Comparative evaluation of innovative and traditional seismic-resisting systems using the FEMA P-58 procedure

Jarrett, Jordan A.; Judd, Johnn P.; Charney, Finley A.

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.10.001

Cited by 31 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The structures are modeled in the program OpenSees . A leaning column was included to capture P‐Delta effects from the gravity columns. Distributed plasticity force‐based beam‐column elements were used to model columns with Gauss‐Lobatto integration and 5 integration points.…”

Section: Opensees Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing fluid viscous damper placement methods considering total‐building seismic performance

Gobbo

Williams

Blakeborough

2018

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Nonstructural damage has been found to critically influence economic losses and building downtime following earthquakes. Attaining a target level of seismic performance mandates the harmonization of structural and nonstructural performance. Retrofitting buildings with fluid viscous dampers (FVDs) can improve interstorey drifts and floor accelerations, 2 structural parameters that characterize seismic demand on structural and nonstructural systems. The distribution of dampers within a building is a critical decision; however, no conclusive optimal placement method has been identified due to performance variations between storeys and between structural parameters. This paper compares 6 frequently used damper placement methods considering structural and nonstructural repair costs calculated using FEMA P‐58. The scope is limited to linear FVDs, concentric braced frames, and regular structures. Comparisons of the placement methods are based on constraining the added viscous damping coefficient to be the same in each case; this may give different results to methods based on damper cost. No placement method produced optimal results for both interstorey drifts and accelerations. Iterative methods that seek to optimize seismic performance did not achieve that objective. The iterative methods optimize local parameters assuming the performance of each is independent, and optimizing for a single parameter may worsen another parameter that impacts earthquake damage. The storey shear strain energy method and uniform damping generally produced repair costs that are more favorable than, or equal to, the other placement methods. It appears unlikely that large repair cost improvements can be achieved using an “optimal” damper placement method for low‐rise and mid‐rise structures.

show abstract

Section: Opensees Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing fluid viscous damper placement methods considering total‐building seismic performance

Gobbo

Williams

Blakeborough

2018

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the sensitivity of structural components, non-structural components, and other critical components of the building to ground shaking was determined using PACT and the structural response results. A similar evaluation at other intensity levels was performed in a related study [48].…”

Section: Serviceability Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 86%

Seismic collapse prevention system for steel-frame buildings

Judd

Charney

2016

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an innovative-collapse prevention‖ system for seismic resistant design in new construction and existing buildings. The collapse prevention system consists of a collapse inhibiting mechanism, such as a pair of slack cables or loose linkages, working in tandem with the main lateral-force resisting system and engaging the gravity framing to avert collapse. In this holistic design approach, the main lateral-force resisting system and gravity framing are used to provide adequate performance under low to moderate level ground motions, and the collapse inhibiting mechanism is deployed as a backup to provide life safety under extreme ground motions. The collapse inhibiting mechanism may be augmented with energy dissipation devices (small viscous fluid or visco-elastic solid dampers) to enhance performance under wind or small seismic events. Analytical performance of archetypical 1-story, 2-story, 4-story, and 8-story steel-frame buildings employing collapse prevention systems indicate that collapse prevention systems substantially reduce the probability of collapse during Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motions, depending on the building and collapse inhibiting mechanism deployed. Seismic hazard data suggests that collapse prevention systems would provide a 1% or less risk of collapse in 50 years in many locations, mostly in the central and eastern United States.

show abstract

“…A value of 1.0 insures that all the true consequence data is presented. If the value is less than 1.0, the consequences for realizations with higher costs would be replaced with the total repair costs and time, and the actual results would be lost (Jarrett et al, 2015). The replacement time for the two buildings is taken as 1500 days estimated in accordance with Comerio and Blecher (2010) and Comerio (2000).…”

Section: Building Performance Models Of Pactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic loss assessment of typical RC frame-core tube tall buildings in China and US using the FEMA P-58 procedure

Li¹,

Lu²,

Lu³

2015

Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Performance-Based and Life-Cycle Structural Engineering (PLSE 2015)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinforced concrete (RC) frame-core tube buildings are widely constructed both in China and the United States (US). Their seismic performances greatly influence the economic loss of earthquakes. This study aims to compare the seismic losses of two typical RC frame-core tube tall buildings designed following the Chinese and the US seismic design codes. The prototype building is originally designed using the US seismic design codes, provided by the Tall Building Initiative (TBI) Project. Then the prototype building is redesigned according to the Chinese seismic design codes with the same design conditions and seismic hazard level. Detailed nonlinear finite element (FE) models are established for both designs. These models are used to evaluate their seismic responses at different earthquake intensities, including the service level earthquake (SLE), the design based earthquake (DBE) and the maximum considered earthquake (MCE). In addition, the collapse fragility functions of these two buildings are established using the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). Subsequently, the seismic loss consequences (repair costs, repair workload, and casualties) of these two designs are calculated using the procedure proposed by FEMA P-58. The comparison shows that the Chinese design exhibits better seismic performances in most cases with smaller total repair cost, shorter repair time and a smaller number of casualties, except slightly longer repair time at the MCE level. For both designs, the repair cost of nonstructural components accounts for the majority of the total cost. The ceilings and elevators are the major causes of casualties at the MCE level.

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of innovative and traditional seismic-resisting systems using the FEMA P-58 procedure

Cited by 31 publications

References 14 publications

Comparing fluid viscous damper placement methods considering total‐building seismic performance

Comparing fluid viscous damper placement methods considering total‐building seismic performance

Seismic collapse prevention system for steel-frame buildings

Seismic loss assessment of typical RC frame-core tube tall buildings in China and US using the FEMA P-58 procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About