Intensity measure conversion of fragility curves

Abstract

SummaryIn seismic risk assessment of structures, fragility functions are the probabilistic characterization of vulnerability at the component and/or structural level, expressing the probability of failure as a function of a ground motion intensity measure (IM). Fragility curves, in general, are structure‐ and site‐specific, thus a comparison of fragility curves, then of vulnerability, is not straightforward across multiple structures. Also, it could be the case that hazard at a site of interest is not available for the IM originally considered in the fragility assessment. These situations require to convert fragility curves from an original IM to a target one. The present study addresses a hazard‐consistent probabilistic framework for converting spectral acceleration‐based IMs from an original IM to a target IM at a given site. In particular, three conversion cases, under different assumptions on the explanatory power of the involved IMs with respect to structural failure, are discussed: (a) a vector‐valued IM consisting of the original and target IMs, magnitude, and source‐to‐site distance; (b) a vector‐valued IM consisting of the original and target IMs; and (c) the original (scalar) IM only, assuming that structural response, given the IM, is statistically independent of the other ground motion variables. In this framework, the original fragility functions are characterized using the state‐of‐the‐art methods in performance‐based earthquake engineering, then the fragility curves as a function of the target IM are evaluated through applications of the probability calculus rules, ensuring consistency with the seismic hazard at the site of interest. The conversion strategy is illustrated through the applications to three‐, six‐, and nine‐story Italian code‐conforming reinforced concrete buildings designed for a high‐hazard site in Italy. The study shows that, in most of the cases, the converted fragility curves have agreement with the reference curves directly developed in terms of the target IM. Cases in which least agreement was found are likely due to the models used to obtain the terms required by the conversion equations.