Seismic Performance Assessment of a Conventional Multi-storey Building

Abstract

Recent earthquakes have revealed that conventional seismic design philosophy allows for large levels of nonstructural damage. Nonstructural earthquake damage results in extensive repair costs and lengthy functional disruptions, as nonstructural systems comprise the majority of building investment and are essential to building operations. A better understanding of the expected overall seismic performance of code-compliant buildings is needed. This study investigates the seismic performance of a conventional building. A 16-storey steel office building was designed using a modern seismic structural code (Eurocode 8). This study is the first to assess in detail the substantial earthquake repair costs expected in a modern Eurocode concentric braced frame structure, considering nonstructural systems with the FEMA P-58 procedure. The breakdown of total repair costs by engineering demand parameter and by fragility group is novel. The seismic performance assessment indicated that substantial earthquake repair costs are expected. Limitations of the Eurocode nonstructural damage methodology were revealed in a novel manner using FEMA P-58, as the prescribed drift limits did not minimize nonstructural repair costs. These findings demonstrate the need for design procedures that improve nonstructural seismic performance. The study results provide a benchmark on which to evaluate retrofit alternatives for existing buildings and design options for new structures.

Keywords

Eurocode 8 / FEMA P-58 / Nonstructural systems / Seismic performance assessment

References

[1] ATC (Applied Technology Council) FEMA P-58 seismic performance assessment of buildings, 2012, Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency

[2] Black RG, Wenger WA, Popov EP. Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load reversal, 1980, Berkeley: University of California Berkeley

[3] CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation/European Committee for Standardization) Eurocode—basis of structural design, 2010, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization

[4] CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation/European Committee for Standardization) Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, 2013, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization

[5] Charney FA. Unintended consequences of modeling damping in structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2008, 134(4): 581-592

[6] CSI (Computers and Structures Inc.) SAP2000 V15.2.1, 2013, Berkeley: Computers and Structures Inc

[7] Dhakal RP. Damage to non-structural components and contents in 2010 Darfield earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 43(4): 404-411.

[8] Fierro, E.A., E. Miranda, and C.L. Perry. 2011. Behavior of nonstructural components in recent earthquakes. In Architectural Engineering Conference (AEI) 2011, 369–377. Oakland: American Society of Civil Engineers.

[9] Miranda E, Mosqueda G, Retamales R, Pekcan G. Performance of nonstructural components during the 27 February 2010 Chile earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 2012, 28(S1): 453-471

[10] PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). 2013. PEER NGA-WEST 2 ground motion database. http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/site. Accessed Sept 2016.

[11] PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center) OpenSees V2.4.6, 2015, Berkeley: University of California Berkeley

[12] Solomos, G., A. Pinto, and S. Dimova. 2008. A review of the seismic hazard zonation in national building codes in the context of Eurocode 8. European Commission Joint Research Centre Scientific and Technical Reports. http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/EUR23563EN.pdf. Accessed Sept 2016.

[13] Taghavi S, Miranda E. Response assessment of nonstructural building elements, 2003, Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

[14] Uriz P, Filippou FC, Mahin SA. Model for cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2008, 134(4): 619-628