Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 12, pp 3809–3840 | Cite as

Vulnerability assessment and feasibility analysis of seismic strengthening of school buildings

  • C. Z. Chrysostomou
  • N. Kyriakides
  • V. K. Papanikolaou
  • A. J. Kappos
  • E. G. Dimitrakopoulos
  • A. I. Giouvanidis
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The majority of structures in seismic-prone areas worldwide are structures that have been designed either without seismic design considerations, or using codes of practice that are seriously inadequate in the light of current seismic design principles. In Cyprus, after a series of earthquakes that occurred between 1995 and 1999, it was decided to carry out an unprecedented internationally seismic retrofitting of all school buildings, taking into account the sensitivity of the society towards these structures. In this paper representative school buildings are analysed in both their pristine condition and after applying retrofitting schemes typical of those implemented in the aforementioned large-scale strengthening programme. Non-linear analysis is conducted on calibrated analytical models of the selected buildings and fragility curves are derived for typical reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry structures. These curves are then used to carry out a feasibility study, including both benefit-cost and life-cycle analysis, and evaluate the effectiveness of the strengthening programme.

Keywords

School buildings Seismic vulnerability assessment Non-linear dynamic analysis Cost-benefit analysis Life-cycle cost analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project ΑΕΙFΟRΙΑ/ΑSΤΙ/0609(ΒΙΕ)/06 is funded under DESMI 2009–10 of the Research Promotion Foundation of Cyprus and by the Cyprus Government and the European Regional Development Fund. The authors would like to acknowledge also the contribution of Mrs E. Georgiou and O. Vassiliou from the Technical Services of the Ministry of Education and Culture of Cyprus and Ms. Elpida Georgiou in the collection of data for the school retrofitting programme, and of Dr L. Kouris (then Ph.D. candidate at the AUTh) in the early part of the analysis of the masonry building.

References

  1. Anastasiades A, Pitilakis K, Apessou M, Apostolides P, Kallioglou P, Tika T, Michaelides P, Petrides G (2006) Site Specific Response Analyses in Lemessos Urban Area. In: Proceedings 5th Hellenic Conference on Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Technical Chamber of Greece (in Greek)Google Scholar
  2. ASCE/SEI (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings—ASCE Standard 41-06. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayyub B, McCuen R (1995) Chapter 4—Simulation-based reliability methods. In: Sundararajan CR (ed) Probabilistic structural mechanics handbook-theory and industrial applications. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer K, Mangalathu S (2013) Review of strength models for masonry spandrels. Bull Earthq Eng 11(2):521–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2008) A strength criterion for the flexural behaviour of spandrels in un-reinforced masonry walls. In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, Paper No. 05-04-0041Google Scholar
  6. CEN (2004a) Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures. Part 1: general rules and rules for buildings (EN 1992-1-1). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. CEN (2004b) Eurocode 8: Design provisions of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN1998-1). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: Design provisions of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings (EN1998-3). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Chrysostomou CZ, Kyriakides N, Kappos AJ, Kouris LA, Papanikolaou V, Georgiou E, Millis M (2013) Seismic retrofitting and health monitoring of school buildings of Cyprus. Open Constr Build Technol J 7:208–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coburn A, Spence R (2002) Earthquake protection, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CSI [Computers & Structures Inc.] (2011) SAP2000—Version 15.0.1: linear and non linear static and dynamic analysis and design of three-dimensional structures. CSI, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellingwood BR, Wen YK (2005) Risk–benefit-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America. Prog Struct Eng Mater 7:56–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FEMA (1992) A benefit cost: model for the seismic rehabilitation of structures, vol 1, 2Google Scholar
  14. FEMA-NIBS (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: earthquake model: HAZUS®MH Technical Manual, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Frangopol DM, Kong JS, Gharaibeh ES (2001) Reliability-based life-cycle management of highway bridges. J Comput Civ Eng 15(1):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2006) Seismic retrofitting quick reference: school facilities that withstand earthquakes, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  17. Kappos AJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2008) Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves. Nat Hazards 45(1):33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kappos AJ, Pitilakis K, Stylianidis K, Morfidis K, Asimakopoulos D (1995) Cost-benefit analysis for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. In: 3rd International Conference on Seismic Zonation, vol. I, Nice, France, 406–413Google Scholar
  19. Kappos AJ, Penelis GG, Drakopoulos C (2002) Evaluation of simplified models for the analysis of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE 128(7):890–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koliopoulos PK, Margaris BN, Klimis NS (1998) Duration and energy characteristics of Greek strong motion records. J Earthq Eng 2(3):391–417Google Scholar
  22. Kyriakides N, Ahmad S, Pilakoutas K, Neocleous K, Chrysostomou C (2014) A probabilistic analytical seismic vulnerability assessment framework for low strength structures of developing countries. Earthq Struct 6(6):665–687. doi: 10.12989/eas.2014.6.6.665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):13–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu M, Burns SA, Wen YK (2003) Optimal seismic design of steel frame buildings based on life-cycle cost considerations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:1313–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKay M, Conover W, Beckman R (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21:239–245Google Scholar
  26. OECD (2004) Keeping schools safe in earthquakes; a publication of the OECD Programme on Educational Building (PEB)Google Scholar
  27. Papaioannou CA (2004) Seismic hazard scenarios: probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard report for WP 02 of the project SRM-LIFE (scientist in charge K. Pitilakis), ITSAK, Thessaloniki (in Greek)Google Scholar
  28. Papazachos BC, Savaidis AA, Papaioannou CA, Papazachos CB (1999) The S. Balkan Bank of shallow and intermediate depth earthquake microseismic data, XXII Gen. Ass. Of the IUGG, Birmingham, UK, July 1999 (abstracts volume)Google Scholar
  29. Penelis GG (2006) An efficient approach for pushover analysis of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures. J Earthq Eng 10(3):359–379Google Scholar
  30. Sextos AG, Pitilakis KD, Kappos AJ (2003) Inelastic dynamic analysis of R/C bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion, site effects and soil-structure interaction phenomena. Part 1: methodology and analytical tools. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(4):607–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smyth AW, Altay GI, Deodatis G, Erdik M, Franco G, Gulkan P, Kunreuther H, Lus H, Mete E, Seeber N, Yuzugullu O (2004) Probabilistic benefit/cost analysis for earthquake damage mitigation: evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey. Earthq Spectra 20(1):171–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ventura CE, Finn WDL, Bebamzadeh A, Pina F, Taylor GW (2012) Seismic retrofit of school buildings in British Columbia, Canada. In: Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, paper no. 5496Google Scholar
  33. Wen YK, Kang YJ (2001a) Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: methodology. J Struct Eng ASCE 127(3):330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wen YK, Kang YJ (2001b) Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. II: applications. J Struct Eng 127(3):338–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Z. Chrysostomou
    • 1
  • N. Kyriakides
    • 1
  • V. K. Papanikolaou
    • 2
  • A. J. Kappos
    • 2
    • 3
  • E. G. Dimitrakopoulos
    • 4
  • A. I. Giouvanidis
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and GeomaticsCyprus University of TechnologyLimassolCyprus
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringCity University LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringHong Kong University of Science & TechnologyHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations