The Influence of Cognitive Uncertainty of Limit States on Seismic Vulnerability
-
摘要: 极限状态是依据结构损伤水平和工程经验进行划分的，工程经验的差异会对结构地震损伤极限状态的认知产生不确定性。本文以6层多自由度体系（MDOF）为例，选用最大层间位移角为结构损伤指标（DM），选用峰值加速度PGA和峰值速度PGV作为地震动强度指标（IM），基于OpenSees平台，通过增量动力分析方法（IDA），对MDOF体系进行地震易损性分析。研究结果表明，除“基本完好”和“轻微破坏”极限状态，不同的层间位移角限值会导致得到的结构地震易损性分析结果差异较大，这种差异性随着结构破坏程度的增加而增大，当达到“倒塌”极限状态时，结构损伤超越概率的差异达到了相当大的水平。因此，对最大层间位移角限值进行合理取值是开展结构抗震性能分析和地震损伤评估工作的基础。Abstract: The limit states of structural seismic damage are typically defined based on damage levels and engineering experience. However, variations in experience introduce uncertainty in assessing the limit states of structural damage. In this study, a 6-story multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system is used as a case example, where the maximum inter-story drift ratio is considered the structural damage index (DM), and the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV) are selected as seismic intensity indices (IM). Seismic fragility of the MDOF system is analyzed using incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) on the OpenSees platform. The results show that different limit values for the inter-story drift ratio significantly affect the seismic fragility analysis, especially as the degree of structural damage increases. Moreover, the difference in the probability of structural damage becomes more pronounced as the "collapse" limit state is approached. Therefore, establishing a reasonable limit value for the maximum inter-story drift ratio is crucial, as it forms the foundation for seismic performance analysis and damage assessment.1)
1 2https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/LuuJRpYU3XfcquwwoKMVfQ 2)2 3https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/ -
图 4 结构损伤指标与地震动强度指标关系曲线
Figure 4. Relation between structural damage index and ground motion intensity index
图 5 不同极限状态下地震易损性分析曲线
Figure 5. Seismic vulnerability analysis curve under different limit states
表 1 20条强震记录
Table 1. 20 records of strong earthquakes
序号 PEER编号 地震名称 地震台 PGA/g PGV/ (cm·s−1) 选用分量 D1 0068 San Fernando LA - Hollywood Stor FF 0.21 19.0 SFERN/PEL090.at2 D2 0126 Gazli, USSR Karakyr 0.71 71.2 GAZLI/GAZ000.at2 D3 0160 Imperial Valley-06 Bonds Corner 0.76 44.3 IMPVALL/H-BCR140.at2 D4 0169 Imperial Valley-06 Delta 0.35 33.0 IMPVALL/H-DLT262.at2 D5 0174 Imperial Valley-06 El Centro Array #11 0.38 42.0 IMPVALL/H-E11140.at2 D6 0181 Imperial Valley-06 El Centro Array #6 0.44 111.9 IMPVALL/H-E06140.at2 D7 0721 Superstition Hills-02 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent 0.36 46.0 SUPERST/B-ICC000.at2 D8 0821 Erzican, Turkey Erzincan 0.49 95.5 ERZIKAN/ERZ-NS.at2 D9 0828 Cape Mendocino Petrolia 0.63 82.1 CAPEMEND/PET000.at2 D10 0900 Landers Yermo Fire Station 0.24 52.0 LANDERS/YER270.at2 D11 0953 Northridge-01 Beverly Hills-14145Mulhol 0.52 63.0 NORTHR/MUL009.at2 D12 0960 Northridge-01 Canyon Country-W Lost Cany 0.48 45.0 NORTHR/LOS000.at2 D13 1063 Northridge-01 Rinaldi Receiving Sta 0.87 167.3 NORTHR/RRS228.at2 D14 1116 Kobe, Japan Shin-Osaka 0.24 38.0 KOBE/SHI000.at2 D15 1158 Kocaeli, Turkey Duzce 0.36 59.0 KOCAELI/DZC180.at2 D16 1165 Kocaeli, Turkey Izmit 0.22 29.8 KOCAELI/IZT180.at2 D17 1176 Kocaeli, Turkey Yarimca 0.31 73.0 KOCAELI/YPT060.at2 D18 1485 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU045 0.51 39.0 CHICHI/TCU045-E.at2 D19 1504 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU067 0.56 91.8 CHICHI/TCU067-E.at2 D20 1787 Hector Mine Hector 0.34 42.0 HECTOR/HEC000.at2 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同性能状态下的钢筋混凝土框架结构最大层间位移角限值
Table 2. The limit states of maximum inter-story drift ratio under different performance
结构性能状态 性能状态描述 最大层间位移角限值/% 立即使用状态 （ IO ） 结构完好 1 生命安全状态 （ LS ） 结构遭受一定的破坏 2 防止倒塌状态 （ CP ） 结构遭受严重破坏 4
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 极限状态定义及层间位移角限值
Table 3. Definition of limit state and limit value of inter-story drift ratio
序号 来源 极限状态及层间位移角限值 1 周颖等（2010） — 轻微破坏
1/250中等破坏
1/100严重破坏
1/30— 2 吕西林等（2012） 正常使用
1/510基本可使用
1/255修复后使用
1/152生命安全
1/100接近倒塌
1/333 韩建平等（2018） 基本完好
1/550轻微破坏
1/250中等破坏
1/120不严重破坏
1/60倒塌
1/204 张令心等（2018） 基本完好
1/700轻微破坏
1/350中等破坏
1/175严重破坏
1/90倒塌
1/905 任浩等（2019） 基本完好
1/550轻微破坏
1/250中等破坏
1/100严重破坏
1/50倒塌
1/50注：为了便于计算结果的对比分析，对于吕西林等（2012）划分的5个极限状态，按顺序依次等同于“基本完好”“轻微破坏”“中等破坏”“严重破坏”和“倒塌”；韩建平等（2018）定义的“不严重破坏”等同于“严重破坏”。
下载: 导出CSV
-
陈学伟,林哲,2020. 结构弹塑性分析程序OpenSEES原理与实例. 2版. 北京:中国建筑工业出版社.Chen X. W., Lin Z., 2020. Structural nonlinear analysis program OpenSEES theory and tutorial. 2nd ed. Beijing:China Architecture & Building Press. (in Chinese) 程玲,2014. 基于Pushover方法的单自由度结构抗震易损性分析. 大连:大连理工大学.Cheng L., 2014. Fragility analysis of SDOF based on pushover method. Dalian:Dalian University of Technology. (in Chinese) 韩建平,黄林杰,孙小云,2016. 考虑填充墙平面内外相互作用评估RC框架-填充墙结构抗整体性倒塌能力. 工程力学,33(9):146−154. doi: 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2015.02.0098Han J. P., Huang L. J., Sun X. Y., 2016. Global collapse resistance capacity investigation of infilled RC frame considering in-plane and out-of-plane interaction of infill walls. Engineering Mechanics, 33(9): 146−154. (in Chinese) doi: 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2015.02.0098 韩建平,魏世龙,张鑫,2018. 基于谱匹配的近远场地震动作用下RC框架结构易损性分析. 工程科学与技术,50(3):149−157.Han J. P., Wei S. L., Zhang X., 2018. Seismic fragility analysis of RC frames under Near-Field and Far-field ground motion based on spectral matching. Advanced Engineering Sciences, 50(3): 149−157. (in Chinese) 梁兴文,叶艳霞,2015. 混凝土结构非线性分析. 2版. 北京:中国建筑工业出版社. 吕大刚,王光远,2001. 基于损伤性能的抗震结构最优设防水准的决策方法. 土木工程学报,34(1):44−49. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-131X.2001.01.009Lü D. G., Wang G. Y., 2001. Decision-making method of optimal fortification level for aseismic structures based on damage performance. China Civil Engineering Journal, 34(1): 44−49. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-131X.2001.01.009 吕西林,2009. 超限高层建筑工程抗震设计指南. 2版. 上海:同济大学出版社.Lü X. L., 2009. Seismic design guidelines for tall buildings beyond the scope of design codes. 2nd ed. Shanghai:Tongji University Press. (in Chinese) 吕西林,苏宁粉,周颖,2012. 复杂高层结构基于增量动力分析法的地震易损性分析. 地震工程与工程振动,32(5):19−25.Lü X. L., Su N. F., Zhou Y., 2012. IDA-based seismic fragility analysis of a complex high-rise structure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 32(5): 19−25. (in Chinese) 门进杰,张谦,徐超等,2020. 基于改进Park-Ang双参数模型的RCS混合框架结构地震损伤评估. 工程力学,37(9):133−143. doi: 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2019.10.0604Men J. J., Zhang Q., Xu C., et al., 2020. Seismic damage assessment of composite frame with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams based on improved Park-Ang double parameter model. Engineering Mechanics, 37(9): 133−143. (in Chinese) doi: 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2019.10.0604 牛荻涛,任利杰,1996. 改进的钢筋混凝土结构双参数地震破坏模型. 地震工程与工程振动,16(4):44−54.Niu D. T., Ren L. J., 1996. A modified seismic damage model with double variables for reinforced concrete structures. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 16(4): 44−54. (in Chinese) 任浩,田勤虎,张炜超等,2019. 基于IDA方法的钢筋混凝土框架结构地震易损性分析. 建筑结构,49(S2):350−355.Ren H., Tian Q. H., Zhang W. C., et al., 2019. Seismic fragility analysis of reinforced concrete frame structures based on IDA method. Building Structure, 49(S2): 350−355. (in Chinese) 施炜,叶列平,陆新征,2014. 单自由度结构体系抗地震倒塌能力研究. 建筑结构学报,35(9):82−89.Shi W., Ye L. P., Lu X. Z., 2014. Study on seismic collapse capacity of single-degree-of-freedom structural system. Journal of Building Structures, 35(9): 82−89. (in Chinese) 宋文斌,2020. RC框架地震易损性及抗倒塌能力研究. 西安:长安大学.Song W. B., 2020. Research on seismic vulnerability and collapse resistance of RC frame. Xi’an:Chang’an University. (in Chinese) 徐龙河,肖水晶,卢啸等,2017. 钢筋混凝土剪力墙基于变形和滞回耗能非线性组合的损伤演化分析. 工程力学,34(8):117−124.Xu L. H., Xiao S. J., Lu X., et al., 2017. Damage evolution analysis of RC shear wall based on nonlinear combination of deformation and hysteretic energy. Engineering Mechanics, 34(8): 117−124. (in Chinese) 叶列平,马千里,缪志伟,2009. 结构抗震分析用地震动强度指标的研究. 地震工程与工程振动,29(4):9−22.Ye L. P., Ma Q. L., Miao Z. W., 2009. Study on earthquake intensities for seismic analysis of structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 29(4): 9−22. (in Chinese) 俞言祥,胡聿贤,潘华,2005. 地震震源机制对长周期地震动的影响研究. 岩石力学与工程学报,24(17):3113−3118.Yu Y. X., Hu Y. X., Pan H., 2005. Study on impact of focal mechanism on long-period ground motions. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 24(17): 3113−3118. (in Chinese) 张令心,李孟达,刘洁平等,2018. 考虑结构不确定性的框剪结构地震易损性分析. 自然灾害学报,27(4):112−118.Zhang L. X., Li M. D., Liu J. P., et al., 2018. Seismic fragility analysis of frame-shear wall structures considering structural parameter uncertainty. Journal of Natural Disasters, 27(4): 112−118. (in Chinese) 赵凤新,任志林,张郁山,2008. 基于不同破坏指数的建筑物震害预测不确定性分析. 中国地震,24(4):325−336. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4683.2008.04.002Zhao F. X., Ren Z. L., Zhang Y. S., 2008. Study on uncertainty of earthquake damage prediction based on RC structural damage indices. Earthquake Research in China, 24(4): 325−336. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4683.2008.04.002 周颖,吕西林,卜一,2010. 增量动力分析法在高层混合结构性能评估中的应用. 同济大学学报(自然科学版),38(2):183−187,193.Zhou Y., Lü X. L., Bo Y., 2010. Application of incremental dynamic analysis to seismic evaluation of hybrid structure. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 38(2): 183−187,193. (in Chinese) Kunnath S. K., Reinhorn A. M., Park Y. J., 1990. Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic response of R/C structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 116(4): 996−1017. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:4(996) Luco N., Cornell C. A., 2000. Effects of connection fractures on SMRF seismic drift demands. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(1): 127−136. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:1(127) Park Y. J., Ang A. H. S., 1985. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4): 722−739. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722) TBI Guidelines Working Group, 2010. Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. -
点击查看大图
图(5) / 表(3)
计量
- 文章访问数: 21
- HTML全文浏览量: 6
- PDF下载量: 3
- 被引次数: 0
