Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic fragility analysis of jacket type offshore platforms considering soil- T

pile-structure interaction
⁎
A. Ajamya, , B. Asgarianb, C.E. Venturac, M.R. Zolfagharib
a
Industrial Structures Department, Advisian, Burnaby, BC, V5C 6S7, Canada
b
K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Tehran, Iran
c
Director of Earthquake Engineering Research Facility Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C V6T-1Z4, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is an ever-increasing demand to assess integrity of the old platforms in which seismic fragility curves need
Uncertainty to be developed for the integrity analysis in case of earthquake. Therefore, in this paper, an analytical approach
Jacket type offshore platform (J.T.O.P) is presented to develop seismic fragility curves of an existing jacket type offshore platform in the Persian Gulf.
Comprehensive Interaction Incremental The method is based on nonlinear dynamic analyses results of the platform subjected to possible ground motions
Dynamic Analysis (Comprehensive Interaction
expected at the site. The effects of both aleatory and epistemic uncertainty are considered using the
IDA)
Seismic fragility curves
Comprehensive Interaction Incremental Dynamic Analysis (Comprehensive Interaction IDA) method, simulta-
neously. The influence of aleatory uncertainty is addressed using the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)
method, separately. Then, the results of Comprehensive Interaction IDA are compared with the results of IDA in
seismic fragility curves. Even though the probability of failure at a given Sa(g) of Comprehensive Interaction IDA
is less than that of IDA, the influence of aleatory uncertainty has the most significant proportion. The seismic
fragility curves are defined in terms of cumulative lognormal distribution functions and the combination of a
structural damage index with a ground motion index. These are used to define two damage states: an extensive
damage state and a collapse state in the case study.

1. Introduction address the efficiency of aging platforms [1].

The environmental and financial consequences of catastrophic
failures of critical engineering systems have become so severe that in-
dustries are seriously considering improvements to provide quantitative
measures of structural performance. For example, in the early 1960’s,
Hurricanes Hilda and Betsy caused considerable damages to the plat-
forms of the Gulf of Mexico. The actual damage of offshore platforms
impact not only the structures, but also operational expenses affecting
the global economy. This need has highlighted risk assessment re-
quirements being useful to owners, decision makers and industries.
A typical jacket type offshore platform consists of a steel jacket,
fixed to the seabed by piles and supports platform top side in which
operation of oil and gas production takes place. While the offshore
industry was still in the development, the civil infrastructure was
coming under increasing scrutiny as age degradation and obsolescence
was occurring. After the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989, lack of
consideration of earthquake effects in structures designed according to
the prevailing codes of the 1950’s and 1960’s led to some efforts to
In the mid 1980’s, the Assessment, Inspection and Maintenance
(AIM) Joint Industry Projects (JIP) were conducted for a large number
of oil companies and the mineral management service [2] to assess
aging platforms in the U.S. Moreover, the American Petroleum Institute
(API) [3] in 1994 added a new section defined as “Section 17” to API
RP-2A for assessment of existing platforms. This section, a supplement
to the 20th edition of API RP 2A WSD, was later fully incorporated in
the API RP 2A WSD 21st Edition [4].
In the early 1990’s, the ISO 19,900 series [5] of standards were
intended to provide a framework to evaluate the structural integrity of
existing offshore platforms. In the fixed steel offshore platforms, the ISO
19901-2 [6] was published in April 2004 which applies Extreme Level
Earthquake (ELE) and Abnormal Level Earthquake (ALE) instead of
Strength Level Earthquake (SLE) and Ductility Level Earthquake (DLE),
respectively and also takes into account the consequences of failure.
Since there are existing similar challenges in structural damage as-
sessments, main methodologies in oil and gas industry have been
adapted from other industries such as bridge industries. For instance, to

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: azadeh.ajamy@advisian.com (A. Ajamy), asgarian@kntu.ac.ir (B. Asgarian), ventura@civil.ubc.ca (C.E. Ventura),
mzolfaghari@kntu.ac.ir (M.R. Zolfaghari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.066
Received 24 July 2017; Received in revised form 7 June 2018; Accepted 18 July 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Ajamy et al.
evaluate building collapse caused by earthquakes, the methodologies
usually provide a probabilistic framework based on the Performance-
Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) methodology of the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) center to complete the overall
collapse risk assessment [7,8].
For instance, in 2000 the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) [9] studies came up with a standardized methodology to esti-
mate earthquake losses and evaluate seismic vulnerabilities in the form
of realistic models without considering uncertainties in simulations. In
another piece of research in 1999, HAZUS [10] was established as a
natural hazard loss estimation methodology and it is capable of com-
puting damages and potential regional losses in three levels for 36
different model building types. In this tool, vulnerability assessments of
structures are considered using fragility curves.
The formulation of fragility curves has transitioned from empirical
to analytical methods. Empirical fragility curves were developed on the
basis of the records of damage resulting from past earthquakes, in
particular, two recent urban earthquakes, namely the 1994 Northridge
and 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu. In 1997, Basöz et al. [11] and in 1999
Basöz and Kiremidjian [12] developed empirical fragility curves for
different observed damage states from the Northridge and Loma Prieta
data, respectively. In another study, Yamazaki et al. [13] extended si-
milar fragility curves using Kobe event. In recent years and in the
electrical industry, Straub and Der Kiureghian [14] offered empirical
fragility models for components in electrical substations while they
addressed parameter uncertainties and statistical dependency among
observations.
In 1994, Hwang and Huo [15] suggested an analytical method to
produce fragility curves based on numerical simulations resulting from
the dynamic responses of specific structures. They considered the ef-
fects of aleatory uncertainties by the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)
method. In 1996, in order to save computational cost in each run of
MCS, Fukushima et al. [16] and Kai and Fukushima [17] presented an
analytical fragility approach to achieve fragility curves in which
random vibration theory in the frequency domain was utilized to
evaluate the structural responses.
In the bridge industry, Shinozuka et al. (2000) [18] presented the
fragility curves of a bridge by MCSs. They applied two different ap-
proaches including time-history and capacity spectrum methods and
also indicated that nonlinear effects play a crucial role in the major and
collapse states. In 2001, in order to develop fragility curves for highway
bridge piers of specific bridges, Karim and Yamazaki [19] applied an
analytical approach based on the nonlinear dynamic response of an
equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system of the pier obtained by
static pushover analysis. Moreover, Elnashai et al. [20] proposed an
analytical approach to derive vulnerability functions including
Fig. 1. Main steps involved in the proposed methodology to derive analytical fragility curves of Jacket Type Offshore Platforms.
199
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211
uncertainty of the ground motions and structural components. Then,
the functions were compared to observational damage data from the
Northridge and Kobe earthquakes. It demonstrated that there is good
agreement between the analytical vulnerability functions and ob-
servational data.
In 2007, Berahman, and Behnamfar [21] applied the Bayesian ap-
proach to develop seismic fragility curves for steel storage tanks. Since
consideration of Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) plays a significant role
in results, Kwon and Elnashai in 2010 [22], represented fragility curves
of components and bridge system and found that abutment bearings are
the most critical components of the studied bridge configuration.
Moreover, Wang et al. [23] investigated the effects of SSI and lique-
faction on the fragility of both an un-retrofitted and an isolated bridge-
soil- foundation system. In 2012, Asgarian et al. [24] studied the effect
of Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction (SPSI) on dynamic characteristic of
sample jacket type offshore platform by experimental and numerical
investigation. They found that dynamic characteristics of the system
change significantly due to SPSI. In 2017, Jahanitabar and Bargi [25]
assesses the seismic vulnerability of a recently designed Jacket-type
offshore platform through development of fragility curves capturing the
effects of ageing and corrosion deterioration while the result of dy-
namic analyses consider the effects of SPSI in the models.
The motivation and the originality of this study in comparison to
previous studies was the fact that the results cover a lack of seismic
fragility curves for existing jacket type offshore platforms with si-
multaneous consideration of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. In
fact, in this paper, a methodology is proposed based on an analytical
method using numerical simulations to develop seismic fragility curves
for this type of similar structure. To illustrate the methodology, an
existing jacket type offshore platform is selected as representative of the
fixed platforms constructed in the early 1970’s in the Persian Gulf.
Then, nonlinear dynamic analyses of selected jacket under seismic
loading are performed to obtain the damage indices while simultaneous
effects of model uncertainties in both soil and structure parameters and
also variation of input ground motions are considered. It should be
noted that the proposed approach neglects wind and wave load pattern
in the dynamic analyses; moreover, it can be applicable to construct
fragility curves in the other industries, as well.
2. Development of fragility curves
One of the main elements of the PBEE equation is the conditional
probability of being in one particular damage state. In this paper, the
probability is defined as fragility functions in terms of level-specific
demand models that consider maximum Inter-level Drift Ratio (IDR)
(θmax ) as Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP) the so-called Damage
A. Ajamy et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211

Measure (DM) at all levels. Table 1

Fig. 1 illustrates schematically the proposed methodology and dis- Statistical data of the structural and soil properties treated as random variables.
plays the relationship between the five steps. The information flowing Parameters influencing uncertainties in surrounding soil and pile element model
from left to right is summarized in terms of uncertainties, numerical
models, structural analysis, definition of limit states and finally damage Random Shear–wave Shear modulus Damping ratio
analysis. The causal Markov condition [26] is estimated in the entire variables velocity reduction

process such that the conditional probabilities of each step are depen- Symbol VS G/Gmax D
dent on only the previous step and no others. Mean Computed Computed Computed
As shown by the flowchart, the demands imposed upon the structure Cov Computed Computed Computed
are evaluated first by each ground motion record at different intensities Type Lognormal Normal Normal
Reference Toro 1995 [32] Darendeli and Darendeli and Stokoe
using the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) [27] and Comprehensive
Stokoe [33] [33]
Interaction Incremental Dynamic Analysis (Comprehensive Interaction
Parameters influencing uncertainties in structural element model
IDA) methods [28] (the third section) and then damage states are ex-
Random Tubular member (including braces Modulus of elasticity
pressed in structural response (the fourth section). These two results are variables and legs)
used to obtain fragility functions. Note that in IDA, the structure is Symbol fY,B,L ES
evaluated under a suite of scaled ground motion records to reflect the Mean 360 Mpa, 355 Mpa 2.00 × 105 Mpa
effects of aleatory uncertainty [27] and in Comprehensive Interaction COV 0.07 0.03
Type Lognormal Lognormal
IDA, sets of models of the structure are analyzed in separate groups Reference Haselton [34] and JCSS [35] Haselton [34] and JCSS
such that the influence of epistemic uncertainties is quantified si- [35]
multaneously with aleatory uncertainty using nonlinear dynamic ana-
lyses [28]. In fact, the Comprehensive Interaction IDA method is es-
sentially an enhanced version of the IDA.In this paper, fragility quantify each of the uncertainties.
functions are in terms of cumulative lognormal distribution functions To evaluate the effects of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties, it is
(Eq. (1)) that represent the relation between a measure of the ground necessary to perform repetitive calculations using a mathematical
motion intensity (Sa) and the damage rate (D) to assess seismic per- model of the platform in which random variables with certain dis-
formance of structures [29]. tribution functions are used with the ground motions that are re-
presentative of the seismicity at the platform’s location. Mann et al.
⎛ Lnx −μ ⎞ [36] proposed that it is required to have a suitable number of simula-
P (D > d |Sa = x ) = 1−P (D ⩽ d |Sa = x ) = 1−Φ ⎜ ⎟ tions in the order of 10,000 to 20,000 in the pure MCS method to
⎜ (β 2 + β 2 ) ⎟
⎝ Eps Alt
⎠ (1) achieve approximately a 95% confidence limit. Since having a large
number of simulations is not practical for complex and time-consuming
where Lnx is median estimate of the demand as a function of Sa , μ is problems, it is desirable to perform a small number of simulations to
median value of the structural capacity or the limit state, βEps is dis- obtain an acceptable level of accuracy for the statistical characteristics
persion due to epistemic uncertainties and βAlt is dispersion due to re- of the response using stratified sampling techniques such as the Latin
cord-to-record variability and φ (.) is standard normal cumulative dis-
Hypercube Sampling (LHS) [37].The drawback of the LHS method is
tribution function. These parameters must be estimated in the
that it imposes undesired correlations which are prominent in a small
development of the fragility curves.Analytical fragility functions are
number of simulations and also it cannot generate given correlations
utilized based on mathematical frameworks using a statistical proce-
through the target correlation matrix between uncorrelated and cor-
dure named Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) to be fitted to the
related random variables; In order to overcome these limitations, an
structural analysis data [30]. The MLE developed by R.A. Fisher in the
optimization technique called the Simulated Annealing (SA) approach
1920’s is a standard approach to estimate the parameters of the log-
is implemented in the method. In the early 1980’s, the SA method was
normal distribution ( μ and σ ) in statistics and have desirable properties
independently introduced in metallurgy by Kirkpatrick et al. [38] and
such as sufficiency, consistency, and efficiency in estimation. It is
Černý [39,40]. It minimizes the difference (E ) between the target
usually impossible to achieve a closed form analytic solution when the
correlation matrix (T ) (defined by the user) and the actual correlation
model includes many parameters such that their probability density
matrix ( A ) (estimated by a suitable statistic point estimator such as the
functions are highly non-linear. Therefore, in this paper optimal para-
Spearman rank order correlation coefficient in the LHS method) using a
meters are found using numerical non-linear optimization algorithms to
temperature schedule termed the cooling schedule. The following fac-
maximize the log-likelihood functions [31].
tors influence the performance of the cooling schedule algorithm:

3. Sources of uncertainties and their propagation (1) The initial amount of temperature (t0 )
(2) The required process to reduce t
The sources of uncertainties to quantify probabilistic assessment are (3) The minimum temperature (tmin ),
categorized into two groups including aleatory and epistemic. The (4) The number of required loops (Ntrials )
aleatory uncertainty reflects the variability in random nature of ground (5) The choice of stopping condition(s)
motion records, the so-called record-to-record variability and will be
explained in a separate section in more detail. In this study to find unknown values in the cooling schedule, our
The epistemic uncertainty is mainly due to lack of knowledge about experience offers the following equations after countless numerical
the structure’s realistic models and element properties. In this effort, the examples:
epistemic uncertainties have been listed in Table 1 in two separate 50
groups. The first group includes the most important epistemic un- t0 =
NSim (2)
certainties related to the surrounding soil and pile element model, in-
cluding the shear-wave velocity profile and the shear modulus reduc- 6
tmin = 3
tion and damping curves of the surrounding soil media. The second NSim (3)
group includes strength and stiffness of components of the structural
Ntrials = N × NVar × NSim 1 < N < 10 N = 10 (4)
model. The table also presents their mean values, Coefficient Of Var-
iation (COV), the distribution types as well as the references used to In which NVar and NSim are the number of input random variables

200
A. Ajamy et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211

and simulations, respectively. In 2012, Vorechovsky [41] proposed that Table 2

accurate results are met in the critical number of simulations equal to The set of ten ground motion records applied.
15 without intensive computational effort. Num NGA# Event Station Mechanism PGA
Since the initial temperature has to be reduced in each loop gra-
dually, the following exponential temperature schedule is re- 1 1007 Northridge-01 LA - Univ. Hospital Reverse 0.214
2 1020 Northridge-01 Lake Hughes #12A Reverse 0.174
commended:
3 338 Coalinga-01 Parkfield - Fault Reverse- 0.274
t j+1 = c × t j 0.7 < c < 0.99 c = 0.89 (5) Zone 14 Oblique
4 369 Coalinga-01 Slack Canyon Reverse- 0.166
Finally, the stopping condition of the cooling schedule algorithm is Oblique
determined by a norm addressing deviations of all correlation coeffi- 5 340 Coalinga-01 Parkfield - Fault Reverse- 0.195
Zone 16 Oblique
cients that is:
6 503 Taiwan 25 SMART1 C00 Reverse- 0.172
NVar − 1 NVar SMART1 Oblique
E= ∑ ∑ (Eij )2 7 735 Loma Prieta APEEL 7 - Pulgas Reverse- 0.156
i=1 j=i+1 (6) Oblique
8 773 Loma Prieta Hayward - BART Sta Reverse- 0.156
where E is the symmetric difference matrix used by summing up the Oblique
squares of the upper triangle off-diagonal terms only. This norm proved 9 778 Loma Prieta Hollister Diff. Array Reverse- 0.269
Oblique
itself to be a good objective function for the optimization algorithm. It
10 787 Loma Prieta Palo Alto - SLAC Lab Reverse- 0.278
should be noted that all entries of the correlation matrix (Eij ) are within Oblique
the interval (−1, 1). To indicate the efficiency of the LHS method along
with the SA technique, the following matrix is defined by the lower
triangle as the target correlation matrix T and producing the upper strong motion database in the first step [42]. The records are selected
triangle as the correlation matrix A after the application of the SA based on the following criteria:
technique ( T, A).
G
1. The ground motions are recorded in the free field sites based on
⎛ fy ES VS
G max
D ⎞ fy outcrop rock conditions.
⎜ 1 − 0.00714 0.01071 0.00000 − 0.01429 ⎟ ES 2. The site is classified as site class D according to NEHRP seismic
⎜0 1 − 0.02500 0.00714 − 0.00714 ⎟ VS provisions [43].
⎜0 0 1 − 0.00714 0.00357 ⎟ G 3. The earthquake magnitudes are between 6 and 7.3.
⎜0 0 0 1 − 0.48929 ⎟ Gmax
⎜0 ⎟ D 4. The source-to-site distances are between 20 km and 70 km.
0 0 − 0.5 1
⎝ ⎠ 5. The faulting mechanisms are reverse or reverse-oblique.
Fig. 2 illustrates the random variable coefficients which are de- 6. The PGAs are between 0.15 g and 0.60 g.
termined by the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient and uti-
lized in the following parts to define epistemic uncertainties in each set, Since Shome and Cornel in 1999 [44] suggested that ten to twenty
separately. records can usually provide reasonable seismic demands in mid-rise
structures, in this paper in addition to the above criteria, the Arias in-
tensity, a measure of the strength of a ground motion, is also applied as
4. Strong-motion record selection methodology
a variable for record selection [45]. Table 2 shows a suite of ten ground
motion records that has similar energies to evaluate the offshore plat-
One of the most essential challenges in analytical models to evaluate
form.In this paper, spectral acceleration at the first mode period of the
seismic performance is the choice of ground motion records. In this
platform (Sa (T1;5%)) is chosen as an efficient Intensity Measure (IM).
paper, a suite of 116 ground motion records is taken from the PEER

Fig. 2. The values of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients for the different random variables.

201
A. Ajamy et al.
Fig. 3. Site-specific seismic hazard curve in term of spectral acceleration (Sa (2.17sec;5%) ) for the fixed offshore platform in the Persian Gulf [28].
Fig. 3 illustrates the site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard curve
obtained from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis [28]. Spectral
accelerations for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 year (Sa2/50) and
10% probability of exceedance in 50 year (Sa10/50 ) correspond to 0.26 g
and 0.16 g, respectively, according to a probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis at the site of the platform [46].
In this paper, the selected platform is located in seismic zone III
based on the ISO19901-2 provisions [6]. In ISO19901-2’s terminology,
this means that the fixed platform's Seismic Risk Category (SRC) is
considered as SRC2, SRC3 and SRC4 and the site is deemed as a severe
site. On the other hand, ISO 19901-2 defines the platform's exposure
level in terms of the target annual probability of failure of the platform
to evaluate the structural safety level.
Fig. 4 shows the plot of the spectral acceleration with 5% damping
ratio (Sa(T1; 5%)) of the selected ground motions. The mean value of
the 10 records is shown with a thick line. It is apparent that there are
variations of spectral shape due to mostly the soil condition and source-
to-site distance. Since each ground motion involves its specific fre-
quency content, a clear explanation about its shape is difficult. In the
next step, to evaluate seismic performance of the platform, the
Fig. 4. Spectral Acceleration with 5% damping ratio of the recorded ground motion for selected earthquakes. The mean amplitude is shown with a thick line.
202
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211
Comprehensive Interaction IDA method is performed with the ten
scaled records in ten levels using a hunt and fill algorithm [27]. The
scaling method involves the target hazard levels and also limits the
maximum PGA of the site to 4.0g at the highest level of IM to escape
biased results generated at high levels of intensity [47].
5. Jacket platform configuration
The platform of selected field was constructed in the Persian Gulf in
the early 1970’s. This platform is one of two main offshore production
complexes in the field. Fig. 5 shows a schematic view of a row of the
fixed platform configuration with three-leg grouted piles.
The simulations are performed using a two-dimensional model of
frame in OpenSees (Fig. 5) [48], in two different parts including
structure and pile based on as-is data. The structural part is comprised
of the jacket and deck modules. The jacket includes three parts legs,
beams and braces. The out diameter of cross sections varies from
100 cm to 105 cm with variable thickness from 1.3 cm to 3.2 cm in legs,
from 40 cm to 45 cm with variable thickness from 2.0 cm to 1.0 cm in
beams and finally from 30 cm to 46 cm with variable thickness from
A. Ajamy et al.
Fig. 5. A schematic view of the two-dimensional model configuration.
0.9 cm to 1.0 cm in braces. In pile part, the out diameter of cross section
is 92 cm with a thickness 3.0 cm.
All legs, the beams and braces of the jacket are modelled using
force-based elements with three degrees of freedom at each end. To
address the buckling and post buckling behavior of tubular section
members, a fiber cross section is used [49,50]. The members of the deck
are modelled using elastic elements in OpenSees to ensure their elastic
behavior during the nonlinear analyses. All members capture both
material nonlinearities of the legs, beams and braces and large de-
formation (P−Δ) effects. For simplicity, the contributions of non-
structural elements, fluid-structure interactions and simultaneous con-
sideration of environmental loads along with seismic load are not
considered. Even with these simplifications, the analyses are compu-
tationally extensive and require several months to complete all the
dynamic analyses.
The total mass of the platform consists of the mass of piles, legs,
beams and braces and various appurtenances, like conductors, risers,
mud mats, boat landings, walkways, and caissons. Moreover, additional
and added masses are included to account for the entrapped water on
submerged elements and members below the water level. The total
mass is considered 4300 tonne based on as-is drawings and existing
reports. The mass of the jacket is distributed as lumped masses at the
floor levels; then mass proportional Rayleigh Damping of 5% is ad-
dressed for the first mode in addition a 2% for hydrodynamic damping
and 3% for structural damping. The effect of Soil-Pile-Structure
Interactions (SPSI) is considered using the Beam-on-Nonlinear-Winkler-
Foundation (BNWF) method referred to as the p-y method. In the BNWF
method, the pile foundation model is treated as a beam supported on a
203
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211
spring foundation defined by a series of independent horizontal and
vertical nonlinear springs distributed along the pile.
Field measurements indicate that the local sub-seabed conditions
consist of layers of over consolidated clays and calcareous silica sands,
with strata of calcareous silt at varying depths. To apply the p-y
method, the soil column is divided in layers using a multi-degree-of-
freedom lumped parameter model.
Fig. 6 presents a schematic representation of the lumped parameter
model from the ground surface to the engineering bedrock which is
utilized in both the p-y method and seismic site response analysis. Each
individual layer is represented by its corresponding mass, non-linear
springs and a dashpot to define viscous damping. In this paper, the
properties of the non-linear springs are defined based on the API-RP2A
(3) criteria, the soil column is divided into 52 the soil layers from the
mud line to the engineering bedrock, and the length of the pile includes
only 39 soil layers started from the mud line.
In this study, each set includes a static analysis, a modal analysis
and finally a suite of nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses for the
selected ground motion records. The modal analysis is performed using
OpenSees Post Processor (OSP) and it shows that the platform in its first
natural period (equal to 2.17 Sec) is very similar to the same period
computed in the assessment stage using the Structural Analysis
Computer System (SACS) software (equal to 2.25 Sec). Fig. 7 illustrates
the first three modes in the studied jacket type offshore platform.
6. Site response analysis
The influence of local soil conditions is evaluated by means of
A. Ajamy et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211

Fig. 6. A schematic view of multi-degree-of-freedom lumped parameter model to represent horizontally layered soil deposit shaken at the base by a vertically
propagating horizontal shear wave.

seismic site response analyses using the selected ground motion records
and propagating the waves through the horizontal sediment layers of
the soil profile. In this paper, the analysis is performed using the
computer program DEEPSOIL [51]. In this program the main char-
acterizations of each soil layer such as its thickness, mass density, shear-
wave velocity, and nonlinear soil properties are determined using a
multi-degree-of-freedom lumped parameter model (Fig. 6). It should be
mentioned that DEEPSOIL has no limitations on the number of layers,
material properties and length of input motion. Each sub layer is spe-
cified with its thickness, unit weight, shear wave velocity and material
properties which are defined in the calculation part by the user.
Since uncertainties and their correlations affect the results, un-
certainties in selection of the analysis technique, characterization of the
shear-wave velocity profile of the site and specification of the nonlinear
soil properties are taken into account in this study. In 2006, Andrade
and Borja [52] concluded that there are similar responses in Equivalent-
Linear (EQL) and nonlinear analyses except in large strain conditions.
Thus, the EQL approximation analysis is applied to modify nonlinear
soil properties based on an induced strain level, while the induced
strain level is determined using the strain-compatible shear modulus
and damping ratio values as epistemic uncertainties (Table 1).
After determination of soil layers, the statistical models of Toro in

Fig. 7. The illustration of mode shape for the first three modes.

204
A. Ajamy et al.
Fig. 8. Comprehensive Interaction IDA and IDA results in the 4th level of the jacket along row C. (a) the 150 raw Comprehensive Interaction IDA curves; (b) the 10
raw IDA curves.
1995 [32] are applied to generate randomized velocity profiles. The
model is determined based on site-specific conditions and represents a
framework to vary the shear-wave velocity at mid-depth of the layers
based on a log-normal distribution and quantify the correlation be-
tween the velocities in adjacent layers.
To calculate the shear-wave velocity in the ith layer (Vs (i)) , the Toro
model applies the median shear-wave velocity at the mid-depth of the
layer ((Vmedian (i)), 180 < Vmedian < 360 and moderately stiff class,
NEHRP Category class D), the standard deviation of the natural loga-
rithm of Vs (i)(σlnVs ) and the standard normal variable of the ith layer (Zi )
[32] as an interlayer correlation. This is done using the following
equation:
Vs (i) = exp{ln[Vmedian (i)] + Zi. σlnVs}
In the surface layer, the interlayer correlation is independent of all
other layers (Z1, i = 1) and is described as [32]:
Z1 = ε1
ε1 is an independent normal random variable with zero mean and a
unit standard deviation. To derive the standard normal variables of the
below layers (Zi ) in the profile, the following equation is utilized [32]:
Zi = ρIL ·Zi − 1 + εi· 2
(1−ρIL )
In which Zi − 1 is the value of the standard normal variable of the
previous layer, εi is a new normal random variable with zero mean and
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211
unit standard deviation, and ρIL is the interlayer correlation that is
described based on 550 shear-wave velocity profiles by Toro [32].
In 2001, Darendeli and Stokoe [33] proposed one of the most
comprehensive empirical models to simulate the variability of non-
linear soil property curves. They considered the effects of variations in
loading frequency, number of loading cycles, confining pressure and
over-consolidation ratio on a hyperbolic model to generate the back-
bone curves that capture the shear modulus reduction and damping
values of the local soil. The following hyperbola expression is used to
define the shear modulus reduction curve:
G 1
= a
(7)
Gmax 1+ γ
γ
() r (10)
In which a is 0.9190, γ is the shear strain, and γr is the reference
shear strain. The reference shear strain is computed from:
(8)
σ′
γr = ⎜⎛ 0 ⎟⎞ (0.0352 + 0.0010PI ∗OCR0.3246)
⎝ pa ⎠ (11)
where σ0′ is the mean effective stress and pa is the atmospheric pressure
in the same units as σ0′. In the model, the damping ratio is calculated
(9)
from the minimum damping ratio at small strains (Dmin ) and from the
damping ratio associated with hysteretic Masing behavior (DMasing ) . The
minimum damping is calculated from:
205
A. Ajamy et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211

Fig. 9. Comprehensive Interaction IDA and IDA results at the working point along row B: (a) the 150 raw Comprehensive Interaction IDA curves; (b) the 10 raw IDA
curves.

Dmin (%) = (σ0′)−0.2889 (0.8005 + 0.0129PI ∗OCR−0.1069)(1 + 0.2919lnf )
In which f is the excitation frequency (Hz). To compute the Masing
damping, it is required to calculate the area within the stress-strain
curve by the shear modulus reduction curve as follows.
2 3
DMasing (%) = c1 DMasing, a = 1 + c2 DMa sing , a = 1 + c3 DMasing , a = 1
where:
where b is defined as:
(12) b = 0.6329−0.00571∗lnL (19)
In which L is the number of cycles of loading. In this study, the
number of cycles (L) and the excitation frequency (f ) in the model are
defined as 10 and 1, respectively. In the Darendeli empirical model, a
(13) Bayesian approach was applied to compute the model coefficients and
shows that the statistical distribution of the data around the mean
provides a normal distribution and the values of their standard devia-
tions are determined by dependent functions on G / Gmax and D [33]. The

DMasing, a = 1 (%) =
⎧ ⎡ γ −γr ln γ + γr
100 ⎪ ⎢
∗ 4∗
γr ( ) ⎤⎥−2⎫⎪ standard deviation of the normalized shear modulus (σNG ) is given by:
π ⎨ ⎢ γ2 ⎥ ⎬
⎪ ⎢ γ + γr ⎥ ⎪ σNG = 0.015 + 0.16 0.25−(G / Gmax−0.5)2 (20)
⎩ ⎣ ⎦ ⎭ (14)
σNG indicates that the smallest standard deviation occurs in 0.015
c1 = −1.1143a2 + 1.8618a + 0.2533 (15)
when G / Gmax is around 0 or 1 and the largest standard deviation 0.095
c2 = 0.0805a2−0.0710a−0.0095 (16) takes place when G / Gmax is equal to 0.5. The standard deviation of the
damping ratio (σD ) is determined using [33]:
c3 = −0.0005a2 + 0.0002a + 0.0003 (17)
σD = 0.0067 + 0.78 D (%) (21)
The minimum damping ratio in Eq. (12) and the Masing damping in
Eq. (13) are combined to compute the total damping ratio (D) using: σD shows that increasing the damping ratio leads to an increase of
0.1 the standard deviation. In practice, there are no negative values for
G ⎞
D = b⎛ ⎜ ⎟ ∗DMasing + Dmin neither G / Gmax nor D . Note that minimum values of G / Gmax and D are
G
⎝ max ⎠ (18) 0.05 and 0.1%, respectively.

206
A. Ajamy et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211

G / Gmax and D curves are not independent of each other as a shear

modulus reduction curve of a soil that is more linear and shifted up is
associated with a damping curve of the soil that is shifted down to
smaller damping ratios. To capture this effect, a negative correlation)
ρD, NG < 0.0 ) is assumed for the soil properties. Then, in order to gen-
erate G / Gmax and D curves, the following equations are used in each
shear strain value γ :
G / Gmax (γ ) = [G / Gmax (γ )]mean + ε1 × σNG (22)

D (γ ) = [D (γ )]mean + ρD, NG × ε1 × σD + σD × (1−ρD2, NG ) × ε2 (23)

ε1 and ε2 are uncorrelated normal random variables with zero mean

and unit standard deviation; [G / Gmax (γ )]mean and [D (γ )]mean are the
baseline values evaluated at strain level γ ; σNG and σD are the standard
deviations computed from Eqs. (20) and (21) at the baseline values of
[G / Gmax (γ )]mean and [D (γ )]mean , respectively. Finally, ρD, NG is equal to
−0.50 and as the correlation coefficient between G / Gmax and D [32].
In the above equations, the LHS method along with the SA method
estimate appropriate coefficients of each random variable (ε ) to en-
compass the epistemic uncertainties.

7. Performing comprehensive interaction incremental dynamic

analyses

In this step, comprehensive Interaction IDAs and IDAs are per-

Fig. 10. Comprehensive Interaction IDA and IDA results and their summaries in
the 3rd level of the jacket along row C: (a) the 150 raw comprehensive inter-
action IDA curves; (b) the summary of the comprehensive interaction IDA
curves; (c) the 10 raw IDA curves; (d) the summary of the IDA curves.
formed for the fixed platform subjected to different ten levels of ground
motion intensities. Fig. 8 shows the Comprehensive Interaction IDA and
IDA results for the 4th level of the jacket along row C. As shown in the
figures, the results vary in the range of 0.17%−0.46% and 0.25%−0.40% in
the Comprehensive Interaction IDA and IDA methods for the 2% in
50 year level, respectively. The Comprehensive Interaction IDA results
cover those of IDA for more simulations, which result in more accurate
estimation of the seismic demands. Similar trends are seen for seismic
demands of 10% in 50 year level.
The results of probabilistic assessment vary dramatically at different
levels of both the jacket and deck. For example, Fig. 9 represents results
of the Comprehensive Interaction IDA and IDA methods at the working
point level. As shown in the figures, the results of the Comprehensive
Interaction IDA and IDA methods are in the range of 0.65%−2.1% and
1.20%−1.9% for the 2% in 50 year ground motion level, respectively.
In the conventional design of jacket type platforms, a linear elastic
behavior is presumed such that no yield or buckling is permitted. Also,
the jacket collapse is determined based on first member failure.
Therefore, different structural limit states have been suggested by
various guidelines to address structural behaviors. For instances, the
Collapse Limit State (CLS) of jacket type offshore platforms is defined
by the value of θmax = 2% according to engineering judgment, ASCE 41-
06 (2007) [53] and FEMA 350 (2000a, b) [54,55].
Since each curve illustrates a specific behavior which is dependent
on frequency content of the imposed earthquake, a full range of

Table 3
Summarized capacities for limit-states in two different methods; (a) the comprehensive interaction IDA method; (b) the IDA method.
The summary of the comprehensive interaction IDA results

(a) Sa(T1;5%)(g) θmax

IMc16% IMc50% IMc84% DMc16% DMc50% DMc84%

2% in 50 year 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035

10% in 50 year 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.0018 0.0020 0.0024

The summary of the IDA results

(b) Sa(T1;5%)(g) θmax
IMc16% IMc50% IMc84% DMc16% DMc50% DMc84%
2% in 50 year 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.0035 0.0038 0.0041
10% in 50 year 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.0021 0.0025 0.0028

207
A. Ajamy et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211

Table 4
Comparison of DPMs in different DSs; (a) DPM calculated from the comprehensive interaction IDA method; (b) DPM calculated from the IDA method.
(a) DPM calculated from the comprehensive interaction IDA method
Probability of being in a given DS as a function of range in Sa(g) for a given JTOP

DS 0.105 0.180 0.220 0.255 0.305 0.355 0.405 0.455 0.530 0.600

Extensive: < 2% 150 137 123 102 72 42 16 14 4 1

Complete: 2%–10% 0 13 27 48 78 108 134 128 135 137
10%–30% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 11 12
30%–60% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 60% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(b) DPM calculated from the IDA method

Probability of being in a given DS as a function of range in Sa(g) for a given JTOP
DS 0.105 0.180 0.220 0.255 0.305 0.355 0.405 0.455 0.530 0.600
Extensive: < 2% 10 7 7 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
Complete: 2%–10% 0 3 3 7 9 9 10 10 9 8
10%–30% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
30%–60% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 60% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6
Summary of results from proposed methods for different damage states.
Extensive damage Complete damage

Results The Comp. Int. IDA The IDA The Comp. Int. IDA The IDA

σln 0.31 0.28 0.39 0.49

μ 0.29 0.23 0.30 0.23

Fig. 11. Extensive damage fragility curves for the 1st level of the Jacket.

Fig. 12. Complete damage fragility curves for the 1st level of the Jacket.

Table 5
Comparison of performance metrics in two cases extensive damage and com-
plete damage.
Extensive damage Complete damage

Results The Comp. Int. The IDA The Comp. Int. The IDA
IDA IDA Fig. 13. Fragility curves obtained for the jacket type offshore platform in ex-
tensive damage (a) in the 2nd level of the jacket; (b) in the 5th level of the
P[Col|Sa2/50] 34.20% 67.80% 35.10% 60.20%
P[Col|Sa10/50] 2.5% 10% 5% 23.50% jacket.
SaMedian 0.290 g 0.225 g 0.305 g 0.225 g
CMR 1.115 0.865 1.173 0.865
□ Collapse 3.01E−04 7.43E−04 2.66E−04 7.43E−04
CRP 3350 1345 3800 1345

208
A. Ajamy et al.
Fig. 14. Fragility curves obtained for the jacket type offshore platform in ex-
tensive damage in the working point level.
Fig. 15. Fragility curves obtained for the jacket at the mud line elevation (a)
based on the comprehensive interaction IDA (b) based on the IDA.
responses are captured by the selected suit of ground motion records in
multi-record Comprehensive Interaction IDA studies. To evaluate
seismic performance in the platform, an appropriate method (named
the cross-sectional fractile) is required to summarize the results.
Fig. 10 shows the summarized DM-values for each stripe into their
16%, 50% and 84% percentiles in the 3rd level. Consequently, Table 3
shows the values of the 16%, 50% and 84% fractiles of DM for the 2%
and 10% in 50 year ground motion levels. The figures also show that
the dynamic analysis results obey the equal displacement rule in three
fractiles even though at higher IM levels.
As shown by these figures, there is a diversity of responses in dif-
ferent levels of the jacket and deck. Although a high degree of con-
fidence can be achieved through a seismic probabilistic assessment of
the platform, the calculated results in the first level and mud line
209
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211
elevation present dramatically different levels of behavior in both
methods. Since limit states are defined in a qualitative manner, it is
necessary to use a quantitative approach to define them in terms of
damage states. As per FEMA [53,54], HAZUS99 [10], two Damage
States (DS) are defined as damages that are acceptable for seismic
performances in fixed platforms including extensive damage and com-
plete damage.
In the current study, Damage Probability Matrices (DPMs) are
generated and fragility curves are achieved consequently based on
these matrices. The distribution of damage for the levels of severity of
the seismic input is required to develop DPMs. In the following, Table 4
represents the DPMs for the first level of the platform.
Figs. 11 and 12 show fragility curves for two defined damage states:
extensive and complete at the first level of the jacket. They also display
the Collapse Margin Ratio (CMR), as a simplistic indicator of collapse
risk. This index offers the ratio of median collapse capacity to the
ground motion intensity of interest and is interpreted as a safety factor
at the ground motion intensity of interest (usually the maximum con-
sidered earthquake motion of the 2% in 50 year motion Sa2/50 ).
These figures take into account the conditional probabilities of
collapse at two levels, 2% and 10% in 50 year. In order to obtain the
mean annual frequency of collapse corresponding to the Collapse
Return Period (CRP), the collapse fragility curve and the hazard curve
are integrated together. This metric, as another possible metric for
collapse performance, describes how likely collapses are to occur, given
the collapse capacity of the platform and the ground-shaking hazard at
the site [56]. Table 5 provides a summary of the results calculated
based on the methodology in the first level of jacket. For example, the
values of the P[Col|Sa2/50] varies from 35% to 69% in the extensive
damage and from 35% to 60% in the complete damage for the Com-
prehensive Interaction IDA and IDA methods, respectively. Similar re-
sults obtained with other metrics also accentuate the importance of the
simultaneous consideration of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in
seismic assessment.
By using the results and the MLE method, the medians and the
logarithmic standard deviations (σln ) of the damage states in both
procedures are computed and are shown in Table 6. In the extensive
damage, the values of the mean and standard deviation which are
calculated using the Comprehensive-Interaction IDA method increase
rather than those in the IDA method. This means that in the extensive
damage, applying a relatively accurate method to simulate epistemic
uncertainty can both increase the dispersion in the structural response
fragility and shift the prediction of the mean. Despite of similar results
in the other levels of the jacket and the deck, these trends are not
evident in the complete damage.
Fig. 13a and b shows fragility curves for the second and fifth levels
of jacket. It is observed that the median Sa2/50 (with 50% fragility)
computed from the IDA and Comprehensive Interaction IDA methods
are 0.68 g and 0.74 g, respectively, for the second level and also 0.56 g
and 0.83 g for the fifth level in the extensive damage state. This dif-
ference highlights the importance of precisely propagating epistemic
and aleatory uncertainties in the different damage states.
Fig. 14 displays fragility curves for the working point level in the
platform. As shown in the figure, in some cases the left tail of the fra-
gility curves produced from the IDA and Comprehensive Interaction
IDA methods are fairly close. However, once they are integrated with
the hazard curve to achieve the mean annual frequency of collapse,
there are more significant differences between two methods. For in-
stance, Sa (T1;5%) varies from 0.25 g to 0.28 g in the low probabilities of
the IDA and Comprehensive Interaction IDA methods while the mean
annual frequency varies between 5.13 × 10−4 and 3.42 × 10−4 collapses/
year, corresponding to return periods from 1950 to 2925 years, re-
spectively.
Fig. 15a and b shows the fragility curves of the mud line elevation in
for three damage states. It is observed from the figure that the median
values for Sa (T1;5%) are 0.29 g, 0.30 g and 0.96 g based on the results of
A. Ajamy et al.
Comprehensive Interaction IDA for extensive, complete and ultimate
collapse states, respectively. On the other hand, the results obtained
from the IDA method represent 0.22 g for the median Sa (T1;5%) for the
extensive and complete damage states and 0.96 g for ultimate collapse
state.
8. Summary and conclusions
In this paper, a methodology has been presented to obtain analytical
seismic fragility curves for jacket type offshore platforms. This work
was motivated by the scarcity of research specifically addressed to the
derivation of analytical fragility curves for jacket type offshore plat-
forms using structural models and rigorous analysis techniques. To
encompass the randomness of seismic demand along with the inherent
randomness of the seismic excitations, structural capacity and soil pile
structure interaction (SPSI), the Comprehensive Interaction IDA
method has been applied.
Since the uncertainty associated with system parameters sig-
nificantly affects seismic performance, they have been assumed as
random variables with normal or lognormal probability distributions.
Then, they have been assigned to the input variables in the finite ele-
ment analysis based on realistic ranges of variation. To propagate and
incorporate epistemic uncertainties, an efficient approach using the
Latin Hypercube Sampling together with a Simulating Annealing
technique has been utilized. In fact, it demonstrates the effects of the
input parameters using advanced nonlinear analyses of the whole
structure with reasonable number of simulations. On the other hand,
nonlinear dynamic analyses have been performed taking into account
the aleatory uncertainty associated with ground motion records.
Finally, an efficient procedure to derive lognormal fragility curves
for existing jacket type offshore platforms has been outlined. The pro-
cedure has applied the analytical results of two different methods to
estimate probabilities of being at certain damage states at different
levels of ground motion intensity.
The main conclusions of this methodology consist in:
• The focus of this study is on the development of level-specific de-
mand models of multi-level structures to account for the response of
each level of the structure during an earthquake. Better results are
obtained once the epistemic uncertainties associated with aleatory
uncertainty are taken into account. For each separate level, the
probability of experiencing or exceeding a certain damage state is
estimated using fragility curves, while the effect of uncertainties is
addressed in terms of their mean and standard deviation. This model
can also be used to investigate retrofit options to reduce expected
economic losses.
• If epistemic uncertainties are neglected in the model and the results
of fragility curves overestimate the actual vulnerability of a level of
the structure for both moderate and severe earthquakes and tend to
be unconservative. For instance, the maximum probabilities of ex-
ceedance in the 1st level of jacket for (Sa2/50) are 35% and 69% in
the extensive damage state based on the Comprehensive Interaction
IDA and IDA methods, respectively. The difference becomes more
apparent in the resulting mean annual frequency of collapse, ob-
tained by integrating the collapse probability distribution with the
hazard curve for a particular site
• The fragility curves show that the platform discussed in this study is
very vulnerable at the mud line and at the first level of jacket. Other
levels, either in the jacket or the deck, experience very small drifts
which do not exceed the defined limit states.
•
The quantitative results obtained in this study can be only applic-
able to the type of platform discussed in this paper; however, the
proposed methodology can be easily extended to other types of
structures. In that case it will be necessary to consider some char-
acteristics by means of additional variables for each structural type,
as the type of assumptions being made will affect important
210
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211
decisions, including retrofit strategies and estimation of economic
losses.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.066.
References
[1] Wisch DJ, Puskar FJ, Laurendine TT, Versowsky PE, Bucknell J. An update on API
RP 2A section 17 for the assessment of existing platforms. In: Proceedings of the
offshore technology conference. Paper OTC 16820; 2004.
[2] Bea RG, Puskar FJ, Smith C, Spencer JS. Development of AIM (assessment, in-
spection, maintenance) programs for fixed and mobile platforms. In: Proceedings of
the offshore technology conference. Paper OTC 5703; 1988.
[3] API recommended practice 2A. Recommended practice for planning, designing and
constructing offshore platforms. API RP 2A, 20th ed.; 1993.
[4] Mangiavacchi A, Rodenbusch G, Radford A, Wisch DJ. API offshore structure
standards: RP2A and much more. In: Proceedings of the offshore technology con-
ference. Paper OTC 17697; 2005.
[5] Snell RO, Wisch DJ. ISO 19900 series: offshore structures standards. In: Proceedings
of the offshore technology conference. Paper OTC 19605; 2008.
[6] International Organization for Standardization: ISO 19901-2. Petroleum and natural
gas industries-specific requirements for offshore structures-Part 2: Seismic design
procedures and criteria. FDIS version April; 2004.
[7] Krawinkler H, Miranda E, Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV. “Chapter 9: performance based
earthquake engineering”, earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to
performance-based engineering. Florida: CRC Press; 2004.
[8] Deierlein GG. Overview of a comprehensive framework for earthquake performance
assessment. Performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation. In:
Proceedings of an international workshop, PEER report 2004/05, UC Berkeley;
2004. p. 15–26.
[9] ASCE, FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, Publication No. 356, Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management
Agency; 2000.
[10] National Institute of Building Science (NIBS). Standardized Earthquake Loss
Estimation Methodology (HAZUS 99 technical manual). Report prepared for
Federal Emergency management agency, Washington, DC; 1999.
[11] Basöz N, Kiremidjian AS, King SA. Statistical analysis of bridge damage data from
the 1994 Northridge, CA, earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 1999;15(1):25–54.
[12] Basöz N, Kiremidjian AS. Evaluation of bridge damage data from the Loma Prieta
and Northridge, CA earthquakes, Report No. 127. John A Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California; 1997.
[13] Yamazaki F, Onishi J, Tayama S. Damage estimation of highway structures due to
earthquakes. In: Proceedings of third China-Japan-US trilateral symposium on
lifeline earthquake engineering, Kunming China, August; 1998.
[14] Straub D, Der Kiureghian A. Improved seismic fragility modelling from empirical
data. Struct Saf 2008;30:320–36.
[15] Hwang HHM, Huo JR. Generation of hazard-consistent fragility curves for seismic
loss estimation studies. Technical Report NCEER-94-0015, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo,
New York; 1994.
[16] Fukushima S, Kai Y, Yashiro K. Study on the fragility of system — Part 1: structure
with brittle elements in its stories. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on
earthquake engineering. Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom,
1, Paper No. 333; 1996.
[17] Kai Y, Fukushima S. Study on the fragility of system — Part 2: system with ductile
elements in its stories. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, UK, 1, Paper No. 334; 1996.
[18] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK, Kim SH. Nonlinear static procedure for fragility
curve development. J Eng Mech 2000, ASCE,;126(12):1287–95.
[19] Karim KR, Yamazaki F. Effect of earthquake ground motions on fragility curves of
Highway Bridge piers based on numerical simulation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2001;30(12):1839–56.
[20] Elnashai AS, Borzit B, Vlachos S. Deformation-based vulnerability functions for RC
bridges. Struct Eng Mech 2003;17(2):215–44.
[21] Berahman F, Behnamfar F. Seismic fragility curves for un-anchored on-grade steel
storage tanks: bayesian approach. J Earthquake Eng 2007;11(2):166–92.
[22] Kwon OS, Elnashai AS. Fragility analysis of a highway over-crossing bridge with
consideration of soil–structure interactions. J Struct Infrastruct Eng Maintenance,
Manage, Life-cycle Des Perform 2010;6(Issue 1-2):159–78. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15732470802663870.
[23] Wang Z, Padgett JE, Dueñas-Osorio L. Influence of soil structure interaction on the
fragility of an isolated bridge-soil-foundation system. In: Proceedings of 15 world
conference earthquake engineering (15WCEE) Lisboa 2012.Paper WCEE2012_0765.
[24] Asgarian B, Rahman-Shokrgozar H, Shahcheraghi D, Ghasemzadeh H. Effect of pile-
soil- structure interaction (PSSI) on dynamic characteristic of sample jacket type
offshore platform by experimental and numerical investigation. In: The 2012 world
congress on advances in civil, environmental, and materials research (ACEM’ 12)
Seoul, Korea, August 26–30; 2012.
[25] Jahanitabar AA, Bargi Kh. Time-dependent seismic fragility curves for aging jacket-
type offshore platforms subjected to earthquake ground motions. J Struct
A. Ajamy et al.
Infrastruct Eng Mainten, Manage, Life-cycle Des Perform 2018;14(2):192–202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1343360.
[26] Hausman DM, Woodwar J. Independence, invariance and the causal markov con-
dition. Br J Philosophy Sci 1999;50:521–83.
[27] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of
structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis. PhD Dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.
[28] Ajamy A, Zolfaghari MR, Asgarian B, Ventura CE. Probabilistic seismic analysis of
offshore platforms incorporating uncertainty in soil-pile-structure interactions. J
Constr Steel Res 2014:265–79.
[29] Baker JW. “Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural
analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2015;31(1):579–99.
[30] Cornell CA, Krawinkler H. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assess-
ment. PEER News, April 2000.
[31] Shinozuka M, Feng M, Jongheon L, Naganuma T. Statistical analysis of fragility
curves. ASCE J Struct Eng 2000;126(12):1224–32.
[32] Toro GR. Probabilistic models of site velocity profiles for generic and site-specific
ground-motion amplification studies. Upton, New York: Brookhaven National
Laboratory; 1995.
[33] Darendeli MB, Stokoe KH. Development of a new family of normalized modulus
reduction and material damping curves. Rep.No.GD01-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin,
Tex; 2001.
[34] Haselton CB. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete frame
buildings. Ph.D. dissertation Stanford (CA): Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford University; 2006 [313 pp., http://www.stanford.edu/group/
rms].
[35] JCSS. Probabilistic Model Code - Part 1: basis of design. (12th draft) joint com-
mittee on structural safety 2001(March 2001) Available from: http://www.jcss.
ethz.ch/ [accessed 06/16/09].
[36] Mann NR, Schafer RE, Singpurwalla ND. Methods for statistical analysis of relia-
bility and life data. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1974.
[37] Conover W, Helton JC, Davis FJ. On a better method for selecting input variables,
unpublished Los Alamos National Laboratories manuscript, reproduced as Appendix
A of Latin Hypercube Sampling and the Propagation of Uncertainty in Analyses of
Complex Systems. Sandia National Laboratories report SAND2001-0417, printed
November 2002 [16]. 1975.
[38] Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science
1983;220(4598):671–80.
[39] Černý V. A thermodynamical approach to the travelling salesman problem: An ef-
ficient simulation algorithm. Tech. rep. (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia): Comenius
University; 1982.
[40] Černý V. Thermodynamical approach to the travelling salesman problem: An effi-
cient simulation algorithm. J Optim Theory Appl 1985;45(1):41–51. https://doi.
211
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 198–211
org/10.1007/BF00940812.
[41] Vorechovsky M. Correlation control in small-sample Monte Carlo type simulations
II: Analysis of estimation formulas, random correlation and perfect uncorrelated-
ness. J Probabilistic Eng Mech 2012:105–20.
[42] PEER. Pacific earthquake engineering research center: PEER NGA Database.
University of California, Berkeley, http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/ [last accessed
October 22, 2006].
[43] NEHRP. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings
and other structures. Washington, DC, USA, Building Seismic Safety Council; 2001.
[44] Shome N, Cornell CA. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures.
Report No.RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford, [accessed:
June18th, 2002].
[45] Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ, editor. Seismic design
for nuclear power plants. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1970. p. 438–83.
[46] Golafshani AA, Ebrahimian H, Bagheri V, Holmas T. Assessment of offshore plat-
forms under extreme waves by probabilistic incremental wave analysis. J
Constructional Steel Res 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.01.005.
[47] Luco N, Bazzurro P. Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in
biased nonlinear structural drift responses? Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2007;36(13):1813–35.
[48] Pacific earthquake engineering research center. OpenSees < opensees.berkeley.
edu > ; 2006.
[49] Asgarian B, Aghakouchack AA, Bea RG. Inelasticpost- buckling and cyclic behavior
of tubular braces. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 2005;127:256–62.
[50] Asgarian B, Aghakouchack AA, Bea RG. Nonlinear analysis of jacket-type offshore
platforms using fiber elements. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 2006;128:224–32.
[51] Hashash YMA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D, Musgrove M. DEEPSOIL 5.1, User
Manual and Tutorial; 2012. 107p.
[52] Andrade JE, Borja RI. Quantifying sensitivity of local site response models to sta-
tistical variations in soil properties. Acta Geotech 2006;3–14.
[53] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Seismic rehabilitation of existing
buildings. ASCE/SEI 41-06, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural
Engineering Institute, Reston, VA; 2007.
[54] FEMA 350. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame
buildings. SAC Joint Venture, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington
DC; 2000a.
[55] FEMA 351. Recommended seismic evaluation and upgrade criteria for existing
welded steel moment-frame buildings. SAC Joint Venture, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC; 2000b.
[56] Jalayer F, Cornell CA. A technical framework for probability-based demand and
capacity factor (DCFD) seismic formats. Report No. RMS-43, RMS Program,
Stanford University, Stanford; 2002.