Considering uncertainty in the collapse fragility of New Zealand buildings for risk‐targeted seismic design

Abstract

AbstractThe risk‐targeted seismic design framework is used to set design intensities, based on achieving a target risk level (e.g., collapse or fatality risk) with respect to an assumed building collapse response. This paper assesses the distribution of fatality risk associated with the risk‐targeted design intensity, considering uncertainty in both the hazard and the variety of buildings that can satisfy the minimum design requirement. The randomness among buildings and their response is due to other design decisions (aleatory variability with respect to the design intensity) and can be represented by a distribution of fragility curves that quantify the collapse probabilities of as‐built, code‐conforming buildings. First, a single design intensity is calculated based on a “design fragility,” the mean hazard curve, and a risk target. The design fragility is taken as a conservative estimate from the distribution of collapse fragilities and the selected risk target approximates the risk associated with New Zealand's previous (non‐risk‐targeted) criteria for design intensities. Then the risk distribution is assessed, considering the aleatory variability in as‐built fragilities and the epistemic uncertainty in the new National Seismic Hazard Model. Accounting for variability in design decisions and uncertainty in the hazard model produces a risk distribution that more fully represents the potential risk associated with a given design intensity. This distribution can be compared to guidance on tolerable risk ranges, which suggest that risk can be variable among buildings but should fall within acceptable bounds. Sensitivity studies consider epistemic uncertainty in the assumed model for the distribution of as‐built fragilities. This inclusion of uncertainty to assess the risk distribution offers a powerful extension to the risk‐targeted framework. While this extension would not affect engineering practice (as the output is still a single design intensity), it allows building code developers to better understand and consider the risk implications associated with the selected design intensity.