IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i4p1668-d1340747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Probabilistic Modeling Alternatives on the Seismic Fragility Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Dual Wall–Frame Buildings towards Resilient Designs

Author

Listed:
  • Ivanna Martinez

    (Department of Structural & Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 8320165, Chile)

  • Marco F. Gallegos

    (Department of Structural & Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 8320165, Chile
    Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Universidad del Bio-Bio, Concepcion 4051381, Chile)

  • Gerardo Araya-Letelier

    (School of Civil Construction, Faculty of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 8320165, Chile
    Concrete Innovation Hub UC (CIHUC), Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 8320165, Chile)

  • Diego Lopez-Garcia

    (Department of Structural & Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 8320165, Chile
    Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management (CIGIDEN) ANID FONDAP 1522A0005, Santiago 8940000, Chile)

Abstract

Demands to advance toward more resilient and sustainable cities in terms of reducing casualties, economic losses, downtime, and environmental impacts derived from earthquake-induced damage are becoming more frequent. Indeed, accurate evaluations of the seismic performance of buildings via numerical simulations are crucial for the sustainable development of the built environment. Nevertheless, performance estimations could be influenced by alternative probabilistic methods that can be chosen throughout the procedure of building-specific risk assessment, specifically in the construction and validation of fragility functions. This study evaluates the numerical impacts of selecting different probabilistic models on seismic risk metrics for reinforced concrete dual wall–frame buildings. Specifically, alternative probabilistic models are implemented and evaluated for (i) the identification and elimination of unusual observations within the simulated data (i.e., outliers); (ii) the selection and implementation of different Probability Distribution Functions (PDFs) to estimate fragility functions at different limit states (LSs); and (iii) the application of goodness-of-fit tests and information criteria to assess the validity of proposed PDFs. According to the results, the risk measures showed large variability at the extreme building LS (collapse). On the other hand, for a lower LS (service level), the measures remain similar in all the cases despite the methods selected. Further, the variability observed in the collapse response is up to two times that after eliminating data outliers. Finally, the large variability obtained with the evaluated alternative probabilistic modeling methods suggests re-opening the technical discussion over the state of the practice often used in earthquake engineering to improve the decision-making process, mitigating earthquake-induced consequences in an environmentally, economically, and socially beneficial manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivanna Martinez & Marco F. Gallegos & Gerardo Araya-Letelier & Diego Lopez-Garcia, 2024. "Impact of Probabilistic Modeling Alternatives on the Seismic Fragility Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Dual Wall–Frame Buildings towards Resilient Designs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-28, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:4:p:1668-:d:1340747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/4/1668/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/4/1668/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:4:p:1668-:d:1340747. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.