Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic risk assessment of staggered wall system structures

  • Kim, Jinkoo (Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Baek, Donggeol (Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • Received : 2013.05.15
  • Accepted : 2013.08.25
  • Published : 2013.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study the seismic risk assessments of six- and twelve-story staggered wall system structures with three different structural variations were performed. The performances of staggered wall structures with added columns along the central corridor and the structures with their first story walls replaced by beams and columns were compared with those of the regular staggered wall structures. To this end incremental dynamic analyses were carried out using twenty two pairs of earthquake records to obtain the failure probabilities for various intensity of seismic load. The seismic risk for each damage state was computed based on the fragility analysis results and the probability of occurrence of earthquake ground motions. According to the analysis results, it was observed that the structures with added columns along the central corridor showed lowest probability of failure and seismic risk. The structures with their first story walls replaced by beams and columns showed lowest margin for safety.

Keywords

References

  1. ASCE (2010), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
  2. ASCE (2007), Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston Virginia.
  3. Celik, O.C. and Ellingwood, B.R. (2009), "Seismic risk assessment of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames subjected to mid-america ground motions", J. Struct. Eng., 135(4), 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:4(414)
  4. Computer and Structures(2006), PERFORM components and elements for PERFORM 3D and PERFORM-Collapse ver.4, CSI, Berkeley, CA.
  5. Cornell, C.A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. and Foutch, D. (2002), "Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines", J. Struct. Eng., 128(4), 526-533. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)
  6. EESK (1997), Research on seismic design code (II), Korea Ministry of Construction and Transportation.
  7. Ellingwood, B.R. (2001), "Earthquake risk assessment of building structures", Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe., 74, 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00105-3
  8. Ellingwood, B.R. and Wen, Y.K. (2005), "Risk-benefit-based design for low-probability/high consequency earthquake events in Mid-America", Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater., 7, 56-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.191
  9. Englekirk, R. (2003), Seismic design of reinforced and precast concrete buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  10. Erberik, M.A. and Elnashai, A.S. (2004), "Fragility analysis of flat-slab structures", Eng. Struct., 26, 937-948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.02.012
  11. FEMA P695 (2009), Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C.
  12. HAZUS (1997), Earthquake loss estimation methodology, Technical Manual, National Institute of Building for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
  13. Kennedy, R.P. and Ravindra, M.K. (1984), "Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies", Nuclear Eng. Des., 79, 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(84)90188-2
  14. Korkmaz, K.A, Ay, Z., Sari, A. and Celik, I.D. (2013), "Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of hall buildings in Turkey", Struct. Des. Tall Spec., 22(5), 415-439. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.694
  15. Lee, J. and Kim, J. (2013), "Seismic performance evaluation of staggered wall structures using Fema P695 procedure", Mag. Concrete Res., 65(17), 1023-1033. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.12.00237
  16. Paulay, T. and Priestely, M.J.N. (1992), Seismic design of reinforced and masonry building.
  17. PEER (2006), PEER NGA database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A, http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/.
  18. PERFORM-3D (2006), "Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures-user guide", Berkeley(CA, USA), Computers and Structures.
  19. Ramirez, C.M., Lignos, D.G., Miranda, E. and Kolios, D. (2012), "Fragility functions for pre-Northridge welded steel moment-resisting beam-to-column connections", Eng. Struct., 45, 574-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.007
  20. Seismic performance criteria (1997), Research on seismic design code (II), Korea Department of Construction and Transportation.
  21. Shinozuka, M., Feng, M.Q., Lee, J. and Naganuma, T. (2000), "Statistical analysis of fragility curves", J. Eng. Mech., 126(12),1224-1231. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1224)
  22. Sorensen, J.D. (2011), "Framework for robustness assessment of timber structures", Eng. Struct., 33, 3087-3092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.02.025
  23. Tafakori, E., Banazadeh, M., Jalali, S.A. and Tehranizadeh, M. (2013), "Risk-based optimal retrofit of a tall steel building by using friction dampers", Struct. Des. Tall Spec., 22, 700-717. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.720
  24. Taflanidis, A.A. and Jia, G.F. (2011), "A simulation-based framework for risk assessment and probabilistic sensitivity analysis of base-isolated structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40, 1629-1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1113
  25. Yun, S.Y. and Foutch, D.A. (2000), ''Performance prediction and evaluation of low ductility steel moment frames for seismic loads", SAC Background Rep. No. SAC/BD-00/26, SAC Joint Venture, Richmond, Calif.

Cited by

  1. Seismic Capacity Design and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Staggered Wall Structures vol.11, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-017-0192-9
  2. Earthquake risk assessment methods of unreinforced masonry structures: Hazard and vulnerability vol.9, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.4.719
  3. Incorporation of collapse safety margin into direct earthquake loss estimate vol.10, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.2.429
  4. Overturning risk of furniture in earthquake-affected areas vol.26, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546319879537