IMPA versus Cloud Analysis and IDA: Different Methods to Evaluate Structural Seismic Fragility

Abstract

Well-known methods for seismic performance assessment, such as incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), multi-stripes analysis (MSA) and the cloud method, involve nonlinear response time-history analyses to characterize the relationship between the chosen damage measure versus intensity measure. Over the past two decades, many authors have proposed simplified procedures or nonlinear static approaches to develop fragility. In these procedures, the capacity of the system is evaluated by nonlinear static procedures (i.e., the capacity spectrum method (CSM), the N2 method, modal pushover analysis (MPA)) and the demand is derived by response spectra. In addition to the familiar ones, incremental modal pushover analysis (IMPA) is a novel nonlinear static procedure proposed in recent years, and it is used in this research to present an IM-based fragility estimation. The accuracy and effectiveness of different methods to assess vulnerability are investigated by comparing fragility curves derived by MPA-based cloud analysis, IMPA and cloud analysis against IDA. The comparison gives valuable insights on the influence of scaling on different sets of records; however, a more extended validation is needed to confirm the obtained results and draw more general conclusions. Results arise from two relatively small bins of record motions differing by ranges of Joyner-Boore distance and scattered in a range of magnitude are presented.

Keywords

• IDA
• the cloud method
• IMPA
• MPA
• nonlinear static analysis
• nonlinear dynamic analysis