Choices and Criteria for Seismic Strengthening

Risk assessment is affected by large uncertainties, depending on hazard, structure, damage, and loss analysis. Crucial problems and choices may refer to: (a) hazard parameters, including the definition of appropriate ground motion levels and of their probability to occur; (b) level of knowledge about materials, geometry, detailing; (c) assessed damage and failure modes; and (d) resulting potential for step changes in performances. The cost of attaining a high level of knowledge may significantly reduce the remaining resources, it is therefore important to favor resilient solutions with a creative adoption of appropriate strengthening strategies. In this framework, this article discusses the possible criteria for the mitigation of seismic risk and some of the alternative choices that may be adopted for strengthening, with reference to: (a) the modification of damage and collapse modes strengthening individual elements or locallyincreasing the deformation capacity; (b) the insertion of additional systems resisting to horizontal actions; (c) the introduction of base isolation, with the objective of capacity-protecting the existingstructure; (d) the reduction of displacement demand by added damping or introducing tuned masssystems. Alternative strengthening choices lead to different protection levels and imply different performances that are, in general, represented by non linear or step functions of a cost parameter of the intervention. From these considerations, conceptual “structure driven” strengthening criteria, based on a logical use of resources, are discussed.

[1]  I. Iervolino,et al.  Engineering design earthquakes from multimodal hazard disaggregation , 2011 .

[2]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  An Assessment to Benchmark the Seismic Performance of a Code-Conforming Reinforced-Concrete Moment-Frame Building , 2008 .

[3]  Mary C. Comerio,et al.  Estimating Downtime in Loss Modeling , 2006 .

[4]  Rui Pinho,et al.  REPAIR AND RETROFITTING OF RC WALLS USING SELECTIVE TECHNIQUES , 1998 .

[5]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  A Prioritization Scheme for Seismic Intervention in School Buildings in Italy , 2007 .

[6]  Fahim Sadek,et al.  A METHOD OF ESTIMATING THE PARAMETERS OF TUNED MASS DAMPERS FOR SEISMIC APPLICATIONS , 1997 .

[7]  I. Iervolino,et al.  Eurocode 8 Compliant Real Record Sets for Seismic Analysis of Structures , 2008 .

[8]  Farzin Zareian,et al.  Conceptual performance-based seismic design using building-level and story-level decision support system , 2012 .

[9]  Judith Mitrani-Reiser,et al.  AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION: PROBABILISTIC LOSS ESTIMATION FOR PERFORMANCE - BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING , 2007 .

[10]  H. Crowley,et al.  Calibration of Seismic Design Codes using Loss Estimation , 2012 .

[11]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines , 2002 .

[12]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Design Methodology for Seismic Upgrading of Substandard Reinforced Concrete Structures , 2007 .

[13]  Praveen K. Malhotra.  Seismic Design Loads from Site-Specific and Aggregate Hazard Analyses , 2008 .

[14]  M. Priestley.  DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS , 1997 .

[15]  Gian Michele Calvi,et al.  A DISPLACEMENT-BASED APPROACH FOR VULNERABILITY EVALUATION OF CLASSES OF BUILDINGS , 1999 .

[16]  Nicola Caterino,et al.  Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Seismic Retrofitting of RC Structures , 2008 .

[17]  M. J. Nigel Priestley,et al.  Towards a Capacity-Design Assessment Procedure for Reinforced Concrete Frames , 1991 .

[18]  T. J. Sullivan,et al.  Considerations for the Seismic Assessment of Buildings Using the Direct Displacement-Based Assessment Approach , 2011 .

[19]  Gian Michele Calvi,et al.  Criteri per la progettazione di dispositivi di isolamento a pendolo scorrevole , 2010 .

[20]  Gian Michele Calvi,et al.  Towards a Direct Displacement-Based Loss Assessment Methodology for RC Frame Buildings , 2012 .

[21]  Carlos Marcelo Ramirez.  Building-specific loss estimation methods & tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering , 2009 .

[22]  P. Bazzurro,et al.  DYNAMIC VERSUS STATIC COMPUTATION OF THE RESIDUAL CAPACITY OF A MAINSHOCK-DAMAGED BUILDING TO WITHSTAND AN AFTERSHOCK , 2002 .

[23]  Timothy J. Sullivan,et al.  Towards improved floor spectra estimates for seismic design , 2013 .

[24]  Mervyn J. Kowalsky,et al.  Displacement-based seismic design of structures , 2007 .

[25]  James L. Beck,et al.  Investigation of Sensitivity of Building Loss Estimates to Major Uncertain Variables for the Van Nuys Testbed , 2002 .