion C (2004), “Modern Urban Seismic Network in Bucharest, Romania,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldea A, Kashima T, Poiata N and Kajiwara T (2006), “A New Digital Seismic Network in Romania with Dense Instrumentation in Bucharest,” Proceedings of First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JG (2004), “Quantitative Measure of the Goodness-of-fit of Synthetic Seismograms,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arias A (1970), “A Measure of Earthquake Intensity,” in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power plants, R.J. Hansen, ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA438-483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bard PY (1988), “The Importance of Rocking in Building Motion: an Experimental Evidence,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, 8: 333–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutin C, Hans S, Ibraim E and Roussillon P (2005), “In Situ Experiments and Seismic Analysis of Existing Buildings. Part II: Seismic Integrity Threshold,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(12): 1531–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brincker R, Zhang L and Andersen P (2001) “Modal Identification of Output Only Systems Using Frequency Domain Decomposition,” Smart Materials and Structures, 10: 441–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabañas L, Benito B and Herraiz M (1997), “An Approach to the Measurement of the Potential Structural Damage of Earthquake Ground Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26(1): 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvi G, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer J, Restrepo-Velez L and Crowley H (2006), “Development of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies over the Past 30 Years,” Indian Society Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(3): 75–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Causse M, Laurendeau A, Perrault M, Douglas J, Bonnilla LF and Gueguen P (2013), “A Set of Eurocode 8-compatible Synthetic Time-series as Input to Dynamic Analysis,” Submitted to Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celebi M, Phan LT and Marshall RD (1993), “Dynamic Characteristics of Five Tall Buildings during Strong and Low-amplitude Motions,” The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 2(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Standard EN 1998-1: 2004, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton J, Bradford SC, Heaton TH and Favela J (2006), “The Observed Wander of the Natural Frequencies in a Structure,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(1): 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough RW and Penzien J (1993), Dynamics of Structures, Mc Graw-Hill: New-York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn A and Spence R (2002), Earthquake Protection, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley H and Pinho R (2004), “Period-height Relationship for Existing European Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(1): 93–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J (2007) “Physical Vulnerability Modelling in Natural Hazard Risk Assessment,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 7(2): 283–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPRI (1991), Standardization of the Cumulative Absolute Velocity, EPRI 1R-100082 Report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (2003a), HAZUS-MH MR3 Technical Manual, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (2003b), ATC-13-1, Report: Commentary on the Use of ATC-13 Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for Probable Maximum Loss Studies of California Buildings, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Šket-Motnikar B, Zupancic P, Gosar A, Prevolnik S, Herak M, Stipcevic J, Herak D, Milutinovic Z and Olumceva T (2010), “Empirical Estimates of Dynamic Parameters on a Large Set of European Buildings,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 8(3): 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparini DA and Vanmarcke EH (1976), Simulated Earthquake Motions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra, MIT Civil Engineering, Research Report R76-4, Massachussets Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • GNDT (1986), Instruzioni per la Compilazione de lla Sceda di Relivamento Esposizione e Vulnerabilità Sismica Degli Edifici, Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Regione Emilia Romagna y Regione Toscana, Italy. (in Italian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gueguen P, Michel C and LeCorre L (2007), “A Simplified Approach for Vulnerability Assessment in Moderate-to-low Seismic Hazard Regions: Application to Grenoble (France),” Bull Earthq. Engng., 4(3): 467–490. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-007-9036-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hans S (2002), “Auscultation Dynamique de bâtiments et modélisation par homogéneisation — Contribution à l’analyse de la vulnerabilité sismique”, PhD Thesis, INSA Lyon. (in French)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans S, Boutin C, Ibraim E and Roussillon P (2005), “In Situ Experiments and Seismic Analysis of Existing Buildings. Part I: Experimental Investigations,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(12): 1513–1529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Housner GW (1952), “Intensity of Ground Motion during Strong Earthquakes,” Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J (2006), “Fatal Attraction: Living with Earthquakes, the Growth of Villages into Megacities, and Earthquake Vulnerability in the Modern World,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A — Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 364(1845): 1911–1925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JICA (2007), Technical Cooperation Project, Reduction of Seismic Risk for Buildings and Structures with Romania, 2002–2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C and Penelis G (2006), “A Hybrid Method for the Vulnerability Assessment of R/C and URM Buildings,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 4(4): 391–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK (2004), “Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis,” Monograph MNO-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meli R, Faccioli E, Muria-Vila D, Quaas R and Paolucci R (1998), “A Study of Site Effects and Seismic Response of an Instrumented Building in Mexico City,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2(1): 89–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel C, Gueguen P and Bard PY (2008), “Dynamic Parameters of Structures Extracted from Ambient Vibration Measurements: an Aid for the Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Buildings in Moderate Seismic Hazard Regions,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28(8): 593–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel C, Gueguen P and Causse M (2012), “Seismic Vulnerability Assessment to Slight Damage Based on Experimental Modal Parameters,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41(1): 81–98. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel C, Gueguen P, El Arem S, Mazars J and Kotronis P (2010a), “Full-scale Dynamic Response of an RC Building under Weak Seismic Motions Using Earthquake Recordings, Ambient Vibrations and Modelling,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 39(4): 419–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel C, Gueguen P, Lestuzzi P and Bard PY (2010b), “Comparison between Seismic Vulnerability Models and Experimental Dynamic Properties of Existing Buildings in France,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 8(6): 1295–1307, DOI: 10.1007/s10518-010-9185-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel C, Hans S, Gueguen P and Boutin C (2006), “In Situ Experiment and Modelling of RC-structure Using Ambient Vibration and Timoshenko Beam,” Proceedings of the First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper 1246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikael A, Gueguen P, Bard P-Y Roux P and Langlais M (2013), “Long-term Frequency and Damping Wandering in Buildings Analysed Using the Random Decrement Technique (RDT),” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 103(1): 236–246. DOI: 10.1785/0120120048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milutinovic ZV and Trendafiloski GS (2003), “Risk-UE: an Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios with Applications to Different European Towns,” WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings, European Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mironescu M, Stanescu A, Brotea T, Bortnowski A, Sava V and Comanescu R (2003), “Modeling, Configuration and Analysis for High Importance Buildings,” Bulletin of the Association of Structural Design Engineers AICPS, Bucharest, 3: 1–17. (In Romania)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayeri RD, Masri SF, Ghanem RG and Nigbor RL (2008), “A Novel Approach for the Structural Identification and Monitoring of a Full-scale 17-story Building Based on Ambient Vibration Measurements,” Smart Materials and Structures, 17(2): 19p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onose JI (1982), “Prediction of Damage Ratio of Reinforced Concrete Buildings due to Earthquakes and Comparison with Actual Damage Ratio,” Proceedings of the 6th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium: Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, 2081–2088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsini G (1999), “A Model for Buildings’ Vulnerability Assessment Using the Parameterless Scale of Seismic Intensity (PSI),” Earthquake Spectra, 15(3): 463–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Péquegnat C, Gueguen P, Hatzfeld D and Langlais M (2008), “The French Accelerometric Network (RAP) and National Data Center (RAP-NDC),” Seismological Research Letters, 79(1): 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrault M and Gueguen P (2010), “Evaluation of the Seismic Damage with the Use of Experimental and Theoretical Models,” Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ohrid, Macedonia, Paper 871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre JP and Montagne M (2004), “The 20 April 2002, M w 5.0 Au Sable Forks, New York, Earthquake: a Supplementary Source of Knowledge on Earthquake Damage to Lifelines and Buildings in Eastern North America,” Seismol Res Lett, 75(5): 626–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinho R, Bommer JJ and Glaister S (2002), “A Simplified Approach to Displacement-based Earthquake Loss Estimation Analysis,” Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, England, Paper 738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risk-UE (2003), “An Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios with Applications to Different European Towns. WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings,” European Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossetto T and Elnashai A (2003), “Derivation of Vulnerability Functions for European-type RC Structures Based on Observational Data,” Engineering Structures, 25(10): 1241–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyedi M, Gehl P, Douglas J, Davenne L, Mehzer N and Ghavamian S (2010), “Development of Seismic Fragility Surfaces for Reinforced Concrete Buildings by Means of Nonlinear Time-history Analysis,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 39(1): 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singhal A and Kiremidjian AS (1997), “A Method for Earthquake Motion-damage Relationships with Application to Reinforced Concrete Frames,” State University of New York at Buffalo: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (Report NCEER-97-0008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence RJS, Bommer J, Del Re D, Bird J, Aydinoglu N and Tabuchi S (2003), “Comparison Loss Estimation with Observed Damage: A Study of the 1999 Kocaceli Earthquake in Turkey,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1: 83–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence RJS, Coburn AW and Pomonis A (1992), “Correlation of Ground Motion with Building Damage: the Definition of a New Damage-based Seismic Intensity Scale,” 10th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam, 551–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorovska MI and Trifunac MD (2007), “Damage Detection in the Imperial County Services Building. I: the Data and Time-frequency Analysis,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 27: 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trifunac MD (1972), “Comparison between Ambient and Forced Vibration Experiments,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1(1); 33–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turek M, Thibert K, Ventura C and Kuan S (2006), “Ambient Vibration Testing of Three Unreinforced Brick Masonry Buildings in Vancouver, Canada,” Proceedings of the 24th International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC), Saint Louis, MI, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventura CE and Ding Y (2000), “Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Response of a 52-story Steel Frame Building,” Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 9(1): 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ventura CE, Liam Finn WD and Schuster ND (1995), “Seismic Response of Instrumented Structures During the 1994 Northridge California Earthquake,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 22: 316–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volant P, Orbovic N and Dunand F (2002), “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Facility Using Ambient Vibration Test to Characterize Dynamic Behavior of the Structure and Microtremor Measurements to Characterize the Soil: a Case Study,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22: 1159–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald DJ, Quitoriano V, Heaton T and Kanamori H (1999), “Relationships between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California,” Earthquake Spectra, 15(3): 557–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut des Sciences de la Terre, Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble I, CNRS/IFSTTAR, Grenoble, France

    Matthieu Perrault & Philippe Gueguen

  2. Technical University of Civil Engineering, Bucharest, Romania

    Alexandru Aldea & Sorin Demetriu

  3. Université Joseph Fourier, IFSTTAR, CNRS-ISTerre BP53, Grenoble Cedex 9, 38041, France

    Philippe Gueguen

Authors
  1. Matthieu Perrault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philippe Gueguen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexandru Aldea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sorin Demetriu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Gueguen.

Additional information

Supported by: the ANR National Research Agency as Part of Its RiskNat Program (URBASIS project) under Grant No. ANR-09-RISK-009; the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council (Programme Vulnerabilité des Ouvrages aux Risques) and the Joseph Fourier Université (Grenoble 1)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perrault, M., Gueguen, P., Aldea, A. et al. Using experimental data to reduce the single-building sigma of fragility curves: case study of the BRD tower in Bucharest, Romania. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 12, 643–658 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0203-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0203-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation