地震区传统钢结构和新兴钢结构生命周期的概率环境影响

IF 4.3 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Boyan Ping, Cheng Fang, Jason Ziqiang Chen, Jiawei Wang, Adelaja Israel Osofero, Yiwei Ping
{"title":"地震区传统钢结构和新兴钢结构生命周期的概率环境影响","authors":"Boyan Ping,&nbsp;Cheng Fang,&nbsp;Jason Ziqiang Chen,&nbsp;Jiawei Wang,&nbsp;Adelaja Israel Osofero,&nbsp;Yiwei Ping","doi":"10.1002/eqe.4154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper presents a comprehensive framework for life-cycle carbon emission assessment of steel frame structures in seismic zones, with a particular focus on emerging self-centering steel structures with reduced residual deformation and enhanced seismic resilience. The proposed framework is illustrated through a life-cycle embodied carbon (EC) emission study on an office building located at Los Angeles, USA. Different structural bracing systems are considered for comparison, namely, conventional concentrically braced frame (CBF), bucking-restrained braced frame (BRBF), and self-centering braced frames (SCBFs). The life cycle assessment (LCA) of EC emissions mainly involves four phases: (1) components manufacturing phase, (2) construction phase, (3) operation and maintenance phase, and (4) EC emissions related to seismic hazard. For the last stage, the engineering demand parameter (EDP) is obtained through incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), and combined with the fragility function and the seismic risk curve to obtain the expected EC emissions related to seismic hazard over the life cycle. Among other findings, the results show that: (1) In the manufacturing process, the EC emissions of the emerging SCBFs are slightly increased (by up to 1.4%) compared with the two other conventional steel frames. (2) During the construction, operation, and maintenance phases, there is no difference in the EC emissions for the different structural systems. (3) The EC emissions related to potential seismic risk are reduced by up to 65.3% when the proposed self-centering structural system (P-SCBF) is used. (4) Compared with the CBF, the total EC emission over a 100-year lifespan can be reduced by up to 14.6% when the P-SCBF is used. Due to the limited deformation capacity of braces, the EC emissions of CBF and BRBF are more sensitive to increases in the intensity measure (IM). Since a building becomes difficult to repair when the maximum residual inter-story drift exceeds 0.5%, BRBF and CBF are more susceptible to demolition due to unacceptable residual deformation, leading to higher EC emissions. The EC reduction efficiency of the emerging steel frames become more remarkable with increasing life span.</p>","PeriodicalId":11390,"journal":{"name":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","volume":"53 10","pages":"3113-3139"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Probabilistic life-cycle environmental impact of conventional and emerging steel frames in seismic zones\",\"authors\":\"Boyan Ping,&nbsp;Cheng Fang,&nbsp;Jason Ziqiang Chen,&nbsp;Jiawei Wang,&nbsp;Adelaja Israel Osofero,&nbsp;Yiwei Ping\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eqe.4154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper presents a comprehensive framework for life-cycle carbon emission assessment of steel frame structures in seismic zones, with a particular focus on emerging self-centering steel structures with reduced residual deformation and enhanced seismic resilience. The proposed framework is illustrated through a life-cycle embodied carbon (EC) emission study on an office building located at Los Angeles, USA. Different structural bracing systems are considered for comparison, namely, conventional concentrically braced frame (CBF), bucking-restrained braced frame (BRBF), and self-centering braced frames (SCBFs). The life cycle assessment (LCA) of EC emissions mainly involves four phases: (1) components manufacturing phase, (2) construction phase, (3) operation and maintenance phase, and (4) EC emissions related to seismic hazard. For the last stage, the engineering demand parameter (EDP) is obtained through incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), and combined with the fragility function and the seismic risk curve to obtain the expected EC emissions related to seismic hazard over the life cycle. Among other findings, the results show that: (1) In the manufacturing process, the EC emissions of the emerging SCBFs are slightly increased (by up to 1.4%) compared with the two other conventional steel frames. (2) During the construction, operation, and maintenance phases, there is no difference in the EC emissions for the different structural systems. (3) The EC emissions related to potential seismic risk are reduced by up to 65.3% when the proposed self-centering structural system (P-SCBF) is used. (4) Compared with the CBF, the total EC emission over a 100-year lifespan can be reduced by up to 14.6% when the P-SCBF is used. Due to the limited deformation capacity of braces, the EC emissions of CBF and BRBF are more sensitive to increases in the intensity measure (IM). Since a building becomes difficult to repair when the maximum residual inter-story drift exceeds 0.5%, BRBF and CBF are more susceptible to demolition due to unacceptable residual deformation, leading to higher EC emissions. The EC reduction efficiency of the emerging steel frames become more remarkable with increasing life span.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics\",\"volume\":\"53 10\",\"pages\":\"3113-3139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.4154\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.4154","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出了地震带钢框架结构生命周期碳排放评估的综合框架,尤其关注具有减少残余变形和增强抗震能力的新兴自定心钢结构。通过对位于美国洛杉矶的一栋办公楼进行生命周期体现碳(EC)排放研究,对所提出的框架进行了说明。比较考虑了不同的结构支撑系统,即传统同心支撑框架(CBF)、屈曲约束支撑框架(BRBF)和自定中心支撑框架(SCBF)。欧共体排放的生命周期评估(LCA)主要涉及四个阶段:(1)组件制造阶段;(2)施工阶段;(3)运行和维护阶段;(4)与地震危害相关的欧共体排放。在最后一个阶段,通过增量动态分析(IDA)获得工程需求参数(EDP),并结合脆性函数和地震风险曲线,得出生命周期内与地震灾害相关的预期 EC 排放量。结果表明(1) 在制造过程中,新出现的 SCBF 与其他两种传统钢框架相比,EC 排放量略有增加(最多增加 1.4%)。(2) 在建造、運作和維修階段,不同結構系統的氨基甲酸乙酯排放量並無分別。(3) 采用建议的自定心结构系统(P-SCBF)时,与潜在地震风险有关的氨基甲酸乙酯排放量最多可减少 65.3%。(4) 与 CBF 相比,采用 P-SCBF 后,100 年寿命期间的总排放可减少 14.6%。由于支撑物的变形能力有限,CBF 和 BRBF 的导电率排放对强度措施(IM)的增加更为敏感。由于当最大残余层间漂移超过 0.5% 时,建筑物将难以修复,因此 BRBF 和 CBF 更容易因不可接受的残余变形而被拆除,从而导致更高的 EC 排放。随着使用年限的增加,新出现的钢框架在减少导电率方面的效果会更加显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Probabilistic life-cycle environmental impact of conventional and emerging steel frames in seismic zones

This paper presents a comprehensive framework for life-cycle carbon emission assessment of steel frame structures in seismic zones, with a particular focus on emerging self-centering steel structures with reduced residual deformation and enhanced seismic resilience. The proposed framework is illustrated through a life-cycle embodied carbon (EC) emission study on an office building located at Los Angeles, USA. Different structural bracing systems are considered for comparison, namely, conventional concentrically braced frame (CBF), bucking-restrained braced frame (BRBF), and self-centering braced frames (SCBFs). The life cycle assessment (LCA) of EC emissions mainly involves four phases: (1) components manufacturing phase, (2) construction phase, (3) operation and maintenance phase, and (4) EC emissions related to seismic hazard. For the last stage, the engineering demand parameter (EDP) is obtained through incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), and combined with the fragility function and the seismic risk curve to obtain the expected EC emissions related to seismic hazard over the life cycle. Among other findings, the results show that: (1) In the manufacturing process, the EC emissions of the emerging SCBFs are slightly increased (by up to 1.4%) compared with the two other conventional steel frames. (2) During the construction, operation, and maintenance phases, there is no difference in the EC emissions for the different structural systems. (3) The EC emissions related to potential seismic risk are reduced by up to 65.3% when the proposed self-centering structural system (P-SCBF) is used. (4) Compared with the CBF, the total EC emission over a 100-year lifespan can be reduced by up to 14.6% when the P-SCBF is used. Due to the limited deformation capacity of braces, the EC emissions of CBF and BRBF are more sensitive to increases in the intensity measure (IM). Since a building becomes difficult to repair when the maximum residual inter-story drift exceeds 0.5%, BRBF and CBF are more susceptible to demolition due to unacceptable residual deformation, leading to higher EC emissions. The EC reduction efficiency of the emerging steel frames become more remarkable with increasing life span.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 工程技术-工程:地质
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics provides a forum for the publication of papers on several aspects of engineering related to earthquakes. The problems in this field, and their solutions, are international in character and require knowledge of several traditional disciplines; the Journal will reflect this. Papers that may be relevant but do not emphasize earthquake engineering and related structural dynamics are not suitable for the Journal. Relevant topics include the following: ground motions for analysis and design geotechnical earthquake engineering probabilistic and deterministic methods of dynamic analysis experimental behaviour of structures seismic protective systems system identification risk assessment seismic code requirements methods for earthquake-resistant design and retrofit of structures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信