Development and Application of FEMA P-58 Compatible Story Loss Functions

The quantification of seismic performance, using metrics meaningful to both engineers and stakeholders, has been a focal point of research in performance-based earthquake engineering. The prevalent paradigm is currently offered by the FEMA P-58 guidelines in the form of a component-by-component approach that provides detailed assessment capabilities at the cost of requiring a complete inventory of the structural, nonstructural, and content components. In an attempt for simplification, a fully compatible story-by-story approach is offered instead, where story loss functions are employed to directly relate monetary losses to engineering demand parameters given the story area. These functions can be adjusted for application to different situations, assuming the ratio of cost and quantity of each component category inventory remains relatively constant. As an example, they are generated for a standard inventory makeup, characteristic of low/mid-rise steel office buildings. They are shown to offer a favorable compromise of simplicity and accuracy that lies between the component-by-component and building-level approaches that are currently prevalent in building-specific and regional loss assessment, respectively.

[1]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Intensity measure selection for vulnerability studies of building classes , 2015 .

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

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

[4]  Keith Porter,et al.  An Overview of PEER's Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology , 2003 .

[5]  I. Towhata.  Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering , 2008 .

[6]  Gian Michele Calvi,et al.  Developing Direct Displacement-Based Procedures for Simplified Loss Assessment in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering , 2014 .

[7]  Farzin Zareian,et al.  Decision support for conceptual performance‐based design , 2006 .

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

[9]  Edward Cohen,et al.  Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 1990 .

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

[11]  J. Malley,et al.  An Overview of the Changes to AISC 341—Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings , 2018 .

[12]  Eduardo Miranda,et al.  Probability-based seismic response analysis , 2005 .

[13]  Anne S. Kiremidjian,et al.  Assembly-Based Vulnerability of Buildings and Its Use in Performance Evaluation , 2001 .

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

[15]  A. Kiureghian.  Non‐ergodicity and PEER's framework formula , 2005 .

[16]  John Hooper,et al.  Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors | NIST , 2010 .

[17]  Ronald O. Hamburger,et al.  Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, ANSI/AISC 358-05 , 2006 .

[18]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code‐conforming reinforced‐concrete frame building—from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses , 2007 .

[19]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF FEMA P-58 COMPATIBLE STORY LOSS FUNCTIONS: STEEL OFFICE BUILDINGS IN HIGH SEISMICITY REGIONS , 2017 .