OPEN ACCESS
In recent earthquakes in Chile, New Zealand, and Japan modern buildings were generally quite safe. However, there was a tremendous variability in the economic and social consequences associated with damage repair and loss of occupancy. Code-compliant structures are generally designed to provide safety and prevent collapse at minimum costs, but when severe ground shaking occurs, the damage to contents, nonstructural components and the structural system can result in loss of function, which can have a dramatic impact on the occupants, owners, and community. Such situations can be avoided by mitigating future seismic damage through a better structural design. Although structural enhancements may likely increase the initial cost of a structure they should be compensated through benefits realized over its lifetime. This paper presents the results of repair cost and repair time analyses of conven- tional and high-performance code-compliant low-rise commercial steel buildings designed for the same location. The buildings are located at a site with high seismic hazard representative of western North America. The conventional lateral load-resisting systems include: special moment resisting frame, spe- cial concentrically braced frame, and buckling restrained braced frame; and high-performance systems include: seismically isolated intermediate moment resisting frame, seismically isolated ordinary con- centrically braced frame, seismically isolated buckling restrained braced frame, and viscously damped moment frame. In addition, enhancements of the fixed, seismically isolated, and viscously damped moment frames beyond the code minimum and their effect on the repair cost and repair time are stud- ied. The analysis reveals significant damage savings for code-compliant seismically isolated systems relative to their conventional counterpart, with seismically isolated ordinary concentrically braced frames yielding the largest savings. It also shows that enhancements of the isolation and viscously damped system beyond code minimum standards results in significant reduction in damage-induced losses, while the enhancement of the SMRF does not yield desirable loss reduction.
Base isolation, braced frames, dampers, moment resisting frames, repair loss, repair time
[1] Miranda, E., Mosqueda, G., Retamales R. & Pekcan, G., Performance of nonstructural components during the 27 February 2010 Chile earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 28(S1), pp. S453–S471, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000032
[2] Miranda, E. & Aslani, H., Probabilistic response assessment for building specific loss estimation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. Report PEER 2003/03.
[3] FEMA. Next-generation methodology for seismic performance assessment of buildings. Prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report No. FEMA P-58, Washington, DC., 2012.
[4] Baker, J.W., Lin, T., Shahi, S.K. & Jayaram, N., New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2011. Report PEER 2011/03.
[5] McKenna, F. & Fenves, G.L. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). PEER, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2004.
[6] Applied Technology Council (ATC). Performance assessment computation tool (PACT v3.0.3). Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 2012.
[7] Terzic, V., Yoo, D. & Aryan, A. H., Repair time model for buildings considering the earthquake hazard. SEAOC Convention, Maui, HI, 2016.
[8] American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-10, ASCE, Reston, VA, 2010.
[9] Structural Design Calculations and Drawings, Forell/Elessesser Engineers, available at: http://www.neng.usu.edu/cee/faculty/kryan/NEESTIPS/PBEE_study.html. (accessed March 15, 2015).
[10] Gupta, A. & Krawinkler, H., Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, pp. 26–28, 1999.
[11] Ibarra L.F. & Krawinkler, H., Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations (Rep. No. TB 152), The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005.
[12] PEER/ATC. Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings (PEER/ATC-72-1). prepared by the Applied Technology Council in cooperation with PEER, Redwood City, CA, 2010.
[13] Uang, C.M., Cyclic response of RBS moment connections: loading sequence and lateral bracing effects. University of San Diego, San Diego, California, 2000. (Report No. SSR- 99/13)
[14] Uriz, P. & Mahin, S.A., Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame structures. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008. (Report PEER 2008/08.)
[15] Hall, J.F., Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Raleigh damping. Earth- quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35(5), pp. 525–545, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.541
[16] Zareian, F. & Medina, R.A., A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems. Computers & Structures, 88(1–2), pp. 45–53, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.08.001
[17] Yoo, D.Y., Repair time model for different builidnig sizes considering the earthquake hazard. Master Thesis, California State University Long Beach, CA, 2016.