Uncertainty about when post-earthquake repairs are needed delays decision making, and can lead either to unnecessary demolition or repair, or to inadequate repair actions. This study proposes a framework for assessing the effect of earthquake damage on the future seismic performance of a building. In this framework, we first assess drift demands during a maximum considered earthquake (MCE R ) level ground motion in an undamaged building, and then compare the drift demands in the same building during the same motion when it has been damaged by a prior shaking. We assess each building for a range of prior shaking events and 15 MCE R -level motions. From these analyses, we determine the relationship between damage in the first motion-quantified as peak story drift demand-and the MCE R -level motion drift demands-quantified as the ratio of peak drift demands in the damaged building to those in the undamaged building. This trend is used to indicate the level of damage at which performance is impaired, and repair is needed due to structural safety concerns. We apply this framework to a set of single-degree-of-freedom structures and reinforced concrete moment frame buildings representative of construction in the United States. The results show that code-conforming structures do not see significant drift amplifications in the damaged building when story drifts in the damaging motion do not exceed 2%, indicating they would not require major repairs for structural safety. Structures with less deformation capacity saw larger amplifications, and were affected when story drift demands in the damaging motion were lower. We also found that stiffer structures tend to see larger amplifications of drift demands.

More than 1.6 billion people worldwide live in informally constructed houses, many of which are reinforced with concrete. Patterns of past earthquake damage suggest that these homes have significant seismic vulnerabilities, endangering their occupants. The characteristics of these houses vary widely with local building practices. In addition, these vulnerabilities are potentially exacerbated by incremental construction practices and building practices that address wind/flood risk in multi-hazard environments. Yet, despite the ubiquity of this type of construction, there have not been efforts to systematically assess the seismic risks to support risk-reducing design and construction strategies. In this study, we developed a method to assess the seismic collapse capacity of informally constructed housing that accounts for local building practices and materials, quantifying the effect of building characteristics on collapse risk. We exercise the method to assess seismic performance of housing in the US. Caribbean Island of Puerto Rico, which has high seismic hazard and experiences frequent hurricanes. This analysis showed that heavy construction, often due to the addition of a second story, and the presence of an open ground story leads to a high collapse risk. Severely corroded steel bars could also worsen performance. Although houses with infill performed better than those with an open ground story, confined masonry construction techniques produced a major reduction in collapse risk when compared to infilled or open-frame construction. Infill construction with partial height walls performed very poorly. Well-built reinforced concrete column jackets and the addition of infill in open first-story bays can reduce the greater risks of open-ground-story houses. These findings, which are quantified in the results portion of this article, are intended to support the development of design and construction recommendations for safer housing.

No abstract