Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
185
drawn to same categories of structural types, building vintage and the number of stories, and often
have the following lognormal function, (Murao,
2000)
ln PGV O
)
Pf ( PGV )
(1)
where )() is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and Oand ] are the mean and standard deviation of the logarithm of building fragility
in terms of the peak ground velocity, respectively.
Oand ] are often determined by the least-square
method.
2.2 Seismic performance index Is
The seismic performance index based on Guideline
for Evaluation of Seismic Capacity of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings (1997) in Japan has been
commonly used to judge whether seismic strengthening is necessary or not for future strong motions.
The second performance index Is is expressed as in
the following
Is
E0 SDT
(2)
CF
(3)
186
Contents
Nonstructural damage
w>2mm
Reinforcements are exposed.
Some parts of RC-structure
is collapsed
Collapse
Structure is collapsed
w=crack width
T2
(4)
4 (T1 ,T 2 )
(5)
This information is shown in Table 2 (Yamaguchi, 1999; Kabeyasawa, 1997) and building location,
Estimated PGV distribution and epicenter of the
earthquake are shown in Figure 1.
The aim of this study is to update the empirical fragility proposed by Hayashi with utilizing the detailed data collected by Kabeyasawa et al (1997).
The Bayesian theorem is fully used with the following well known from
f (4) v cL(4) p(4)
(6)
c L(4) p(4)d 4
1
(7)
in which 4 is the vector of parameters to be estimated, p(4)is the prior distribution representing our
knowledge about 4 before making observations,
L(4) is the likelihood function representing the information contained in the set of observations, c is a
normalizing factor, and f(4) is the posterior distribu
tion representing our updated state of knowledge
about 4. The prior may incorporate any subjective
information about 4 that is based on our engineering
experience and intuition (Der Kiureghian, 2000).
This study deals with the available detailed data
as new information.
41 - 80
81 - 120
121 - 160
161 - 200
201 - 240
241 - 280
!(
^_
Location
Epicenter
!(
(! !(
!( !(
Damage state
:
:
No damage
Severe damage
Collapse
Moderate damage
Collapse
Moderate damage
Moderate damage
Slight damage
Minor damage
:
:
0 - 40
Is
:
:
1.49
0.46
0.3
0.45
0.59
0.57
0.64
0.71
0.55
:
:
3.1 The detailed damage data in the 1995 Hyogoken Nambu earthquake
PGV (Kine)
PGV
:
:
83
84
84
87
96
98
105
57
77
:
:
(8)
The range of 4is determined referring to several researches on RC seismic fragility curves.(Murao,
2000; Hayashi, 2000)
!(
(!!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
(!!(
!(
(!!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
12
16
km
^_
Figure 1. Building location and estimated PGV distribution
187
L(T1 ,T 2 )
ln PGVi ln T1 Isi
T2
ln PGVi ln T1 Isi
1 )
T2
)
i
(9)
T2
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The prediction of strong ground motion and the RC
structural damage survey data used in this paper
were provided by Dr. Naoya Yamaguchi et al at the
University of Tokyo and Prof. Toshimi Kabeyasawa
at the University of Tokyo. The authors would like
to acknowledge their technical support.
1000
(10)
900
800
Proposed
Hayashi
700
600
500
400
300
w ln f (T1 ,T2 )
wT1
w ln f (T1 ,T2 )
wT2
(11)
200
100
0
0
Figure 2 shows the contours of the posterior distribution in the collapse damage state. Table 3 shows
the statistics of the fragility parameters proposed by
this study based on the Bayesian updating along
with Hayashis results. Figures 3 to 7 are comparison of two fragility curves in each damage state:
based on proposed by this study and proposed by
Hayashi. It is found that each of the fragility curves
proposed by this study is evaluated more conservative than Hayashis fragility curves and T which are
the standard deviations of lognormal distribution
proposed by this study are smaller than T proposed
by Hayashi.
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
3.5 Results
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Proposed
Hayashi
0.1
0
0
50
100
PGV(kine)
150
200
188
0.9
0.9
0.8
Dam age probability
Proposed
Hayashi
Is=0.2
0.8
0.7
0.6
Is=0.2
0.5
Is=0.6
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
Is=0.6
0.1
0.2
0
0
Proposed
Hayashi
0.1
0
0
50
100
PGV(kine)
150
200
Proposed
Hayashi
0.8
Dam age probability
150
200
Slight damage
Minor damage
Moderate damage
Severe damage
Collapse
Proposed
1
2
75.0
0.5
190.0
0.6
250.0
0.3
300.0
0.3
540.0
0.5
Hayashi et. al
1
2
125.0
0.6
250.0
0.6
375.0
0.6
500.0
0.6
625.0
0.6
0.7
Is=0.2
0.6
REFERENCES
0.5
Is=0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
50
100
PGV(kine)
150
200
1
Proposed
Hayashi
0.9
0.8
Dam age probability
100
PGV(kine)
0.9
50
0.7
Is=0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Is=0.6
0
0
50
100
PGV(kine)
150
200
189