Abstract
The brittle shear failure and seismic vulnerability of existing reinforced concrete (RC) school buildings observed during major earthquakes in Korea have highlighted the need to upgrade the seismic performance of school buildings through structural retrofits. This study aimed to determine the optimal retrofit quantity that could minimize the seismic losses of RC school buildings retrofitted using the exterior steel brace method. A three-story, seven-span RC moment frame with partial masonry infills was selected as a representative archetype for existing school buildings requiring seismic retrofitting by analyzing public statistical data and blueprints. The expected annual loss (EAL) was introduced to measure reduction in seismic loss based on the retrofit quantity. By considering the flexure-shear behavior of columns to implement the observed brittle shear failure, a finite element model for the as-built RC school building was established to evaluate the EAL from drift and acceleration demands. Six retrofit options were considered with retrofit quantity as a variable. A performance evaluation revealed that the as-built school building did not satisfy the performance level because of the shear failure of the column, whereas the retrofitted school buildings satisfied the performance level while preventing the shear failure of the column. Considering the low-to-moderate seismicity in Korea, the optimal retrofit quantity was determined to be approximately 10% of the replacement cost to effectively reduce EAL. Furthermore, installing the exterior steel brace on all floors was more effective in reducing the drift demand and EAL with a smaller retrofit quantity than installing only some floors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- BCR:
-
Benefit-to-cost ratio
- CDF:
-
Cumulative distribution function
- C.P:
-
Collapse prevention
- DS:
-
Damage state
- EAL:
-
Expected annual loss
- EDP:
-
Engineering demand parameter
- EP:
-
Exceedance probability
- IDR:
-
Interstory drift ratio
- IM:
-
Intensity measure
- I.O:
-
Immediate occupancy
- L.S:
-
Life safety
- PFA:
-
Peak floor acceleration
- PGA:
-
Peak ground acceleration
- RC:
-
Reinforced concrete
- SLF:
-
Seismic loss function
- A :
-
Regression parameter for Y-intercept in the least square fitting method
- B :
-
Regression parameter for slope the least square fitting method
- C :
-
Median of limit state
- D :
-
Maximum seismic demand
- E :
-
Earthquake event
- k :
-
Number of occurrence
- k 0(IM):
-
Value of seismic intensity corresponding to an EP of 10% in 50 years
- L(I M):
-
Damage ratio defined as repair cost over replacement cost with respect to IM
- ML :
-
Richter magnitude scale
- N :
-
The total number of simulation data
- r :
-
Discount rate
- SD IM :
-
Seismic demand
- t :
-
Lifespan of the building
- β C :
-
Standard deviation of limit state
- β 2 EDP /IM :
-
Standard deviation of seismic demand
- λ(IM):
-
Annual EP according to IM
- μ :
-
Median of SLF
- σ :
-
Standard deviation of SLF
- Φ(·):
-
CDF of the standard normal distribution N (0,1)
References
Adhikari R, Gautam D (2019) Component level seismic fragility functions and damage probability matrices for Nepali school buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 120:316–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.02.009
AIK (2016) korean building code and commentary (KBC 2016, In Korean). Architectural Institute of Korea
ASCE (2018) ASCE/SEI 41-17 Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. Reston, VA Am Soc Civ Eng
Aslani H, Miranda E (2005) Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings, Report No. 157. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford, CA
Aval SBB, Verki AM (2019) Seismic reliability assessment of a steel moment-resisting frame with two different ductility levels using a cloud analysis approach. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 18(1):171–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-019-0497-6
Beilic D, Casotto C, Nascimbene R et al (2017) Seismic fragility curves of single storey RC precast structures by comparing different Italian codes. Earthq Struct 12(2):359–374. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.3.359
Bournas DA (2018) Concurrent seismic and energy retrofitting of RC and masonry building envelopes using inorganic textile-based composites combined with insulation materials: a new concept. Compos Part B Eng 148:166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2018.04.002
Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, Cubrinovski M et al (2009) Seismic loss estimation for efficient decision making. Bull New Zeal Soc Earthq Eng 42:96–110
Calvi GM, O’Reilly GJ, Andreotti G (2021) Towards a practical loss-based design approach and procedure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 50(14):3741–3753. https://doi.org/10.1002/EQE.3530
Carofilis W, Perrone D, O’Reilly GJ et al (2020) Seismic retrofit of existing school buildings in Italy: performance evaluation and loss estimation. Eng Struct 225:111243. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2020.111243
Caterino N, Cosenza E (2018) A multi-criteria approach for selecting the seismic retrofit intervention for an existing structure accounting for expected losses and tax incentives in Italy. Eng Struct 174:840–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2018.07.090
Choi I, Kim JH, Kang W, Kim Y (2022) Bayesian framework for updating seismic loss functions with limited observational data in low-to-moderate seismicity regions. J Earthq Eng 26(16):8205–8228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1987356
Choi I, Kim JH, Chang H, Sohn J (2020) Economic seismic loss assessment of RC school buildings in South Korea. In: 17th world conference on earthquake engineering. September 27 to October 2, 2021, Sendai, Japan
Cosenza E, Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M et al (2018) The Italian guidelines for seismic risk classification of constructions: technical principles and validation. Bull Earthq Eng 16(12):5905–5935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0431-8
Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS (2009) Bracing systems for seismic retrofitting of steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 65(2):452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.02.013
Di Sarno L, Wu JR (2021) Fragility assessment of existing low-rise steel moment-resisting frames with masonry infills under mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequences. Bull Earthq Eng 19(6):2483–2504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01080-6
Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS, Manfredi G (2011) Assessment of RC columns subjected to horizontal and vertical ground motions recorded during the 2009 L’Aquila (Italy) earthquake. Eng Struct 33(5):1514–1535. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2011.01.023
Di Sarno L, Freddi F, D’Aniello M et al (2021) Assessment of existing steel frames: numerical study, pseudo-dynamic testing and influence of masonry infills. J Constr Steel Res 185:106873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106873
FEMA (2000) FEMA 356: prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA
FEMA (2009) FEMA P695: Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA
FEMA (2018a) FEMA P-58: next-generation seismic performance assessment for buildings, volume 1—methodology. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2018b) FEMA P-58-3: seismic performance assessment of buildings, volumn 3—supporting electronic materials and background documentation, 3rd edn. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA
FEMA (2020) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, Hazus 4.2 SP3 technical manual-earthquake model. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA
Fung JF, Sattar S, Butry DT, McCabe SL (2021) The total costs of seismic retrofits: state of the art. Earthq Spectra 37(4):2991–3014. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211009522
Gencturk B, Hossain KA (2013) Structural performance assessment in the context of seismic sustainability. In: International concrete sustainability conference, At San Francisco, CA, pp 1–14
Giordano N, De Luca F, Sextos A et al (2020) Empirical seismic fragility models for Nepalese school buildings. Nat Hazards 105(1):339–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04312-1
Giordano N, Norris A, Manandhar V et al (2021) Financial assessment of incremental seismic retrofitting of Nepali stone-masonry buildings. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 60:102297. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2021.102297
Güneyisi EM, Altay G (2008) Seismic fragility assessment of effectiveness of viscous dampers in R/C buildings under scenario earthquakes. Struct Saf 30(5):461–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STRUSAFE.2007.06.001
Hassan EM, Mahmoud HN, Ellingwood BR (2020) Resilience of school systems following severe earthquakes. Earth’s Futur 8(1):e2020EF001518. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001518
Jafarzadeh R, Wilkinson S, González V et al (2014) Predicting seismic retrofit construction cost for buildings with framed structures using multilinear regression analysis. J Constr Eng Manag 140(3):4013062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000750
Jaimes MA, Niño M (2017) Cost-benefit analysis to assess seismic mitigation options in Mexican public school buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 15(9):3919–3942. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-017-0119-5/FIGURES/14
Jalayer F, De Risi R, Manfredi G (2015) Bayesian cloud analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression. Bull Earthq Eng 13(4):1183–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-014-9692-Z/FIGURES/10
Kang S, Kim B, Bae S et al (2019) Earthquake-induced ground deformations in the low-seismicity region: a case of the 2017 M5.4 Pohang, South Korea, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 35(3):1235–1260. https://doi.org/10.1193/062318EQS160M
Kinali K, Ellingwood BR (2007) Seismic fragility assessment of steel frames for consequence-based engineering: A case study for Memphis. TN Eng Struct 29(6):1115–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2006.08.017
McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). In: Univ. California, Berkeley
Menna C, Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M et al (2021) Conceptual design of integrated seismic and energy retrofit interventions. J Build Eng 38:102190. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2021.102190
Miano A, Jalayer F, De Risi R et al (2016) Model updating and seismic loss assessment for a portfolio of bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 14(3):699–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9850-y
MIDAS IT (2017) MIDAS/GEN V8.5.5 users manual. MIDAS IT: Seongnam-si, Korea
Miller DK (1998) Lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake. Eng Struct 20(4–6):249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00031-X
MOE (2019) Guideline for seismic performance evaluation and seismic retrofit of school facilities (in Korean). Ministry of Education, Sejong-si, Korea
MOEF (2013) Corporate tac act. In: Minist. Econ. Financ. Korea. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=28577&lang=ENG. Accessed 4 May 2023
MOIS (2018) 2017 Statistical yearbook of natural disaster (in Korean). Ministry of the Interior and Safety, Sejong-si, Korea
MOIS (2021) Master plan for phase 3 (2021–2025) retrofit program for public facilities (in Korean). Ministry of the Interior and Safety, Sejong-si, Korea
MOLIT (2018) Korean seismic design code (KDS 17 00 00). Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Sejong-si, Korea
MOLIT (2019) Guidelines for seismic performance evaluation of existing buildings (in Korean). Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Sejong-si, Korea
Naik SP, Kim YS, Kim T, Su-Ho J (2019) Geological and structural control on localized ground effects within the Heunghae basin during the pohang Earthquake (M W 5.4, 15th november 2017), South Korea. Geoscience 9(4):173. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9040173
Natale A, Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M (2021) Seismic retrofit solutions using base isolation for existing RC buildings: economic feasibilty and pay-back time. Bull Earthq Eng 19(1):483–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-020-00988-9/FIGURES/12
Olshansky RB, Johnson LA, Topping KC (2006) Rebuilding communities following disaster: lessons from kobe and los angeles. Built Environ 32(4):354–374. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.32.4.354
Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS, LeGrue JS (2001) Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation. Earthq Spectra 17(2):291–312. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586176
PPS (2018) Analysis of construction expenses classified by public facilities (in Korean). Public Procurement Service, Seoul
Ramirez CM, Miranda E (2009) Building-specific loss estimation methods and tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering, Report No. 171. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford, CA
Rihal S (1994) Correlation between recorded building data and non-structural damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Report No. CSMIP/94-04, California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Sacramento, California
Roh S, Tae S, Suk SJ et al (2016) Development of a building life cycle carbon emissions assessment program (BEGAS 2.0) for Korea׳s green building index certification system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 53:954–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.048
Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Naderpour H, Eghbali M (2019) Seismic resilience evaluation based on vulnerability curves for existing and retrofitted typical RC school buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 127:105844. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2019.105844
Schulze SS, Fischer EC, Hamideh S, Mahmoud H (2020) Wildfire impacts on schools and hospitals following the 2018 California Camp Fire. Nat Hazards 104(1):901–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04197-0
Seyedi DM, Gehl P, Douglas J et al (2010) Development of seismic fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings by means of nonlinear time-history analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(1):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/EQE.939
Shamsoddini Motlagh Z, Raissi Dehkordi M, Eghbali M, Samadian D (2020) Evaluation of seismic resilience index for typical RC school buildings considering carbonate corrosion effects. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 46:101511. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2020.101511
Shin J, Kim JH, Lee K (2014) Seismic assessment of damaged piloti-type RC building subjected to successive earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(11):1603–1619. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2412
Shin J, Jeon J-S, Kim JH (2018) Mainshock-aftershock response analyses of FRP-jacketed columns in existing RC building frames. Eng Struct 165:315–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2018.03.017
Shin J, Choi I, Kim JH (2021) Rapid decision-making tool of piloti-type RC building structure for seismic performance evaluation and retrofit strategy using multi-dimensional structural parameter surfaces. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 151:106978. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2021.106978
Sim C, Laughery L, Chiou TC, Weng P (2018) 2017 Pohang earthquake—reinforced concrete building damage survey. https://datacenterhub.org/resources/14728
Sohn J, Choi I, Kim JH (2022) Development of limit states for seismic fragility assessment of piloti-type structures verified with observed damage data. Eng Struct 251:113562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113562
Sousa L, Monteiro R (2018) Seismic retrofit options for non-structural building partition walls: impact on loss estimation and cost-benefit analysis. Eng Struct 161:8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2018.01.028
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT, MSIT) (NRF-2021R1A2C2007064 and NRF-2021R1C1C2004310).
Funding
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT, MSIT) (NRF-2021R1A2C2007064 and NRF-2021R1C1C2004310).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
IC: Formal analysis, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft, Visualization, DWK: Investingation, Visualization, JHK: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing, Funding acquisition.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, I., Kim, D. & Kim, J. Optimal retrofit quantity of exterior steel brace methods on minimizing seismic loss for non-ductile reinforced concrete school buildings in Korea. Bull Earthquake Eng 22, 1055–1079 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01809-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01809-5