Seismic Performance Assessment of a Multistorey Building Designed with an Alternative Capacity Design Approach

The actual seismic building codes have a prescriptive nature, and they are principally aimed to guarantee a prescribed life-safety level against a design-level earthquake even if some methods have been proposed to evaluate the seismic performance of a building along its entire service life. Among these, the performance-based seismic design method permits the design of buildings with a more realistic understanding of both risk of life for occupants and economic losses that may occur in future earthquakes. On the other side, the capacity design method, providing criteria to properly spread the inelastic deformation demand between the different structural elements, allows to establish a ductile collapse mechanism avoiding undesired brittle failures. In this context, modern building codes consider the adoption of a single value for the behaviour factor q to be used in the design process. All this should be argued since, especially for buildings characterized by storeys with different uses and occupancy ratios, the adoption of a single value for q could guide the design process to a solution not minimizing the seismic loss. With reference to these aspects, the paper shows the comparison of the seismic responses of a multistorey framed building designed following two different approaches. The first approach, suggested by many international codes, follows the capacity design rules and considers a single value for the behaviour factor valid for the whole building. In this first case, the damage mechanisms could affect, theoretically, every storey of the building. The second approach, proposed here, considers instead the possibility to adopt different behaviour factors to attribute to different storeys. In this way, it is possible to concentrate and localize the most severe earthquake-induced structural damage on (few) storeys, selected by the designers. By means of the seismic performance assessment methodology, the comparison between the two building responses is provided in terms of expected losses during the whole building service life and is reported in terms of both economical loss and human life loss. The results in the paper show that, if different behaviour factors are properly selected for different storeys, the design process can provide a solution characterized by lower values of seismic loss with respect to the case of the design assuming a single-q value.

[1]  Shunsuke Otani,et al.  Development of performance-based design methodology in Japan , 2019, Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes.

[2]  Stefano Pampanin,et al.  Seismic Design Framework Based on Loss-performance Matrix , 2020, Journal of Earthquake Engineering.

[3]  Stefano Pampanin,et al.  Experimental Investigations of a Selective Weakening Approach for the Seismic Retrofit of R.C. Walls , 2007 .

[4]  Andreas J. Kappos,et al.  Evaluation of behaviour factors on the basis of ductility and overstrength studies , 1999 .

[5]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis , 2002 .

[6]  Eric M. Lui,et al.  Performance Based Seismic Design , 2015 .

[7]  Junbo Jia.  Modern Earthquake Engineering , 2017 .

[8]  W. J. Hall,et al.  Earthquake spectra and design , 1982 .

[9]  Marco Savoia,et al.  Seismic safety of valuable non-structural elements in RC buildings: Floor Response Spectrum approaches , 2020 .

[10]  Jack P. Moehle,et al.  Seismic Performance Evaluation of Facilities: Methodology and Implementation , 2009 .

[11]  Manolis Papadrakakis,et al.  Performance-based optimum seismic design of reinforced concrete structures , 2008 .

[12]  STEFANO PAMPANIN,et al.  PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC RESPONSE OF FRAME STRUCTURES INCLUDING RESIDUAL DEFORMATIONS. PART II: MULTI-DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS , 2003 .

[13]  Stefano Pampanin,et al.  Seismic performance of alternative risk-reduction retrofit strategies to support decision making , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[14]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Current Challenges and Future Trends in Analytical Fragility and Vulnerability Modeling , 2019, Earthquake Spectra.

[15]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  CALIBRATION OF FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS OF RC BUILDINGS , 2002 .

[16]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Evaluation of Strength Reduction Factors for Earthquake-Resistant Design , 1994 .

[17]  Yue Li,et al.  Seismic Loss Estimation with Consideration of Aftershock Hazard and Post-Quake Decisions , 2016 .

[18]  A. Barbaresi,et al.  Collapse and damage to vernacular buildings induced by 2012 Emilia earthquakes , 2019, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[19]  Chris P. Pantelides,et al.  Performance‐based design using structural optimization , 2000 .

[20]  Chris D. Poland,et al.  Opportunities and pitfalls of performance based seismic engineering , 2019 .

[21]  Kawashima Kazuhiko,et al.  The 1996 Japanese seismic design specifications of highway bridges and the performance based design , 2019, Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes.

[22]  Marco Bovo,et al.  Application of bidirectional ground motion on existing RC building for seismic loss analysis , 2020 .

[23]  M. Zanini,et al.  Profitability Analysis for Assessing the Optimal Seismic Retrofit Strategy of Industrial Productive Processes with Business-Interruption Consequences , 2018 .

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

[25]  T. Paulay,et al.  Reinforced Concrete Structures , 1975 .

[26]  Gian Paolo Cimellaro,et al.  Retrofit of a hospital through strength reduction and enhanced damping , 2006 .

[27]  Masaomi Teshigawara,et al.  Framework for Performance-Based Design of Building Structures , 2005 .

[28]  Gian Michele Calvi,et al.  Simplified seismic performance assessment and implications for seismic design , 2014, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration.

[29]  Jack P. Moehle,et al.  A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering , 2004 .

[30]  Marco Bovo,et al.  Evaluation of the variability contribution due to epistemic uncertainty on constitutive models in the definition of fragility curves of RC frames , 2019, Engineering Structures.