Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Large-scale earthquake risk assessment necessitates models of the seismic performance of building classes. This work addresses how to depict a class with only a few (index) buildings whose designs span the attributes that most impact the seismic behavior of the class. We propose a general numerical moment matching (MM) technique to represent those seismic attributes of index buildings, which can then be individually analyzed by second-generation performance-based earthquake engineering methods (PBEE-2). The results probabilistically combined to model the class behavior as a whole. Thereby, the model honors the joint distribution of variable features within the class and propagates all other uncertainties that PBEE-2 already recognizes. Importantly, we can reflect and propagate with rigor the uncertain attributes of buildings within a class, notably without resorting to standard distributions. The MM enables PBEE-2 to rigorously capture seismic risk assessment of a building class.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramowitz

and Stegun

I. A.

(eds.), 1972. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, 9th printing, Dover, NY.

ACI Committee 318, 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2005. Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings 25%Complete Draft, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., 161 pp.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2002. FEMA 154: Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Hazards: A Handbook, Second Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/earthquake/pdf/fema-154.pdf.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2012. ATC-58: Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, 100% Draft, Redwood City, CA.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1985. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California (ATC-13), Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.

ASCE 7-10, 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineering, Reston, VA.

Baker

J. W.

and Cornell

C. A.

2003. Uncertainty Specification and Propagation for Loss Estimation Using FOSM Methods, PEER-2003/07, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 89 pp.

Borzi

Pinho

and Crowley

2008. Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings, Engineering Structures 30, 804–820.

10.

Ching

Porter

K. A.

and Beck

J. L.

2009. Propagating uncertainties for loss estimation in performance-based earthquake engineering using moment matching, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 5, 245–262.

11.

Cho

2013. Virtual earthquake engineering laboratory for capturing nonlinear shear, localized damage, and progressive buckling of bar, Earthquake Spectra 29, 103–126.

12.

Cho

and Porter

K. A.

2013. Three Techniques for Modeling Building Classes Using Moment Matching, SESM 13-01, Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics Program, Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, available at http://www.sparisk.com/pubs/Cho-2013-SESM-building-classes.pdf.

13.

Cho

and Porter

K. A.

2013b. Structure-independent parallel platform for nonlinear analyses of general real-scale RC structures under cyclic loading, Journal of Structural Engineering [DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000871].

14.

Chopra

A. N.

and Goel

R. K.

2000. Building period formulas for estimating seismic displacements, Earthquake Spectra 16, 533–536.

15.

Concrete Coalition, 2011. The Concrete Coalition and the California Inventory Project: An Estimate of the Number of Pre-1980 Concrete Buildings in the State, a project of EERI, PEER, and ATC.

16.

Czarnecki

R. M.

1973. Earthquake Damage to Tall Buildings, Structures Publication 359, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

17.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998. FEMA 310: Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings – A Prestandard, ASCE, Washington, D.C.

18.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-273, Washington, D. C.

19.

Guevara

L. T.

and García

L. E.

2005. The captive- and short-column effects, Earthquake Spectra 21, 141–160.

20.

Hildebrand

F. B.

1956. Introduction to Numerical Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.

21.

Iervolino

Fabbrocino

and Manfredi

2004. Fragility of standard industrial structures by a response surface based method, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8, 927–945.

22.

Iervolino

Manfredi

Polese

Verderame

G. M.

and Fabbrocino

2007. Seismic risk of R.C. building classes, Engineering Structures 29, 813–820.

23.

Julier

S. J.

and Uhlmann

J. K.

2002. Reduced sigma point filters for the propagation of means and covariances through nonlinear transformations, in Proceedings American Control Conference, 8–10 May, 2002, Anchorage, Alaska.

24.

Kircher

C. A.

Reitherman

R. K.

Whitman

R. V.

and Arnold

1997. Estimation of earthquake losses to buildings, Earthquake Spectra 13, 703–720.

25.

Kustu

Miller

D. D.

and Brokken

S. T.

1982. Development of Damage Functions for Highrise Building Components, U.S. Department of Energy, URS/John A Blume & Associates, San Francisco, CA.

26.

National Institute of Building Sciences and Federal Emergency Management Agency (NIBS and FEMA), 2003. Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS®MH Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C.

27.

Porter

2009. Cracking an open safe: HAZUS vulnerability functions in terms of structure-independent spectral acceleration, Earthquake Spectra 25, 361–378.

28.

Porter

2013. A field sampling strategy for estimating a building inventory, inventory data collection tools, Global Earthquake Model, available at http://nexus.globalquakemodel.org.

29.

Porter

K. A.

Beck

J. L.

and Shaikhutdinov

R. V.

2002. Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables, Earthquake Spectra 18, 719–744.

30.

Porter

K. A.

Kiremidjian

A. S.

and LeGrue

J. S.

2001. Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation, Earthquake Spectra 17, 291–312.

31.

Prasad

J. S. R.

Singh

Kaynia

A. M.

and Lindholm

2009. Socioeconomic clustering in seismic risk assessment of urban housing stock, Earthquake Spectra 25, 619–641.

32.

Rosenblueth

1975. Point estimates for probability moments. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. 72, 3812–3814.

33.

Rossetto

and Elnashai

2005. A new analytical procedure for the derivation of displacement-based vulnerability curves for populations of RC structures, Engineering Structures 27, 397–409.

34.

Scawthorn

B. S. C.

Charleson

A. W.

Allen

Greene

and Silva

J. V.

2013. GEM Building Taxonomy Version 2.0, GEM Foundation.

35.

Wesson

R. L.

Perkins

D. M.

Leyendecker

E. V.

Roth

R. J.

Jr. and Petersen

M. D.

2004. Losses to single-family housing from ground motions in the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake, Earthquake Spectra 20, 1021–1045.

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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB