This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

com/locate/engstruct

**Fragility analysis of ﬂat-slab structures
**

M. Altug Erberik, Amr S. Elnashai Ã

Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 205 Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801-2352, USA Received 17 June 2003; received in revised form 20 February 2004; accepted 23 February 2004

Abstract Flat-slab RC buildings exhibit several advantages over conventional moment-resisting frames. However, the structural eﬀectiveness of ﬂat-slab construction is hindered by its alleged inferior performance under earthquake loading. Although ﬂat-slab systems are widely used in earthquake prone regions of the world, fragility curves for this type of construction are not available in the literature. This study focuses on the derivation of such fragility curves using medium-rise ﬂat-slab buildings with masonry inﬁll walls. The study employed a set of earthquake records compatible with the design spectrum selected to represent the variability in ground motion. Inelastic response-history analysis was used to analyze the random sample of structures subjected to the suite of records scaled in terms of displacement spectral ordinates, whilst monitoring four performance limit states. The fragility curves developed from this study were compared with the fragility curves derived for moment-resisting RC frames. The study concluded that earthquake losses for ﬂat-slab structures are in the same range as for moment-resisting frames. Diﬀerences, however, exist. The study also showed that the diﬀerences were justiﬁable in terms of structural response characteristics of the two structural forms. # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flat slabs; Fragility relationships; Seismic response; Reinforced concrete buildings

1. Introduction The signiﬁcant social and economic impacts of recent earthquakes aﬀecting urban areas have resulted in an increased awareness of the potential seismic hazard and the corresponding vulnerability of the existing building stock required for estimating seismic risk. Greater eﬀort has been made to estimate and mitigate the risks associated with these potential losses. In order to successfully mitigate potential losses and to aid in post-disaster decision-making processes, the expected damage and the associated loss in urban areas caused by earthquakes should be estimated with an acceptable degree of certainty. Seismic loss assessment depends on the comprehensive nature of estimating vulnerability. The determination of vulnerability measure requires the assessment of the seismic performances of all types of building structures typically

Ã Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-217-333-8038; fax: +1-217-3339464. E-mail address: aelnash@uiuc.edu (A.S. Elnashai).

constructed in an urban region when subjected to a series of earthquakes, taking into account the particular response characteristics of each structural type. The fragility study generally focuses on the generic types of construction because of the enormity of the problem. Hence, simpliﬁed structural models with random properties to account for the uncertainties in the structural parameters are used for all representative building types. The ﬂat-slab system, as shown in Fig. 1, is a special structural form of reinforced concrete construction that possesses major advantages over the conventional moment-resisting frames. The former system provides architectural ﬂexibility, unobstructed space, lower building height, easier formwork and shorter construction time. There are however, some serious issues that require examination with the ﬂat-slab construction system. One of the issues which were observed is the potentially large transverse displacements because of the absence of deep beams and/or shear walls, resulting in low transverse stiﬀness. This causes excessive deformations which in turn cause damage of non-

0141-0296/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.02.012

The selected dimensions of the building Fig.S. 3. 2. 2. Illustration of a typical ﬂat-slab structural form. This uncertainty is due to variability in ground motion characteristics. 2. The reason for choosing a mid-rise building is twofold. slab–column connections must undergo the lateral deformations of the primary lateral load-resisting structural elements without punching failure in order to sustain the gravity loads.938 M. service gravity loads. the response under moderate earthquakes indicates extensive damage to non-structural elements even when the code provisions for drift limitation are satisﬁed [2]. ﬂat-slab systems are often adopted as the primary lateral load-resisting system and their use has proven popular in seismically active regions. Because of the inherent ﬂexibility of ﬂat-slab buildings. structural members even when subjected to earthquakes of moderate intensity. there is no deﬁnitive method or strategy [3]. materials used and deﬁnition of the limit states. Five-story ﬂat-slab building. The current study employs accepted procedures whilst attempting to ensure that rational decisions are taken along the route to deriving vulnerability curves for a structural system that has not been dealt with before.A. temperature and shrinkage eﬀects and lateral loads. 1. On the other hand. ﬂat-slab construction should only be used as the vertical load carrying system in structures braced by frames or shear walls responsible for the lateral capacity of the structure [1]. for which no fragility curves are available in the literature. the unbalanced moments can produce high shear stresses in the slab. such as in the Mediterranean basin. When subjected to earthquake action. Flat-slab systems are also susceptible to signiﬁcant reduction in stiﬀness resulting from the cracking that occurs from construction loads. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 Fig. since the structure exhibits distinct response modes. (a) elevation. Methodology In the construction of the fragility functions. A detailed account is given hereafter of the various steps depicted in Fig. This building is considered mid-rise. Structural conﬁguration and design A ﬁve story ﬂat-slab structure is used as the generic system for this study. 2. A. Fig. analytical modeling. ﬁve and seven story versions had indicated rather insigniﬁcant diﬀerences in the inelastic dynamic analysis results. Where the latter practice is followed. it was recommended that in regions with high seismic hazard. In these cases. This observation emphasizes the necessity of investigating the vulnerability of ﬂat-slab construction. Erberik. A great degree of uncertainty is involved in each step of the procedure. . it may not be possible to satisfy the drift demands in high-rise construction. The approach used is outlined in Fig. 3. In such cases. as compared to conventional moment-resisting frames. In spite of the above concerns. the design of ﬂat-slab buildings is typically carried out in a manner similar to ordinary frames. Another issue is the brittle punching failure due to the transfer of shear forces and unbalanced moments between slabs and columns. The methodology used in the derivation of fragility curves. (b) plan. Preliminary analysis of three. low-rise buildings would be suﬃciently stiﬀ and may not warrant special consideration. Therefore.

gov/eq/html/zipcode. A typical slab–beam section from the ﬁrst story of the building is illustrated in Fig. The gravity load scenario consists of dead load and live load. were not considered. qt ¼ 0:022. The span length represents typical values for this type of construction in earthquake-vulnerable regions. The live load used was 2. IL. Analytical model The regularity of the building in terms of mass and stiﬀness in both plan and elevation enables a 2-D analysis to be used when assessing seismic response. Following common practices. Since the most signiﬁcant problem of ﬂat-slab system is the punching shear failure. This prevented the progressive vertical collapse of slabs in the event of a local punching failure. which have high in-plane stiﬀness. For the building under consideration. 4. In this study. ZEUS-NL [7] is the software program used for the inelastic analysis of the ﬂat-slab structure. One of the main concerns in ﬂat-slab construction is the control of excessive lateral drift. The lateral reinforcement selected is 114 (reinforcing bar with a diameter of 14 mm) bars with a spacing of 10 cm. When calculating the dead load. the slab depth was 22 cm which satisﬁed the punching shear check of ACI 318-99. respectively. Typical slab–beam section of the ﬂat-slab building (symbol 5112 denotes ﬁve reinforcing bars with a diameter of 12 mm and 110/15 denotes tied reinforcement with a diameter of 10 mm and having a spacing of 15 cm). The ﬂat-slab building is assumed to be located in Urbana. The seismic design is carried out according to FEMA 368. . frame and inﬁll wall act in a fully composite fashion. the frame attempts to deform in a ﬂexural mode while the inﬁll attempts to deform in a shear mode. the Greek Code for RC Structures [10] and ACI 318-99. the portion that will contribute to the frame analysis should be determined as well as the width of the concealed beam within the slab. Two simpliﬁed methods. exist. by using the formulations proposed by Luo and Durrani [8].A.8 m. The ACI recommends that the column should have adequate capacity to withstand excessive drift demand to which the building is exposed to under seismic action.cr. The direct design approach was used to determine the slab reinforcement. the weight of the structural members and the masonry inﬁll walls was included. the eﬀective beam width method is used. the eﬀective beam width and the equivalent frame method.S. torsion and moment transferred from the column. The building was designed according to the regulations of ACI 318-99 [5] for both gravity and seismic loads. 4. Other types of loading. especially in Mediterranean countries [4]. Erberik. as the lateral force level increases. As a result. the building is symmetric in plan with three bays in the horizontal directions.85 m.M. The bottom reinforcement of the slab was continuous with a reasonable amount passing through the columns. For the ﬂat-slab structure being studied. This concern was addressed by placing masonry inﬁll walls. To determine the width of the slab-embedded beams. the width of the slab beam considered is 100 cm for the ﬁrst three stories and 90 cm for the top two stories. This symmetry enables the use of twodimensional (2-D) models in both design and analysis. several sources that can also be considered are the Mexico Building Code [9]. 3. the materials used are 4000 psi (28 MPa) concrete and Grade 60 (414 MPa) reinforcing bars. The program is a development of previous analytical platforms developed at Imperial College. Design calculations support the use of 8124 (eight reinforcing bars with a diameter of 24 mm) bars as the longitudinal reinforcement which yields a reinforcement ratio.shtml) using the ZIP code 61801. The slab– beams reinforcement was detailed to prevent slab failure caused by the combination of forces. The story height selected is 2. An eigenvalue analysis was performed with the software to yield the periods of vibration of the structure. The software program was used to perform a static inelastic (pushover) and a dynamic time history analysis. the building is modeled as a 2-D planar frame with lumped masses. In order to model the slabs. the portion of the slab that will contribute to the frame analysis is determined to be 2. The column dimensions used were 40 cm Â 40 cm throughout the height of the building. A. including shear. The corresponding spectral response parameters were obtained from the USGS web site (http:// eqint. the Fig. At low levels of lateral force. The depth of the slab was selected according to the requirements in the code to prevent this type of failure. precautions should be taken in the design stage to prevent this undesirable behavior. namely ADAPTIC and INDYAS. in which the eﬀect of the slab is accommodated by appropriate modiﬁcation of the beam width or the column stiﬀness. In this study. such as wind and snow. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures [6]. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 939 are shown in Fig. In this study.usgs. Longitudinal and lateral reinforcement were determined according to the ACI regulations. which is typical for an oﬃce building. However.5 kN/m2. For simplicity. 4.

shear and moment actions to simulate the pin joint behavior at the ends of each strut was used. a is the length of contact. respectively. the elastic modulus is 200 kN/mm2. h0 and d are Young’s modulus. The equivalent strut width is calculated to be 73 cm.S.6 and 2. The mesh conﬁguration and mass distribution of the ﬂatslab model is shown in Fig. w is the equivalent strut width. (4) and (5). with cubic inelastic elements representing reinforced concrete behavior using a ﬁber analysis approach. respectively. To obtain the strength of a masonry inﬁll wall. kh is a non-dimensional parameter that represents the relative stiﬀness of the frame with respect to the inﬁll.002. and fc0 and 0 fbs are the compressive and bond shear strength of the inﬁll wall. The elastic modulus of masonry is 8250 MPa. it is necessary to deﬁne the most probable failure mode giving the lowest strength from Eqs. A. the eﬀective width of the diagonal strut is less than that of the full panel [11]. The stiﬀness properties of the inﬁll are obtained by using Eqs. the conﬁnement factor values range between 1. Es. Eco and conﬁnement factor. Ic and h are Young’s modulus. Em. namely elastic modulus of steel. yield strength of steel. formulated by Staﬀord-Smith [12] and Mainstone [13]. fyw is the nominal hoop strength and fc is the unconﬁned uniaxial concrete strength. Eigenvalue. and Rbs are the diagonal loads that cause compression and shear failure of the inﬁll. moment of inertia and height of the column. Masonry inﬁll frame sub-assemblages. crushing strain. For dynamic analysis. 6. These values are 35. Unconﬁned concrete strain at peak stress is equal to 0. Three parameters are required for the model. The ﬁnite element mesh. Es. The small squares indi- . For the building in the case study. qw is the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement. [16] is used. For the building used in the case study. [15]. tensile strength. where masonry inﬁll walls are represented by diagonal compression struts. used is carefully designed to locate integration points at potential critical zones of the structure. A 3-D joint element with uncoupled axial.940 M. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 frame and the inﬁll separate at the corners on the tension diagonal and a diagonal compression strut on the compression diagonal develops.18 and 1. masses in each ﬂoor are lumped at the beam column joints. This model is based on the formulation by Mander et al. approximately 11% of the length of the inﬁll diagonal. Mean values are used for the compressive and tensile strength of concrete.75 MPa. respectively. and is given below: K ¼1þ qw fyw fc ð 6Þ Rbs ¼ l0 ð 5Þ where Rc. using Eqs. height and length of inﬁll.A. and h is the slope of the inﬁll diagonal to the horizontal. shown in Fig. (4) and (5) below: Rc ¼ 2 p 0 tf sech 3 2k c fbs dt À lf ð h = l 0 Þ ð 4Þ culation of the conﬁnement factor.37 depending on the amount of lateral reinforcement. in accordance with Paulay and Priestley [11] and FEMA 307 [14]. a p ¼ ð 1Þ h 2kh sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 4 Em tsin2h k¼ ð 2Þ 4Es Ic h0 w ¼ 0:175ðkhÞÀ0:4 d ð 3Þ Fig. The concrete is modeled by using the inelastic concrete model with constant (active) conﬁnement in ZEUS-NL. fy and the strain-hardening parameter ls. 6. fc. After separation. Mean yield strength of steel and the strainhardening parameter is 475 MPa and 0. 5. pushover and inelastic time history analyses should be based on the structural stiﬀness after separation. respectively. In the above formulations. 5. the strength of the masonry inﬁll is calculated to be 3 MPa. thickness. In this study.01. Some of these parameters are illustrated in Fig. (1)–(3). Steel is modeled with a bilinear elasto-plastic model with kinematic strain hardening. There are four parameters of the model: compressive strength. Erberik. For the cal- In the above equation. The parameter l0 denotes the distance between the centre lines of columns and lf is the coeﬃcient of friction. t. which were discussed in the previous paragraphs. Compressions struts are modeled using cubic elasto-plastic elements with a bilinear material model for the inﬁll properties. This can be achieved by modeling the inﬁlled frame as an equivalent diagonally braced frame. the simple relationship proposed by Park et al. ft.

083 0.30 and 0. respectively. spectrum and the elastic spectra of the selected ground motion records is given in Fig.362 0.A. Fig.15 s.8 PGA (m/s2) 1. Bazzuro and Cornell [17] suggested that ﬁveto-seven input motions are suﬃcient for representing the hazard in an uncoupled (uncertainty in supply and demand dealt with separately) analysis.3 6.446 1. the results of the ﬁrst three natural periods of the structure are T ¼ 0:38.129 0. Erberik. The natural vibration periods seemed reasonable for mid-rise concrete frames with inﬁll panels.36 0. were selected.1 7.8 5.108 0.069 1. The results indicated that the ﬂatslab system was more ﬂexible than moment-resisting cate the node locations and the big squares symbolize the lumped masses on the ﬂoors. [18] state that three ground motions are suﬃcient if appropriate choices of records and scaling are made.A.454 0. the compatibility of the elastic spectra of these ground motions with the code spectrum used in the seismic design of the building. A.004 1.3 5. there should be a compromise between the number of ground motions selected and the robustness of the analysis. Dymiotis et al. respectively. 7. (i. The former provides the dynamic response characteristics whilst the latter provides the necessary ‘supply or capacity’ quantities needed for limit state deﬁnition.079 0.367 1. Selection of ground motion records Since the current study focuses on the eﬀects of the ground motion variability on the building response.302 0.max (g) 0. bare frame) for comparison. Taking the latter studies into consideration.1 7.—l5 story government oﬃce building El Segundo—l4 story oﬃce building Castelnuovo-Assisi Yesilkoy Airport Component Earthquake NS N79E EW NS 90 EW 270 90 EW NS Friuli aftershock Tabas Lazio Abruzzo Spitak Loma Pricta Manjil Northridge Northridge Umbro-Marchigiano Marmara Country Italy Iran Italy Armenia USA Iran USA USA Italy Turkey Date 9/15/1976 9/16/1978 5/7/1984 12/7/1988 10/17/1989 6/20/1990 1/17/1994 1/17/1994 9/26/1997 8/17/11999 Ma 6. 0. Evaluation of seismic response characteristics Before conducting inelastic dynamic analyses to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of the ﬂat-slab structure.108 0. Mesh conﬁguration of the ﬂat-slab model in ZeusNL.871 1.091 0. it is necessary to assess the structural response characteristics through eigenvalue and the inelastic static (pushover) analyses. The characteristics of the selected ground motion records are listed in Table 1. 6.327 0339 0. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 941 Fig.113 Sa. 0. The comparison between the design code Table 1 Characteristics of the selected ground motions Location GM1 GM2 GM3 GM4 GM5 GM6 GM7 GM8 GM9 GM10 Buia Boshroych Cassino Sant’Elia Gukasian Haywaid-MuirSchool Tonekabun L.08 s.8 7.S.366 .395 0. Comparison of elastic spectra with the code spectrum.8771 PGV (m/s) 0. 5. The ﬁrst three natural periods of vibration of this structure are 0.405 0. Performing the eigenvalue analysis. 6.98.115 0.7 6.e.395 0. 7.7 5. 10 ground motions with a single criterion. The eigenvalue analysis was also conducted on the case in which there were no inﬁll walls.5 7.111 0.M.362 0.109 0.13 0.116 1.13 and 0.281 1.

8. The global limit state is illustrated in Fig. When comparing the story shear versus drift curve. and the addition of the inﬁll walls produced a signiﬁcant increase in the stiﬀness of the system. This is especially true for special systems like ﬂat-slab structures for which the identiﬁcation of limit states is highly dependent on the characteristics of the structure. in addition to exceeding the ultimate state in one of the beams (U1). (a) story shear versus story drift curve. The limit states used in this study are deﬁned in terms of interstory drift ratio since the behavior and the failure modes of such structures are governed by deformation. The static pushover analysis was conducted using the ZEUS-NL. the program automatically switches to displacement control. (b) yield limit state. An inverted triangular distribution was used for the lateral loading. 9(a) for the ﬁrst story of the analysis model used. (c) ultimate limit state. 8(a). The pushover curve of the inﬁlled ﬂat-slab model is shown in Fig.25% of the weight of the frame). Well deﬁned and realistic limit states are of paramount importance since these values have a direct eﬀect on the fragility curve parameters. The frame was capable of sustaining a lateral load of 1056 kN (0. the limit states assigned to the frame in terms of interstory drift are shown in Table 2. It may be misleading to use the performance levels determined for regular concrete frames in the case of the ﬂat-slab buildings without due regard to the inherent ﬂexibility of these structures. Mapping from local limit states to global limit states. solid circular marks (in gray) denote the local yield criterion and hollow triangular marks represent local ultimate criterion. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 Fig. The plastic hinges were concentrated at the ﬁrst three stories. Considering this limit state scenario and verifying that the most critical story drifts take place in the ﬁrst story.5 mm. the ultimate limit state is exceeded in three columns (U2). (b) plastic hinge formation. 9. Y4) occur at a drift level of approximately 60 mm. For post-peak load analysis. 8(b). Erberik. Two more yield limit states (Y3. Then these performance points are used to obtain the limit states of the story in terms of interstory drift.942 M. Local limit states are considered in terms of yield and ultimate curvatures. the yield limit state is reached at the left end of three beams (Y1) followed by the bottom end of three ﬁrst story columns (Y2). 7. A. The yield and ultimate limit state occurrences in the structural members of the ﬁrst story are illustrated in Fig. in order that the full ductility capacity of the structure is investigated. Fig. The ﬁrst plastic hinges were formed at the beam ends of the ﬁrst two stories. the stiﬀness is signiﬁcantly reduced. At a drift level of 25–30 mm. At a drift level of 100 mm. The performance levels of the most critical story are deﬁned as the global limit states of the structure. 9. The plastic hinge propagation is shown in Fig. such as soft stories. Determination of limit states Deﬁnition of limit states plays a signiﬁcant role in the construction of the fragility curves. In Fig. 9(b) and (c). . Force-controlled analysis was employed up to the point of maximum force resistance to identify the structural deﬁciencies of the frame. frames. it is observed that the inﬁll panels fail sequentially at a low drift level of 3. Pushover analysis results. consistent with the large drifts experienced by the same stories. It is therefore expected that the response of the building will undergo abrupt change when the deformations exceed the deformational capacity of the inﬁll panels. the local limit states of members in an individual story are obtained and then mapped onto the shear force versus drift curve of that story.A. After the failure of the inﬁll panels. (a) capacity curve. followed by the ﬁrst story columns. This process is repeated for each story. hollow rectangular marks represent the failure of the diagonal struts used to simulate the inﬁll panels.S. To determine performance levels.

4 56. three sets of input values are generated to represent the variability in the compressive strength of concrete. The statistical sample of frames with . fy. The large number of sampling points required in the standard Monte Carlo approach has huge implications in fragility analysis due to the use of inelastic dynamic analysis for each of the sampled strength values under each of the record at each of the scaling levels.M.S. There is a consensus in terms of using lognormal and normal distributions to represent the material variability in the yield strength of steel with coeﬃcient of variation (COV) ranging between 4% and 12%.1. For a characteristic concrete strength value of 28 MPa. 9. Erberik. [21]. Based on the aforementioned studies and the studies conducted by Dymiotis Inelastic response-history analysis is used to evaluate the seismic response and to derive the fragility curves. In recent studies. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 Table 2 Limit states and corresponding interstory drift ratios Limit state Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Interstory drift (mm) 3. Material uncertainty One of the main sources that control the response uncertainty of a reinforced concrete structure is the inherent variability of material strength.g. Hence.b and fy. [21] and Elnashai et al.1 1.5 28. [24] is the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) method. respectively by using the following conversion formulae r2 2 n ¼ ln 1 þ 2 ð 7Þ l 1 k ¼ lnl À n2 2 ð 8Þ where l and r are the normal distribution mean and the standard deviation parameters. COV of the concrete compressive strength is 15%. a lognormal distribution is assumed for the yield strength of steel in this study. the mean value is calculated as 36 MPa and COV is taken as 15%. there are disadvantages of using very large samples to achieve the required accuracy. the 30 values obtained for fc are paired randomly with the 30 values of fy. respectively. Seismic response analysis 8. Thirty sets of input data are generated to use in the simulation of the dynamic response of the ﬂat-slab structure. for convenience. [18] and Ghobarah et al. This technique provides a constrained sampling scheme instead of the random sampling used in the Monte Carlo method.0 2. which represents average quality control. Ghobarah et al. Taking the above studies into account. the yield strength of steel reinforcement in beams and the yield strength of steel reinforcement in columns. Although this method is a powerful tool.b. the lognormal mean and standard deviation parameters take the values of 6. Normal or lognormal distributions are commonly used. Therefore. Hence. the range of each random variable is divided into 30 nonoverlapping intervals on the basis of equal probability.9 Interstory drift ratio (%) 0. the variability of the yield strength of steel reinforcement in beams and columns are treated separately. 8. One value from each interval is selected randomly with respect to the probability density in the interval. Concrete strength (fc) The general agreement in the literature [19. alternative approaches have been developed to reduce the sample size. 10.06. respectively. Using the LHS Method to develop detailed fragility curves of ﬂatslab structures is described in Erberik and Elnashai [25].5 943 et al. These 30 pairs are further combined with the 30 values of fy. A. This approach is the most tedious but it is also the most direct and accurate way to assess the vulnerability of structures. Thus. In this study. In this study.2. The variables are indicated as fc. The mean and COV are 475 MPa and 6 %.A. the yield strength of steel and the compressive strength of concrete have been chosen as the random variables following a survey of the literature (e.c.c to form 30 sets of input data for the response simulation analyses.0 3. Yield strength of steel (fy) Variations in the strength of steel have been studied by researchers in the past [19. a normal distribution is used to represent the variability of concrete strength in this study.23] is to employ normal distribution to characterize the variability of concrete strength. 8. The mean and standard deviation are used to describe the statistical variation of the material properties. To achieve this. Hence. [22] used statistical distributions to deﬁne the material uncertainty for the yield strength of steel. whereas k and n are the lognormal distribution mean and standard deviation parameters. Treatment of material uncertainty — sampling Several sampling methods have been proposed in the technical literature to generate values to use as the random variables. [18]) and pilot inelastic analysis using extreme values of material properties. One such method developed by McKay et al. the Monte Carlo simulation is the most widely used. Among these sampling methods.20].1 96.161 and 0.

the following values are obtained for the two depicted intensity levels: For Sd ¼ 30 mm. as mentioned above. LS1. Damage versus motion relationship for the ﬂat-slab structure. Each records were scaled at 11 values of ground displacement. . The second part of this study.A. The damage versus hazard relationship of the ﬂat-slab structure is illustrated in Fig. LS3 and LS4 represent the limit states for slight. the latter would be more suitable for shorter period structures. the mean (k) and the standard deviation (n) are calculated for each of these Sd intensity levels. respectively. Ground shaking intensity was characterized in this study by spectral displacements for two reasons: . For this purpose.22% when Sd is equal to 10 mm. The lognormal parameters. A statistical distribution is ﬁtted to the data for each intensity level on each vertical line. which is expressed in terms of spectral displacements for other structural forms. For structural response in the period range of the relatively low stiﬀness ﬂat-slab structures. At each intensity level.14% and 0. Dynamic analyses are conducted by subjecting random samples of structures to the ground motion records given in Table 1 at each intensity drift level using the corresponding scale factor. A. The scaling procedure employed herein is based on Sd values at this speciﬁc period. Development of the vulnerability functions Response statistics are assessed in terms of interstory drift. employs the ensuing fragility relationships in HAZUS analysis. Displacement spectra (n ¼ 5%) of the selected ground motions. 11. The probability of exceedance of a certain limit state is obtained by calculating the area of the lognormal distribution over the horizontal line of that limit state. The mean and standard deviation values of the response data are also given in the ﬁgure. which is 10 mm. 10).S. respectively. which is the fundamental period of the study structure. Scale factors to be applied to the ground motions are selected so that the response of the structure can be monitored over a wide range that includes all damage states. moderate. thus to total number of inelastic dynamic analyses for a set of fragility curves is 3300. published elsewhere [25]. 10. The damage axis (y-axis) described as the interstory drift is given in millimeters whereas the hazard axis (x-axis) is described as spectral displacement and is also given in millimeters. extensive and complete damage. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 11. random properties described above was subject each in turn to each of the strong-motion records. the displacement spectra of the selected ground motions are constructed (Fig.944 M. respectively). Erberik. Fig. The horizontal lines in the ﬁgure represent the limit states used in this study and described in terms of interstory drift. Dynamic analysis gave interstory drift values between the ranges of 0. spectral displacements are more closely correlated to damage than spectral accelerations. It was therefore necessary to have HAZUS-compatible curves. The values of the interstory drift range between no damage and slight damage in terms of the limit states determined for the building used in the case study. Fig. these are the limits for slight. moderate. From bottom to top. . Spectral displacement (Sd) is used as the hazard parameter for constructing the vulnerability curves. 11. 12 illustrates the statistical distribution for two diﬀerent intensity levels (when Sd ¼ 30 and 60 mm. extensive and complete damage. Each vertical line of scattered data corresponds to an intensity level. PðSd > LS1Þ ¼ 0:999 PðSd > LS2Þ ¼ 0:404 PðSd > LS3Þ ¼ 0:083 PðSd > LS4Þ ¼ 0:011 Fig. Hence. The vertical dotted line in the ﬁgure denotes the elastic period (T ¼ 0:38 s). LS2. the probability of exceeding each limit state is calculated.

establish the realism of the latter by comparison with the literature and hence establish the realism of the new ﬂat-slab curves. This is a challenge because of the dearth of spectral displacement-based Fig. Comparison of with moment-resisting frames The fragility curves of ﬂat-slab structures derived in the previous section require a form of validation. Vertical curves would represent deterministic response.5%. (b) intensity level 2 (Sd ¼ 60 mm).M. small variations in low intensity cause signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the limit state exceedance probabilities.A. 14 alongside the fragility curves for ﬂat-slab structures. The steep shape of the slight limit state curve is due to the inﬁll panels dominating the response at this low-level limit state. PðSd > LS1Þ ¼ 1:000 PðSd > LS2Þ ¼ 0:997 PðSd > LS3Þ ¼ 0:839 PðSd > LS4Þ ¼ 0:338 After calculating the probability of exceedance of the limit states for each intensity level. n ¼ 0:350 LS2 (slight to moderate damage): k ¼ 3:50. A possible veriﬁcation approach is to derive vulnerability curves for familiar moment-resisting frames. It is shown that the ﬂat-slab structure is more vulnerable to seismic damage than the moment-resisting frame across the entire range of seismic hazard. As the ﬁnal step. A. In this study. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 945 Fig. Erberik. a statistical distribution can be ﬁtted to these data points. The slab–beams were replaced by conventional beams of 300 mm Â 600 mm and a longitudinal reinforcement ratio q of 1. the response is dictated by the bare ﬂexible ﬂat-slab system. Hence. Vulnerability curves for the ﬂat-slab structure. Mean fragility curves for the moment-resisting frame are shown in Fig. The mean and standard deviation parameters of the curves are given as follows: LS1 (none to slight damage): k ¼ 1:85. This continues till the panels reach their deformation capacity. This was accomplished by developing the mean fragility curves of a framed structure using the same methodology as for the ﬂat-slab structure. The variability of interstory drift at high ground motion intensity levels is much more pronounced relative to the variability at low intensity levels.S. n ¼ 0:290 Fig. The next step would be to compare the fragility curves derived for moment-resisting structures to the fragility curves from the literature. . as mentioned in previous sections. to obtain the vulnerability curves. For Sd ¼ 60 mm. 13 represents the fragility curves of medium-rise ﬂat-slab structures. a lognormal ﬁt is assumed. modiﬁcations were made to the previous analytical model. (a) intensity level 1 (Sd ¼ 30 mm). n ¼ 0:285 LS4 (extensive to complete damage): k ¼ 4:20. 12. In order to develop the mean fragility curves for the framed structure. Thereafter. Small variations at low levels of seismic intensity can create ampliﬁed eﬀects on the fragility curves whereas even large variations at high levels of seismic intensity may not have that much eﬀect on the curves. This observation points towards the high sensitivity of the structure to changes in seismic demand. This is because of the inherent ﬂexibility of ﬂat-slab structures. since no experimental or observational data sets have been hitherto used in the derivation. the vulnerability curve can be constructed by plotting the calculated data versus spectral displacement. n ¼ 0:285 LS3 (moderate to extensive damage): k ¼ 3:85. The curves become ﬂatter as the limit state shifts from slight to complete because of the nature of the statistical distribution of the response data. The columns and the inﬁll walls were kept the same as the original ﬂat-slab model. 12. It is also interesting to observe that the diﬀerence between the ﬂat-slab structure and the framed structure is more pronounced at the lower limit states. Lognormal statistical distributions for two diﬀerent levels of seismic intensity. 13.

Damage states were also identiﬁed based on this damage index after calibration with observed damage to several buildings caused by diﬀerent earthquakes. Comparison of the study curves for framed structure with Singhal and Kremidjian.2 and 0.S. vulnerability curves in the literature. 14. 15. A.5 and 1. when 0:2% < dmax < 0:5%. Four damage states were considered in terms of maximum story drift ratio. Therefore. respectively.5 and severe damage occurs when the index values are between 0. (3) moderate damage.A. Exceedance of unity for the index value corresponds to the collapse limit state. 17 were developed for mid-rise reinforced concrete frames. when 0:5% < dmax < 1:0% and (4) heavy damage. More information about these fragility curves are discussed in Table 3. Fig. The HH curves in Fig.1 and 0. it was necessary to reconstruct the fragility curves for framed structures using spectral acceleration instead of spectral displacement. Fig. The Park and Ang damage index was used as the response parameter. Figs. Fig.946 M.0. 16. Erberik. Acceleration-based fragility curves for the framed structure. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 Fig. when dmax < 1:0%. 16 were developed for low-rise (1–3 story) concrete frames. The spectral acceleration-based fragility curves are shown in Fig. when dmax < 0:2%. Comparison of fragility curves for ﬂat-slab and framed structures. According to the damage scale. minor damage occurs when the index attains values between 0. . 17. (2) insigniﬁcant damage. The SK curves in Fig. 16 and 17 show the comparison of the curves obtained for framed structures against the HH curves and the SK curves developed by Hwang and Huo [26] and Singhal and Kiremidjian [27]. dmax: (1) no damage. Comparison of the study curves for framed structure with Hwang and Huo.2. This was accomplished by converting the spectral values and then matching the converted values with the corresponding response (interstory drift) values. 15. moderate damage occurs when the index values are between 0. Additional information about the SK fragility curves is also discussed in Table 3.

M. ACI 318-99. Bracci J. Imperial College of Science. Mid-America Earthquake Center Project FD-2 Report. [8] Luo YH. ground motion selection is quite diﬀerent. the buildings reach interstory drift limits more readily than their moment-resisting counterparts. [2] Chow HL. The paper is a product of MAE Center Project DS-9 ‘Risk Assessment Systems’. especially Dan Abrams (University if Illinois and MAE Center Director) and Joe Bracci (Texas A and M. makes the case of the reliability of the new curves. Diario Oﬁcial. Seismic behavior of ﬂat-slab RC structures. Conclusions The purpose of this study is to develop fragility curves for ﬂat-slab structural systems for which no fragility analysis has been undertaken before. Uncertainty modeling in earthquake engineering. and MAE Center investigator). [4] Limniatis A.S. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Quantiﬁcation of the limit states of the SK and the HH curves are discussed in the above paragraphs and the values deﬁned for this study are given in Table 2.121(1):115–23. Seismic response of nonductile ﬂat plate buildings. Recommendations for design of slab–column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures. Comparison between the ﬂat-slab and moment-resisting buildings on the one hand and the latter and two . Building code requirements for structural concrete. There are also diﬀerences in the characterization of the hazard and the damage parameters. fy Interstory drift Sd(T1) 4 SK curves RC frame (MR) Synthetic (for West US region) Time-history fc. Moreover. Veneziano D. 1999. With regard to the characteristics of the ﬂat-slab fragility curves. Journal of Structural Engineering. The reliability of the newly derived vulnerability curves is underpinned by the quality of the models used. In general. 13. The preliminary evaluation of the structure indicates that the model structure is more ﬂexible than conventional frames because of the absence of deep beams and/or shear walls. The curves are recommended for us in seismic loss assessment in regions where ﬂat-slab structures exist. and Singhal and Kiremidjian [27] is reassuring and lends weight to the curves derived for ﬂat-slab structures. When the inﬁll panels are damaged and no longer contribute to the lateral resistance. As seen in Table 3. fy Interstory drift Sa(T1) and PGA 3 947 published studies on the other. He also received partial funding from TUBITAK in Turkey. A mid-rise ﬂat-slab building is designed and modeled using the structural characteristics typical of the construction type under investigation. Technology and Medicine. The authors have beneﬁted from discussions with several colleagues. DC. Reglamento da Construcciones para el Distrito Federal. 2001. methods that diﬀerent researchers adopt to determine fragility curves can cause signiﬁcant discrepancies in the vulnerability predictions for the same location. 1987. References [1] ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Civil Engineering Department. [7] Elnashai AS. Papanikolaou V.Sc. fy Park and Ang index Sa(T1) 4 HH curves RC frame (LR) Synthetic (close to NMSZ) Time-history fc. Washington. [6] Building Seismic Safety Council. Erberik. [9] Mexico Building Code. A. ASCE 1995. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 Table 3 Comparison of fragility curve characteristics Derived curves Structure Ground motion Analysis Random variables Damage parameter Hazard parameter Limit states RC frame (MR) Actual. the same approach and tools are used to derive median curves for moment-resisting frames for which there is an abundance of fragility studies in the literature. The fragility curves developed in this study are a better match with the SK curves than with the HH curves. Lee DH. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. they display response features of this special type of construction. Acknowledgements The ﬁrst author was funded by the Mid-America Earthquake Center through the National Science Foundation Grant EEC-9701785. Equivalent beam model for ﬂat-slab buildings: interior connections. Any ﬁndings in this paper do not represent the opinion of NSF but that of the authors. Ellingwood BE. [3] Wen YK. In a statistical context. ACI Structural Journal 1988. Dissertation. the agreement between the vulnerability curves derived above for moment-resisting frames and those of Hwang and Huo [26].M. The steep light-damage curve reﬂects the role of the inﬁll panels that dominate the response in the vicinity of the light-damage limit state. using vulnerability curves of moment-resisting frames to assess seismic damage of ﬂat-slab buildings in non-conservative. 2002. ACI Structural Journal 1995. Selna LG. Provisions (FEMA 368).A. [5] ACI Committee-318. even in cases where the same structure and seismicity are considered [28]. Mexico. from various earthquakes Time-history fc. Therefore.85(6):675–96. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. Durrani A. methodology adopted and software employed. The study curves seem to result in more damage in the case of the SK curves whereas the opposite is true when compared with the HH curves. 2003. 2001. ZEUS NL user manual. Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute. Part 1.92(1):115–24.

[26] Hwang H. [11] Paulay T. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. [13] Mainstone RJ. ASCE 1966. Reliability bases of structure safety and design. Aly NM. [16] Park R. [19] Ellingwood B. Deformation-based analytical vulnerability functions for RC bridges. Seismic vulnerability of ﬂat-slab structures. Journal of Structural Engineering. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. [17] Bazzuro P. . Priestley MJN. [22] Elnashai AS. Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Report No. Suppl (IV). Theoretical stress–strain model for conﬁned concrete. A method for earthquake motion-damage relationships with application to reinforced concrete frames.A. London (UK): Imperial College. Beckman RJ. Ductility of square conﬁned concrete columns. DC.103:1377–88. Loss Assessment of Memphis Buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering.A. ASCE 1999. [20] Mirza SA. Seismic hazard analysis of nonlinear structures I: methodology. Seismic reliability of RC frames with uncertain drift and member capacity.125(9):1038–47. A. Kappos AJ. Statistical analysis of RC beam column interaction. [10] Greek Code for Earthquake Resistant Structures. Huo J-R. Technometrics 1979. Washington. London (England): 57–90.S. Buﬀalo (NY): National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. p. Mid-America Earthquake Center Report.2(4):569–92. [18] Dymiotis C. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Park R.b: development of fragility curves for concrete frame and shear wall buildings. Conover WJ. Journal of Structural Engineering.105(ST5):921–37. Kiremidjian AS. Ministry of the Environment and Public Works.221:239–45. 1999. ASCE 1979.114(8):1804–26. Journal of Structural Engineering. Borzi B.92:381–403. [12] Staﬀord Smith B. 1998 [in CD-ROM]. Journal of Structural Engineering. Chryssanthopoulos MK. Elnashai AS. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1998. El-Attar M. Technical Report NCEER 97-0008. Priestley MJN.ST4:929–50. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings. New York: John Wiley. 2003.120(11):3320–44. [14] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1999. 1997. Priestley MJN. Greece. ESEE 00-6. [15] Mander JB.100(9):1755–69. 113–37. Rotterdam: A. ASCE 1977. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 937–948 [21] Ghobarah A. ASCE 1994.948 M. ASCE 1982. Journal of Structural Engineering. Chapter 7. Technical Report NCEER 97-0018. [23] Ang AH-S. Displacement based approaches to rational limit states design of new structures. 1992. 99-10 ed. FEMA Publication 307. [25] Erberik MA. On the stiﬀness and strength of inﬁlled frames. 1997. Journal of Structural Division. [24] McKay MD. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Gill WD. Behavior of square inﬁlled frames. 2000. MacGregor JG. ASCE 1988. Cornell CA. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Seismic reliability assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings. [27] Singhal A. Cornell CA. Variability of mechanical properties of reinforcing bars. Erberik. [28] Priestley MJN. ASCE 1974. Balkema.

Design of slabs has been shown

Design of slabs has been shown

- Slab
- Slab Design Original
- h_slabs
- Two Way Slab Design
- RC Beam Design ACI 318m-11 Manual
- RC Column Design (ACI318-05)
- 1.ACI 318 Code Comparison With IS456-2000(1)
- Aci 05 Two Way Slabs
- Concrete Slab Design - Two Way Slab Direct Design Method
- Raynold's Theory Book.pdf
- 118574042 Design of Steel Structures
- Reinforced Concrete Design to Eurocode 2
- Altoontash_Dissertation.pdf
- Displacement Based Fragility Functions
- The Effect of Material and Ground Motion Uncertainty on the Seismic Vulnerability of RC Structure
- cfdfdf
- Evaluation of Seismic Retrofitting Techniques Used in Old Reinforced Concrete Buildings
- Romanian Seismic Code
- Evaluacion sismica de edificio
- tmp188F
- retrf
- Material Chapter 45
- Reinforced Concrete Under Large Seismic Action
- Out-Of-plane Testing of Seismically Retrofitted URM
- 10.1.1.200.1731
- Bamboo Reinforced Concrete in Earthquake Resistant Housing Interim Report
- Three-dimensional Modal Pushover Analysis of Buildings Subjected To
- 4 Romanian Earthquake Engineering Code
- Sample Seismic Analysis Report
- Slab design

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd