Fragility Curves for Architectural Glass in Stick-Built Glazing Systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 639-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
William C. O'Brien ◽  
Ali M. Memari ◽  
Paul A. Kremer ◽  
Richard A. Behr

Fragility functions are presented for 15 glazing system configurations in support of Applied Technology Council efforts to develop a performance-based seismic design approach for building performance assessment. The study includes seismic evaluation of curtain wall and storefront systems in terms of probability and the consequences of damage, including economic and life safety consequences. Defined damage states consist of gasket degradation, initial glass cracking and crushing, and glass fallout. Alternatives are offered to the provided prototype fragilities for configurations with differing glazing characteristics, which account for varying glass-to-frame clearance, aspect ratio, and glass panel dimensions. Issues related to applying laboratory-based fragility data to actual glazing systems in the field are addressed.

2010 ◽  
Vol 163-167 ◽  
pp. 1757-1761
Author(s):  
Yong Le Qi ◽  
Xiao Lei Han ◽  
Xue Ping Peng ◽  
Yu Zhou ◽  
Sheng Yi Lin

Various analytical approaches to performance-based seismic design are in development. Based on the current Chinese seismic codes,elastic capacity calculation under frequent earthquake and ductile details of seismic design shall be performed for whether seismic design of new buildings or seismic evaluation of existing buildings to satisfy the seismic fortification criterion “no damage under frequent earthquake, repairable under fortification earthquake, no collapse under severe earthquake”. However, for some special buildings which dissatisfy with the requirements of current building codes, elastic capacity calculation under frequent earthquake is obviously not enough. In this paper, the advanced performance-based seismic theory is introduced to solve the problems of seismic evaluation and strengthening for existing reinforced concrete structures, in which story drift ratio and deformation of components are used as performance targets. By combining the features of Chinese seismic codes, a set of performance-based seismic design method is established for reinforced concrete structures. Different calculation methods relevant to different seismic fortification criterions are adopted in the proposed method, which solve the problems of seismic evaluation for reinforced concrete structures.


2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302110235
Author(s):  
Davit Shahnazaryan ◽  
Gerard J O’Reilly ◽  
Ricardo Monteiro

Performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) has become an important framework for quantifying seismic losses. However, due to its computationally expensive implementation through a typically detailed component-based approach (i.e. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-58), it has primarily been used within academic research and specific studies. A simplified alternative more desirable for practitioners is based on story loss functions (SLFs), which estimate a building’s expected monetary loss per story due to seismic demand. These simplified SLFs reduce the data required compared to a detailed study, which is especially true at a design stage, where detailed component information is likely yet to be defined. This article proposes a Python-based toolbox for the development of user-specific and customizable SLFs for use within seismic design and assessment of buildings. It outlines the implementation procedure alongside a comparative demonstration of its application where dependency and correlation of damage states between different components are considered. Finally, a comparison of SLF-based and component-based loss estimation approaches is carried out through the application to a real case study school building. The agreement and consistency of the attained loss metrics demonstrate the quality and ease of the SLF-based approach in achieving accurate results for a more expedite assessment of building performance.


2015 ◽  
Vol 777 ◽  
pp. 121-129
Author(s):  
Wen Yi Zheng ◽  
Jing Zhe Jin ◽  
Hai Gong ◽  
Peng Pan

In the performance- based seismic design, seismic performance of building is differently evaluated according to variant seismic conditions. Most of the application programs for structural design (ETABS, SAP, MIDAS, ANSYS etc.) calculate the performance points of building according to Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), Applied Technology Council -40 (ATC -40)’s seismic building code and parameters. On this paper, we evaluated the seismic performance of building according to our national seismic building code[1] and parameters and maked suggesti- -ons on the design practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-98
Author(s):  
Kuanshi Zhong ◽  
Ting Lin ◽  
Gregory G. Deierlein ◽  
Robert W. Graves ◽  
Fabio Silva ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Marco Donà ◽  
Pietro Carpanese ◽  
Veronica Follador ◽  
Luca Sbrogiò ◽  
Francesca da Porto

Abstract Seismic risk assessment at the territorial level is now widely recognised as essential for countries with intense seismic activity, such as Italy. Academia is called to give its contribution in order to synergically deepen the knowledge about the various components of this risk, starting from the complex evaluation of vulnerability of the built heritage. In line with this, a mechanics-based seismic fragility model for Italian residential masonry buildings was developed and presented in this paper. This model is based on the classification of the building stock in macro-typologies, defined by age of construction and number of storeys, which being information available at national level, allow simulating damage scenarios and carrying out risk analyses on a territorial scale. The model is developed on the fragility of over 500 buildings, sampled according to national representativeness criteria and analysed through the Vulnus_4.0 software. The calculated fragility functions were extended on the basis of a reference model available in the literature, which provides generic fragilities for the EMS98 vulnerability classes, thus obtaining a fragility model defined on the five EMS98 damage states. Lastly, to assess the reliability of the proposed model, this was used to simulate damage scenarios due to the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Overall, the comparison between model results and observed damage showed a good fit, proving the model effectiveness.


2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302098196
Author(s):  
Siamak Sattar ◽  
Anne Hulsey ◽  
Garrett Hagen ◽  
Farzad Naeim ◽  
Steven McCabe

Performance-based seismic design (PBSD) has been recognized as a framework for designing new buildings in the United States in recent years. Various guidelines and standards have been developed to codify and document the implementation of PBSD, including “ Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings” (ASCE 41-17), the Tall Buildings Initiative’s Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (TBI Guidelines), and the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council’s An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region (LATBSDC Procedure). The main goal of these documents is to regularize the implementation of PBSD for practicing engineers. These documents were developed independently with experts from varying backgrounds and organizations and consequently have differences in several degrees from basic intent to the details of the implementation. As the main objective of PBSD is to ensure a specified building performance, these documents would be expected to provide similar recommendations for achieving a given performance objective for new buildings. This article provides a detailed comparison among each document’s implementation of PBSD for reinforced concrete buildings, with the goal of highlighting the differences among these documents and identifying provisions in which the designed building may achieve varied performance depending on the chosen standard/guideline. This comparison can help committees developing these documents to be aware of their differences, investigate the sources of their divergence, and bring these documents closer to common ground in future cycles.


2021 ◽  
Vol 237 ◽  
pp. 112043
Author(s):  
Jianian Wen ◽  
Qiang Han ◽  
Yazhou Xie ◽  
Xiuli Du ◽  
Jian Zhang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document