Earthquakes and Structures

  • 제20권5호
  • /
  • Pages.571-581
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2092-7614(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2092-7622(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic loss risk assessment of RC frame structures designed according to Chinese code

  • Wang, Shuhe (School of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing) ;
  • Li, Ximing (School of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing) ;
  • Zhang, Jubing (School of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing)
  • 투고 : 2020.10.03
  • 심사 : 2021.04.19
  • 발행 : 2021.05.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

According to the PEER probabilistic seismic loss assessment methodology, a structure-level seismic risk assessment method was proposed and implemented for a set of RC frames designed according to Chinese seismic code. These frames were designed for fortification intensities of 6,7 and 8 and classified into 4,6 and 8 stories. Through incremental dynamic time history analysis (IDA), the statistical relationships of the maximum inter-story drift ratio with the seismic spectral acceleration were obtained and used to determine fragility curve for each damage states. The site seismic hazard model was established based on Chinese seismic code, and the probability distribution of each discrete intensity levels was derived. Using loss index from the Chinese standard and Hazus, the structure means annual frequency of collapse, the Expected Annual Financial Loss (EAL) and the Expected Annual Fatalities (EAF) were calculated. The variation trends of these performance metrics with seismic fortification intensities and structure heights were evaluated, and the weaknesses of the current seismic code of China were pointed out. It was concluded that the method proposed in this paper is simple and reliable for practical applications.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ancheta, T., Darragh, R. and Stewart, J (2013), "PEER NGA-West2 Database", PEER Report 2013/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
  2. ASCE/SEI 41-06 (2008), Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, U.S.A
  3. ASCE/SEI7-10 (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA
  4. ATC-40 (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Volume I. Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City
  5. Bradley, B.A., Dhakal, R.P., Cubrinovski, M., Mander, J.B. and Macrae, G.A. (2007), "Improved seismic hazard model with application to probabilistic seismic demand analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(14), 2211-2225, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.727.
  6. Cardone, D. (2016), "Fragility curves and loss functions for RC structural components with smooth rebars", Earthq. Struct., 10(5), 1181-1212, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.5.1181.
  7. Cardone, D. and Perrone, G. (2016), "Damage and loss assessment of pre-70 RC frame buildings with FEMA P-58", J. Earthq. Eng., 21(1-2), 23-61, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1149893.
  8. Cardone, D., Sullivan, T., Gesualdi, G. and Perrone, G. (2017), "Simplified estimation of the expected annual loss of concrete buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 46(12), 2009-2032, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2893.
  9. Cornell, A., Jalayer, F. and Hamburger, R. (2002), "Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame", J. Struct. Eng., 128(4), 526-532. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526).
  10. Daniela, Z., Bulent, A., Jeff, B. and Jay, S. (2020), "Consideration of economic vulnerability in seismic performance evaluation of structures", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 18, 3351-3381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00822-2.
  11. Fajfar, P. and Krawinkler, H. (2004), "Performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation", Report 2004/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Richmond, California.
  12. FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington D.C.
  13. FEMA P-58 (2012), Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume1 -Methodology. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C.
  14. GB/T18208.4-2011 (2011), Post-earthquake Field Works-Part 4: Assessment of Direct Loss. Seismological Press, Beijing, China.
  15. GB50011-2010 (2010), Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, China.
  16. Hazus MH2.1 (2012), Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C.
  17. Lu, D., Yu, X., Jia, M. and Wang, G. (2013), "Seismic risk assessment for a reinforced concrete frame designed according to Chinese codes", Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 10(10), 1295-1310. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.791326.
  18. Luo, W., Li, Y. and Han, J. (2016), "Earthquake loss estimation for RC frames based on PEER-PBEE methodology", Eng. Mech., 33(9), 186-194. 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2015.02.0129.
  19. Melani, A., Khare, R., Dhakal, R. and Mander, J. (2016), "Seismic risk assessment of low rise RC frame structure", Struct., 5, 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.07.003.
  20. Pejovic, J., Serdar, N. and Pejovic, R. (2017), "Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand models of RC highrise buildings", Earthq. Struct., 13(3), 221-230. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.3.221.
  21. SAP2000 (2009), Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures, Version 14 Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, C.A.
  22. Shokrabadi, M., Banazadeh, M., Shokrabadi, M. and Mellati, A. (2015), "Assessment of seismic risks in code conforming reinforced concrete frames", Eng. Struct., 98, 14-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.057.
  23. Shome, N. (1999), "Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures", Ph.D Dissertation, University of Stanford.
  24. Silva, V., Crowley, H., Varum, H., Pinho, R. and Sousa, L. (2015), "Investigation of the characteristics of Portuguese regular moment-frame RC buildings and development of a vulnerability model", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 13(5), 1455-1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9669-y.
  25. Sullivan, T.J. (2016), "Use of limit state loss versus intensity models for simplified estimation of expected annual loss", J. Earthq. Eng., 20(6), 954-974. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1112325.
  26. Tian, Y., Lu, X., Lu, X.Z., Li, M. and Guan, H. (2016), "Quantifying the seismic resilience of two tall buildings designed using Chinese and US codes", Earthq. Struct., 11(6), 925-942. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.6.925.
  27. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), "Incremental dynamic analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.
  28. Wang, S. and Zhang, J. (2018), "Evaluation of moment magnifying coefficients of RC structures based on the seismic risk assessment method", Eng. Mech., 35(3), 132-140. 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2016.11.0865.
  29. Wu, D., Tesfamariam, S., Stiemer, S.F. and Qin, D. (2012), "Seismic fragility assessment of RC frame structure designed according to modern Chinese code for seismic design of buildings", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 11(3), 331-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-012-0125-1.
  30. Xian, L. and He, Z. (2014), "Earthquake loss analysis of RC frame structures with different collapse margin ratios", Eng. Mech., 31(12), 155-163. 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2013.09.0881.
  31. Yu, X., Lu, D. and Li, B. (2016), "Estimating uncertainty in limit state capacities for reinforced concrete frame structures through pushover analysis", Earthq. Struct., 10(1), 141-161. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.1.141.
  32. Yu, X., Lu, D. and Li, B. (2017), "Relating seismic design level and seismic performance: fragility-based investigation of RC moment-resisting frame buildings in China", J. Perform. Construct. Facilities, 31(5), https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001069.