Georgios Triantafyllou, Mohsen Kohrangi, Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, Paolo Bazzurro
{"title":"包括竖向构件在内的单栋建筑地震风险评估:定量比较、强度测量和非结构脆弱性不确定性","authors":"Georgios Triantafyllou, Mohsen Kohrangi, Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, Paolo Bazzurro","doi":"10.1002/eqe.4336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The objective of this study is to investigate whether the additional damage to building components caused by vertical ground shaking and its impact on estimated monetary losses warrants the extra computational effort needed to include this feature for standard risk assessment applications. As a case study, we consider a 2D model of a modern nine-story steel frame building located at a high seismic hazard site in California. The structural and nonstructural demands are assessed via nonlinear dynamic analysis carried out using hazard-consistent bi-directional (horizontal & vertical) ground motion records. We estimated the seismic losses with and without the vertical ground motion using a component-based loss estimation approach based on FEMA-P58. We also explored the sensitivity of the loss estimates to the characteristics of the input vertical acceleration fragility curves. Analysis results indicate a modest increase in the average annual losses (AAL) when the vertical component is included, consistent with the relatively small fraction of the total building replacement cost assigned to components sensitive to vertical motion. We also investigate the sensitivity of the loss estimates to the conditioning ground motion intensity measure adopted in the risk assessment procedure. Considerable discrepancies are observed in the loss estimates on an intensity basis and, to a lesser degree, on a risk basis. Among the tested intensity measures, average spectral acceleration performs better than single-period spectral accelerations in two regards: it provides higher efficiency, and it maintains good consistency of the selected records with the site hazard while using lower levels of ground motion amplitude scaling. Whereas single-period spectral ordinates that will approximate these advantages may exist, finding them requires some investigation.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11390,"journal":{"name":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","volume":"54 7","pages":"1819-1835"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single Building Seismic Risk Assessment Including the Vertical Component: Quantitative Comparison, Intensity Measures, and Nonstructural Fragility Uncertainties\",\"authors\":\"Georgios Triantafyllou, Mohsen Kohrangi, Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, Paolo Bazzurro\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eqe.4336\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>The objective of this study is to investigate whether the additional damage to building components caused by vertical ground shaking and its impact on estimated monetary losses warrants the extra computational effort needed to include this feature for standard risk assessment applications. As a case study, we consider a 2D model of a modern nine-story steel frame building located at a high seismic hazard site in California. The structural and nonstructural demands are assessed via nonlinear dynamic analysis carried out using hazard-consistent bi-directional (horizontal & vertical) ground motion records. We estimated the seismic losses with and without the vertical ground motion using a component-based loss estimation approach based on FEMA-P58. We also explored the sensitivity of the loss estimates to the characteristics of the input vertical acceleration fragility curves. Analysis results indicate a modest increase in the average annual losses (AAL) when the vertical component is included, consistent with the relatively small fraction of the total building replacement cost assigned to components sensitive to vertical motion. We also investigate the sensitivity of the loss estimates to the conditioning ground motion intensity measure adopted in the risk assessment procedure. Considerable discrepancies are observed in the loss estimates on an intensity basis and, to a lesser degree, on a risk basis. Among the tested intensity measures, average spectral acceleration performs better than single-period spectral accelerations in two regards: it provides higher efficiency, and it maintains good consistency of the selected records with the site hazard while using lower levels of ground motion amplitude scaling. Whereas single-period spectral ordinates that will approximate these advantages may exist, finding them requires some investigation.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics\",\"volume\":\"54 7\",\"pages\":\"1819-1835\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-11\",\"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.4336\",\"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.4336","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}
Single Building Seismic Risk Assessment Including the Vertical Component: Quantitative Comparison, Intensity Measures, and Nonstructural Fragility Uncertainties
The objective of this study is to investigate whether the additional damage to building components caused by vertical ground shaking and its impact on estimated monetary losses warrants the extra computational effort needed to include this feature for standard risk assessment applications. As a case study, we consider a 2D model of a modern nine-story steel frame building located at a high seismic hazard site in California. The structural and nonstructural demands are assessed via nonlinear dynamic analysis carried out using hazard-consistent bi-directional (horizontal & vertical) ground motion records. We estimated the seismic losses with and without the vertical ground motion using a component-based loss estimation approach based on FEMA-P58. We also explored the sensitivity of the loss estimates to the characteristics of the input vertical acceleration fragility curves. Analysis results indicate a modest increase in the average annual losses (AAL) when the vertical component is included, consistent with the relatively small fraction of the total building replacement cost assigned to components sensitive to vertical motion. We also investigate the sensitivity of the loss estimates to the conditioning ground motion intensity measure adopted in the risk assessment procedure. Considerable discrepancies are observed in the loss estimates on an intensity basis and, to a lesser degree, on a risk basis. Among the tested intensity measures, average spectral acceleration performs better than single-period spectral accelerations in two regards: it provides higher efficiency, and it maintains good consistency of the selected records with the site hazard while using lower levels of ground motion amplitude scaling. Whereas single-period spectral ordinates that will approximate these advantages may exist, finding them requires some investigation.
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.