An Integrated Computational Approach for Seismic Risk Assessment of Individual Buildings
Source abstract
Abstract
The simultaneous assessment of a great number of buildings subjected to different ground motions is a very challenging task. For this reason, a new computational integrated approach for seismic assessment of individual buildings is presented, which consists of several independent computer objects, each having its own user interface, yet being totally interconnectable like in a puzzle. The hazard module allows considering a code-based response spectrum or a predicted response spectrum for a given earthquake scenario, which is computed throughout the resolution of an optimization problem. The vulnerability of each building is assessed based on structural capacity curves. Damage is evaluated using an innovative proposal, which is to use what was called a performance curve associated with a capacity curve. This curve reproduces the percentage of a given response spectrum corresponding to a performance point for each displacement value of a capacity curve. Therefore, it becomes possible to do a very fast association of any limit state to a percentage of a seismic action. This approach was implemented in the PERSISTAH software, and the result outputs can be exported, instantaneously, to the Google Earth software throughout the creation of a kml file, or to MS Excel.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Universidade do Algarve, Faro 8005-139, Portugal
CIMA—Centre for Marine and Environmental Research, UAlg, Faro 8005-139, Portugal
Funding
INTERREG-POCTEP España-Portugal program and the European Regional Development Fund
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Performance of School Buildings during the 2002 Molise, Italy, Earthquake10.1193/1.1769374 ↗
2. Analysis of Site Response and Building Damage Distribution Induced by the 31 October 2002 Earthquake at San Giuliano di Puglia (Italy)10.1193/1.4000134 ↗
3. Remarks on damage and response of school buildings after the Central Italy earthquake sequence
4. Estêvão, J.M.C., Ferreira, M.A., Morales-Esteban, A., Martínez-Álvarez, F., Fazendeiro-Sá, L., Requena-García-Cruz, V., Segovia-Verjel, M.L., and Oliveira, C.S. (2018, January 18–21). Earthquake resilient schools in Algarve (Portugal) and Huelva (Spain). Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16ECEE), Thessaloniki, Greece.
5. Vulnerability assessment and feasibility analysis of seismic strengthening of school buildings10.1007/s10518-015-9791-5 ↗
6. Seismic loss assessment for buildings with various-LOD BIM data10.1016/j.aei.2018.12.003 ↗
7. Post-World War II Italian school buildings: Typical and specific seismic vulnerabilities10.1016/j.jobe.2015.09.008 ↗
8. Ventura, C.E., Bebamzadeh, A., Fairhurst, M., Turek, M., Taylor, G., and Finn, W.D.L. (2017, January 9–13). Performance-based seismic retrofit of school buildings in British Columbia, Canada–an overview. Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16WCEE), Santiago, Chile.
9. Seismic vulnerability evaluation of existing R.C. buildings10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.09.002 ↗
10. Performance-based assessment of multi-story unreinforced masonry buildings: The case of historical Khatib School in Erzurum, Turkey10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.08.002 ↗
11. Seismic assessment and loss estimation of existing school buildings in Italy10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.056 ↗
12. Seismic performance of RC school buildings after 2011 Van earthquakes10.1007/s10518-015-9857-4 ↗
13. Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method
14. ATC (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Volume 1, Applied Technology Council.
15. Analysis in seismic provisions for buildings: Past, present and future10.1007/s10518-017-0290-8 ↗
16. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design10.1193/1.1586128 ↗
17. CEN (2004). Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. EN 1998-1:2004, Comité Européen de Normalisation.
18. Andredakis, I., Proietti, C., Fonio, C., and Annunziato, A. (2017). Seismic Risk Assessment Tools-Workshop, European Union. JRC Technical Reports.
19. Crowley, H., Colombi, M., Crempien, J., Erduran, E., Lopez, M., Liu, H., Mayfield, M., and Milanesi, M. (2010). GEM1 Seismic Risk Report: Part 1, GEM Technical Report 2010-5, GEM Foundation.
20. GFDRR (2014). Understanding Risk-Review of Open Source and Open Access Software Packages Available to Quantify Risk From Natural Hazards, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/International Development Association or The World Bank.
21. Lyle, T.S., and Hund, S.V. (2017). Way Forward for Risk Assessment Tools in Canada.10.4095/302773 ↗
22. Nurlu, M., Fahjan, Y., Eravci, B., Baykal, M., Yenilmez, G., Yalçin, D., Yanik, K., Kara, F.İ., and Pakdamar, F. (2014, January 25–29). Rapid estimation of earthquake losses in Turkey using AFAD-RED system. Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey.
23. Armagedom—A Tool for Seismic Risk Assessment Illustrated with Applications10.1080/13632469.2012.726604 ↗
24. Aguilar-Meléndez, A., Ordaz Schroeder, M.G., De la Puente, J., González Rocha, S.N., Rodriguez Lozoya, H.E., Córdova Ceballos, A., García Elías, A., Calderón Ramón, C.M., Escalante Martínez, J.E., and Laguna Camacho, J.R. (2017). Development and Validation of Software CRISIS to Perform Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment with Emphasis on the Recent CRISIS2015. Computación y Sistemas, 21.10.13053/cys-21-1-2578 ↗
25. Cardona, O.D., Ordaz, M.G., Reinoso, E., Yamín, L.E., and Barbat, A.H. (2012, January 24–28). CAPRA-Comprehensive Approach to Probabilistic Risk Assessment: International Initiative for Risk Management Effectiveness. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
26. CEDIM Risk Explorer—A map server solution in the project “Risk Map Germany”10.5194/nhess-6-711-2006 ↗
27. ER2-Earthquake: Interactive web-application for urban seismic risk assessment10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.12.022 ↗
28. ELER software–a new tool for urban earthquake loss assessment10.5194/nhess-10-2677-2010 ↗
29. Real-Time Loss Estimation as an Emergency Response Decision Support System: The Early Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment Tool (EPEDAT)10.1193/1.1585982 ↗
30. Robinson, D., Fulford, G., and Dhu, T. (2005). EQRM: Geoscience Australia’s Earthquake Risk Model. Technical Manual Version 3.0.
31. FEMA (2002). Hazus®-MH 2.1-Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM). Technical and User’s Manual.
32. InaSAFE applications in disaster preparedness10.1063/1.4915053 ↗
33. Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area10.1007/BF02857534 ↗
34. Sousa, M.L., Costa, A.C., Carvalho, A., and Coelho, E. (2004, January 1–6). An automatic seismic scenario loss methodology integrated on a geographic information system. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
35. Architectural Overview of MAEviz–HAZTURK10.1080/13632460802013610 ↗
36. Muto, M., Krishnan, S., Beck, J.L., and Mitrani-Reiser, J. (2008, January 10–14). Seismic loss estimation based on end-to-end simulation. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, IALCCE’08, Varenna, Lake Como, Italy.
37. Development of the OpenQuake engine, the Global Earthquake Model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment10.1007/s11069-013-0618-x ↗
38. Rosset, P., Bishop, B., Tolis, S., and Wyss, M. (2016, January 27–29). QLARM: A Global Model for Earthquake Loss Estimates in Real-Time and Scenario Modes. Proceedings of the UNISDR Science and Technology Conference on the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, Geneva, Switzerland.
39. QuakeIST® earthquake scenario simulator using interdependencies10.1007/s10518-016-9884-9 ↗
40. Bell, R.G., Reese, S., and King, A.B. Regional RiskScape: A multi-hazard loss modelling tool. Proceedings of the Coastal Communities Natural Disasters, Auckland, New Zealand.
41. SEISMOCARE: An efficient GIS tool for scenario-type investigations of seismic risk of existing cities10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.06.011 ↗
42. SELENA–An open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.006 ↗
43. A Prototype Seismic Loss Assessment Tool Using Integrated Earthquake Simulation10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.03.026 ↗
44. The role of source and site effects on structural failures due to Azores earthquakes10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.12.010 ↗
45. Point and fault rupture stochastic methods for generating simulated accelerograms considering soil effects for structural analysis10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.019 ↗
46. Estêvão, J.M.C. Utilização do programa EC8spec na avaliação e reforço sísmico de edifícios do Algarve. Proceedings of the 10° Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica, Ponta Delgada, Açores, Portugal. (In Portuguese).
47. Development of the unlocking mechanisms for the complex method10.1016/j.compstruc.2005.02.027 ↗
48. Rao, S.S. (1996). Engineering optimization, John Wiley & sons, Inc.
49. NTC (2018). Aggiornamento delle «Norme tecniche per le costruzioni», (In Italian).
50. NTC (2019). Istruzioni per l’applicazione dell’«Aggiornamento delle “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni”» di cui al decreto ministeriale 17 gennaio 2018, (In Italian).
51. Pitilakis, K. (2018). Eurocode 8. Evolution or Revolution?. Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering in Europe: 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering-Thessaloniki 2018, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4 ↗
52. Estêvão, J.M.C. (2018). Feasibility of using neural networks to obtain simplified capacity curves for seismic assessment. Buildings, 8.10.3390/buildings8110151 ↗
53. 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 Acceleration10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0 ↗
54. Duration of strong ground motion during Mexican earthquakes in terms of magnitude, distance to the rupture area and dominant site period10.1002/eqe.28 ↗