RISK TARGETED SEISMIC DESIGN OF RC FRAME

BUILDINGS
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
(with specialization in structural dynamics)
DEPARTMENT OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING INDIAN
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE ROORKEE-
247667 (INDIA) MAY, 2017
i
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work which I being presented in this dissertation entitled, “Risk
Targeted Seismic Design of RC Frame Buildings”, in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the award of degree of Master of Technology in Earthquake Engineering with
specialization in Structural Dynamics submitted in the Department of Earthquake
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee is an authentic record of my own work
carried out during the period from March 2016 to May 2017 under the supervision of Dr.
Yogendra Singh, Professor and Head, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Roorkee and Dr. Dr. Dominik H. Lang, Head of Department,
Earthquake Hazard and Risk, NORSAR foundation, Norway.
The matter embodied in this Dissertation has not been submitted by me for the award of any
other degree or diploma of this Institute or any other University/Institute.

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
(Dr. Dr. Dominik H. Lang) (Dr. Yogendra Singh) Head of Department Professor and Head
Earthquake Hazard and Risk Department of Earthquake Engineering NORSAR Foundation
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Norway Roorkee, India
ii
ABSTRACT
Generally the earthquake resistant construction makes use of uniform hazard spectrum to
design a structure. This uniform hazard spectrum is assumed to possess uniform probability
of exceedance throughout the nation i.e. 2% in 50 years. But designing a structure using
uniform hazard spectrum does not lead to uniform collapse risk across the nation. One of the
reasons for this inconsistency is due to the fact that there is uncertainty in the collapse
capacity of the structure. Therefore this report focus on designing the structure using risk
targeted ground motions. In risk targeted approach the ground motions are adjusted in such a
way so that we can achieve the risk as targeted.
In this report, two sites are selected in Delhi and the risk has been evaluated at the selected
sites by convolving site specific hazard curve and fragility curve. A ten storey RC frame
building has been modelled and designed using (i) uniform hazard spectrum (ii) Risk targeted
site specific response spectrum. The risk targeted hazard has been obtained using the target
risk of 1% probability of collapse in 50 years. An iterative procedure is followed to obtain the
design hazard level corresponding to targeted risk.
The fragility curve of the building is obtained at the selected sites using (i) Nonlinear static
pushover analysis, and (ii) Incremental dynamic analysis. Further, collapse risk is estimated
for those buildings designed using uniform hazard spectrum and risk targeted hazard level. It
has been observed that even designing the building for risk targeted ground motions neither
results into collapse risk as targeted nor does it lead to uniform collapse risk.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMNET
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to my elite guide & mentor Dr.
Yogendra Singh, Professor and Head, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Roorkee and Dr. Dr. Dominik H.Lang, Head of Department,
Earthquake Hazard and Risk NORSAR foundation, Norway for being helpful and a great
source of inspiration. I am thankful to him for his persistent interest, constant encouragement,
vigilant supervision and critical evaluation. His encouraging attitude has always been a
source of inspiration for me. His helping nature, invaluable suggestions and scholastic
guidance are culminated in the form of present work.
I would like to thank Mr. Mitesh Surana, Mr. Dhiraj Raj and Mr. Aakash Khatri for their help
and valuable discussion during most part of my dissertation work. I am also thankful to my
friends for their help, support and constant discussion throughout the report.
I would also like to thank my friends Mayur Pisode, Shadab Ahmad, Shubham, Shabin
Chand and Swanand Patil for their contribution behind the successful completion of my
Thesis.
Lastly but most importantly I would seek blessings from my parents, love from my brothers
without their sacrifice and unconditional love I would not have reached so far and me being
able to go for a higher education would have been a distant dream.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMNET iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN 1
1.1.1 Conventional Force-Based Design 1
1.1.2 Performance Based Design 2
1.1.3 Risk Targeted Seismic Design 2
1.2 SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT 2
1.3 SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 3
1.4 ANALYTICAL STUDIES BASED ON NONLINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER
ANALYSIS 4
1.4.1 Estimation of Building Response 5
1.4.2 Damage States and Limit States 5
1.5 BUILDING FRAGILITY CURVES 6
1.6 ANALYTICAL STUDIES BASED ON TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS 7
1.6.1 Ground Motion Record Sets 8
1.6.1.1 Scaling of Ground Motion Records 8
1.6.1.2 Scaling of Records 9
1.6.2 Background on Assessment of Collapse Capacity 9
v
1.7 SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT 11
1.8 OBJECTIVES 11
1.9 ORGANISATION OF THE DISSERATAION 12
2 RISK TARGETED HAZARD 13
2.1 INTRODUCTION 13
2.2 UNIFORM HAZARD SPECTRUM 14
2.3 RISK ESTIMATION BY CONVOLUTION OF HAZARD AND FRAGILITY CURVE
15
2.4 ITERATIVE CALCULATION OF RISK TARGETED HAZARD 15
2.5 RISK CALCULATION 17
2.5.1 Site-Specific Response Spectrum 18
2.5.2 Site-Specific Hazard Curve 21
2.5.3 Risk Targeted Ground Motions 23
3 COLLAPSE RISK OF A CODE DESIGNED BUILDING 31
3.1 INTRODUCTION 31
3.2 BUILDING DESCRIPTION 31
3.3 MODELLING OF RC FRAME BUILDINGS 31
3.3.1 Effective Stiffness of RC Frame Members 33
3.3.2 Inelastic Modelling of RC Frame Members 34
3.3.3 Modelling of Flexural Yielding and Axial Force-Moment Interaction 34
3.4 LINEAR ANALYSIS OF RC FRAME BUILDING 35
3.5 FRAGILITY ANALYSIS 37
3.5.1 Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis 37
3.5.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis 39
3.6 DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC FRAGILITY CURVES 44
vi
3.6.1 Non-Linear Static Analysis 44
3.6.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis 46
3.7 RISK ESTIMATION 47
4 COLLAPSE RISK OF A BUILDING DESIGN USING RISK TARGETED HAZARD 52
4.1 INTRODUCTION 52
4.2 RISK TARGETED SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 53
4.3 DESIGN OF RC FRAME BUILDING USING RISK TARGETED HAZARD 54
4.4 RISK ESTIMATION 56
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 61
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 61
REFERENCES 62
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Damage states and limit states (HAZUS MH MR-1 2003) 6
Figure 1.2 Seismic fragility curves for the four damage states (HAZUS MH MR-1 2003) 7
Figure 1.3 Incremental dynamic analysis response plot (FEMA P695) 10
Figure 1.4 Collapse fragility curve (FEMA P695) 10
Figure 2.1 Development of uniform hazard spectrum from hazard curves at distinct spectral
periods (Baker 2008) 14
Figure 2.2 Iterative calculation process required for the computation of risk-targeted hazard
maps (Silva et al. 2014) 17
Figure 2.3 Location of sites for the site specific assessment study (Delhi Micro-zonation
Report, 2014) 19
Figure 2.4 Site specific response spectrum at MCE for all the selected sites 20
Figure 2.5 Site Specific response spectrum at DBE for all the selected sites 21
Figure 2.6 Site-specific hazard curves for short period spectral acceleration, Ss (m/s2) 23
Figure 2.7 Site-specific hazard curves for short period spectral acceleration, Ss (m/s2) 23
Figure 2.8 Collapse probability function satisfying the conditions specified in ASCE standard
24
Figure 2.9 Iterative procedure for risk targeted hazard at 0.1 sec spectral period at Shikarpur
site 26
Figure2.10 Iterative procedure for risk targeted hazard at 1 sec spectral period at Shikarpur
site 27
Figure2.11 Iterative procedure for risk targeted hazard at 0.1 sec spectral period at
Akshardham site 29
Figure2.12 Iterative procedure for risk targeted hazard at 1 sec spectral period at Akshardham
site 30
Figure3.1 Detailed Plan of RC Frame building 32
Figure3.2 Sectional Elevation of Building 32
Figure3.3 Generalized Force-Deformation relationship for RC Member (ASCE 41-13) 35
Figure 3.4 Pushover curve of the RC frame building designed using UHS in longitudinal and
transverse direction 38
viii
Figure 3.5 Pushover curve of the RC frame building designed using risk targeted site specific
response spectrum in longitudinal and transverse direction at Shikarpur and Akshardham site
respectively 39
Figure 3.6 Incremental dynamic analysis response plot for the RC frame building design
using UHS 43
Figure 3.7 Incremental dynamic response plot for the RC frame building designed using risk
targeted hazard at Shikarpur site 43
Figure 3.8 Convolution of site-specific hazard curves and fragility curves to evaluate collapse
risk for the longitudinal and transverse direction at Shikarpur and Akshardham respectively
48
Figure 3.9 Convolution of site specific hazard curve and fragility curve at Shikarpur and
Akshardham respectively 50
Figure 4.2 Convolution of site-specific hazard curves and fragility curves to evaluate collapse
risk for the longitudinal and transverse direction at Shikarpur and Akshardham site
respectively 57
Figure 4.3 Comparison of fragility curve of the buildings designed using risk targeted
hazard with ideally obtained fragility curve using nonlinear static analysis 58
Figure 4.4 Convolution of site-specific hazard curves and fragility curves to evaluate collapse
risk at Shikarpur site 59
Figure 4.5 Comparison of fragility curve of the building designed using risk targeted hazard
at Shikarpur with ideally obtained fragility curve using IDA 59
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Site location details and ground response results for MCE and DBE hazard levels at
Shikarpur site (Delhi Micro-zonation Report, 2014) 25
Table 2.2 Iterations performed to obtain the Risk Targeted hazard at spectral period 0.1 sec at
Shikarpur site 25
Table2.3 Iterations performed to obtain the Risk targeted ground motion corresponding to 1
sec spectral period at Shikarpur site 27
Table2.4 Site location details and ground response results for MCE and DBE hazard levels at
Akshardham site (Delhi Micro-zonation Report, 2014) 28
Table2.5 Iterations performed to obtain the risk targeted ground motion corresponding to 0.1
sec spectral period at Akshardham site 28
Table2.6 Iterations performed to obtain the risk targeted ground motion corresponding to 1
sec spectral period at Akshardham site 29
Table 3.1 Effective stiffness values (ASCE 41-13) 33
Table 3.2 Design and modelling parameters for the generic building considered in the
analysis 36
Table 3.3 Capacity curve and Capacity spectrum parameters at ultimate point 40
Table 3.4 Summary of Earthquake event and recording station for the far field record set 41
Table 3.5 Damage state definitions (Barbat et al., 2006) 45
Table 3.6 Median spectral displacement and median spectral acceleration 46
Table 3.7 Median spectral intensity and record to record variability 47
Table 3.8 Collapse risk values obtained at the selected sites in longitudinal and transverse
designed using UHS 49
Table 3.9 Risk obtained by performing IDA 50
Table 4.1 Detailed design results for the RC frame building designed using Risk Targeted site
specific response spectrum 55
Table 4.2 Risk obtained for RC frame building in longitudinal and transverse direction
designed using Risk Targeted Hazard 57
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN
India is one of the most seismically active countries of the world. A number of earthquakes
have occurred in India. Some of them caused colossal loss of life, damage to property and
build environment e.g. Bhuj earthquake (2001). The reasons behind the collapse of large
number of buildings are that the buildings are not designed according to the upgraded
earthquake resistant design codes. General awareness level is still very low and a number of
designers do not know the basic earthquake resistant design provision and the building
designs have been approved without careful consideration into its structural detailing and
specifications. Poverty is also one of the reason due to which a large part of the population do
not opt for earthquake resistant construction. As India is a developing nation, a large number
of construction activities are going on all over the country and the resulting huge stocks of
building is highly vulnerable to earthquake. Therefore, there is a need of earthquake resistant
design practices to be followed in India and some of the earthquake resistant design methods
are discussed below:
1.1.1 Conventional Force-Based Design
Force based design methods focus on evaluating the seismic force over the structure. In this
method stiffness, strength and time period are the initial properties of design. Force based
design method is performed based on IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002. According to IS 1893 (Part
1):2002, this design approach ensures that structures possess minimum strength to withstand
minor earthquakes (< DBE) without damage, resist moderate earthquakes (DBE) without
significant structural damage though some non-structural damage may occur, and aims the
structures to withstand a major earthquake (MCE) without collapse. The actual forces that
appear on structures during earthquake are much larger than the design forces. Ductility
comes from inelastic material behaviour; overstrength comes from additional reserve strength
in structures over and above the design strength.
2
1.1.2 Performance Based Design
Performance Based Design aims to design a structure in such a way so that it achieves a
specified performance level rather than achieving a displacement that is less than the
specified displacement. This method is preferred over force-based design as the damage can
be directly related to deformation. Hence this method implies designing a structure for a
specified risk of damage which can be understood as the concept of uniform risk applied to
determine the design level of seismic excitation. It implies that different structures designed
using this approach will ideally have the same risk of damage. Demand and Capacity are the
two key elements in Performance Based Design. Demand represents earthquake ground
motion and capacity represents structure’s ability to resist the seismic demand. Performance
based design focus on determining demand, capacity and performance point. The
performance point is defined as the displacement corresponding to which the demand on the
structure and capacity of the structure’s to resist demand will be same.
1.1.3 Risk Targeted Seismic Design
Risk targeted seismic design aims to adjust the ground motions in such a way so that we can
get the collapse risk as targeted. Usually the structures is designed using uniform hazard
spectrum assuming it will give us uniform collapse risk but designing a structure using
uniform hazard spectrum does not ensure uniform collapse risk so there is a need arises to
design a structure using Risk Targeted Hazard.
1.2 SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Seismic hazard can be described as the probability of occurrence of an earthquake in a given
geographical area within a given time and with ground motions exceeding the threshold.
In general, a hazard can be described as any natural phenomenon which causes loss of life,
damage to property etc. As Seismic hazard is a natural phenomenon it cannot be controlled
but the effects caused due to it can be minimized by ensuring proper planning and mitigation
strategies. Seismic hazard can be quantified by these three parameters:-
3
Level of severity (Magnitude, PGA, Intensity etc.)
Temporal characteristics (return period and/or occurrence frequency)
Spatial characteristics
Seismic hazard assessment mainly aims to estimate the hazard and its frequency of
occurrence at a specific site and the uncertainty associated with it. Various methods are
available to assess the seismic hazard at a specific site. The two basic methods of seismic
hazard assessment are:
Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA)
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA)
“DSHA provides a straight forward framework for evaluation of worst case ground motions
and does not provide any information on the likelihood of occurrence of the controlling
earthquake whereas PSHA provides a framework in which these uncertainties can be
identified, quantified and combined in a rational manner to get the complete picture of
seismic hazard.” (Krammer, 2013).
1.3 SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Seismic vulnerability is defined as the probability of collapse of a building when it is
subjected to a given ground motions. Unlike seismic hazard, Seismic vulnerability is a
characteristic of a building. The background on behaviour of buildings during earthquake is
essential to evaluate the vulnerability of the buildings. Various vulnerability assessment
methods have been developed all over the world. In India, mostly vulnerability assessment
studies are based on expert opinion due to the lack of adequate past earthquake damage data.
Basically there are four methods of vulnerability assessment:
Empirical methods
Analytical methods
Expert – opinion based methods
Hybrid Methods
4
Empirical Methods: These methods are based on the damage observed after earthquakes and
are developed four decades ago. The use of observational data is the most realistic way to
assess the vulnerability of a structure but due to the incompleteness and deficiencies in the
survey and the errors produced in the computation of data lead to a notable reduction of the
size of the database during post-processing.
Analytical Methods: when there is a lack of available damage data from past earthquakes it
is not possible to develop the damage functions, analytical methods can be used to simulate
the damage. Nonlinear static pushover analysis and time history analysis can be used for
developing the analytical fragility functions.
Expert- opinion based Methods: when there is non-availability of past earthquake damage
data and also it is not possible to develop the analytical functions then the experience and
judgement of the earthquake specialists is used to assess the vulnerability.
Hybrid Methods: These methods are the result of the combinations of different methods
used for damage prediction. “The idea in this methodology is to compensate for the lack of
observational data, the deficiencies of the structural models and the subjectivity in expert
opinion data by comparing analytical results to available empirical data.”(PRASAD 2009)
1.4 ANALYTICAL STUDIES BASED ON NONLINEAR STATIC
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
During unavailability of post-earthquake damage data, analytical method for developing
vulnerability functions is suitable to use. So in this report we are focusing on analytical
methods of vulnerability assessment. Analytical studies based on nonlinear static pushover
analysis also known as Capacity Spectrum Method (ATC 40) is discussed further in the
report. In this methodology, capacity curve representing the behaviour of a structure under
increasing lateral load is converted into capacity spectrum (ADRS format) by using the
building modal parameters (ATC-40). The expressions used to convert capacity curve into
capacity spectrum is as follows:
5
W
V
S g a 
( ) (1.1)
roof
roof
dS


(1.2)

 2
2
()
[ ( )]
iii
ii
WW
W


(1.3)

 2
ii
ii
W
W


(1.4)
Where, : Static base shear represents lateral load resistance of the building
: Seismic weight of the building
𝑊 : Lumped storey weight at ith floor levels
Δ𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑓: Roof displacement
𝜙 : Modal shape coefficient for ith floor
: Modal mass coefficient
: Modal participation factor
1.4.1 Estimation of Building Response
The intersection of the demand spectrum and the building capacity spectrum gives the
performance point of the building. And to obtain the performance point of the building
two issues need to be taken care of:
Both (Demand spectrum & Capacity Spectrum) must have the same axis.
The damping should be equal at the intersection point.
1.4.2 Damage States and Limit States
Damage states represent different damage conditions and a limit state is the threshold
between different damage conditions. Four damage states are defined in HAZUS and
damage is described by one of these four damage states: slight, moderate, extensive and
complete.
6
Figure 1.1 Damage states and limit states (HAZUS MH MR-1 2003)
1.5 BUILDING FRAGILITY CURVES
In the present study, the HAZUS methodology (HAZUS MH MR-1) has been used to
develop the fragility functions. According to HAZUS, the fragility curve follow a
lognormal distribution representing probability of being in, or exceeding a particular
damage state and is given as

















d ds
d
ds
sd
S
S
PdS
,
ln
1
[]

(1.5)
Where
d ds S , : Median value of spectral displacement at which the building reaches the threshold

of damage state s d
: ds Standard deviation of the natural logarithm of spectral displacement for damage
state s d
: Standard normal cumulative distribution function
The fragility curve can be defined by two parameters:
7
Damage state median
Damage state variability
The median value can be defined as any hazard parameter (e.g., spectral displacement or
spectral acceleration) that corresponds to the threshold of that damage state. And the other
parameter is damage state variability i.e., variability associated with that damage state.
Figure 1.2 Seismic fragility curves for the four damage states (HAZUS MH MR-1 2003)
Generally, the lognormal standard deviation, β, is expressed in terms of two parameters i.e.,
randomness (𝛽𝑅) and uncertainty components (𝛽𝑈) of the variability.
Randomness represents inherent variability associated with the event which cannot be
eliminated even having the perfect knowledge whereas uncertainty components represent the
component of variability that can be reduced with increase in knowledge. Practically the
separation of these two components of variability i.e.; uncertainty from randomness is a
complex procedure so further in this study the combined variability (β) has been used to
develop the best estimate fragility curve.
8
1.6 ANALYTICAL STUDIES BASED ON TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
In this methodology, the building response is obtained by performing non-linear time history
analysis (NLTHA). Non-linear time history analysis is performed to obtain the median
collapse capacities (𝑆𝐶𝑇̂) and collapse margin ratios (CMR).
Median collapse capacity can be defined as the intensity of ground motion at which half of
the ground motions in the record set cause collapse to the structure. And the collapse margin
ratio (CMR) is defined as the ratio of median collapse intensity (𝑆𝐶𝑇̂) and the MCE spectral
intensity (𝑆𝑀𝑇) at the fundamental time period of the structure and it is the primary parameter
used to characterize the collapse safety of the building.
1.6.1 Ground Motion Record Sets
Nonlinear dynamic analysis requires a set of predefined ground motions to estimate the
response of the structure that are scaled to increasing intensities until the median collapse
capacity is obtained. In the present study, the far field ground motion records (Sites located
greater than or equal to 10 km from fault rupture) are used to perform nonlinear time history
analysis (NLTHA). According to FEMA P-695, the far-field record sets include 22 pairs of
horizontal ground motions. The vertical component of the ground motion is not included in
the study as this direction of ground motion is not considered of primary importance for
collapse evaluation.
1.6.1.1 Scaling of Ground Motion Records
The scaling of ground motion records is a two-step process
Normalization of Records
Scaling of Records
Normalization of Records: Normalization of the individual records is done with respect to
their peak ground velocities computed in the PEER NGA database which is defined as the
geometric mean of the PGV of the two horizontal components having different orientation.
“The prime reason of normalization of records is to remove the unwarranted variability
between records due to inherent differences in event magnitude, distance to
9
source, source type and site conditions, while still maintaining the inherent aleatory (i.e.,
record to record) variability necessary for accurately predicting the collapse fragility.”
(FEMA P-695)
The normalization factor is given by the following equations:
For the ith record, i PEER i PEER i NM median PGV PGV , , ( ) / (1.6)
Normalized ith record, i i i NTH NM TH 1, 1, (1.7)
i i i NTH NM TH 2, 2, (1.8)
The peak ground velocity (PGV) of individual records is obtained directly using the
software Seismosignal and the normalization is done further using the procedure
discussed above.
1.6.1.2 Scaling of Records
The individual record sets are scaled to increasing intensities to evaluate the median
spectral intensity (𝑆𝑐𝑡 ̂ ) which causes half the ground motion to collapse the structure. In
the present study, first the scale factor is obtained as the ratio of the MCE spectral
intensity at the fundamental time period of the building to the median of spectral intensity
of 22 records (44 components) at the fundamental period of the structure. The spectral
intensity of each individual record is obtained by taking the geometric mean of the two
components oriented in different direction. Further the scale factor is increasing to get the
spectral intensity at which half of the ground motions cause collapse to the structure.
1.6.2 Background on Assessment of Collapse Capacity
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) approach has been used to evaluate the median
collapse intensity (𝑆𝐶𝑇 ̂ ) of the structure. In this methodology, “Individual ground motions
are scaled to increasing intensities until the structure reaches a collapse point”
(Vamvastikos and Cornell, 2002).
10
Figure 1.3 Incremental dynamic analysis response plot (FEMA P695)
With the help of the results obtained from Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), “the
fragility curve can be defined as the cumulative distribution function (CDF) which relates the
ground motion intensity to the probability of collapse” (Ibarra et al., 2002).
Figure 1.4 Collapse fragility curve (FEMA P695)
11
The fragility function is defined by two parameters:
Median collapse intensity (𝑆𝐶𝑇 ̂ )
Standard deviation of the natural logarithm, 𝛽𝑅𝑇𝑅
1.7 SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
Seismic Risk assessment involves the estimation of human casualties and various social
and economic losses for an expected future earthquake. And it depends on both the
Seismic hazard at the site and Vulnerability of the structure. The process of Seismic Risk
Assessment can be understood by the following expression:
Seismic Risk = Seismic Hazard Seismic Vulnerability
Seismic Risk Assessment requires the in-depth knowledge of various fields, like
seismology and geotechnical engineering are useful for developing Seismic hazard
curves. Additionally evaluation of the building response to develop the fragility functions
requires knowledge of structural engineering. These different components of the Seismic
Risk Assessment are uncertain in nature so there are uncertainties in the process of
Seismic Risk Assessment.
1.8 OBJECTIVES
The current design philosophy based on the assumption of uniform hazard spectrum does
not ensure uniform collapse risk of the building structures. Therefore the present study
deals with design of building structures using risk targeted approach which ensure
uniform collapse risk. The objectives of the research work are mentioned below:
To develop site-specific hazard curves using Delhi micro-zonation report (2014).
To develop risk-targeted site specific response spectrum at selected site locations.
To develop fragility curves for the RC frame building by performing non-linear
static pushover analysis and Incremental dynamic analysis.
12
The estimate collapse risk of the building at selected site locations using risk targeted
hazard and compared it with the collapse risk estimated using uniform hazard spectrum.
1.9 ORGANISATION OF THE DISSERATAION
Chapter 1 deals with different earthquake resistant design methods. The process of seismic
risk assessment has been discussed and presents brief idea about seismic hazard assessment
and seismic vulnerability assessment.
Chapter 2 focuses on obtaining the risk targeted ground motions. The iterative procedure for
obtaining risk targeted motions by convoluting seismic hazard curve and seismic fragility
curve has been detailed. Site specific hazard curve has been obtained at selected site
locations. Further risk adjustment factor has been obtained for selected site locations.
Chapter 3 briefs about modelling and analysis of ten storey RC frame building. The seismic
fragility curves have been obtained by both methods i.e. nonlinear static pushover analysis
and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) has been obtained. Further seismic risk has been
obtained at the selected sites for building based designed using uniform hazard spectrum.
Chapter 4 deals with the evaluation of collapse risk at the selected sites for the building
designed using risk targeted ground motions.
Chapter 5 presents the conclusion of the present study as well as recommendations for future
work.
13
Chapter 2
RISK TARGETED HAZARD
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Risk targeted approach aims to adjust the ground motions in such a way so that we can get
the collapse risk as targeted. Currently most of the countries follow the earthquake resistant
design philosophy that uses uniform hazard spectrum which possesses uniform probability of
exceedance throughout the nation i.e., a DBE level earthquake possess 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. But as concluded in this report, designing a structure for the uniform
hazard spectrum does not ensure uniform collapse probability across the nation. The reason
for this non uniform collapse probability is due to the uncertainty in the collapse capacity of
the structure and the variation in the slope of the hazard curve in different regions. Also
seismic risk is an important control parameter so it should be restricted within certain limits.
In the present study, few sites have been selected in Delhi for the clear understanding of the
process and the risk has been obtained on these sites. The reasons for considering the Delhi as
a test bed are following:
Delhi being the capital of the country is highly important city from economic perspective.
The city has experienced several earthquakes in past
Delhi comes under seismic zone IV, and its building stock is highly vulnerable to any
earthquake event
Also the micro-zonation study of Delhi has been carried out so there is easy availability of
the ground motions to develop the site specific hazard curve.
14
2.2 UNIFORM HAZARD SPECTRUM
The uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) can be developed by performing probabilistic seismic
hazard assessment (PSHA) at different range of periods. Then a target rate of exceedance is
chosen and for each spectral period the spectral acceleration amplitude is obtained. This
spectral acceleration amplitude is plotted corresponding to each spectral period to obtain the
response spectrum.
Figure 2.1 Development of uniform hazard spectrum from hazard curves at distinct spectral
periods (Baker 2008)
This spectrum is called uniform hazard spectrum because every ordinate has equal rate of
being exceeded.
15
2.3 RISK ESTIMATION BY CONVOLUTION OF HAZARD AND
FRAGILITY CURVE
Seismic Risk can be estimated by convoluting the Hazard curve of the given site and the
fragility curve of the building located on that site. As per Douglas et al 2013, Seismic
Risk can be obtained by either of these two expressions:



0
0
()
()()
0

da
da
dH a
Y a P a a (2.1)



0
0
()
( ) ( ) 0 da
da
dP a
Y a H a a (2.2)
Where
𝑃𝑎0 (𝑎) : It represents the fragility curve i.e. the collapse probability, given the hazard
level a, for a design level of 𝑎0
(𝑎) : It represents seismic hazard curve i.e. probability of exceedance corresponding
to hazard level a
These both the expressions are useful to obtain the Seismic Risk and lead to comparable
results but we prefer equation (2.2) as “It uses the derivative of the fragility curve rather
than using the derivative of Hazard Curve. This is because the Hazard is generally only
computed in PSHA for a limited number of ground motion (e.g. PGA) levels and
therefore its derivative is less accurate than the derivative of fragility curve which is
typically defined by an analytical equation.” (Douglas et al 2013)
2.4 ITERATIVE CALCULATION OF RISK TARGETED HAZARD
In the present study, the annual probability of collapse has been obtained by the
procedure given by Eads et al. 2013 and described below:
Step 1: Seismic Hazard curves are obtained by using the data from Micro-zonation report
of Delhi.
16
Step 2: The Seismic hazard curves obtained in the step 1 are in terms of probability of
exceedance in 50 years (𝑃𝐸50) versus spectral acceleration(𝑆𝑎), are converted
into annual rate of exceedance (𝜆𝑆𝑎) versus spectral acceleration (𝑆𝑎) by using
the following expression:
PT
PE
Sa
ln(1 ) 50 
(2.3)
Where, 𝑃𝐸50 : Probability of exceedance in 50 years
𝑃 : Time interval considered (e.g. 50 years)
Step 3: The seismic fragility curve is defined by using the expression given in equation
(2.5) in terms of probability of exceeding complete damage versus spectral
acceleration(𝑆𝑎).
Step 4: Both the Hazard curve and fragility curve are divided into n identical small
segments of spectral acceleration (𝑆𝑎) and the annual rate of exceedance is
obtained at each central value of the small segment. Then the slope of the
fragility curve is obtained for each interval.
Step 5: The annual rate of exceedance obtained in step 4 at each central value of the small
segments is multiplied by the associated slope of the fragility curve. By
numerically integrating this distribution, the annual collapse rate is obtained.
ai
ai
ai
c Sai S
S
PCS




()
()
(2.4)
The above procedure is shown schematically below in Fig. 2.2
17
Figure 2.2 Iterative calculation process required for the computation of risk-targeted hazard
maps (Silva et al. 2014)
2.5 RISK CALCULATION
For calculating the Seismic Risk, we need input of both seismic hazard curve and seismic
fragility curve. Usually, seismic hazard curve is given by seismologist. Risk targeted hazard
assessment requires site specific hazard curve at building location. Therefore, in this study
two sites have been selected in Delhi region and Seismic Risk has been obtained at these two
sites. The sites selected are:
18
Shikarpur
Akshardham
Both of these selected sites are located in distinct site-specific potential hazard level. And
the risk has been obtained for the same generic building type having different seismic
demand. The location of the sites is shown in the map of Delhi below. As we can see
from the map, Shikarpur site has very high hazard index whereas Akshardham is located
in moderate hazard index zone.
Both the selected sites are located in Zone IV so they can be designed using code based
design response spectrum for Zone IV and risk can be obtained by using site specific
hazard curve at their respective locations.
2.5.1 Site-Specific Response Spectrum
For developing the site specific response spectrum, the procedure given in ASCE-7
(2010) is used which requires short period short period spectral acceleration (𝑆𝑠) and
spectral acceleration corresponding to 1 second spectral period (𝑆1). In this report, (𝑆𝑠)
and (𝑆1) value has been taken corresponding to MCE and DBE from Delhi microzonation
report. As per ASCE-7 (2010), the expressions used for developing the sitespecific
response spectrum are:
(0.4 0.6 )
0T
T
S Sa s 0 T T (2.5)
a s S S s T T T 0 (2.6)
T
S
Sa
1 s L T T T (2.7)
2
1
T
ST
SL
a L T T (2.8)
Where
𝑆 : Spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods
𝑆1 : Spectral response acceleration parameter at 1 sec period
: Fundamental time period of the building
19
Figure 2.3 Location of sites for the site specific assessment study (Delhi Micro-zonation
Report, 2014)
20
And the expression for 𝑇0 and 𝑇𝑠 are as below:
sS
S
T1
0 0.2 (2.9)
S
SS
S
T 1 (2.10)
When MCE response spectrum is required 𝑆𝑠 and 𝑆1 value corresponding to MCE will
be taken from Delhi micro-zonation report. Similarly, When DBE response spectrum is
required 𝑆𝑠 and 𝑆1 value corresponding to DBE will be taken from Delhi micro-zonation
report. The site specific response spectrum corresponding to MCE and DBE for all the
selected sires are shown below.
Figure 2.4 Site specific response spectrum at MCE for all the selected sites
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Spectral acceleration (Sa/g)
Time Period (sec)
Shikarpur Akshardham
21
Figure 2.5 Site Specific response spectrum at DBE for all the selected sites
2.5.2 Site-Specific Hazard Curve
Generally Seismic hazard curves are obtained by seismologist but in absence, these
curves can be obtained by assuming linear variation in log-log scale. In this report,
seismic hazard curves are obtained by using the information provided in Delhi microzonation
report. The Delhi micro-zonation report provides ground motions corresponding
to two return periods only i.e. DBE and MCE. But for calculating the risk we need
ground motions corresponding to all return periods. So for the purpose of developing the
full hazard curve using these two ground motions, the expression given in FEMA 273
(1997) has been used. According to clause 2.6.1.3 “when the mapped BSE-2 short period
response acceleration parameter, 𝑆𝑠 is less than 1.5g, the modified mapped short period
response acceleration parameter at a one-second period, for probabilities of exceedance
between 2%/50 years and 10%/50 years may be determined from the following
equation:”
ln( ) ln( ) [ln( ) ln( )][0.606ln( ) 3.73] 10 / 50 2 10 / 50 i i iBSEi R S S S S P (2.11)
Where,
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Spectral acceleration (Sa/g)
Time Period (sec)
Shikarpur Akshardham
22
ln (𝑆𝑖): The natural logarithm of the spectral acceleration parameter at desired probability
of exceedance
ln(𝑆𝑖10⁄50): The natural logarithm of the spectral acceleration parameter at 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years
ln (𝑆𝑖𝐵𝑆𝐸−2): The natural logarithm of the spectral acceleration parameter at 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years
ln (𝑃𝑅 ): The natural logarithm of the mean return period at desired probability of
exceedance
And the mean return period (𝑃 ) is given by the following expression:
1 0.02 ln(1 50 )
1
PE R e

P 
(2.12)
Where𝑃𝐸50: Probability of exceedance in 50 years of the desired hazard level
Similarly, for getting the value of 𝑆𝑠 and 𝑆1 for probability of exceedance greater than
10% in 50 years the following expression can be used:
Rn
ii
P
SS)
475
( 10 / 50 (2.13)
Where, 𝑆𝑖, 𝑆𝑖10⁄50 and 𝑃𝑅 are as defined above and the value of ‘n’ has been specified as
0.44 for the California region (table 2-11 FEMA 273 (1997)). In absence of similar ‘n’
values for Indian cities, the same value has been assumed in the present study.
The site-specific hazard curves have been plotted for probability of exceedance versus
spectral acceleration (𝑆𝑆) and (𝑆1) and shown in Fig. 2.6 and Fig. 2.7 below.
23
Figure 2.6 Site-specific hazard curves for short period spectral acceleration, Ss (m/s2)
Figure 2.7 Site-specific hazard curves at t=1 sec spectral period, S1 (m/s2)
2.5.3 Risk Targeted Ground Motions
For the estimation of Risk targeted ground motions the procedure mentioned in ASCE-7
(2010), clause 21.2.1.2 has been followed in this study. As per clause 21.2.1.2, Risk targeted
ground motions can be determined by the iterative integration of a site specific hazard curve
with a lognormal probability density function representing the probability of
1E-08
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Annual rate of exceedance, λc
Spectral acceleration, Ss (m/s^2)
Shikarpur
Akshardham
1E-08
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Annual rate of exceedance, λc
Spectral Acceleration S1 (m/s^2)
Shikarpur
Akshardham
24
collapse. And these obtained ground motions should achieve 1% probability of collapse in 50
year and should satisfy these two conditions given below:
i. A 10% probability of collapse at respective ordinate of the probabilistic ground motion
response spectrum
ii. A logarithmic standard deviation value of 0.6
Figure 2.8 Collapse probability function satisfying the conditions specified in ASCE standard
In the present study the risk targeted ground motions for the selected sites have been obtained
by the iterative procedure discussed earlier in this chapter. First a hypothetical building has
been assumed which satisfies the above mentioned conditions and then design hazard is
obtained by the iterative procedure so as to achieve the targeted seismic risk.
2.5.3.1 Shikarpur Site
As per Delhi micro-zonation report, Shikarpur is situated in very high hazard level as shown
in Fig. also. The ground response results of the Shikarpur site at distinct spectral periods are
shown below:
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
Probability of collapse
Spectral Acceleration Sa (m/s^2)
Collapse probability function
Sa(MCE)=10% probability of collapse i.e 0.4g
β = 0.6
25
Table 1.1 Site location details and ground response results for MCE and DBE hazard levels at
Shikarpur site (Delhi Micro-zonation Report, 2014)
Shikarpur
Latitude
28.470 N
Longitude
77.200 E
Ground Response Results
DBE
MCE
Spectral Acceleration (𝑆𝑎) at 0.1 sec
0.4g
0.8g
Spectral Acceleration (𝑆𝑎) at 1 sec
0.15g
0.421g
The site specific hazard curve of the selected sites has been developed and the fragility curve
for the sites can be obtained by the procedure discussed above i.e. 10% probability of
collapse at MCE and variability value is taken as 0.6. Seismic Risk has been obtained by
convoluting site specific hazard curve and the fragility curve. The design hazard is then
iterated to achieve 1% risk and is shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Iterations performed to obtain the Risk Targeted hazard at spectral period 0.1 sec at
Shikarpur site
Iteration No.
Design Hazard (MCE Level)
Annual Collapse Rate (𝜆𝐶)
Collapse Risk (𝑃𝐶) in 50 years
Risk Coefficient (𝐶𝑅1)
#1
0.8g
1.68×10-4
0.84%
1
#2
0.7g
2.34×10-4
1.17%
0.875
#3
0.746g
2×10-4
1%
0.9325
As shown in the table the collapse risk obtained in the first iteration is 0.84% (<1%) so as to
increase the probability of collapse of building, the building should be designed for lower
ground motions, therefore, In the next iteration, design hazard is reduced to 0.7g
26
and similarly risk has been obtained for this design hazard level and correspondingly the risk
obtained is 1.17% (>1%). Again the design hazard level is iterated and at design hazard level
0.746g, the risk obtained is equal to 1%. The design hazard (MCE level) 0.746g is the Risk
targeted hazard.
Risk Coefficient is defined as the ratio of the design hazard at MCE level assumed in the
iteration process to the site specific design hazard level provided by the micro-zonation
report.
The above procedure is shown schematically below:
Figure 2.9 Iterative procedure for risk targeted hazard at 0.1 sec spectral period at Shikarpur
site
Similarly, Risk targeted ground motions has been obtained corresponding to 1s spectral
period at Shikarpur site.
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0
10
20
30
40
Probability of Collapse in 50 years
Annual rate of exceedance (λc)
Spectral acceleration Sa @ 0.1 sec (m/s^2)
Hazard Curve
Fragility Curve (Itt.#1)
Fragility Curve (Itt.#2)
Fragility Curve (Itt.#3)
27
Table2.3 Iterations performed to obtain the Risk targeted ground motion corresponding to 1
sec spectral period at Shikarpur site
Iteration No.
Design Hazard (MCE Level)
Annual Collapse Rate (𝜆𝐶)
Collapse Risk (𝑃𝐶) in 50 years
Risk Coefficient (𝐶𝑅1)
#1
0.4g
2.27×10-4
1.135%
0.95
#2
0.5g
1.56×10-4
0.78%
1.187
#3
0.435g
2×10-4
1%
1.033
As shown in Table 2.4, risk targeted design hazard obtained corresponding to 1sec spectral
period is 0.435g having risk coefficient as 1.033.
The above procedure is shown schematically as below:
Figure2.10 Iterative procedure for risk targeted hazard at 1 sec spectral period at Shikarpur
site
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0
20
40
60
80
100
Probability of collapse in 50 years
Annual rate of exceedance λc
Spectral acceleration Sa @ 1 sec (m/s^2)
Hazard Curve
Fragility Curve (Itt.#1)
Fragility Curve (Itt.#2)
Fragility Curve (Itt.#3)
28
2.5.3.2 Akshardham Site
As per Delhi micro-zonation report, Akshardham is situated in moderate hazard level. And
the ground response results of the site at distinct spectral periods are shown below:
Table2.4 Site location details and ground response results for MCE and DBE hazard levels at
Akshardham site (Delhi Micro-zonation Report, 2014)
Akshardham
Latitude
28.470 N
Longitude
77.200 E
Ground Response Results
DBE
MCE
Spectral Acceleration (𝑆𝑎) at 0.1 sec
0.35g
0.6g
Spectral Acceleration (𝑆𝑎) at 1 sec
0.1g
0.25g
The procedure for obtaining Risk targeted ground motions is similar to as for the Shikarpur
site.
Table2.5 Iterations performed to obtain the risk targeted ground motion corresponding to 0.1
sec spectral period at Akshardham site
Iteration No.
Design Hazard (MCE Level)
Annual Collapse Rate (𝜆𝐶)
Collapse Risk (𝑃𝐶) in 50 years
Risk Coefficient (𝐶𝑅1)
#1
0.65g
1.52×10-4
0.76%
1.083
#2
0.55g
2.44×10-4
1.20%
0.916
#3
0.59g
2.0×10-4
1%
0.983
As shown in Table 2.5, risk targeted design hazard obtained corresponding to 0.1sec spectral
period is 0.59g having risk coefficient as 0.983.
29
The above procedure is shown schematically as below:
Figure2.11 Iterative procedure for risk targeted hazard at 0.1 sec spectral period at
Akshardham site
Similarly, risk targeted has been obtained at 1 sec spectral period at Akshardham site. The
results of the same have been shown below:
Table2.6 Iterations performed to obtain the risk targeted ground motion corresponding to 1
sec spectral period at Akshardham site
Iteration No.
Design Hazard (MCE Level)
Annual Collapse Rate (𝜆𝐶)
Collapse Risk (𝑃𝐶) in 50 years
Risk Coefficient (𝐶𝑅1)
#1
0.3g
1.33×10-4
0.665%
1.2
#2
0.2g
2.79×10-4
1.395%
0.8
#3
0.24g
2×10-4
1%
0.96
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Probability of Collapse in 50 years
Annual rate of exceedance λc
Spectral acceleration Sa @ 0.1 sec (m/s^2)
Hazard Curve
Fragility Curve (Itt.#1)
Fragility Curve (Itt.#2)
Fragility Curve (Itt.#3)
30
As shown in Table 2.6, risk targeted design hazard obtained corresponding to 0.1sec spectral
period is 0.24g having risk coefficient as 0.96. Risk coefficient implies that the design hazard
at MCE level provided by Delhi Micro-zonation report needs to be multiplied by this factor
to obtain risk targeted ground motion.
The above procedure is shown schematically as below:
Figure2.12 Iterative procedure for risk targeted hazard at 1 sec spectral period at Akshardham
site
Risk targeted hazard and the risk adjustment factor has been evaluated at both the selected
sites in Delhi. Thus, at few sites design site-specific hazard needs to be increased whereas at
others it should be reduced in order to achieve uniform collapse risk.
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Probability of collapse in 50 years
Annual rate of exceedance (λc)
Spectral acceleration Sa @ 1 sec (m/s^2)
Hazard Curve
Fragility Curve (Itt.#1)
Fragility Curve (Itt.#2)
Fragility Curve (Itt.#3)
31