Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A performance-based rehabilitation strategy for RC frame buildings in moderate seismic regions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Large parts of Asia, Europe, and the eastern USA have high population concentrations in moderate seismic regions (MSR), where very large earthquakes are rare. With rampant construction in the cities located in MSRs, a relatively moderate earthquake can turn into a catastrophe. Limiting the collapse has been the conventional performance objective for regions with high seismicity. However, this does not necessarily translate into a more desirable target of life-safety under design basis earthquake in MSRs. The present paper investigates the seismic performance of non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) buildings that were common before the advent of modern design standards, and are found in very large numbers. An analytical model capturing the shear failure is employed using a drift-based limit state material. The results show that a hybrid index captures moderate damage more accurately than the prevalent drift-based index. The paper further shows that while a generic ground motion suite accurately estimates the median fragility, it fails to capture the uncertainty. A 7-story non-ductile RC archetype building was found to be at a collapse prevention risk of 2 \(\times\) 10–4. The seismic risk deaggregation reveals that seismic risk consistency can be enhanced by explicit specification of the seismic forces for retrofitting. The study shows that the stringent seismic risk targets can be met by non-ductile buildings in MSR, provided they are designed or retrofitted with constraints on strong column weak beam factors. The study will facilitate in developing a scheme for prioritizing and devising the retrofit of pre-modern code and non-ductile deficient buildings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • ACI 318 (2019) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary (ACI 318–19). American concrete institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA

  • Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP et al (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE 41–13 (2013) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41–13). American society of civil engineers, Reston, Virginia

  • ASCE 7 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7–10). American society of civil engineers, Reston, Virginia

  • ATC 138-3 (2021) Seismic performance assessment of buildings volume 8 - methodology for assessment of functional recovery time. Applied technology council, PEER Redwood City

  • ATC-78-1 (2012) Evaluation of the methodology to select and prioritize collapse indicators in older concrete buildings. Applied technology council, PEER Redwood City

  • Badal PS, Sinha R (2018) Ground motion selection criteria for seismic fragility assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. In: 16th Symposium on earthquake engineering at IIT Roorkee, India

  • Badal PS, Sinha R (2020) A framework to incorporate probabilistic performance in force-based seismic design of RC buildings as per Indian standards. J Earthq Eng 26(3):1253–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1713931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badal PS, Sinha R (2022) A multi-objective performance-based seismic design framework for building typologies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 51(6):1343–1362. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Which spectral acceleration are you using? Earthq Spectra 22(2):293–312. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2191540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry M, Parrish M, Eberhard M (2004) PEER structural performance database user’s manual (version 1.0)

  • Bilham R (2009) The seismic future of cities. Bull Earthq Eng 7(4):839–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9147-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton HV, Deierlein G, Lallemant D et al (2017) Measuring the impact of enhanced building performance on the seismic resilience of a residential community. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1347–1367. https://doi.org/10.1193/040916EQS057M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook DT, Liel AB, Haselton CB et al (2022) A framework for operationalizing the assessment of post-earthquake functional recovery of buildings. Earthq Spectra 38(3):1972–2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221081538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordova P, Deierlein G (2005) Validation of the seismic performance of composite RCS frames: full-scale testing, analytical modeling, and seismic design. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SS, et al (2000) Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure. In: The second US-Japan workshop on performance-based earthquake engineering methodology for reinforced concrete building structures, pp. 187–206

  • Cornell C, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Cent News 3(2):1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO et al (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128(4):526–533. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabiri H, Kaviani A, Kheyroddin A (2020) Influence of reinforcement on the performance of non-seismically detailed RC beam-column joints. J Build Eng 31:101333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deierlein GG (2004) Overview of a comprehensive framework for earthquake performance assessment. In: Performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation, proceedings of an international workshop, pp. 15–26

  • Eads L, Miranda E, Krawinkler H et al (2013) An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(1):25–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC 8 (2005) Eurocode: design of structures for earthquake resistance. The European Standard

  • El Howary H, Mehanny S (2011) Seismic vulnerability evaluation of RC moment frame buildings in moderate seismic zones. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(2):215–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood KJ (2004) Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Can J Civ Eng 31(5):846–859. https://doi.org/10.1139/L04-040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fariborz NA (2001) Earthquake scenario for the mega-city of Tehran. Disaster Prev Manag 10(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560110388618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Council and Building Seismic Safety, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  • FEMA 450 (2004) NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures: provisions/prepared by the building seismic safety council. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Redwood City

  • FEMA 58-1 (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Vol. 1–Methodology. Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC

  • FEMA P695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Appl Technol Council, Redwood City, California

  • Frankel AD, Mueller C, Barnhard T et al (1996) National seismic hazard maps: documentation june 1996. US Geological Survey Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaetani d’Aragona M, Polese M, Elwood KJ et al (2017) Aftershock collapse fragility curves for non-ductile RC buildings: a scenario-based assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(13):2083–2102. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galanis PH, Moehle JP (2015) Development of collapse indicators for risk assessment of older-type reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 31(4):1991–2006. https://doi.org/10.1193/080613EQS225M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergely P, Lutz LA (1968) Maximum crack width in reinforced concrete flexural members. Spec Publ 20:87–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghannoum WM, Moehle JP, Bozorgnia Y (2008) Analytical collapse study of lightly confined reinforced concrete frames subjected to Northridge earthquake ground motions. J Earthq Eng 12(7):1105–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460802003165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goda K, Tesfamariam S (2017) Seismic risk management of existing reinforced concrete buildings in the Cascadia subduction zone. Nat Hazard Rev 18(1):B4015003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokkaya BU, Baker JW, Deierlein GG (2016) Quantifying the impacts of modeling uncertainties on the seismic drift demands and collapse risk of buildings with implications on seismic design checks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(10):1661–1683. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulet CA, Haselton CB, Mitrani-Reiser J et al (2007) Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building-from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):1973–1997. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta HK, Johnston AC (1998) Stable continental regions are more vulnerable to earthquakes than once thought. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 79(27):319–321. https://doi.org/10.1029/98EO00240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall JF (2006) Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(5):525–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton CB (2006) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Haselton CB, Baker JW, Goulet CA et al (2008) The importance of considering spectral shape when evaluating building seismic performance under extreme ground motions. Struct Eng Assoc California Conv. Kohala Coast, Hawaii, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton CB, Goulet CA, Mitrani-Reiser J, et al (2008b) An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete moment-frame building. PEER report 2007/12. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

  • Haselton CB, Liel AB, Taylor-Lange SC, et al (2016) Calibration of model to simulate response of reinforced concrete beam-columns to collapse. ACI Struct J 113(6):1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.14359/51689245

  • Hulsey AM, Baker JW, Deierlein GG (2022) High-resolution post-earthquake recovery simulation: impact of safety cordons. Earthq Spectra 38(3):2061–2087. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221075364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IS 13920, (2016) Ductile design and detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces- code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  • IS (1893) (Part 1) (2016) Criteria for earthquake-resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  • IS 456 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  • Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker JW (2011) A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthq Spectra 27(3):797–815. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3608002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy R, Ravindra M (1984) Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies. Nucl Eng Des 79(1):47–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(84)90188-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiureghian AD (2005) Non-ergodicity and PEER’s framework formula. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(13):1643–1652. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krawinkler H, Deierlein GG (2014) Challenges towards achieving earthquake resilience through performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Performance-based seismic engineering: vision for an earthquake resilient society. Springer, pp. 3–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8875-5_1

  • Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Park YJ (1990) Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic response of RC structures. J Struct Eng 116(4):996–1017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:4(996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang DH, Kumar A, Sulaymanov S et al (2018) Building typology classification and earthquake vulnerability scale of Central and South Asian building stock. J Build Eng 15:261–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2008) Assessing the collapse risk of california’s existing reinforced concrete frame structures: metrics for seismic safety decisions. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Liel AB, Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2010) Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames. J Struct Eng 137(4):492–502. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lignos D, Krawinkler H (2009) Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Luco N (2006) Risk-targeted approach to selecting return periods for design maps. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ATC-35/USGS National earthquake ground-motion mapping workshop

  • Luco N, Cornell C (2002) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Luco N, Ellingwood BR, Hamburger RO et al (2007) Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States. 76th annual convention structural engineers association of California. Squaw Creek, California, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna F, Fenves G, Scott M et al (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura T, Yoshimura M (2002) Gravity load collapse of reinforced concrete columns with brittle failure modes. J Asian Archit Build Eng 1(1):21–27. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.1.21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NBCC (2022) National building code of Canada: 2020. Tech. Rep. 0-660-37913-5, National Research Council of Canada, Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, https://doi.org/10.4224/w324-hv93

  • Nie X, Zhang S, Jiang T et al (2020) The strong column-weak beam design philosophy in reinforced concrete frame structures: a literature review. Adv Struct Eng 23(16):3566–3591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433220933463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordenson GJ, Bell GR (2000) Seismic design requirements for regions of moderate seismicity. Earthq Spectra 16(1):205–225. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuzzo I, Caterino N, Pampanin S (2020) Seismic design framework based on loss-performance matrix. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1828201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özcan O, Erdoğan H (2022) Seismic performance assessment of RC buildings reinforced with plain rebars. J Perform Constr Facil 36(2):04021121. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J https://doi.org/10.14359/10181

  • Park YJ, Ang AHS (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng 111(4):722–739. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PEER, ATC 72–1 (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Applied Technology Council, PEER Redwood City, p 113

  • Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC et al (2008) Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. United States Geological Survey Reston, VA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petrini L, Maggi C, Priestley MN et al (2008) Experimental verification of viscous damping modeling for inelastic time history analyzes. J Earthquake Eng 12(S1):125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460801925822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter KA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Proceedings of Ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, pp. 1–8

  • Raghukanth S (2020) Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India. (personal communication, Feb 9, 2020)

  • Raghunandan M, Liel AB, Luco N (2015) Collapse risk of buildings in the pacific northwest region due to subduction earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 31(4):2087–2115. https://doi.org/10.1193/012114EQS011M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard M, Albano L, Kelly D et al (2012) Case study on the seismic performance of reinforced concrete intermediate moment frames using ACI design provisions. Struct Congr 2010:3523–3534. https://doi.org/10.1061/41130(369)318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sezen H, Moehle JP (2004) Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 130(11):1692–1703. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:11(1692)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sezen H, Moehle JP (2006) Seismic tests of concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement. ACI Struct J 103(6):842–849. https://doi.org/10.14359/18236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiradhonkar SR (2016) Seismic damage categorisation and damage index for reinforced concrete buildings. PhD thesis, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India

  • Shiradhonkar SR, Sinha R (2017) A capacity-based seismic damage index for reinforced concrete structural members. In: 16th World conference on earthquake engineering. Santiago, Chile, pp 1–12

  • Shiradhonkar SR, Sinha R (2018) Maximum and residual flexural crack width estimation in reinforced concrete frame members under seismic excitation. J Struct Eng 144(8):04018121. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS (1996) Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. J Struct Eng 122(12):1459–1467. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:12(1459)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha R, Goyal A, Shinde RM, et al (2012) An earthquake risk management master plan for Mumbai: risk assessment and its mitigation. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 1–9

  • Sousa L, Silva V, Marques M et al (2016) On the treatment of uncertainties in the development of fragility functions for earthquake loss estimation of building portfolios. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(12):1955–1976. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsiavos A, Amrein P, Bender N et al (2021) Compliance-based estimation of seismic collapse risk of an existing reinforced concrete frame building. Bull Earthq Eng 19(14):6027–6048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01215-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen Y, Ellingwood B (2005) The role of fragility assessment in consequence-based engineering. Earthq Spectra 21(3):861–877. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1979502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker A, Atkinson GM, Baker JW, et al (2011) Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses. Tech. Rep. NIST GCR 11-917-15, National Institute of Standards and Technology

  • Yeo G, Cornell C (2003) Building-specific seismic fatality estimation methodology. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, pp. 765–771

  • Yooprasertchai E, Wiwatrojanagul P, Pimanmas A (2022) A use of natural sisal and jute fiber composites for seismic retrofitting of nonductile rectangular reinforced concrete columns. J Build Eng 52:104521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2006) Simplified performance-based earthquake engineering. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Prof. STG Raghukanth (raghukanth@iitm.ac.in) for providing the deaggregation results for Mumbai. The authors are also thankful to Prof. Saurabh Shiradhonkar (saurabh.shiradhonkar@eq.iitr.ac.in) for fruitful discussions on the new damage index, SS17.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Prakash S. Badal

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, 400076, India

    Ravi Sinha

Authors
  1. Prakash S. Badal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ravi Sinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by PSB. The first draft of the manuscript was written by PSB and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravi Sinha.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Site-specific ground motion records

Appendix: Site-specific ground motion records

S. No.

RSN

Event

M

ClosestD* (km)

1

25

Northern Calif-04

5.7

57.21

2

180

Imperial Valley-06

6.53

3.95

3

322

Coalinga-01

6.36

24.02

4

342

Coalinga-01

6.36

37.22

5

552

Chalfant Valley-02

6.19

24.47

6

726

Superstition Hills-02

6.54

25.88

7

921

Big Bear-01

6.46

52.48

8

959

Northridge-01

6.69

14.7

9

963

Northridge-01

6.69

20.72

10

1056

Northridge-01

6.69

85.9

11

1086

Northridge-01

6.69

5.3

12

1513

Chi-Chi, Taiwan

7.62

10.97

13

1594

Chi-Chi, Taiwan

7.62

36.7

14

2659

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-03

6.2

80.09

15

2784

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-04

6.2

49.83

16

2793

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-04

6.2

89.43

17

2809

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-04

6.2

86.55

18

2821

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-04

6.2

30.16

19

3027

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-05

6.2

57.18

20

3264

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-06

6.3

31.14

21

3326

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-06

6.3

57.24

22

3508

Chi-Chi, Taiwan-06

6.3

40.72

*Closest distance to the ruptured area

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Badal, P.S., Sinha, R. A performance-based rehabilitation strategy for RC frame buildings in moderate seismic regions. Bull Earthquake Eng 22, 2925–2949 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01884-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01884-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation