Geomechanics and Engineering

  • 제37권6호
  • /
  • Pages.565-576
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2005-307X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2092-6219(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Probabilistic earthquake risk consideration of existing precast industrial buildings through loss curves

  • Ali Yesilyurt (Disaster Management Institute, Istanbul Technical University) ;
  • Seyhan O. Akcan (Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University) ;
  • Oguzhan Cetindemir (Department of Civil Engineering, Gebze Technical University) ;
  • A. Can Zulfikar (Disaster Management Institute, Istanbul Technical University)
  • 투고 : 2023.09.15
  • 심사 : 2024.05.27
  • 발행 : 2024.06.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

In this study, the earthquake risk assessment of single-story RC precast buildings in Turkey was carried out using loss curves. In this regard, Kocaeli, a seismically active city in the Marmara region, and this building class, which is preferred intensively, were considered. Quality and period parameters were defined based on structural and geometric properties. Depending on these parameters, nine main sub-classes were defined to represent the building stock in the region. First, considering the mean fragility curves and four different central damage ratio models, vulnerability curves for each sub-class were computed as a function of spectral acceleration. Then, probabilistic seismic hazard analyses were performed for stiff and soft soil conditions for different earthquake probabilities of exceedance in 50 years. In the last step, 90 loss curves were derived based on vulnerability and hazard results. Within the scope of the study, the comparative parametric evaluations for three different earthquake intensity levels showed that the structural damage ratio values for nine sub-classes changed significantly. In addition, the quality parameter was found to be more effective on a structure's damage state than the period parameter. It is evident that since loss curves allow direct loss ratio calculation for any hazard level without needing seismic hazard and damage analysis, they are considered essential tools in rapid earthquake risk estimation and mitigation initiatives.

키워드

과제정보

The research described in this paper was financially supported by the Scientific Research Projects Department of Istanbul Technical University under Project No. MAB-2023-44591.

참고문헌

  1. Akkar, S. and Bommer, J.J. (2010), "Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the Middle East", Seismol. Res. Lett., 81(2), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195.
  2. Askan, A. and Yucemen, M.S. (2010), "Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: Application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey", Struct. Saf., 32(4), 262-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.001.
  3. Bal, I.E., Crowley, H., Pinho, R. and Gulay, F.G. (2008), "Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 28(10-11), 914-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005.
  4. Belleri, A. (2017), "Displacement based design for precast concrete frames with not-emulative connections", Eng. Struct., 141, 228-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.020.
  5. Bosio, M., Belleri, A., Riva, P. and Marini, A. (2020), "Displacement-based simplified seismic loss assessment of Italian precast buildings", J. Earthq. Eng., 24, 60-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1724215.
  6. Calvi, G.M. and Pinho, R. (2004), "LESSLOSS-a European integrated project on risk mitigation for earthquakes and landslides", IUSS Press, Pavia.
  7. Carofilis, W., Perrone, D., O'Reilly, G.J., Monteiro, R. and Filiatrault, A. (2020), "Seismic retrofit of existing school buildings in Italy: Performance evaluation and loss estimation", Eng. Struct., 225, 111243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111243.
  8. Cauzzi, C. and Faccioli, E. (2008), "Broadband (0.05 to 20 s) prediction of displacement response spectra based on worldwide digital records", J. Seismol., 12(4), 453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-008-9098-y.
  9. Chiou, B.J. and Youngs, R.R. (2008), "An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra", Earthq. Spectra, 24(1), 173-215. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2894832.
  10. Cornell, C.A. and Krawinkler, H. (2000), "Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment", PEER Cent News, 3, 1-2.
  11. Cremen, G. and Baker, J.W. (2019), "A methodology for evaluating component-level loss predictions of the FEMA P-58 seismic performance assessment procedure", Earthq. Spectra, 35(1), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1193/031618EQS061M.
  12. DEE-KOERI (2003), "Earthquake risk assessment for the Istanbul metropolitan area", Report prepared by Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Bogazici University Press, Istanbul, Turkey.
  13. Del Vecchio, C., Di Ludovico, M., Pampanin, S. and Prota, A. (2018), "Repair costs of existing RC buildings damaged by the L'Aquila earthquake and comparison with FEMA P-58 predictions", Earthq. Spectra, 34(1), 237-263. https://doi.org/10.1193/122916EQS257M.
  14. Demartino, C. and Monti, G. (2020), "Low-LOD code-driven identification of the high seismic risk areas for industrial buildings in Italy", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 18, 4421-4452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00867-3.
  15. Eren, C. and Lus, H. (2015), "A risk based PML estimation method for single-storey reinforced concrete industrial buildings and its impact on earthquake insurance rates", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 13, 2169-2195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9712-z.
  16. Fallah-Aliabadi, S., Ostadtaghizadeh, A., Ardalan, A., Eskandari, M., Fatemi, F., Mirjalili, M.R. and Khazai, B. (2020), "Risk analysis of hospitals using GIS and HAZUS: A case study of Yazd County, Iran", Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction, 47, 101552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101552.
  17. FEMA H.M.M. (2010), "Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology/Earthquake Model/Technical Manual", Wasington, D. C.
  18. Gurpinar, A., Abali, M., Yucemen, M.S. and Yesilcay, Y. (1978), "Feasibility of mandatory earthquake insurance in Turkey", Report No. 78-05, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Middle East Technical University.
  19. Gunay, M. and Mosalam, K. (2012), "PEER performance based earthquake engineering methodology", J. Earthq. Eng., 17(6), 829-858. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.787377.
  20. Khanbabazadeh, H., Zulfikar, A.C. and Yesilyurt, A. (2020), "Basin edge effect on industrial structures damage pattern at clayey basins", Geomech. Eng., 23(6), 575-585. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2020.23.6.575.
  21. Mangalathu, S., Soleimani, F. and Jeon, J.S. (2017), "Bridge classes for regional seismic risk assessment: Improving HAZUS models", Eng. Struct., 148, 755-766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.019.
  22. Melani, A., Khare, R.K., Dhakal, R.P. and Mander, J.B. (2016), "Seismic risk assessment of low rise RC frame structure", Structures, 5, 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.07.003
  23. Mouroux, P. and Le Brun, B. (2006), "Presentation of RISK-UE Project", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 4, 323-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9020-3
  24. Nastev, M. (2014), "Adapting Hazus for seismic risk assessment in Canada", Can. Geotech. J., 51(2), 217-222. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0080.
  25. Papadopoulos, A.N., Vamvatsikos, D. and Kazantzi, A.K. (2019), "Development and application of FEMA P-58 compatible story loss functions", Earthq. Spectra, 35(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1193/102417EQS222M.
  26. Pinho, R. (2012), "GEM: a participatory framework for open, state-of-the-art models and tools for earthquake risk assessment worldwide", Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
  27. Pitilakis, K., Crowley, H. and Kaynia, A.M. (2014a), "SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk", Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, 27, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7872-6.
  28. Pitilakis, K., Franchin, P., Khazai, B. and Wenzel, H. (Eds.). (2014b), "SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities: Methodology and applications", https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8835-9
  29. Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007), "Displacement-based seismic design of structures", Pavia, Italy, IUSS Press.
  30. Silva, V., Crowley, H., Pagani, M., Modelli, D. and Pinho, R. (2013), "Development of the OpenQuake engine, the Global Earthquake Model's open-source software for seismic risk assessment", Nat. Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0618-x
  31. Solberg, K.M., Dhakal, R.P., Mander, J.B. and Bradley, B.A. (2008), "Computational and rapid expected annual loss estimation methodologies for structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 37(1), 81-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.746.
  32. Spence, R., (Ed) and Erdik, M. (Rev.) (2007), "Earthquake disaster scenario prediction and loss modelling for urban areas", LESSLOSS Report No. 2007/07, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
  33. Torquati, M., Belleri, A. and Riva, P. (2018), "Displacement-based seismic assessment for precast concrete frames with non-emulative connections", J. Earthq. Eng., 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1475311.
  34. UNISDR, U. (2009), Terminology on disaster risk reduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
  35. Woessner, J., Laurentiu, D., Giardini, D., Crowley, H., Cotton, F., Grunthal, G. and Valensise, G. (2015), "The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 13, 3553-3596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1.
  36. Xu, Z., Zhang, H., Lu, X., Xu, Y., Zhang, Z. and Li, Y. (2019), "A prediction method of building seismic loss based on BIM and FEMA P-58", Automat. Constr., 102, 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.017.
  37. Yesilyurt, A., Cetindemir, O., Akcan, S.O. and Zulfikar, A.C. (2023), "Fragility-based rapid earthquake loss assessment of precast RC buildings in the Marmara region", Struct. Eng. Mech., 88(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2023.88.1.013.
  38. Yesilyurt, A., Zulfikar, A.C. and Tuzun, C. (2021a), "Site classes effect on seismic vulnerability evaluation of RC precast industrial buildings", Earthq. Struct., 21(6), 627-639. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.21.6.627.
  39. Yesilyurt, A., Zulfikar, A.C. and Tuzun, C. (2021b), "Seismic vulnerability assessment of precast RC industrial buildings in Turkey", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 141, 106539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106539.
  40. Zhao, J.X., Zhang, J., Asano, A., Ohno, Y., Oouchi, T., Takahashi, T. and Fukushima Y. (2006), "Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 96(3), 898-913. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050122.