16WCEE, Santiago, 11th January 2017

Special Session 91:

Risk-informed earthquake engineering: A key component for planning
earthquake-resilient community

PUSHOVER-BASED RISK ASSESSMENT METHOD:

A PRACTICAL TOOL FOR RISK ASSESSMENT OF
BUILDING STRUCTURES

Mirko Kosič, Matjaž Dolšek and Peter Fajfar

University of Ljubljana
Introduction and motivation

 A simple method is needed to facilitate the use of  seismic risk

assessment  in practice

 Pushover-based Risk Assessment (PRA) method (Kosič,

Dolšek and Fajfar 2016)
 It combines the close-form solution of risk equation
 N2 method (Eurocode 8)
 Default dispersions of seismic intensity causing failure of structure
(Kosič, Dolšek and Fajfar 2016)
PRA method: required input data
"Failure" risk (closed-form solution):
(1)

INPUT DATA:
 : median spectral acceleration causing failure, estimated by
N2 method

 : dispersion of the , based on a recently published study

(Kosič, Dolšek and Fajfar 2016)

 : The parameters of the linearized seismic hazard curve at

the location of the building
PRA method: step-by-step procedure

STEP 1:
 Pushover analysis

STEP 2:
 Estimation of the near collapse (NC) limit state: strength decrease
to 80 % or NC limit state of the first critical vertical element

Acceleration
PRA method: step-by-step procedure

STEP 3:
 Bilinear idealization of the pushover curve, equivalent SDOF

model

STEP 4:
 Calculation of the
failure ductility:
PRA method: step-by-step procedure
STEP 5:
 Calculation of the reduction factor

STEP 6:
 Calculation of NC
capacity:
PRA method: step-by-step procedure
STEP 7:
 Assumption of the dispersion

Old frames Code-

Code- conforming
conforming Soft-storey
frames Majority and invariant cantilever
PM walls
0.45 0.45 0.30 0.55

STEP 8:
 Estimation of the seismic hazard parameters k and k
0
o In this study: k=3, k0 calculated considering a 475-years design
event
STEP 9:
 Calculation of "failure" risk
PRA method: Examples

PRA was applied to different type of structures

Impact of simplifications used in PRA method was studied:

 N2 method with default values of dispersions (PRA)

 Level 2: Nonlinear dynamic analysis with consideration of
modelling uncertainties
 Two types of ground-motion sets (S1, S2)
Example: Buildings
 8-storey code-conforming RC frame
 4-storey old (non code-conforming) RC frame
 Results presented for analysis in X direction
 Models: PBEE Toolbox, Analysis: OpenSees
Example: Ground motions

 Code-based ground motions (set: S1) – selected according the

EC8 elastic spectrum and conditional standard deviation

 Hazard consistent ground motion (set: S2), selected according to th

Conditional Spectrum
Example: "Failure" risk

PRA vs. Level 2: [%]

S1 and S2
PRA S1 S2
Code-conforming frame X 0.8 1.0 0.3
Old frame X * 16 25 14

 The old frame is exposed to at least an order of magnitude

higher seismic risk (a soft storey was predicted based on the
pushover analysis)
Example: "Failure" risk

PRA vs. Level 2: [%]

S1 and S2
PRA S1 S2
Code-conforming frame X 0.8 1.0 0.3
Old frame X * 16 25 14

 The results of the PRA method were usually in between the

results obtained by NRHA
 The impact of selection of ground motions (S1, S2) is greater
than the impact of simplifications used in PRA
Conclusions

 PRA enables seismic risk assessment with only minimal additional

computational effort

 The PRA method is able to predict the seismic risk of low- to

medium-rise building structures with reasonable accuracy
(Limitation: not appropriate if seismic response is affected by
higher modes of vibrations, extended N2 method – EC 8)

 The accuracy of risk assessment depends on several factors, not

just the type of seismic response analysis

 PRA method may become a practical tool for engineers

Thank you for your attention !