MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    1/124

    Reliability Analysis of a bridge pier using

    Interval Uncertainty Analysis

    A Thesis presented tothe Faculty of Civil Engineering

    College of Engineering

    De La Salle UniversityManila

    ________________________________________

    In Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree ofMaster of Science in Civil Engineering

    Major in Structural Engineering________________________________________

    BAYLON, MICHAEL BAUTISTA

    Thesis Adviser:

    DR. LESSANDRO ESTELITO O. GARCIANO

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    2/124

    2

    FEBRUARY 2016

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... 4

    LIST OF TABLE .......................................................................................................................................... 6

    CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 7

    PROBLEM SETTING ............................................................................................................................. 7

    1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7

    1.2 Statement of the Problem........................................................................................................ 12

    1.3 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................................... 12

    1.4 Objective of the Study .............................................................................................................. 13

    1.5 Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................. 13

    1.6 Assumptions in the Study ........................................................................................................ 14

    CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 15

    REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................................................................. 15

    2.1 Interval Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 15

    2.2 Fragility analysis ....................................................................................................................... 21

    2.3 Seismic Fragility Analysis in the Philippines......................................................................... 26

    2.4 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................... 28

    CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 30

    CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK................................................................... 30

    3.1 Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................ 30

    3.2 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................ 33

    3.2.1 PGA Normalization ................................................................................................................. 33

    3.2.2 Pushover Analysis (Nonlinear Static Analysis).................................................................. 33

    3.2.3 Time History Analysis (Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis)....................................................... 34

    3.2.4 Ductility Factors ...................................................................................................................... 35

    3.2.5 Damage Index and Damage Rank ...................................................................................... 36

    3.2.6 Interval Arithmetic Operations .............................................................................................. 36

    3.2.7 Interval Uncertainty Analysis (IUA)...................................................................................... 38

    3.2.8 Probability of Exceedance .................................................................................................... 40

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    3/124

    3

    CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 42

    RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 42

    4.1 Input data .................................................................................................................................... 42

    4.4 Interval Uncertainty Analysis method of reliability analysis ................................................. 47

    4.5 A library of MatLab functions implementing interval arithmetic operations ...................... 49

    4.6 Research paradigm ................................................................................................................... 51

    CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 58

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................................ 58

    5.1 Fragility Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 58

    5.2 Probability of Occurrence ......................................................................................................... 63

    5.3 Fragility Curves (Conventional) ............................................................................................... 73

    5.4 Fragility Curves by Interval Uncertainty Analysis ................................................................. 76

    5.4.1 Interval Uncertainty Analysis (Lower Bound)..................................................................... 76

    5.4.2 Interval Uncertainty Analysis (Upper Bound)..................................................................... 80

    5.5 Comparison of Fragility Curves: Conventional vs. IUA........................................................ 85

    5.6 Interval Uncertainty Analysis after First Pass...................................................................... 105

    CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 115

    SUMMARY, CONLUSION, & RECOMMENDATION ................................................................... 115

    6.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 115

    6.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 115

    6.3 Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 116

    BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 118

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    4/124

    4

    LIST OF FIGURES

    Figure 1. Example of seismic fragility curves. ...................................................................................... 8

    Figure 2. Reliability analysis results under a 4-subinterval-BPA-structure case........................... 15

    Figure 3. Typical deformation behavior as seen in the finite element model................................. 16

    Figure 4. A graph of displacement at the plastic hinge with interval holonomic elastoplastic

    alpha-umaxand alpha-uminresponses..................................................................................................... 17

    Figure 5. Single objective optimization of example wing 2 under landing loads in progress,

    deterministic, probabilistic, interval analyses....................................................................................... 18

    Figure 6. Probability of Failure for the Performance Function Z=R-S........................................... 19

    Figure 7. Summary of Seismic Fragility Curves of some lifelines in CAMANAVA area of

    Damage Rank As ..................................................................................................................................... 27

    Figure 8. Summary of Seismic Fragility Curves of some lifelines in CAMANAVA area of

    Damage Rank A ....................................................................................................................................... 28

    Figure 9. Conceptual Framework of the Study .................................................................................... 31Figure 10. Interval Uncertainty Analysis after the First Pass........................................................... 32

    Figure 11. General Elevation Plan of the Bridge Showing Pier 2..................................................... 43

    Figure 12. Elevation Plan of the Pier.................................................................................................... 43

    Figure 13. Detail of Bored Pile .............................................................................................................. 44

    Figure 14. Section A of the Bored Pile................................................................................................. 44

    Figure 15. Section C (Coping) ............................................................................................................... 45

    Figure 16. Ground motion data of Bohol October 2013 earthquake normalized in 0.2g............. 47

    Figure 17. Normal probability function assumption of an interval value......................................... 49

    Figure 18. Research paradigm ............................................................................................................. 51

    Figure 19. Pushover curve from nonlinear static analysis of SAP2000.......................................... 58

    Figure 20. Pushover curve (zoomed in) to compute the energy at yield Ee................................... 59

    Figure 21. Hysteresis Model of Tohoku-Kanto Fukushima-2g (1 out of 300 hysteresis model)

    using SAP2000. ........................................................................................................................................ 60

    Figure 22. Hysteretic energy computation using Autodesk's AutoCAD......................................... 61

    Figure 23. Probability of Occurrence for Conventional Fragility Curves......................................... 65

    Figure 24. Probability of Occurrence for IUA-Lower Bound Fragility Curves................................ 65

    Figure 25. Probability of Occurrence for IUA-Upper Bound Fragility Curves................................ 66

    Figure 26. Plot of Lognormal of PGA to the Damage Ratio of DR="D".......................................... 67

    Figure 27. Plot of Lognormal of PGA to the Damage Ratio of DR="C".......................................... 68

    Figure 28. Plot of Lognormal of PGA to the Damage Ratio of DR="B".......................................... 69

    Figure 29. Plot of Lognormal of PGA to the Damage Ratio of DR="A".......................................... 70

    Figure 30. Plot of Lognormal of PGA to the Damage Ratio of DR="As"........................................ 71

    Figure 31. Conventional fragility curves for the different damage ranks........................................ 75

    Figure 32. IUA (Lower Bound) fragility curves for different damage ranks.................................... 80

    Figure 33. IUA (Upper Bound) fragility curves for different damage ranks.................................... 84

    Figure 34. Bounded fragility curve of DR="D" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction......................................... 85

    http://c/Users/michael%20baylon/Documents/MSCE%20Thesis%202016/MSCE%20Thesis%20Final%20Draft%20(Baylon%20as%20of%2002%2002%202016).docx%23_Toc442202704http://c/Users/michael%20baylon/Documents/MSCE%20Thesis%202016/MSCE%20Thesis%20Final%20Draft%20(Baylon%20as%20of%2002%2002%202016).docx%23_Toc442202704http://c/Users/michael%20baylon/Documents/MSCE%20Thesis%202016/MSCE%20Thesis%20Final%20Draft%20(Baylon%20as%20of%2002%2002%202016).docx%23_Toc442202704
  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    5/124

    5

    Figure 35. Bounded fragility curve of DR="C" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction......................................... 86

    Figure 36. Bounded fragility curve of DR="B" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction.......................................... 87

    Figure 37. Bounded fragility curve of DR="A" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction.......................................... 88

    Figure 38. Bounded fragility curve of DR="As" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction........................................ 89

    Figure 39. Conventional and IUA (Mean) fragility curves of DR="D" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction... 90

    Figure 40. Conventional and IUA (Mean) fragility curves of DR="C" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction... 91

    Figure 41. Conventional and IUA (Mean) fragility curves of DR="B" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction... 92

    Figure 42. Conventional and IUA (Mean) fragility curves of DR="A" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction... 93

    Figure 43. Conventional and IUA (Mean) fragility curves of DR="As" c.o.v.=5% in X-direction. 94

    Figure 44. Bounded fragility curves for damage rank of "No Damage" of c.o.v.=5% .................. 95

    Figure 45. Bounded fragility curves for damage rank of "Slight Damage" of c.o.v.=5% ............. 96

    Figure 46. Bounded fragility curves for damage rank of "Moderate Damage" of c.o.v.=5% ...... 97

    Figure 47. Bounded fragility curves for damage rank of "No Damage" of c.o.v.=10% ............... 98

    Figure 48. Bounded fragility curves for damage rank of "Slight Damage" of c.o.v.=10% ........... 99

    Figure 49. Bounded fragility curves for damage rank of "No Damage" of c.o.v.=20% ............. 100

    Figure 50. Bounded fragility curves for damage rank of "Slight Damage" of c.o.v.=20%.......... 101

    Figure 51. Pushover curve with lower and upper bounds................................................................ 106

    Figure 52. Pushover curve (inset) with lower and upper bounds.................................................. 107

    Figure 53. Interval Uncertainty Analysis seismic fragility curve of "No Damage" rank.............. 110

    Figure 54. Interval Uncertainty Analysis seismic fragility curve of "Slight Damage" rank.......... 111

    Figure 55. Interval Uncertainty Analysis seismic fragility curve of "Moderate Damage" rank... 112

    Figure 56. Interval Uncertainty Analysis seismic fragility curve of "Extensive Damage" rank.. 113

    Figure 57. Interval Uncertainty Analysis seismic fragility curve of "Complete Damage" rank.. 114

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    6/124

    6

    LIST OF TABLE

    Table 1. Summary of Results of Ordinary Monte Carlo Simulation................................................. 20

    Table 2. Relationship between the damage index and damage rank based from HAZUS (2013).

    .................................................................................................................................................................... 36

    Table 3. Pertinent ground motion (East-West) data of the Bohol, Philippines earthquake......... 46Table 4. Pertinent ground motion (Up and Down) data of the Bohol, Philippines earthquake.... 46

    Table 5. Summary of calculations of ductility factors, damage indices, and damage ranks using

    MS Excel Spreadsheet. For Tohoku-Kanto Eq. (Fukushima).......................................................... 62

    Table 6. Summary of Damage Ratio for the Conventional fragility curves.................................... 63

    Table 7. Summary of Damage Ratio for the IUA fragility curves (Lower Bound).......................... 63

    Table 8. Summary of Damage Ratio for the IUA fragility curves (Upper Bound).......................... 64

    Table 9. Tabulation of ln(PGA) with number of occurrences per damage rank............................ 72

    Table 10. Tabulation of the product of number of occurrences to ln(PGA)................................... 72

    Table 11. Tabulation of the square of the difference of the mean value of ln(PGA) to a PGA

    value. .......................................................................................................................................................... 73Table 12. Tabulation of the values for the (X - Mean ) / Standard Deviation................................. 74

    Table 13. Tabulation of the values for the Probability of Exceedance per PGA/g values........... 74

    Table 14. Tabulation of ln(PGA) with number of occurrences per damage rank.......................... 76

    Table 15. Tabulation of the product of number of occurrences to ln(PGA)................................... 77

    Table 16. Tabulation of the square of the difference of the mean value of ln(PGA) to a PGA

    value. .......................................................................................................................................................... 78

    Table 17. Tabulation of the values for the ( X - Mean ) / Standard Deviation.............................. 79

    Table 18. Tabulation of the values for the Probability of Exceedance per PGA/g values........... 79

    Table 19. Tabulation of ln(PGA) with number of occurrences per damage rank.......................... 81

    Table 20. Tabulation of the product of number of occurrences to ln(PGA)................................... 81Table 21. Tabulation of the square of the difference of the mean value of ln(PGA) to a PGA

    value. .......................................................................................................................................................... 82

    Table 22. Tabulation of the values for the ( X - Mean ) / Standard Deviation................................ 83

    Table 23. Tabulation of the values for the Probability of Exceedance per PGA/g values........... 83

    Table 24. Checklist of bounded fragility curves that subscribe to the "norm"................................ 94

    Table 25. Tabulation of bounded fragility curves for DR="D","C", "B" for c.o.v.=5%.................. 101

    Table 26. Tabulation of bounded fragility curves for DR="D","C" for c.o.v.=10%....................... 102

    Table 27. Tabulation of bounded fragility curves for DR="D","C" for c.o.v.=20%....................... 102

    Table 28. Summary of calculated c.o.v. based from the bounded fragility curves which follow

    the set norm. ........................................................................................................................................... 103Table 29. Parameters from Nonlinear Static Analysis to be used in computing ductility factors

    using Interval Analysis. .......................................................................................................................... 107

    Table 30. Parameters from Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis to be used in computing ductility

    factors using Interval Analysis. ............................................................................................................. 108

    Table 31. Ductility factors computed from Octave script. ............................................................... 108

    Table 32. Damage indices and damage rank based from HAZUS............................................... 109

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    7/124

    7

    CHAPTER 1

    PROBLEM SETTING

    1.1 Background of the Study

    Nowadays, an increasing social awareness was brought by nations media

    practitioners on vulnerability of structures in the occurrence of every major earthquake.

    As a consequence of this increased awareness, research has been the forefront to ease

    the quantification of the potential social and economic losses of communities across the

    globe. Bridge fragility curves have grown from this surge in research as they are essential

    component to the risk assessment methodology.

    The risk assessment of lifeline presented in Figure 1 shows that one of the key

    links in the assessment methodology is to estimate the damage to the lifeline

    components. This is done by estimating the performance of the various highway bridges

    in the network as a function of a ground motion intensity parameter. This bridge

    performance is commonly represented in either a damage probability matrix or a fragility

    function (Nielson, 2005).

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    8/124

    8

    A fragility function is a conditional probability that gives the likelihood that a

    structure will meet or exceed a specified level of damage for a given ground motion

    intensity measure (Ramanathan, 2012).

    Figure 1. Example of seismic fragility curves.

    Source: (Nielson, 2005)

    In dealing with real world problems, uncertainties are unavoidable. As Civil

    Engineers, it is important to recognize and quantify the presence of all major sources of

    uncertainty in the analysis and design of structures. The sources of uncertainty may be

    classified into two broad types: (1) aleatory those that are associated with natural

    randomness; and (2) epistemic those that are associated with inaccuracies in our

    prediction and estimation of reality (Ang & Tang, 2007). Uncertainties can arise from

    (Modares, Taha, & Mohammadi, 2014):

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    9/124

    9

    1) modeling due to oversimplification of the system and the boundary

    conditions,

    2) manufacturing errors in structural member dimensions,

    3) load variations compiled from historical records or through instrumentations in

    the field or laboratory,

    4) interaction of structure leads to complexities,

    5) variations in material properties, and

    6) lack of sufficient test data.

    Different methods of structural reliability were already in use. From the most

    sophisticated method of inclusion of general method called evidence-based-theory

    reliability analysis (Jiang, Zhang, Han, & Liu, 2013), a proposed interval uncertain multi-

    objective optimization method for structures with uncertain-but-bounded parameters (Li,

    Luo, Rong, & Zhang, 2013), interval elastoplastic analysis of structures (Yang,

    Tangaramvong, Gao, & Tin-Loi, 2015), application of interval-based optimization of

    aircraft wings under landing loads (Majumder & Rao, 2008), and to the relatively simple

    method using interval uncertainty analysis in the reliability assessment of structures,

    specifically that of probability of failure of plane truss (Modares, Taha, & Mohammadi,

    2014).

    In applications, interval analysis provides rigorous enclosures of solutions to model

    equations. In this way, one can at least surely know what a mathematical model tells him,

    and, from that, one might determine whether it adequately represents reality. Without

    rigorous bounds on computational errors, a comparison of numerical results with physical

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    10/124

    10

    measurements does not tell how realistic a mathematical model is (Moore, Baker

    Kearfott, & Cloud, 2009).

    In his dissertation, Nielson (2005) tackled the uncertainty in the seismic demand

    function which was placed on highway bridges. He added that it is not always easy to

    separate out the different sources of uncertainty in a given problem. Usually, the

    randomness of seismic ground motion can be considered to be aleatoric in nature. But

    when one deals with synthetic ground motions, the uncertainty innate into these ground

    motion cannot be only be attributed to seismological mechanisms but also path and site

    characteristics. More knowledge that pertains to attenuation relationships and effects of

    soil can reduce some of this uncertainty, thereby alluding to its epistemic nature. He also

    added that there is uncertainty associated with each median which was defined. This

    uncertainty is given in the form of a lognormal standard deviation or dispersion. His study

    claimed that when enough data is unavailable for the assessment of the dispersion for

    each limit state, it is still beneficial to account for some degrees of uncertainties. The

    assignment of this uncertainty can be assumed in a subjective manner, that is, by

    estimating the coefficient of variation or c.o.v. In his doctoral research study,

    Ramanathan (2012) considered uncertainty by citing the works of Melchers (1999) and

    Ellingwood and Wen (2005), which stated that treatment of uncertainty in seismic

    reliability and performance assessment has been a subject of research for many years.

    In his part, Ramanathan used normal distribution in his model of reinforced concrete

    materials, with the median and coefficient of variation used statistical parameters.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    11/124

    11

    The use of Latin Hypercube sampling (LHS) is a stratified sampling procedure that

    provides an efficient way of sampling variables from their distribution while limiting the

    required sample size. This procedure was considered to different bridge realizations

    statistically different and yet nominally identicalfor the probabilistic treatment of fragility

    curves. LHS was implemented to reduce the computational effort. An algorithm

    suggested by Iman and Conover (1982) was implemented in the frames of the proposed

    methodology for the treatment of uncertainty in capacity and demand (Stefanidou &

    Kappos, 2013).

    Traditional reliability analysis requires probability distributions of all the uncertain

    parameters. These include the computations of reliability index using First-Order Second-

    Moment (FOSM), First-Order Reliability Method (FORM), Second-Order Reliability

    Method (SORM), Hasofer-Lind, Rackwitz-Fiessler Procedure, Monte Carlo Simulation

    (MCS). All except except MCS has closed form solution; whilst MCS, gives sub-optimal

    solution, depending on the observance of uncertainty in the estimate of the probability as

    it decreases as the total number of simulations, N, increases (Nowak & Collins, 2013).

    However, in many practical applications, the variation bounds can be only determined for

    the parameters with limited information (Han, Jiang, Liu, Liu, & Long, 2014).

    From the above mentioned methods of reliability analysis, there is a research gap

    in bounded fragility curves. In the light of introducing a method to develop these curves

    for the unknown-but-bounded uncertainty, seismic fragility curve will now have

    probability of exceedance values with an overlay of quantifying how low and how high a

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    12/124

    12

    decision-maker will adopt in his design, re-design, or retrofit of built structures. The

    researcher adopts interval analysis to produce this interval. Thus, an interval uncertainty

    analysis form of seismic fragility curves is being developed in this present study.

    1.2 Statement of the Problem

    There is a need to study the application of a technique that can respond to the

    uncertainties during the evaluation of damage index formula used (Park & Ang, 1985).

    Interval uncertainty analysis is chosen to embed in this reliability analysis, since the

    outcome of this proposed method is an interval value of probability of exceedance for a

    given intensity measurement, i.e., peak ground acceleration (PGA); thus, seismic fragility

    curves by interval uncertainty analysis (IUA).

    1.3 Significance of the Study

    This study is significant due to the following reasons:

    A. Epistemic uncertainty can be quantified through interval analysis; thus, its

    embedment to the probability of exceedance.

    B. Re-assessing built structures using the proposed method of reliability analysis

    particularly that of seismic fragility curves.

    C. An alternative reliability analysis aside from the existing ones, where computer

    simulation is possible through fast computing requirements.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    13/124

    13

    1.4 Objective of the Study

    This research aims to study the reliability of piers of a reinforced concrete deck

    girder bridges using interval uncertainty analysis applied to fragility curves.

    Specifically, this research aims:

    A. To quantify the uncertainty in the construction of seismic fragility curves by

    using interval analysis.

    B. To develop a methodology in assessing the performance of bridge piers using

    interval uncertainty analysis under shear mode of failure

    C. To compare the difference between a conventional fragility curve analysis and

    an interval uncertainty analysis when applied to a reinforced concrete deck

    girder

    1.5 Scope and Limitations

    The study is focused only in the reliability analysis using the shear mode of failure

    of bridge pier.

    Moreover, the study limits to the fragility analysis and the non-linear static

    (Pushover Analysis) and non-linear dynamic (Time History Analysis) analyses in

    constructing fragility curves by interval uncertainty analysis.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    14/124

    14

    A number of strong significant ground motion data is limited to four (4) sets which

    will be obtained from PHIVOLCS, PEER, and K-net.com, namely, Mindoro December

    1999 earthquake, Bohol October 2013 earthquake, The Great Hanshin Kobe earthquake

    in 1995, and the Tohoku-Kanto March 2011 earthquake. Peak ground accelerations

    (PGAs) are divided into ten discrete values, from 0.2g to 2.0g.

    1.6 Assumptions in the Study

    This study assumes that the nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis) and

    nonlinear dynamic analysis (time history analysis) are the suitable model for the shear

    mode of failure. Coefficient of variation used are 1%, 5%, 10%, and 20% for the

    computation of damage indices in the interval uncertainty analysis.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    15/124

    15

    CHAPTER 2

    REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

    2.1 Interval Analysis

    A novel evidence-theory-based reliability analysis method for structures with

    epistemic uncertainty is one those methods that deals with a specific theory based on a

    more general than other uncertainty modeling techniques. This was equivalent to the

    classical probability theory, possibility theory, p-box approach, fuzzy sets and convex

    models. In a further perspective, these basic axioms of evidence theory allowed one to

    combine alleatory and epistemic uncertainty in a straightforward manner without any prior

    knowledge (Jiang, Zhang, Han, & Liu, 2013). Fig. 2 is one example of the outputs of the

    reliability analysis under the case of a 4-subinterval-BPA-structure, as used in the

    applications of their developed general method using evidence-theory-based.

    Figure 2. Reliability analysis results under a 4-subinterval-BPA-structure case.

    Source: (Jiang, Zhang, Han, & Liu, 2013)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    16/124

    16

    A proposed systematic design optimization method for structures with uncertain-

    but-bounded parameters is another method. Using the interval method, Li et. al used to

    describe the uncertainty and the Kriging model was applied in order to generate for the

    approximation model. The interval number programming method was utilized to

    transform each uncertain optimization problem with a single objective function into a

    deterministic multi-objective optimization problem. Typical numerical examples applied

    to engineering demonstrated that the proposed method can effectively search the Pareto

    frontier using estimated approximation models. Moreover, this method has the ability to

    retain an unchanged approximation space. Refer to Fig. 3, the crashworthiness vehicle

    design was used as the engineering application problem, using a closed-hat beam with

    interval uncertain parameters (Li, Luo, Rong, & Zhang, 2013).

    Figure 3. Typical deformation behavior as seen in the finite element model.

    Source: (Li, Luo, Rong, & Zhang, 2013)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    17/124

    17

    As of this writing, a work that considers the effects of uncertainties in a classical

    elastoplastic analysis was started. The uncertainties were related to the applied forces

    and the plastic material capacities, both of which were taken to lie within deterministic but

    bounded intervals. This proposed novel interval approach obtained full spectra of the

    extreme responses under interval force and yield capacity data. The efficiency and

    robustness of this method were illustrated through a number of practically-motivated

    engineering structure examples. The results have been partially validated by Monte Carlo

    simulations and interval limit analyses. With these examples (see Fig. 4), it was

    highlighted by this study the importance of assessing the influence of uncertain applied

    forces and yield limits for practical application, with special attention to higher load levels,

    that is, a sufficient number of plastic hinges had been developed (Yang, Tangaramvong,

    Gao, & Tin-Loi, 2015).

    Figure 4. A graph of displacement at the plastic hinge with interval holonomicelastoplastic alpha-umaxand alpha-uminresponses

    Source: (Yang, Tangaramvong, Gao, & Tin-Loi, 2015)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    18/124

    18

    Reliability of structures is not only applied to vertical and horizontal structures but

    also to aircraft structural components such as wings under landing loads. In order to

    optimize the aircraft wing structures subjected to landing loads, an interval-based

    automated optimization method was used. The interaction between landing gear and

    flexible airplane structure was considered as a coupled system. Here, uncertainties were

    considered in terms of the system parameters and described as interval numbers. In the

    aspects of computing, the optimization procedure was illustrated using two distinct

    applications, i.e., symmetric double-wedge airfoil, and supersonic airplane wing. This

    interval analysis-based multicriteria optimum design of airplane wing structures under

    landing loads was demonstrated. The comparison of results indicated that, for

    comparable data and for the same value of the permissible landing stress, the minimum

    value of any specific objective function obtained by interval analysis was in good

    agreement with the ones obtained by deterministic and probabilistic analyses (Majumder

    & Rao, 2008). Fig. 5 shows the progress of individual objective functions with the number

    of iterations for all the three types of analyses.

    Figure 5. Single objective optimization of example wing 2 under landing loads inprogress, deterministic, probabilistic, interval analyses.

    Source: (Majumder & Rao, 2008)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    19/124

    19

    Regarded as significant in the literature of structural reliability, the Taylor-series

    inspired technique has been used frequently. One of which is the First Order Reliability

    Method (FORM). But with the harmonious mix with the interval analysis method, a newly-

    formed Interval First Order Reliability Method (IFORM) was introduced by Modares et. al.

    This method was an enhanced FORM after considering the uncertainties using interval

    analysis. In this method, the intervals selected for using the method can be based on a

    pre-determined multiple of standard deviation of the performance function. Again, this

    developed method was compared to the Monte Carlo Simulations. The results from the

    traditional first-order analysis were within the lower and upper bound results from the

    interval method, as seen in Fig. 6. It was found from this method that for a small amount

    of uncertainty in the resistance and applied load, the traditional first-order approximation

    method results in probability values that correspond to bounds equal to once standard

    deviation of performance function (Modares, Taha, & Mohammadi, 2014).

    Figure 6. Probability of Failure for the Performance Function Z=R-S.Source: (Modares, Taha, & Mohammadi, 2014)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    20/124

    20

    The author attempted to come up with an assessment of a transportation lifeline

    pier using ordinary Monte Carlo Simulation under a large magnitude earthquake.

    According to their paper, the Philippines capital has its mass transit, the Light Rail Transit

    System (LRT), constructed in the 1980s as part of the governments modernization efforts

    in the field of transportation. Over the past thirty years, the LRT has withstood a number

    of natural hazards including a strong earthquake in July of 1990. Due to this event, the

    Philippine government initiated the earthquake reconstruction project and made

    recommendations to retrofit important bridges. The paper investigated the reliability index

    of the columns of the LRT under a Level 1 (El Centro) earthquake and Level 2 (Tohoku-

    Kanto) earthquake using ordinary Monte Carlo Simulation. Based from the maiden

    structural plans of LRT, the slenderness ratio of columns based from the ACI 318 was

    observed and checked for buckling failure. Referring to Table 1, a significant +12%

    difference between the reliability indices of unconfined (3.47) and confined (3.89)

    reinforced concrete column was computed in the said simulation (Baylon, Garciano, &

    Koike, 2012).

    Table 1. Summary of Results of Ordinary Monte Carlo SimulationSource: (Baylon, Garciano, & Koike, 2012)Based from NSCP 2001

    Tohoku-Kanto Earthquake ( M9.0) El Centro Earthquake of 1940

    Unconfined Confined % diff Unconfined Confined % diff

    Pf 0.00146 0.00012 92% 0.00029 0.00013 55%

    2.976037 3.672701 23% 3.440799 3.652203 6%

    Based from NSCP 2010

    Tohoku-Kanto Earthquake ( M9.0) El Centro Earthquake of 1940

    Unconfined Confined % diff Unconfined Confined % diff

    Pf 0.00109 0.00039 64% 0.00023 0.00002 91%

    3.064547 3.359796 10% 3.503029 4.10748 17%

    % diff Pf 28% 36%

    % diff 13% 11%

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    21/124

    21

    2.2 Fragility analysis

    Civil engineering facilities such as bridges, buildings, power plants, dams

    and offshore platforms are all intended to contribute to the benefit and quality of life. It is

    important that the benefit of the facility can be identified considering all phases of the life

    of the facility. These facilities are established, operated, maintained and decommissioned

    in such a way that was optimized or enhance the possible benefits to society and

    individuals of the society (Sorensen, 2004). It is advisable to have clear expectations

    about those portions of the structure that are expected to undergo inelastic deformations

    and to use the analyses to (1) confirm the locations of inelastic deformations and (2)

    characterize the deformation demands of yielding elements and force demands in non-

    yielding elements. In this regard, capacity designs concepts are encouraged to help

    ensure reliable performance (Deierlein, Reinhorn, & Willford, 2010).

    Bridges are potentially one of the most seismically vulnerable structures in

    the highway system. While performing a risk analysis of a highway system, it is imperative

    to identify seismic vulnerability of bridges associated various states of damage

    (Shinozuka, Feng, Kim, Uzawa, & Ueda, 2003). In the probabilistic seismic risk

    assessment of highway transportation networks, fragility curves are used to represent the

    vulnerability of a bridge. Because these networks have hundreds or thousands of

    bridges, it is not possible to study each bridge individually. Instead, bridges with similar

    properties are grouped together and represented by the same fragility curve (Gomez,

    Torbol, & Feng, 2013).

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    22/124

    22

    Seismic fragility is the probability that a geotechnical, structural, and/or non-

    structural system violates at least a limit state when subjected to a seismic event

    of specified intensity. Current methods for fragility analysis use peak ground acceleration

    (PGA), pseudo spectral acceleration (PSa), velocity (PSv), or spectral displacement (Sd)

    to characterize seismic intensity (Kafali & Grigoriu, 2004). These fragility curves indicate

    the evolving potential for component and system damage under seismic loading

    considering time-dependent corrosion-induced deterioration. The results indicate that

    while corrosion may actually decrease the seismic vulnerability of some components,

    most critical components suffer an increase in vulnerability (Ghosh & Padgett, 2010).

    A method was used to track changes of the structural parameters of a bridge

    throughout its service life. Based on vibration data the fragility curves are updated

    reflecting a change in structural parameters. Fragility curves based on vibration data,

    whenever these are available, represent the vulnerability of a bridge with greater accuracy

    than fragility curves based only on the geometry and material properties (Gomez, Torbol,

    & Feng, 2013). Most of the studies states that fragility curves can be empirically and

    analytically generated.

    The empirical fragility curves are usually developed based on the damage reports

    from past earthquakes (Jernigan & Hwang, 2002). While the analytical fragility curves

    are developed through seismic response data from the analysis of bridges. The fragility

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    23/124

    23

    analysis generally includes three major parts: (a) the simulation of ground motions,

    (b) the simulation of bridges to account for uncertainty in bridge properties, and (c) the

    generation of fragility curves from the seismic response data of the bridges.

    Nonlinear analysis requires thinking about inelastic behavior and limit states that depend

    on deformations as well as forces. They also require definition of component models that

    capture the force-deformation response of components and systems based on expected

    strength and stiffness properties and large deformations (Deierlein, Reinhorn, & Willford,

    2010). The seismic response data can be obtained from nonlinear time history

    analysis, elastic spectral analysis, or nonlinear static analysis (Choi, DesRoches, &

    Nielson, 2004).

    The nonlinear static analysis is normally used for determining the capacities

    beyond the elastic limit. One type of nonlinear static analysis is the pushover analysis

    wherein which it is mainly used for estimating the strength and drift capacity of a structure

    when subjected to selected earthquake. It incorporates the nonlinear-deformation

    characteristics of individual components and subjects the elements of a structure

    to monotonically increasing lateral load within a height-wise distribution until a

    predetermined displacement is attained (Requiso, Balili, & Garciano, 2013). The static

    pushover analysis has no rigorous theoretical foundation. It is based on the assumption

    that the response of the structure can be related to the response of an equivalent single

    degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system. This implies that the response is controlled by a

    single mode, and that the shape of this mode remains constants throughout the time

    history response. Clearly, both assumptions are incorrect, but pilot studies carried out by

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    24/124

    24

    several investigators have indicated that these assumptions lead to rather good

    predictions of the maximum seismic response of multi degree-of-freedom (MDOF)

    structures, provided their response is dominated by a single mode (Krawinkler &

    Seneviratna, 1998). In the pushover analysis, it is assumed that the target displacement

    for the MDOF structure can be estimated as the displacement demand for the

    corresponding equivalent SDOF system (Krawinkler & Seneviratna, 1998).

    The pushover is expected to provide information on many response characteristics

    that cannot be obtained from an elastic static and dynamic analysis. The following are the

    examples of such response characteristics:

    a. The realistic force demands on potentially brittle elements (axial, shear,

    moment).

    b. Estimates of the deformation demands for elements that have to deform

    inelastically in order to dissipate the energy imparted to the structure by ground

    motions.c. Consequences of the strength deterioration of individual elements on the

    behavior of the structural system.

    d. Identification of the critical regions in which the deformation demands are

    expected to be high and that to become the focus of thorough detailing,

    e. Identification of the strength discontinuities in plan or elevation that will lead to

    changes in the dynamic characteristics in the elastic range.

    f. Verification of the completeness and adequacy of load path, considering all the

    elements of the structural system, all the connections, the stiff non-

    structural elements of significant strength, and the foundation system.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    25/124

    25

    In contrast to the nonlinear static procedure, the nonlinear dynamic procedure,

    when properly implemented, provides a more accurate calculation of the structural

    response to strong ground shaking. Since the nonlinear dynamic analysis model

    incorporates inelastic member behavior under cyclic earthquake ground motions, the

    nonlinear dynamic procedure explicitly simulates hysteretic energy dissipation in the

    nonlinear range (Nielson, 2005). In nonlinear dynamic analysis, the detailed structural

    model subjected to a ground-motion record produces estimates of component

    deformations for each degree of freedom in the model and the modal responses

    are combined using schemes such as the square-root-sum-of-squares (Requiso D.

    A., 2013).

    Time-history analysis is a step-by-step integration analysis performed in the time

    domain. It is the most rational method for earthquake response analysis because it can

    account for all sources of nonlinearity. Although this method is computationally intensive,

    it is the preferred method for investigating the response of bridges subjected to seismic

    excitation. Similarly to the pushover analysis, SAP2000 can also directly perform the time

    history analysis to obtain the nonlinear behavior, which includes generation of the

    hysteresis models (Requiso D. A., 2013).

    In establishing the seismic fragility curves, there is no universally applicable best

    method for calculating fragility curves. Different methods may be preferred depending on

    the circumstances (Requiso, Balili, & Garciano, 2013). The information that would be

    derived from the fragility curve can be used by design engineers, researchers, reliability

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    26/124

    26

    experts, insurance experts and administrators of critical systems to analyze evaluate

    and improve the seismic performance of both structural and non-structural systems

    (Requiso D. A., 2013). In principle, the development of bridge fragility curves will

    require synergistic use of the following methods: (1) professional judgment, (2) quasi-

    static and design code consistent analysis, (3) utilization of damage data associated

    with past earthquakes, and (4) numerical simulation of bridge seismic response

    based on structural dynamics (Shinozuka, Feng, Kim, Uzawa, & Ueda, 2003).

    2.3 Seismic Fragility Analysis in the Philippines

    In the local setting, seismic assessment of bridge piers and a fish port was recently

    implemented by students in one of the universities in the countrys capital. Their study

    was based from works of Karim-Yamazaki, Shinozuka et. al, and Ang-Park type of fragility

    curves with emphasis on the nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses. Figures 7

    and 8 summarize this seismic assessment depending in the damage rank classification

    based from HAZUS (Baylon M. B., 2015).

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    27/124

    27

    Figure 7. Summary of Seismic Fragility Curves of some lifelines in CAMANAVA area ofDamage Rank As

    Source: (Baylon M. B., 2015)

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1

    1.2

    0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

    PROBABILITYO

    FEXCEEDANCE(SHEAR)

    PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (in g)

    FRAGILITY CURVES

    DAMAGE RANK ="As"

    Navotas Fishport

    Lambingan

    Tullahan(Mal-Val)

    Bangkulasi

    Tullahan (Ugong)

    LRT1 South

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    28/124

    28

    Figure 8. Summary of Seismic Fragility Curves of some lifelines in CAMANAVA area ofDamage Rank A

    Source: (Baylon M. B., 2015)

    2.4 Synthesis

    Based from the previous studies reviewed, theres no definite approach of interval

    uncertainty analysis to the construction of seismic fragility curves. Albeit, the interval

    analysis has been in the research arena for quite a long time, reliability analysis of

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1

    1.2

    0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

    PROBABILITYOFE

    XCEEDANCE(SHEAR)

    PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (in g)

    FRAGILITY CURVES

    DAMAGE RANK = "A"

    Navotas Fishport

    Lambingan

    Tullahan(Mal-Val)

    Bangkulasi

    Tullahan (Ugong)

    LRT1 South

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    29/124

    29

    structures using this method was already applied to sophisticated analysis, such as finite

    element approach, but not yet with the fragility analysis. Some of the reliability analyses

    presented in this chapter has been reviewed and motivated the present study to pursue

    with one thing in mind: assessing the performance of bridge pier using fragility analysis.

    The present study attempts to apply the interval analysis with the incorporation of

    uncertainty in the results of nonlinear structural analyses, namely, the pushover curve

    and hysteresis area; thus, an interval uncertainty analysis fragility curve or IUA-FC.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    30/124

    30

    CHAPTER 3

    CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

    3.1 Conceptual Framework

    Figure 9 illustrates the conceptual framework of the present study. Using the

    structural model and normalized ground motion data, nonlinear static and dynamic

    analyses were used in the preliminary steps for the conventional seismic fragility

    development. The current study used shear as the mode of failure. The output of these

    two nonlinear analyses were the parameters as inputs to the damage index formula.

    Using interval uncertainty analysis, these parameters were calculated to obtain the lower

    bound, upper bound, and mean value of the damage indices for every ground motion

    datas peak ground accelerations (PGA) from 0.2g to 2.0g . These damage ranks were

    counted as frequencies to compute the probabilities of occurrence for various peak

    ground acceleration (PGA) values. For every damage level, probabilities of occurrence

    were used to compute the mean and standard deviations to be used in the lognormal

    equation for the fragility analysis. Plotting the cumulative lognormal probability versus the

    peak ground acceleration for every damage levels creates the seismic fragility curves.

    Comparing these fragility curves to the conventional seismic fragility curves creates

    another plot of the difference of IUAs mean probabilities to that of conventional

    probabilities versus PGA.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    31/124

    31

    Figure 9. Conceptual Framework of the Study

    Nonlinear Static

    Analysis

    (Pushover

    Analysis)

    Nonlinear

    Dynamic Analysis

    (Time History

    Analysis)

    IUA Seismic

    Fragility Curves

    Structural Model

    Ground motion data

    Mode of Failure

    SHEAR

    Parameters for

    Damage Index

    Interval

    Uncertainty

    Analysis (IUA)

    DAMAGE

    INDICES

    Checking for Optimum Coefficient of Variation to be used for

    the 2ndPass of IUA

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    32/124

    32

    Nonlinear Static

    Analysis

    (Pushover

    Analysis)

    Nonlinear

    Dynamic

    Analysis (Time

    History Analysis)

    IUA Seismic

    Fragility Curves

    Structural Model

    Ground motion data

    Mode of Failure

    SHEAR

    Parameters for

    Damage Index

    DAMAGE

    INDICES

    Interval Uncertainty

    Analysis (IUA)

    Figure 10. Interval Uncertainty Analysis after the First Pass.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    33/124

    33

    3.2 Theoretical Framework

    3.2.1 PGA Normalization

    Using structural model of the building and normalized ground motion data as an

    input subjected to two nonlinear methods namely nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear

    dynamic analysis to develop seismic fragility curves. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)

    normalization is done by generating the original data to create another data for different

    PGAs. This is basically the same graph but different extent depending on the PGA. In the

    present study, the PGA normalization ranges from 0.2 g to 2.0 g.

    3.2.2 Pushover Analysis (Nonlinear Static Analysis)

    Nonlinear static analysis, also called as pushover analysis, is used to investigate

    the force-deformation behavior of a structure for a specified distribution of forces, typically

    lateral forces (Chopra, 2012). In this study, the pushover analysis is applied to produce

    pushover curve showing the relationship between the force and the displacement that

    would be used for further analysis.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    34/124

    34

    3.2.3 Time History Analysis (Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis)

    In the present study, the researcher is adopting the concept of time history analysis

    considering the Bangkulasi Bridge as a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system which

    is subjected to normalized ground motion having different excitations.

    The formula adopted from Karim and Yamazaki (2001) shown in equation 1 where

    the ground motion data is multiplied by the ratio of the normalized and original peak

    ground acceleration defines the relationship of various earthquakes while maintaining its

    time history pattern.

    SOURCENEW uAu

    0 (1)

    Where:

    SOURCENEW uAu

    0 = the normalized ground motion data.

    SOURCEu = the source ground motion data.

    0A =a coefficient factor to normalize the source of ground motion =

    source

    normalized

    PGA

    PGA

    Using software, the acceleration time histories obtained was used as an input

    producing another relationship between the force and displacement called the hysteresis

    model (bilinear model).

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    35/124

    35

    3.2.4 Ductility Factors

    From the output of the nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses which are

    the push-over curve and hysteresis model respectively, the ductility factors were obtained

    using the following equations, also adopted from Karim and Yamazaki (2001).

    y

    dynamic

    d

    max (2)

    y

    static

    u

    max (3)

    e

    h

    h

    E

    E (4)

    Where:

    = displacement ductility

    = ultimate ductility

    = hysteretic energy ductility

    = displacement at maximum reaction at the push over curve (static)

    = maximum displacement at the hysteresis model (dynamic)

    = yield displacement from the push-over curve (static)

    = hysteretic energy, i.e., area under the hysteresis model

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    36/124

    36

    = yield energy, i.e., area under the push-over curve (static) but until yield point

    only

    3.2.5 Damage Index and Damage Rank

    Once ductility factors are obtained, damage indices for the conventional seismic

    fragility curves can be determined using equation 5, taking which is the cyclic loading

    factor as 0.15 according to Jiang, et. al (2012), for bridges.

    u

    hd

    DI

    (5)

    After computing the damage indices, damage rank for each damage index

    was determined using Table 2.

    Table 2. Relationship between the damage index and damage rank based from HAZUS (2013).

    Damage Index () Damage Rank (DR) Definition

    0.00

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    37/124

    37

    by upper and lower bound of an interval in both axis. Given two interval numbers X~

    and

    Y~

    whose lower and upper bound has this symbol:

    XXX ~

    ; YYY ~

    (6)

    With this definition, the following interval arithmetic operationsequations adopted

    from Moore et al. (2009) are computed with sets;

    Addition

    = [ ] 7

    Subtraction

    = [ ] 8

    Multiplication

    = min max 9

    Where:

    = { } (10)

    Division

    It can be accomplished via multiplication by the reciprocal of the second operand.

    = (1 ) (11)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    38/124

    38

    Where:

    1 = [1 1 ] (12)

    Assume that 0

    3.2.7 Interval Uncertainty Analysis (IUA)

    Applying the interval uncertainty analysis to the preceding topics discussed

    generates an interval of damage indices. According to Modares et al. (2014) interval

    analysis is widely applied in engineering especially for civil engineering. In designing,

    some values are assumed knowing that it is unknown but bounded. The concept of the

    interval uncertainty analysis is to obtain a range of values incorporating the uncertainties.

    Using interval analysis, the ductility factors and the damage indices equations are

    now bounded as shown in the following equations:

    y

    dynamic

    d

    ~

    ~

    ~ max (13)

    y

    static

    u

    ~

    ~

    ~ max (14)

    e

    h

    h

    E

    E~

    ~

    ~ (15)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    39/124

    39

    Where:

    = interval of displacement ductility

    = interval of ultimate ductility

    = interval of hysteretic energy ductility

    = interval of displacement at maximum reaction at the push over curve

    (static)

    = interval of maximum displacement at the hysteresis model

    (dynamic)

    = interval of yield displacement from the push-over curve (static)

    =interval of hysteretic energy, i.e., area under the hysteresis model

    = interval of yield energy, i.e., area under the push-over curve (static) but until

    yield point only

    After the interval of ductility factors are obtained, damage indices for the IUA

    seismic fragility curves can be determined using equation 5 and taking as 0.10 for

    vertical structures and 0.15 for bridges.

    =

    +

    (16)

    Where:

    ;

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    40/124

    40

    The output of these equations can now be used to determine the range of damage

    indices for every ground motion data from 0.2g to 2.0g peak ground acceleration (PGA).

    Having the damage indices interval obtained, damage rank per PGA for upper and

    lower bound can now be obtained using the Table 2.

    3.2.8 Probability of Exceedance

    Once the parameters have been obtained, the cumulative probability of occurrence

    () of the damage, equal or higher than the damage rank, is computed using equation

    15.

    XP

    r

    ln (17)

    Where:

    rP =Cumulative Probability of Exceedance

    = Cumulative Normal Distribution Function

    X = Peak Ground Acceleration

    = Mean

    Standard Deviation

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    41/124

    41

    Plotting the values of cumulative lognormal probability against the peak ground

    acceleration creates seismic fragility curve. After the conventional and IUA seismic

    fragility curves are developed, evaluation of probability of exceedance difference would

    take place.

    The statistical formulas used in deriving the mean and standard deviation were

    based from an ungrouped data premise.

    N

    i

    i

    N

    i

    ii

    f

    xf

    1

    1

    ln

    (18)

    1

    ln

    1

    2

    N

    x

    N

    i

    i

    (19)

    Where:

    f = frequency of damage rank per PGA.

    x =the PGA in cm/s2.

    =the mean of the natural logarithm of PGA, in cm/s2.

    =the standard deviation of the PGA, in cm/s2.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    42/124

    42

    CHAPTER 4

    RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

    4.1 Input data

    Structural Plans

    The structural plans of Bangkulasi Bridge were obtained from Bureau of Designs

    in Department of Public Works and Highways-National Capital Region.

    Pier 2 of the Bangkulasi Bridge as it can be seen in its general elevation plan of

    Figure 11was assumed as the more probable to fail when subjected to earthquake

    load. The elevation plan of the pier is shown in Figure 12. Referring to Figures 13 to 15,

    Pier 2 is composed of 4-1200mm piles as seen in its detailed bored pile elevation, the

    section of a typical pier, and that of the section of coping.

    Based from these sectional properties of the structural plans, dimensions were

    incorporated in both the resistance and load effect models.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    43/124

    43

    Figure 11. General Elevation Plan of the Bridge Showing Pier 2

    Figure 12. Elevation Plan of the Pier

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    44/124

    44

    Figure 13. Detail of Bored Pile

    Figure 14. Section A of the Bored Pile

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    45/124

    45

    Figure 15. Section C (Coping)

    Ground Motion Data

    The secured ground motion data of significant earthquakes from Philippine

    Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), Pacific Earthquake Engineering

    Research (PEE), and Kik-Net were used as loads for the structure. Tables 2 and 3 are

    pertinent data of the ground motion used for the simulation. These ground motion data

    were normalized in such a way that a total of ten (10) were created from the base data.

    This is based from the previous study used in developing fragility curves by Requiso et.

    al.

    The ground motion data that was used in this study are summarized as follows:

    1. Tohoku-Kanto-FKS March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0

    2. Tohoku-Kanto-AIC March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0

    3. Tohoku-Kanto-HYG March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0

    4. Tohoku-SIT March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0

    5. Bohol October 15, 2013 Magnitude 7.2

    6. Mindoro (Cainta, Rizal station) November 15, 1994 Magnitude7.1

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    46/124

    46

    7. Mindoro (Station Quezon City) November 15, 1994 Magnitude 7.1

    8. Mindoro (Station Marikina City) November 15, 1994 Magnitude 7.1

    9. Kobe Shin-Osaka January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9

    10. Kobe Takarazuka January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9

    11. Kobe Takatori January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9

    12. Kobe Nishi-Akashi January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9

    13. Kobe Kakogawa January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9

    14. Kobe KJM January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9

    15. Kobe HIK January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9

    Table 3. Pertinent ground motion (East-West) data of the Bohol, Philippines earthquakeFILE: 201310150012.TBPS.HNE.cor

    DATE: 10/15/2013 0:12STATION: TBPSStation LATITUDE: 9.691Station LONGITUDE: 123.862SR: 100 HzEarthquake Latitude: 9.8Earthquake Longitude: 123.8

    Earthquake Depth: 10.0 kmEarthquake Magnitude: 7.2Earthquake MECH: 1 [0 = null,1 = reverse,2 = strike-slip, 3 = normal ]RHYP: 17.1 kmPGA: 2.137010 m/s/s (0.217907 g)PGV: 0.668706 m/sInstrument corrected time histories filtered using a 4th orderButterworth bandpass between 0.4-50.0 Hz

    Record Processed: 2014-04-03 13:50

    Table 4. Pertinent ground motion (Up and Down) data of the Bohol, Philippinesearthquake

    FILE: 201310150012.TBPS.HNZ.cor

    DATE: 10/15/2013 0:12

    STATION: TBPSStation LATITUDE: 9.691Station LONGITUDE: 123.862SR: 100 HzEarthquake Latitude: 9.8Earthquake Longitude: 123.8Earthquake Depth: 10.0 kmEarthquake Magnitude: 7.2Earthquake MECH: 1 [0 = null,1 = reverse,2 = strike-slip, 3 = normal ]RHYP: 17.1 kmPGA: 1.364399 m/s/s (0.139125 g)PGV: 0.370004 m/s

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    47/124

    47

    Instrument corrected time histories filtered using a 4th orderButterworth bandpass between 0.4-50.0 Hz

    Record Processed: 2014-04-03 13:50

    This ground motion data can be plotted in MS Excel as shown in Figure 16.

    Figure 16. Ground motion data of Bohol October 2013 earthquakenormalized in 0.2g.

    4.4 Interval Uncertainty Analysis method of reliability analysis

    The MatLab script named IUA_DI.m (Algorithm 1 in the Appendices) was then

    developed for computing the damage indices using Interval Uncertainty Analysis (IUA).

    Equations to calculate in the section of chapter 3 were used and implemented.

    To calculate an interval, i.e., lower bound and upper values, one has to consider

    the function:

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    48/124

    48

    ]cov)1(cov)1([][~ xx

    xxx (20)

    where:

    x~ = a 2x1 vector, known as an interval value.

    xx, = the lower bound value and the upper bound value, respectively.

    x = the mean value

    cov = coefficient of variation value

    xx =the formula for the lower bound

    xx = the formula for the upper bound

    It is assumed that the probability distribution for each interval to be normal

    distribution. According to Modares, Taha, & Mohammadi (2014), a unity multiplier for the

    standard deviation is recommended for both the lower and upper bound of the interval.

    Figure 17 shows the illustration of this assumption.

    Where X is the interval, is the lower bound, and is the upper bound

    To get the lower and upper bound, a coefficient of variation (c.o.v.) is assumed to

    1%, 5%, 10%, and 20%, to set the value of standard deviation, , given the mean value,

    .

    . . .= (21)

    = ... (22)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    49/124

    49

    = 1 . . . 1 . . . (23)

    Input intervals in Equations 13 to 15 were used to implement Interval Uncertainty

    Analysis (IUA). To come up with the values of the damage index intervals, the parameters

    which were obtained from the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses maximum and

    yield displacements, hysteretic energy, and elastic energy were used to apply

    applicable interval arithmetic operations.

    Figure 17. Normal probability function assumption of an interval value.

    4.5 A library of MatLab functions implementing interval arithmetic operations

    In the implementation of interval uncertainty analysis, it was convenient to develop

    separate customized functions that implements interval arithmetic operations. Algorithm

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    50/124

    50

    2 is a collection of MatLab functions created for this purpose. These functions are based

    from the equations in section 3.2.2, that is, basic discussion of interval arithmetic

    operations.

    The following steps were implemented to Algorithm 2.

    Step 1: Impose a value for the coefficient of variation (COV). In this study a value of 5%

    was used.

    Step 2: The COV value will be used in computing the standard deviation by multiplying

    the mean value by the COV.

    Step 3: The mean value and standard deviation value will be used in calculating the lower

    and upper bounds of any interval value.

    Step 4: Using the different fundamental arithmetic operations of intervals, one can

    compute for the sum, difference, product, and quotient of an interval arithmetic operation.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    51/124

    51

    4.6 Research paradigm

    The research paradigm is shown in Figure 18.

    Figure 18. Research paradigm

    Once all necessary section properties have been defined the actual simulation can

    now be performed. To do so, the lateral ground motion of Types 1 & 2 earthquake would

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    52/124

    52

    be considered and a nonlinear static procedure would be used to account for the shear

    failure namely the pushover analysis. Using the software (SAP 2000), the implementation

    of the pushover procedures as prescribed in ATC-40 and FEMA-273 and the time history

    analysis would be faster, reliable and easier since it was already integrated into the

    software. All the results then are obtained and be ready for the seismic fragility curve

    development. Using MatLab and MS Excel Spreadsheet, damage indices were

    determined using interval arithmetic operations. These damage indices in interval form

    were separated into lower bound, upper bound, and mean for the processing of the

    corresponding fragility curve and combination thereof. From these processed values,

    probability of occurrence values were calculated thru spreadsheet solution. The statistical

    parameters to obtain the probability of exceedance values, i.e., mean and standard

    deviation, were computed using conventional statistical formulas used for ungrouped

    data. For given PGA, probability of exceedance values were calculated using the

    lognormal transformation as proposed by Shinozuka (2000).

    4.6.1 SAP2000

    The following procedures, a step-by-step in conducting the push-over analysis and

    time history analysis in SAP 2000. (Requiso, 2013)

    1. Create a model without the pushover analysis

    2. Define the properties and acceptance criteria for the pushover hinges.

    3. Establish the pushover hinges on the model by selecting one or more frame

    member/s and assign its hinge properties and location.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    53/124

    53

    4. Define the load cases of the pushover analysis. These load cases are

    combination of dead load and the pushover load case itself.

    5. Run the basic static analysis, if desired, dynamic analysis. Then run the static

    nonlinear pushover analysis

    6. SAP2000 can demonstrate the pushover curve by simply clicking the display

    menu and selecting the show pushover curve function at the topmost toolbar of

    the program. This would show you a table which gives the coordinates of each

    step of the curve. It also allows the user to print the pushover curve or convert it

    to an excel file to analyze the results

    Once done with the steps pushover analysis will now be obtained, the results

    would be used in the next procedure which is the nonlinear dynamic analysis (Time history

    analysis). The following step-by-step procedure of Karim and Yamazaki (2001) in

    performing the nonlinear dynamic analysis (Time History Analysis) is used.

    1. Select the ground motion data records.

    2. Normalize the PGA of the strong motion data records to be used. For this step,

    you can normalize the peak ground acceleration by depending on the highest

    value among the records. After picking the highest value in the records, you can

    now use equation 1 which is mentioned in chapter 3 of the study. The result

    would now be considered as normalized record to be used.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    54/124

    54

    3. Create a computer model in SAP 2000, you can use the exact computer model

    from the pushover model but make sure to remove all the pushover data and

    load cases.

    4. Obtain the structures stiffness by nonlinear static analysis.

    5. Plot the stiffness of the structure in order to obtain its yield point and maximum

    displacement.

    6. Perform the nonlinear dynamic response analysis (time-history analysis), using

    the selecting strong motion records. In order to get the hysteresis area, you need

    to plot the coordinates of the hysteresis area to AutoCAD.

    7. Compute the ductility factors of the structure by performing the ductility equations

    2, 3 and 4.

    8. Obtain the damage indices of the structure in each excitation level using eq.5.

    Use table 3.1 to calibrate the index of the damage done.

    9. Obtain the total occurrence for each damage rank and get the damage ratio.

    10. Construct the fragility curve by using the computed damage ratio and the ground

    motion indices for each rank.

    The damage ratio is defined as the number of occurrence of each damage rank

    (no, slight, moderate, extensive, and complete) divided by the total number of records.

    Once obtained, the damage ratio is plotted with the in (PGA) on a lognormal probability

    paper to obtain the necessary parameters (mean and standard deviation).

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    55/124

    55

    Once the mean and standard deviation have been obtained, the cumulative

    probability (PR) of occurrence of the damage equal or higher than the damage rank can

    be computed using equation 6. Then by simply plotting acquired cumulative probability

    with the peak ground acceleration (PGA normalized to different excitation), the fragility

    curve can now be obtained.

    4.6.2 Conventional Seismic Fragility Curves

    Conventional seismic fragility curves are created by plotting the cumulative

    lognormal probability against peak ground acceleration. The steps to develop

    conventional seismic fragility curves are as follows:

    1. Obtain ductility factors. After obtaining the results from the two nonlinear analyses,

    the ductility factors namely displacement ductility, ultimate ductility and hysteric

    energy ductility factors are computed using the equations 2,3 and 4, respectively

    which was adopted from Karim and Yamazaki (2001)

    2. Obtain damage indices. Using equation 5 taking as 0.15, damage indices for

    every PGA are calculated considering the values obtained from the previous step.

    3. Determine the damage rank. After damage indices are obtained, damage rank can

    be determined referring to table 2.

    4. Obtain the probability of occurrence. Determine the probability of occurrence by

    dividing the number of occurrence to the total number of occurrence.

    5. Obtain the cumulative lognormal probability. Using equation 16, the probability of

    exceedance is calculated for every PGA.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    56/124

    56

    6. Plot the conventional seismic fragility curves. From the statement above, the

    fragility curves is developed by plotting the lognormal probability versus the peak

    ground acceleration.

    4.6.3 Interval Uncertainty Analysis

    The process for the interval uncertainty analysis is quite the same as the

    conventional procedure but the parameters obtained are bounded. The procedure for

    generating IUA seismic fragility curves are the following:

    1. From the results of the two nonlinear analyses; maximum displacement for static

    static, maximum displacement for dynamic dynamic, yield

    displacement for static (), hysteretic energy (Eh), and yield energy Ee, the

    interval showing the lower bound and upper bound of the parameters are

    computed using the following equations taking COV or coefficient of variation as

    5%.

    static = 1COV 1COV (24)

    dynamic = 1 C O V 1COV (25)

    = 1COV 1 C O V (26)

    Eh = Eh1 C O V Eh1 C O V (27)

    Ee = Ee1 C O V Ee1 C O V (28)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    57/124

    57

    2. Obtain ductility factors. For the IUA process, the ductility factors are also obtained

    with boundaries using equations 13, 14 and 15. The ductility factors for the

    boundaries (lower and upper) are computed separately.

    3. Obtain damage indices. Using equation 16 taking as 0.15, damage indices for

    every PGA are calculated considering the values obtained from the previous step.

    Damage indices are computed differently for the lower bound and upper bound.

    4. Determine the damage rank. After damage indices are obtained, damage rank for

    each boundary can be determined referring to Table 2.

    5. Obtain the probability of occurrence. Determine the probability of occurrence by

    dividing the number of occurrence to the total number of occurrence.

    6. Obtain the cumulative lognormal probability. Using equation 17, the probability of

    exceedance is calculated for every PGA and for each boundary. Using equations

    18 and 19, the statistical parameters of the lognormal probability is computed.

    7. Plot the IUA seismic fragility curves. Plot different fragility curve for the lower bound

    and another for the upper bound.

    8. Compare conventional fragility curves to IUA fragility curves. Determine the mean

    of the lower and upper bound fragility curve to come up with a new IUA seismic

    fragility curve which will be compared to the conventional seismic fragility curve.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    58/124

    58

    CHAPTER 5

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

    5.1 Fragility Analysis

    The results of the Nonlinear Static Analysis or Pushover analysis is a pushover

    curve as seen in Figure 19. It can be seen from this pushover curve the yield

    displacement of 0.016479 m and a maximum displacement of 0.138127 m.

    Figure 19. Pushover curve from nonlinear static analysis of SAP2000.

    0.016479, 10652.435

    0.138127, 11717.678

    0

    2000

    4000

    6000

    8000

    10000

    12000

    14000

    0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

    Force(kN)

    displacement (m)

    Pushover Curve

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    59/124

    59

    The pushover curve in Figure 19 is zoomed-in, thus, Figure 20 can be seen

    showing the area bounded by the origin to the yield point. This area is called the energy

    yield or Ee. The computed value of the energy at yield point is 87.77073818 kJ.

    Figure 20. Pushover curve (zoomed in) to compute the energy at yield Ee.

    After the researcher ran the model in the pushover analysis, he used the time-

    history analysis with the result of hysteresis model as shown in Figure 21. This hysteresis

    figure was then plot to Autodesks AutoCAD to compute for the area of the hysteresis.

    The coordinates of the hysteresis were derived from the SAP2000 results. Thus,

    computing the area known in this literature as Hysteretic energy, Eh. This can be seen

    in Figure 22. The maximum displacement in dynamic analysis for a PGA of 0.2g in the

    0.016479, 10652.435

    0

    2000

    4000

    6000

    8000

    10000

    12000

    14000

    0

    0.001

    0.002

    0.003

    0.004

    0.005

    0.006

    0.007

    0.008

    0.009

    0.01

    0.011

    0.012

    0.013

    0.014

    0.015

    0.016

    0.017

    0.018

    0.019

    0.02

    Force(k

    N)

    displacement (m)

    Pushover Curve (zoomed in)

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    60/124

    60

    Tohoku-Kanto (Fukushima station) is found to be 0.03564 m and hysteretic energy of

    3.45667199 kJ.

    Figure 21. Hysteresis Model of Tohoku-Kanto Fukushima-2g (1 out of 300 hysteresismodel) using SAP2000.

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    61/124

    61

    Figure 22. Hysteretic energy computation using Autodesk's AutoCAD.

    Abovementioned result values are then collected as follows derived from the

    nonlinear analyses of SAP2000:

    y

    0.016479 m; static

    max 0.138127 m;

    eE 87.77073818 kJ

    dynamic

    max 0.03564 m;

    hE 3.45667199 kJ

    From these values, the following ductility factors can be solved.

    2.162753016479.0

    03564.0max

    y

    dynamic

    d

    8.382001016479.0

    138127.0max

    y

    static

    u

    0.03938377073818.87

    45667199.3

    e

    h

    h

    E

    E

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    62/124

    62

    The damage index can now be calculated with the cyclic loading be 0.15 for

    bridges.

    0.2587288.382001

    0.0393830.152.162753

    u

    hd

    DI

    Based from the damage rank of Table 2, the corresponding damage rank for a

    damage index of 0.258728 falls in the closed interval [0.14, 0.40], that is, D which is

    equivalent to Slight Damage definition. Using MS Excel spreadsheet, these sample

    computations were done as shown in Table 5.

    Table 5. Summary of calculations of ductility factors, damage indices, and damageranks using MS Excel Spreadsheet. For Tohoku-Kanto Eq. (Fukushima)

    PGA/gNLSA NLDA DUCTILITY FACTORS

    DAMAGE

    INDEX

    DAMAGE

    RANK

    max y Ee max y Eh d u h (DI) (DR)

    0.2 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.036 0.016 3.457 2.163 8.382 0.039 0.259 C

    0.4 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.071 0.016 13.827 4.326 8.382 0.158 0.519 B

    0.6 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.107 0.016 31.110 6.488 8.382 0.354 0.780 A

    0.8 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.143 0.016 55.307 8.651 8.382 0.630 1.043 As

    1.0 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.178 0.016 86.417 10.814 8.382 0.985 1.308 As

    1.2 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.214 0.016 124.440 12.977 8.382 1.418 1.574 As

    1.4 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.249 0.016 169.377 15.139 8.382 1.930 1.841 As

    1.6 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.285 0.016 221.227 17.302 8.382 2.521 2.109 As

    1.8 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.321 0.016 279.990 19.465 8.382 3.190 2.379 As

    2.0 0.138 0.016 87.771 0.356 0.016 345.667 21.628 8.382 3.938 2.651 As

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    63/124

    63

    5.2 Probability of Occurrence

    After calculating the conventional and IUA damage indices using the Algorithm 1

    and MS Excel spreadsheets, Tables 5, 6, and 7 summarize the respective damage ratios.

    For this tabulation, the initial value of coefficient of variation (c.o.v.) of 5% was used.

    Table 6. Summary of Damage Ratio for the Conventional fragility curves

    PGA

    DAMAGE RANK

    D C B A As

    0.2 g 0.4 0.046875 0 0 0

    0.4 g 0.2333333 0.125 0 0 0

    0.6 g 0.2333333 0.109375 0.0909091 0 00.8 g 0.1333333 0.0625 0.5454545 0.047619 0

    1.0 g 0 0.109375 0.3636364 0.1904762 0

    1.2 g 0 0.109375 0 0.3333333 0.041667

    1.4 g 0 0.109375 0 0.2857143 0.083333

    1.6 g 0 0.109375 0 0.0952381 0.25

    1.8 g 0 0.109375 0 0.047619 0.291667

    2.0 g 0 0.109375 0 0 0.333333

    Table 7. Summary of Damage Ratio for the IUA fragility curves (Lower Bound)

    PGA

    DAMAGE RATIO

    D C B A As

    0.2 g 0.4285714 0.0461538 0 0 0

    0.4 g 0.25 0.1230769 0 0 0

    0.6 g 0.25 0.0923077 0.1818182 0 0

    0.8 g 0.0714286 0.0923077 0.5454545 0.05 0

  • 7/25/2019 MSCE Thesis Final Draft (Baylon as of 02 04 2016).pdf

    64/124

    64

    1.0 g 0 0.1076923 0.2727273 0.25 0

    1.2 g 0 0.1076923 0 0.35 0.038462

    1.4 g 0 0.1076923 0 0.3 0.076923

    1.6 g 0 0.1076923 0 0.05 0.269231

    1.8 g 0 0.1076923 0 0 0.307692

    2.0 g 0 0.1076923 0 0 0.307692

    Table 8. Summary of Damage Ratio for the IUA fragility curves (Upper Bound)

    PGA

    DAMAGE RATIO

    D C B A As

    0.2 g 0.5 0.1481481 0 0 0

    0.4 g 0.5 0.1296296 0.0416667 0 0

    0.6 g 0 0.1296296 0.25 0.1538462 00.8 g 0 0.1296296 0 0.5384615 0.022222

    1.0 g 0 0.1296296 0 0.3076923 0.088889

    1.2 g 0 0.1296296 0 0 0.177778

    1.4 g 0 0.1296296 0 0 0.177778

    1.6 g 0 0.0740741 0.125 0 0.177778

    1.8 g 0 0 0.2916667 0 0.177778

    2.0 g 0 0 0.2916667 0 0.177778