Using data from the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, we studied the relationship between building response and parameters describing the noxiousness of ground motion. According to vulnerability methods that use structural drift as damage criteria, we estimated the building response on the basis of the normalized relative roof displacement (NRRD), considered as damage criteria. The relationships between the NRRD and the intensity measures of the ground motion are developed using simulated annealing method. Grouping buildings by typology (defined according to their main construction material and height) reduces the variability of the building response. Furthermore, by combining IMs, the NRRD can be predicted more accurately by a building damage prediction equation. A functional form is thus proposed to estimate the NRRD for several building typologies, calibrated on the building responses recorded in California. This functional form can be used to obtain a fast and overall damage forecast after an earthquake.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbraseysN. N.DouglasJ.SarmaS. K. and SmitP. M.2005. Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering3, 1–53.
2.
AriasA.1970. A measure of earthquake intensity, Seismic design for Nuclear Power Plants, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 438–483.
3.
BorziB.CalviG. M.ElnashaiA. S.FaccioliE. and BommerJ. J.2001. Inelastic spectra for displacement-based seismic design, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering21, 47–61.
4.
BommerJ. J.MagenesG.HancockJ. and PenazzoP.2004. The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering2, 1–26.
5.
CalviG. M.PinhoR.MagenesG.BommerJ. J.Restrepo-VélezL. F. and CrowleyH.2006. Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years, Indian Society Journal of Earthquake Technology43, 75–104.
6.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN), 2005. Eurocode 8 – Design of Structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Standard EN 1998–1, Brussels, Belgium.
7.
ChenG. S.BrunoR. J. and SalamaM.1991. Optimal placement of active/passive members in truss structures using simulated annealing, AIAA Journal29, 1327–1334.
8.
ClintonJ.BradfordS. C.HeatonT. H. and FavelaJ.2006. The observed wander of the natural frequencies in a structure, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96, 237–257.
9.
CloughR. W. and PenzienJ.1993. Dynamics of Structures, Volume 2, McGraw-Hill, New York, 634 pp.
10.
DunandF.Ait MezianeY.GuéguenP.ChatelainJ.-L.GuillierB.Ben SalemR.HadidM.HellelM.KibouaA.LaouamiN.MachaneD.MezouerN.NourA.OubaicheE. H. and RemasA.2004. Utilisation du bruit de fond pour l'analyse des dommages des bâtiments de Boumerdes suite au séisme du 21 mai 2003, Mémoires du Service Géologique de l'Algérie12, 177–191.
11.
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake, EPRI Report NP-5930, Palo Alto, CA.
12.
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1991. Standardization of the Cumulative Absolute Velocity, EPRI Report TR-100082, Palo Alto, CA.
13.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 1994. Expected Seismic Performance of Buildings, Oakland, CA.
14.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1999. HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, Washington, D.C.
15.
HancockJ.BommerJ. J. and StaffordP. J.2008. Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics37, 1585–1607.
16.
HousnerG. W.1965. Intensity of ground shaking near the causative fault, Proceedings of the Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1, Auckland, New Zealand, 81–94.
17.
IngberL.1989. Very fast simulated re-annealing, Mathematical and Computer Modeling12, 967–973.
18.
KirkpatrickS.1984. Optimization by simulated annealing: Quantitative studies, Journal of Statistical Physics34, 975–986.
19.
KrishnanS.CasarottiE.GoltzJ.JiC.KomatitschD.MourhatchR.MutoM.ShawJ. H.TapeC. and TrompJ.2012. Rapid estimation of damage to tall buildings using near real-time earthquake and archived structural simulations, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America102, 2646–2666.
20.
LesueurC.CaraM.ScottiO.SchluppA. and SiraC.2013. Linking ground motion measurements and macroseismic observations in France: a case study based on accelerometric and macroseismic databases, Journal of Seismology17, 313–333.
McGuireR. K.2004. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
23.
MichelC. and GuéguenP.2010. Time-frequency analysis of small frequency variations in civil engineering structures under weak and strong motions using a reassignment method, Structural Health Monitoring9, 159–171.
24.
MichelC.GuéguenP. and CausseM.2012. Seismic vulnerability assessment to slight damage based on experimental modal parameters, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics41, 81–98.
25.
MichelC.ZapicoB.LestuzziP.MolinaF. J. and WeberF.2011. Quantification of fundamental frequency drop for unreinforced masonry buildings from dynamic tests, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics40, 1283–1296.
26.
MilutinovicZ. V. and TrendafiloskiG. S.2003. Risk-UE: An Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios with Applications to Different European Towns, WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings, European Project EVK4-CT-2000-00014, Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Miniéres, Orleans, France.
27.
National Research Council of Canada (NBCC), 2005. National Building Code of Canada 2005, Ottawa, Ontario.
28.
PerraultM.2013. Évaluation de la vulnérabilité sismique de bâtiments à partir de mesures in situ, Ph.D. Dissertation, Grenoble University, France (in French).
29.
PerraultM.GuéguenP.AldeaA. and DemetriuS.2013. Using experimental data to reduce the single-building sigma of fragility curves: case study of the BRD Tower (Bucharest-Romania), Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration12, 643–658.
30.
SpenceR. J. S.BommerJ. J.Del ReD.BirdJ.AydinoğluN. and TabuchiS.2003. Comparing loss estimation with observed damage: a study of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering1, 83–113.
31.
StockwellR. G.MansinhaL. and LoweR. P.1996. Localization of the complex spectrum: the S transform, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing44, 998–1001.
32.
TodorovskaM. I. and TrifunacM. D.2007. Earthquake damage detection in the Imperial County Services Building I: The data and time–frequency analysis, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering27, 564–576.
33.
WaldD.LinK. W.PorterK. and TurnerL.2008. ShakeCast: Automating and improving the use of ShakeMap for post-earthquake decision-making and response, Earthquake Spectra24(2), 553–533.
34.
WaldD. J.QuitorianoV.HeatonT. H. and KanamoriH.1999. Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and modified Mercalli intensity in California, Earthquake Spectra15, 557–564.
35.
WordenC. B.WaldD. J.AllenT. I.LinK.GarciaD. and CuaG.2010. A revised ground motion and intensity interpolation scheme for shakemap, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100, 3083–3096.
36.
WuY. M.HsiaoN. C.TengT. L. and ShinT. C.2002. Near real-time seismic damage assessment of the rapid reporting system, Terrestrial Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences13, 313–324.
37.
WuY. M.TengT. L.ShinT. C. and HsiaoN. C.2003. Relationship between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and intensity in Taiwan, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93, 386–396.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
