Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Fragility reduction using passive response modification in a Consequence-Based Engineering (CBE) framework

  • Duenas-Osorio, Leonardo (School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology) ;
  • Park, Joonam (School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology) ;
  • Towashiraporn, Peeranan (School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology) ;
  • Goodno, Barry J. (School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology) ;
  • Frost, David (School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology) ;
  • Craig, James I. (School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology) ;
  • Bostrom, Ann (School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology)
  • Received : 2003.01.20
  • Accepted : 2003.08.18
  • Published : 2004.03.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Consequence-Based Engineering (CBE) is a new paradigm proposed by the Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE) to guide evaluation and rehabilitation of building structures and networks in areas of low probability - high consequence earthquakes such as the central region of the U.S. The principal objective of CBE is to minimize consequences by prescribing appropriate intervention procedures for a broad range of structures and systems, in consultation with key decision makers. One possible intervention option for rehabilitating unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, widely used for essential facilities in Mid-America, is passive energy dissipation (PED). After the CBE process is described, its application in the rehabilitation of vulnerable URM building construction in Mid-America is illustrated through the use of PED devices attached to flexible timber floor diaphragms. It is shown that PED's can be applied to URM buildings in situations where floor diaphragm flexibility can be controlled to reduce both out-of-plane and in-plane wall responses and damage. Reductions as high as 48% in roof displacement and acceleration can be achieved as demonstrated in studies reported below.

Keywords

References

  1. Abrams, D.P. Elnashai, A.E. and Beavers, J.E. (2002), "A new engineering paradigm: Consequence-BasedEngineering", Paper submitted to Earthquake Spectra, EERI.
  2. Ang, A.H. and Tang, W.H. (1984), Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design - 2, Decision,Risk, and Reliability, Wiley.
  3. Bandte, O. (2000), "A probabilistic multi-criteria decision making technique for conceptual and preliminaryaerospace systems design", Ph.D Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.
  4. Corner, J., Buchanan, J. and Henig, M. (2001), "Dynamic decision problem structuring", J. Multi-Crit. Decis.Anal, 10, 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.295
  5. Craig, J.I., Goodno, B.J., Towashiraporn, P. and Park, J. (2002), "Response modification applications for essentialfacilities", Final Report, Project ST-4, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Georgia Institute of Technology,Atlanta, GA.
  6. FEMA (1997), Federal Emergency Management Agency. NIBS - National Institute of Building Sciences. Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, HAZUS. Washington D.C.
  7. French, S. (2000), "Inventory of essential facilities in Mid-America", Final Report, Project SE-1, Mid-AmericaEarthquake Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA.
  8. Goodno, B.J., Craig, J.I., Dogan, T. and Towashiraporn, P. (1998), "Ductile cladding connection systems forseismic design", Report GCR 98-758, Building and Fire Research Lab, NIST.
  9. Hiller, F.S. and Lieberman, G.J. (2001), Introduction to Operations Research, McGraw-Hill.
  10. MAE (2002), Mid-America Earthquake Center, Stakeholder Program.
  11. Moor, C. (1992), "Analytical and experimental evaluation of advanced cladding connections", M.S.C.E. Thesis,Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
  12. Park, J., Craig, J.I. and Goodno, B.J. (2002), "Simple nonlinear in-plane response models for assessing fragilityof URM walls", Proceedings of the 7NCEE, Boston, MA.
  13. Pinelli, J.-P., Moor, C., Craig, J.I. and Goodno, B.J. (1996), "Testing of energy dissipating cladding connections",Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25, 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199602)25:2<129::AID-EQE542>3.0.CO;2-0
  14. Wen, Y.K. and Wu, C.L. (2001), "Uniform hazard ground motions for Mid-America cities". Earthquake Spectra,17(2), 359-384. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586179
  15. Winterfeldt, D.V. and Edwards, W. (1986), Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge UniversityPress.
  16. Yi, T., Moon, F. and Leon, R. (2002), "Performance characteristics of unreinforced Masonry low-rise structurebefore and after rehabilitation", Proceedings of the 7NCEE, Boston, MA.

Cited by

  1. Complexity and robustness of frame structures vol.50, pp.22-23, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.07.019
  2. Earthquake Mitigation Decisions and Consequences vol.22, pp.2, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2190668