Inelastic seismic demand estimation of wood-frame houses subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences

Self Cite

Summary This paper presents, within the performance‐based earthquake engineering framework, a comprehensive probabilistic seismic loss estimation method that accounts for main sources of uncertainty related to hazard, vulnerability, and loss. The loss assessment rigorously integrates multiple engineering demand parameters (maximum and residual inter‐story drift ratio and peak floor acceleration) with consideration of mainshock–aftershock sequences. A 4‐story non‐ductile reinforced concrete building located in Victoria, British Colombia, Canada, is considered as a case study. For 100 mainshock and mainshock–aftershock earthquake records, incremental dynamic analysis is performed, and the three engineering demand parameters are fitted with a probability distribution and corresponding dependence computed. Finally, with consideration of different demolition limit states, loss assessment is performed. From the results, it can be shown that when seismic vulnerability models are integrated with seismic hazard, the aftershock effects are relatively minor in terms of overall seismic loss (1–4% increase). Moreover, demolition limit state parameters, uncertainties of collapse fragility, and non‐collapse seismic demand prediction models have showed significant contribution to the loss assessment. The seismic loss curves for the reference case and for cases with the varied parameters can differ by as large as about 150%. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

Loss estimation for non‐ductile reinforced concrete building in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: effects of mega‐thrust M_w9‐class subduction earthquakes and aftershocks

Tesfamariam

Goda

2015

Self Cite

“…They showed that the structure's fragility increased when subjected to multiple seismic pulses, but not to the extent that has been observed with other studies focusing on other structure types (ie, steel or RC). Goda and Salami also investigated mainshock‐aftershock sequences on light‐frame wood construction, showing that aftershocks were associated with a 5–20% increase of the median inelastic seismic demand curves when the structure was already in a moderate damage state.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic loss and damage in light‐frame wood buildings from sequences of induced earthquakes

Chase

Liel

Luco

et al. 2019

Summary Activities related to oil and gas production, especially deep disposal of wastewater, have led to sequences of induced earthquakes in the central United States. This study aims to quantify damage to and seismic losses for light‐frame wood buildings when subjected to sequences of induced, small to moderate magnitude, events. To conduct this investigation, one‐ and two‐story multifamily wood frame buildings are designed, and their seismic response dynamically simulated using three‐dimensional nonlinear models, subjected to ground motion sequences recorded in induced events. Damage is quantified through seismic losses, which are estimated using the FEMA P‐58 methodology. Results show that at levels of shaking experienced in recent earthquakes, minor damage, consisting of cracking of interior finishes and nonstructural damage to plumbing and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, is expected, which is consistent with observed damage in these events. The study also examines how expected losses and building fragility will accumulate and/or change over a sequence of earthquakes. Results indicate that damage quantified in terms of absorbed hysteretic energy tended to accumulate over the sequences; this damage corresponds to elongation or widening of cracks. However, fragility is not significantly altered by damage in a preceding event, meaning structures are not becoming more vulnerable due to existing damage. In addition, sequences of events do not change losses if the building is only repaired once at the end of the sequence, as the worsening of damage does not alter repair actions. If repairs are conducted after each event, though, total seismic losses can increase greatly from the sequence.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seismic risk assessment considering both mainshocks and aftershocks is a timely research topic . Numerous studies have been conducted by adopting realistic finite‐element models as well as inelastic single‐degree‐of‐freedom systems . To represent ground motion records for mainshock–aftershock (MS‐AS) sequences, as‐recorded data as well as artificial time histories have been used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Record selection for aftershock incremental dynamic analysis

Goda

2014

Self Cite

Summary The back‐to‐back application of mainshock records as aftershock is often considered in conducting aftershock incremental dynamic analysis. In such an approach, the characteristics of mainshock records are considered to be similar to those of major aftershock records within the same mainshock–aftershock sequences. The underlying assumption is that the characteristics of selected mainshocks, other than those used for record selection, are not significant in the assessment of structural responses. A case study is set up to investigate the effects of aftershock record selection on the collapse vulnerability assessment. The numerical results for a specific wood‐frame structure indicate that the aftershock fragility can be affected by the aftershock record characteristics, particularly response spectral shape. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.