Framework of aftershock fragility assessment–case studies: older California reinforced concrete building frames |
| |
| Authors: | Jong‐Su Jeon Reginald DesRoches Laura N Lowes Ioannis Brilakis |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA;2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA;3. Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | Current seismic design codes and damage estimation tools neglect the influence of successive events on structures. However, recent earthquakes have demonstrated that structures damaged during an initial event (mainshock) are more vulnerable to severe damage and collapse during a subsequent event (aftershock). This increased vulnerability to damage translates to increased likelihood of loss of use, property, and life. Thus, a reliable risk assessment tool is required that characterizes the risk of the undamaged structure subjected to an initial event and the risk of the damaged structure under subsequent events. In this paper, a framework for development of aftershock fragilities is presented; these aftershock fragilities define the likelihood that a building damaged during a mainshock will exhibit a given damage state following one or more aftershocks. Thus, the framework provides a method for characterizing the risk associated with damage accumulation in the structure. The framework includes the following: (i) creation of a numerical model of the structure; (ii) characterization of building damage states; (iii) generation of a suite of mainshock–aftershocks; (iv) mainshock–aftershock analyses; and (v) development of aftershock fragility curves using probabilistic aftershock demand models, defined as a linear regression of aftershock demand–intensity pairs in a logarithmic space, and damage‐state prediction models. The framework is not limited to a specific structure type but requires numerical models defining structural response and linking structural response with damage. In the current study, non‐ductile RC frames (low‐rise, mid‐rise, and high‐rise) are selected as case studies for the application of the framework. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| |
| Keywords: | aftershock fragility successive earthquakes mainshock‐damaged structures increased vulnerability non‐ductile RC frames |
|
|
