Research Papers: Seismic Engineering

Piping Fragility Evaluation: Interaction With High-Rise Building Performance

[+] Author and Article Information
Bu Seog Ju

Department of Civil Engineering,
North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC 27695
e-mail: bju2@ncsu.edu

Abhinav Gupta

Department of Civil Engineering,
North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC 27695
e-mail: agupta1@ncsu.edu

Yong Hee Ryu

Department of Civil Engineering,
North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC 27695
e-mail: yryu@ncsu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 24, 2016; final manuscript received July 18, 2016; published online November 24, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Akira Maekawa.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(3), 031801 (Nov 24, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: PVT-16-1014; doi: 10.1115/1.4034406 History: Received January 24, 2016; Revised July 18, 2016

Many recent studies have emphasized the need for improving seismic performance of nonstructural systems in critical facilities in order to reduce the damage as well as to maintain continued operation of the facility after an earthquake. This paper is focused on evaluating system-level seismic fragility of the piping in a representative high-rise building. Piping fragilities are evaluated by incorporating the nonlinear finite-element model of a threaded Tee-joint that is validated using experimental results. The emphasis in this study is on evaluating the effects of building performance on the piping fragility. The differences in piping fragility due to the nonlinearities in building are evaluated by comparing the fragility curves for linear frame and nonlinear fiber models. It is observed that as nonlinearity in the building increases with increasing value of peak ground acceleration, the floor accelerations exhibit a reduction due to degradation/softening. Consequently, the probabilities of failure increase at a slower rate relative to that in a linear frame. It is also observed that a piping located at higher floor does not necessarily exhibits high fragilities, i.e., the fundamental building mode is not always the governing mode. Higher order building modes with frequencies closest to critical piping modes of interest contribute more significantly to the piping fragility. Within a particular building mode of interest, a good indicator of the amplification at different floor levels can be obtained by the product of mode shape ordinate and modal participation factor. Piping fragilities are likely to be higher at floor levels at which this product has a higher value.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Brunesi, E. , Nascimbene, R. , and Casagrande, L. , 2016, “ Seismic Analysis of High-Rise Mega-Braced Frame-Core Buildings,” Eng. Struct., 115, pp. 1–17. [CrossRef]
Fan, H. , Li, Q. S. , Tuan, A. Y. , and Xu, L. , 2009, “ Seismic Analysis of the World's Tallest Building,” J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(5), pp. 1206–1215. [CrossRef]
Reitherman, R. , and Sabol, T. A. , 1995, “ Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Reconnaissance Report—Nonstructural Damage,” Earthquake Spectra, 11(S2), pp. 453–514. [CrossRef]
Horne, J. , and Burton, H. , 2003, “ Investigation of Code Seismic Force Levels for Hospital Equipment,” Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components, Vol. 2, ATC-29.
Shinozuka, M. , and Masri, S. , 2003, “ Seismic Risk Assessment of Non-Structural Components in Hospitals,” University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, FEMA/USC Project, Draft Report.
Miranda, E. , and Taghavi, S. , 2006, “ Estimation of Seismic Demands on Acceleration-Sensitive Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities,” Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities, p. 29-2.
Dey, A. , and Gupta, V. K. , 1999, “ Stochastic Seismic Response of Multiply-Supported Secondary Systems in Flexible-Base Structures,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 28(4), pp. 351–369. [CrossRef]
Filiatrault, A. , and Sullivan, T. , 2014, “ Performance-Based Seismic Design of Nonstructural Building Components: The Next Frontier of Earthquake Engineering,” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vib., 13(1), pp. 17–46. [CrossRef]
Sullivan, T. , Calvi, P. M. , and Nascimbene, R. , 2013, “ Towards Improved Floor Spectra Estimates for Seismic Design,” Earthquake Struct., 4(1), pp. 109–132. [CrossRef]
Ju, B. S. , and Gupta, A. , 2015, “ Seismic Fragility of Threaded Tee-Joint Connections in Piping Systems,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 132–133, pp. 106–118. [CrossRef]
Wood, R. L. , Hutchinson, T. C. , and Hoehler, M. S. , 2009, “ Cyclic Load and Crack Protocols for Anchored Nonstructural Components and Systems,” Structural Systems Research Project Report Series, University of California, San Diego, CA, Report No. 2009 SSRP 09/1.
IBC, 2006, “ International Building Code 2006,” International Code Council, Falls Church, VA.
ACI, 2014, “ Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, Code No. ACI 318-14.
Englekirk, R. E. , 2003, Seismic Design of Reinforced and Precast Concrete Buildings, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
UC Berkeley, 2010, “ Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees),” University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Mazzoni, S. , Mckenna, F. , Scott, M. H. , and Fenves, G. L. , 2006, “ OpenSees Command Language Manual,” University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Kent, D. C. , and Park, R. , 1969, “ Inelastic Behavior Reinforced Concrete Members With Cyclic Loading,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Scott, M. H. , and Fenves, G. L. , 2006, “ Plastic Hinge Integration Methods for Force-Based Beam–Column Elements,” J. Struct. Eng., 132(2), pp. 244–252. [CrossRef]
Paulay, T. , and Priestley, M. J. N. , 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
NFPA, 2007, “ Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler System,” National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, Standard No. NFPA-13.
SMACNA, 2003, “ Seismic Restraint Manual Guidelines for Mechanical Systems,” Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Inc., Chantilly, VA.
Dow, J. , 2010, “ Testing and Analysis of Iron and Plastic Tee-Joint in Sprinkler Systems. NEESR-GC: Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Systems,” NEES, Washington, DC.
Sundararajan, C. , 1995, Probabilistic Structural Mechanics Handbook, Theory and Industrial Applications, Chapman and Hall, Montgomery, TX.
Rice, J. A. , 1995, Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA.
Shinozuka, M. , Feng, M. Q. , Lee, J. , and Naganuma, T. , 2000, “ Statistical Analysis of Fragility Curves,” J. Eng. Mech., 126(12), pp. 1224–1231. [CrossRef]
Straub, D. , and Der Kiureghian, A. , 2008, “ Improved Seismic Fragility Modeling From Empirical Data,” Struct. Saf., 30(4), pp. 320–336. [CrossRef]
ASME, 2004, “ Rule for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III.
PEER-NRG NGA, 2009, “ Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: NGA Database,” University of California, Berkeley, CA.
UBC, 1997, “ Uniform Building Code 1997,” International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Moment frame building configurations: 20-story

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Nonlinear concrete model (Concrete02) in opensees [16]. The various terms are explained in Table 2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Nonlinear steel model (Steel02) in opensees [16]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Plastic hinge element in opensees [16]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Piping system layout [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mode shapes of piping system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Model of the Tee-joint for 2-in. black iron pipe [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Validation of model for the threaded Tee-joint for cyclic test [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Limit states at first leakage in cyclic tests of 50 mm (2 in.) Tee-joint [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Response spectra for the input ground motions: (a) individual response spectra for 22 earthquake records and (b) response spectra

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Mean spectra in 20-story nonlinear building model, PGA normalized to 1.0 g

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Mean spectra in 20-story linear building model, PGA normalized to 1.0 g

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Interstory drift ratio in 20-story nonlinear building model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Seismic fragilities of piping in 20-story linear and nonlinear building models: (a) 20th floor; (b) 15th floor; (c) 10th floor; and (d) 5th floor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Seismic fragilities of piping system in 20-story linear building model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Seismic fragility of piping system in 20-story nonlinear building model




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In