Reliability-based evaluation of loss due to distribution of nonstructural components in height

• Autorzy: Haj Najafi L. , Tehranizadeh M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Structural and nonstructural components incorporate simultaneously and correspondingly in modern probabilistic performance evaluation to make decision making parameters which is usually economic loss in a predefined level of probability. However, far greater investment, relatively limited seismically design information and dependence of nonstructural components’ normative quantities to some architectural, economic and social features contribute to exceeded loss amounts and uncertainties under nonstructural components in comparison to structural ones. This paper addresses the question of how to distribute nonstructural components in height of a building accounting for more reliable economic loss subjected to seismic excitation through application of fully probabilistic reliability approach. This purpose has been captured through proposing a new modified distribution of building nonstructural components in height for three typical steel moment frames and conducting comparative assessments for two alternative distributions of nonstructural components with office occupancy. Dealing with discussions, it could be concluded that more reliable economic losses could be gained and also reduced by more astutely situating building nonstructural components in height considering type of dominated demands in a specific story without requirement to any alternation in component’s type or quantity.

PL

Elementy konstrukcyjne i niekonstrukcyjne występują jednocześnie we współczesnej ocenie prawdopodobieństwa, w celu ustalenia parametrów istotnych w przeprowadzeniu oceny straty wartości przy ustalonym poziomie prawdopodobieństwa. Niemniej jednak, z uwagi na znacznie większe nakłady, relatywnie ograniczone informacje dla projektowania sejsmicznego dla elementów niekonstrukcyjnych, parametry normatywne dla wybranych architektonicznych, ekonomicznych i socjalnych parametrów znajdują odzwierciedlenie we wzroście strat i niepewności dla elementów niekonstrukcyjnych w porównaniu z elementami konstrukcyjnymi. W artykule poruszono kwestię wpływu rozmieszczenia elementów niekonstrukcyjnych na wysokości budynku biorąc pod uwagę bardziej wiarygodną ocenę straty wartości po wystąpieniu oddziaływań sejsmicznych przez zastosowanie podejścia w pełni probabilistycznej teorii niezawodności. W tym celu zaproponowano nowy, zmodyfikowany sposób rozmieszczenia elementów niekonstrukcyjnych na wysokości dla trzech typowych, sztywnych ram stalowych i przeprowadzono ocenę porównawczą dla dwóch alternatywnych rozkładów elementów niekonstrukcyjnych w budynkach biurowych. Po przeprowadzeniu analiz można wnioskować, że bardziej wiarygodny ekonomicznie poziom strat został osiągnięty przez bardziej przemyślane rozmieszczenie elementów niekonstrukcyjnych na wysokości, biorąc pod uwagę funkcję dominującą na konkretnej kondygnacji bez potrzeby ograniczania typu i jakości elementów budowlanych.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

nonstructural component; cost of damage; incorporation of stories; dispersion of loss; reliability assessment; low-rise building; office occupancy

PL

element niekonstrukcyjny; koszty szkód; rozrzut strat; ocena niezawodności; budynek niski; obłożenie budynku

• Wydawca: Silesian University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Architecture Civil Engineering Environment
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: Vol. 10, no. 2
• Strony: 77--98
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 54 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Haj Najafi L.

• Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave Tehran, Iran

autor

Tehranizadeh M.

• Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave Tehran, Iran

Bibliografia

• [1] Krawinkler H., Medina R. (2004). Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground motions, Report No. PEER 2003/15, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, United State.
• [2] Aslani H., Miranda E. (2005). Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings, Report 157, Ph.D. Dissertation, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, United State.
• [3] Haselton C. B., Goulet C. A., Mitrani-Reiser J., Beck J. L., Deierlein G. G., Porter K. A., Stewart J. P., Taciroglu E. (2008). An Assessment to Benchmark the Seismic Performance of a Code-Conforming Reinforced Concrete Moment-Frame Building”, PEER Report 2007/12, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, United States.
• [4] Haselton C. B., Deierlein G. G. (2007). Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings, Technical Report 156, Ph.D. Dissertation, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, United States.
• [5] Filiatrault A., Kuan S., Tremblay R. (2004). Shake Table Testing of Bookcase – partition Wall Systems, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, (31)4, 664–676.
• [6] Chock G., Robertson I., Nicholson P., Brandes H., Medley E., Okubo P., Hirshorn B., Sumada J., Kindred T., Linurna G., Sarwar A., Dal Pino J., Holmes W. (2006). Compilation of Observations of the October 15, 2006, Kiholo Bay (Mw 6.7) and Mahukona (Mw 6.0) Earthquakes, Hawaii, Report 31, Earthquake EngineeringResearch Institute,Oakland,United State.
• [7] Gupta A., Krawinkler H. (1999). Seismic Demand for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frames Structures, Report 132, Ph.D. Dissertation, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, United State.
• [8] McGavin G., Patrucco H. (1994). Survey of Non Structural Damage to Healthcare Facilities in the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Report prepared for HMC Group, Ontario, Canada.
• [9] Boroschek R., Retamales R. (2001). Damage Observed in El Salvador’s Public Hospital System during the January 13, 2001 Earthquake, WHO/PAHO Collaborating Center for Disaster Mitigation in Health Facilities, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
• [10] Miranda E., Mosqueda G., Retamales R., Pekcan G. (2012). Performance of Nonstructural Components during the 27 February 2010 Chile Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, (28)1, 453–471.
• [11] Taghavi S., Miranda E. (2003). Response of Nonstructural Building Elements”, Report PEER 2003/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, United State.
• [12] Filiatrault A., Sullivan T. (2014). Performance-based seismic design of nonstructural building components: The next frontier of earthquake engineering, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, (13)1, 17-46, DOI:10.1007/s11803-014-0238-9.
• [13] Soong T.T. (1995). Seismic Behavior of Nonstructural Elements-State-of-the-Art-Report, Proc. of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 1599–1606.
• [14] Filiatrault A., Christopoulos C. (2002). Guidelines, Specifications, and Seismic Performance Characterization of Nonstructural Building Components and Equipment,” Report PEER 2002/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, United State.
• [15] Porter K. A. (2005). A Taxonomy of Building Components for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics California Institute of Technology. PEER Award number EEC-9701568, Report PEER 2005/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, United State.
• [16] Petak W. J., Alesch D. J. (2008). Structural and Nonstructural Earthquake Design: The Challenge of Integrating Specialty Areas in Designing Complex, Critical Facilities, Technical Report MCEER-08- 0014, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo State University of New York, United State.
• [17] NIBS (2003). Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, National Institute of Building Sciences and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report. HAZUS-MH Technical Manual, Washington D.C., United State.
• [18] NIST, UNIFORMAT II Elemental Classification for Building Specifications, Cost Estimating, and Cost Analysis, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Report. NISTIR 6389, Washington D.C., United State, 1999, Retrieved 05-May-2016: http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/publications/nistirs/ 6389.pdf
• [19] FEMA P-58-1 (2012). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 – Methodology, Building seismic safety council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report. FEMA P- 58-1, Federal Emergency Management Agencies, Washington, D.C., United State.
• [20] Porter K .A., Johnson G., Sheppard R., Bachman R. (2011). Response to discussions of fragility of mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment, Earthquake Spectra, (27)1, 229–233.
• [21] ATC-58, Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings, Applied Technology Council, Washington D.C., United State, 2011, Retrieved 13- October-2014: https://www.atccouncil.org/pdfs/ATC- 58-50persentDraft.pdf
• [22] FEMA P-58-3, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 3 – Supporting Electronic Materials and Background Documentation: 3.1 Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT), Version 2.9.65, Building seismic safety council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report. FEMA P-58-3, Federal Emergency Management Agencies, Washington D.C., United State, 2012
• [23] Ramirez C., Miranda E. (2009). Building-specific loss estimation methods & tools for simplified performance- based earthquake engineering, Report 171, Ph.D. Dissertation, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, United States.
• [24] French S. P. (2012). Modeling Nonstructural Damage for Metropolitan Building Stocks, Proc. of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 950–960.
• [25] Balaboni B (2014). RSMeans Square Foot Costs 2014, 35th edition, RSMeans Engineering Department, New York, United States.
• [26] ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2010.
• [27] AISC-LRFD-2005, Manual of Steel Construction, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2005.
• [28] Ibarra L. F., Medina R. A., Krawinkler H. (2005). Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, (34)12, 1489–1511.
• [29] Lignos D. G., Krawinkler H. (2012). Sideway Collapse of deteriorating structural system under seismic excitations”, Report 177, Ph.D. Dissertation, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, United State.
• [30] Lignos D. G., Krawinkler H.,Whittaker A. S. (2011). Prediction and validation of sideway collapse of two scale models of a 4-story steel moment frame,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, (40)7, 807–825.
• [31] OpenSees (2009). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
• [32] Zareian F., Medina R. A. (2010). A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane Structural systems, Computers & Structures, 88(1-2), 45–53.
• [33] Lignos D. G. (2014). Modeling Steel Moment Resisting Frames with OpenSees, OpenSees Workshop, University of California, Berkeley, United States, 102–117.
• [34] Gupta. A., McDonald B. M. (2008). Performance of Building Structures during the October 15, 2006 Hawaii Earthquake, Proc. of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 100–108.
• [35] Haj Najafi L., Tehranizadeh M. (2015). Ground motion selection and scaling in practice, Peryodica Polytechnica – Civil Engineering, 59(2), 233–248. DOI:10.3311/PPci.7808.
• [36] PEER Strong Ground Motion Database, Retrieved 05-May-2016: http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_datab ase
• [37] COSMOS Ground Motions Databases, Retrieved 05- May-2016: http://db.cosmos-eq.org/scripts/default.plx
• [38] K-Net, Strong-motions Seismograph Networks, Retrieved 05-May-2016: http://www.k-net.bosai.go.jp
• [39] NIST/GCR 11-917-14, Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures, NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Report. NIST/GCR 11-917-14, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2011.
• [40] Nau J., Hall W. (1984). Scaling methods for earthquake response spectra, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), (110)2, 91–109.
• [41] Shome N., Cornell C. A., Bazzurro P., Carballo J. E. (1998). Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses, Earthquake Spectra, 14(3), 469–500.
• [42] Mehanny S. S. F. (1999).Modeling and Assessment of Seismic Performance of Composite Frames with Reinforced Concrete Columns and Steel Beams, Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, California, United States.
• [43] Alavi B., Krawinkler H. (2000). Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design, Proceeding Of the 12th World Conference on earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. 2664–2672.
• [44] Thoft-Christensen P., Murotsu Y. (1986). Application of Structural System Reliability Theory, Springer- Verlag, United States.
• [45] Ibrahim Y. (1991). General strategy for structural systems reliability analysis, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, (117)3, 789–807.
• [46] Uzielli M., Duzguny S., Vangelstenz B. V. (2006). A first-order second-moment framework for probabilistic estimation of vulnerability to landslides, International Geotechnical hazard Engineering Conference, Lillehammer, Norway.
• [47] Raviprakash A. V., Prabu B., Alagumurthi N. (2010). Mean value first order second moment analysis of buckling of axially loaded thin plates with random geometrical imperfections, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 2(1), 150–162.
• [48] Liel A. B., Haselton C. B., Deierlein G. G., Baker J. W. (2009). Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings, Structural Safety, 31(1), 197–211.
• [49] Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C. A. (2002). The incremental dynamic analysis and its application to performance- based earthquake engineering, Proc. of the 12 the European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
• [50] Miranda E., Ramirez C. M. (2009). Building-Specific Loss Estimation Methods & Tools For Simplified Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Report 171, Ph.D. Dissertation, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, United State.
• [51] Ruiz‐García J.,Miranda E. (2006). Residual displacement ratios for assessment of existing structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(3), 315–336.
• [52] ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, United State, 2007.
• [53] FEMA P695, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Building seismic safety council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report. FEMA P695, Federal Emergency Management Agencies, Washington, D.C., United State, 2009.
• [54] Ruiz-García J., Miranda E. (2008). Probabilistic seismic assessment of residual drift demands in existing buildings, Proc. of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.