Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1185–1219 | Cite as

Implementing effects of site conditions in damage estimated at urban scale

  • Hamza DifEmail author
  • Djawad ZendaguiEmail author
  • Pierre-Yves BardEmail author
Original Research
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Local site effects due to geotechnical conditions modify seismic motions on surface. This implies that during a given earthquake, buildings located on soft sites may experience a higher damage than similar buildings resting on nearby rock sites. The aim of this study is to provide an estimation of the influence of site conditions on the buildings damage distribution. We combine an approach adapted from the Hazus methodology for the assessment of building damage, with the Borcherdt non linear site amplification factors, that enable to characterize the high and low frequency amplification as a function of VS30 (the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m) and ground motion levels. Analysis of obtained results indicates that, seismic damage expressed by the normalized mean damage index depends not only on seismic shaking level and building typology but also on site conditions through the shear wave velocity proxy. A regression relationship is established between the seismic damage and both shaking levels and site conditions, aiming at presenting a simple, rapid tool for estimating this damage at urban areas. An index, the “damage increase ratio”, is proposed to quantify the increase of damage resulting from site effects, and its dependence on loading level and site conditions are quantified and discussed for the main building typologies present in Algeria. Depending on the building typology, the overall damage may vary within a range of 2–5 for moderate shaking (0.1 g) between hard rock and very soft soil, and within a range 1–1.5 for strong shaking (0.5 g). The reduction of the impact of site conditions with increasing shaking level is directly linked with the nonlinear soil behavior.

Keywords

Local conditions Site effects Hazus Damage index Seismic risk 

Abbreviations

VS30

Average shear wave velocity over the upper 30 m

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Hazus

Hazard United-States

PGA

Peak ground acceleration

NIBS

National Institute of Building Science

P[ds|Sd]

Probability of obtaining a specific level of damage ds for a given spectral displacement Sd

Φ[·]

Cumulative normal distribution

\( \overline{S}_{d,ds} \)

Average displacement value corresponding to the damage state ds for a specific building typology

βds

Standard deviation of displacement corresponding to the damage level ds, again for the considered, specific building typology

SD

Slight damage

MD

Moderate damage MD

ED

Extensive damage

CD

Complete damage

Fa

The Borcherdt nonlinear site amplification factors at short period

Fv

The Borcherdt nonlinear site amplification factors at intermediate period

Di

Probability of damage of type i

DI

Normalized mean damage index

DIR

Damage increase ratio due to site effects

Sa

Spectral acceleration

T

Period in second

Sa @ 0.3

Spectral acceleration (Sa) at 0.3 s

Sa @ 1

Spectral acceleration (Sa) at 1 s

TA

Left corner period of the spectral plateau

TAV

Transition period between constant spectral acceleration and constant spectral velocity

TVD

Transition period from constant spectral velocity to constant spectral displacement

M

Moment magnitude

fc

Corner frequency determined from Joyner and Boore relationship, as a function of moment magnitude

UBC

Uniform Building Code

NEHRP

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

EC

Euro Code

IS

Indian Standard code

NGA

Next generation ground motion attenuation relationships

RESORCE

Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe

GMPEs

Next generation ground motion prediction equations

ma and mv

Exponents vary as a function of input ground-motion level, in order to account for the non-linear soil behavior

Vref

Reference velocity

SELENA

Seismic loss estimation using a logic tree approach

URM

Unreinforced masonry buildings with low (URML) and medium (URMM) height

C3

Concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls with a low (C3L), medium (C3M) and high (C3H) height

C2

Concrete shear walls with low (C2L), medium (C2M) and high (C2H) height

Sae

Elastic acceleration spectrum

Sde

Elastic displacement spectrum

Sai

Inelastic acceleration spectrum

Sdi

Inelastic displacement spectrum

μ

Ductility factor

Rμ

Reduction factor due to the ductility

TAV

Transition period from constant spectral acceleration to constant spectral velocity

σ

Standard deviation

R

Coefficient of determination

G

Shear modulus

ai

Regression parameters for the mean damage index

bi

Regression parameters for the increasing of the damage index

Notes

Acknowledgements

Part of this work has been supported by the project: “Prédiction du movement sismique et estimation du risqué sismique lié aux effets de site” 13MDU901 Tassili CMEP between Universities of Tlemcen (Algeria) and Grenoble (France). One of the authors (H. Dif) wishes to acknowledge the support of University of Djelfa. The authors wish to express their acknowledgment for these supports.

Supplementary material

10518_2018_512_MOESM1_ESM.docx (128 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 128 kb)

References

  1. Abrahamson N, Atkinson G, Boore D, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K, Chiou B, Idriss IM, Silva W, Youngs R (2008) Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24(1):45–66.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924363 Google Scholar
  2. Agea-Medina N, Molina-Palacios S, Lang D, Ferreiro-Prieto I, Huesca J, Galiana-Merino JJ, Soler-Llorens JL (2017) sensitivity of structural damage to earthquake ground motion scenarios. The Torrevieja earthquake case study. Int J Comput Methods Exp Meas 6(5):921–932.  https://doi.org/10.2495/cmem-v6-n5-921-932 Google Scholar
  3. Assimaki D, Ledezma C, Montalva GA, Tassara A, Mylonakis G, Boroschek R (2012) Site effects and damage patterns. Earthq Spectra 28(S1):S55–S74.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000029 Google Scholar
  4. BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) (2002) Indian Standard—criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1—general provisions and buildings (5th revision). IS 1893, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 39 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site dependent reponse spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10(4):617–653Google Scholar
  6. Bouckovalas GD, Kouretzis GP (2001) Stiff soil amplification effects in the 7 September 1999 Athens (Greece) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21(8):671–687.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00045-8 Google Scholar
  7. Boukri M, Farsi MN, Mebarki A, Belazougui M, Amellal O, Mezazigh B, Guessoum N, Bourenane H, Benhamouche A (2014) Seismic risk and damage prediction: case of the buildings in Constantine city (Algeria). Bull Earthq Eng 12:2683–2704.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9594-0 Google Scholar
  8. Chopra AK, Goel RK (1999) Capacity demand diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthq Spectra 15(4):637–656.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586065 Google Scholar
  9. Doğangün A, Livaoğlu R (2006) A comparative study of the design spectra defined by Eurocode 8, UBC, IBC and Turkish Earthquake Code on R/C sample buildings. J Seismol 10:335.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-006-9020-4 Google Scholar
  10. Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M et al (2003) Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthq Eng 1:115.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809511362 Google Scholar
  11. Dolce M, Kappos A, Masi A, Penelis G, Vona M (2006) Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. Eng Struct 28(3):357–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.009 Google Scholar
  12. Douglas J, Akkar S, Ameri G et al (2014) Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9522-8 Google Scholar
  13. EC8 Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), EN 1998-1, eurocodes.jrc.eceuropa.eu/. Last accessed Feb 2016Google Scholar
  14. Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16(3):573–592.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128 Google Scholar
  15. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC FEMA (2003) HAZUS-MH technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington. www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus
  16. FEMA (1999) HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methodology, technical manual. Prepared by the National Institute of Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus
  17. FEMA 222A (1994) The NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulation for new buildings, including the NEHRP probabilistic ground motion maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Furumura T, Koketsu K (1998) Specific distribution of ground motion during the 1995 Kobe earhquake and its generation mechanism. Geophys Res Lett 25(6):785–788Google Scholar
  19. Gregor N, Abrahamson NA, Atkinson GM, Boore DM, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW, Silva W (2014) Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1179–1197Google Scholar
  20. Hartzell S (1998) Variability in nonlinear sediment response during the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(6):1426–1437Google Scholar
  21. HAZUS-MH (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: earthquake model—technical manual. www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus
  22. Hellel M, Chatelain JL, Guillier B, Machane D, Ben Salem R et al (2010) Heavier damages without site effects and site effects with lighter damages: Boumerdes City (Algeria) after the May 2003 Earthquake. Seismol Res Lett Seismol Soc Am 81(1):37–49.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.1.37 Google Scholar
  23. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1988) Measurement characterization and prediction of strong ground motion. In: Proceedings of earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II, pp 43–102. Park City, Utah, 27 June 1988. Geotechnical Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Kausel E, Assimaki D (2002) Seismic simulation of inelastic soils via frequency-dependent moduli and damping. J Eng Mech 128(1):34–47Google Scholar
  25. Kusunoki K, Tasai A, Teshigawara M (2014) Development of building monitoring system to verify the capacity spectrum method. In: Fischinger M (ed) Performance-based seismic engineering: vision for an Earthquake Resilient Society. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8875-5_14 Google Scholar
  26. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):415–443Google Scholar
  27. Layadi K, Semmane F, Yelles-Chaouche AK (2016) Site-effects investigation in the city of Chlef (Formerly El-Asnam), Algeria, using earthquake and ambient vibration data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(5):2185–2196.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150365 Google Scholar
  28. Lomnitz C (1997) Mexico, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Kobe: what next? Nat Hazards 16(2–3):287–296Google Scholar
  29. Margottini C, Molin D, Narcisi SL (1994) Intensity vs acceleration: Italian Data. ENEA—IAEA, Historical Seismicity of Central—Eastern Mediterranean RegionGoogle Scholar
  30. Mebarki A, Boukri M, Laribi A, Farsi M, Belazougui M, Kharchi F (2014) Seismic vulnerability: theory and application to Algerian buildings. J Seismolog 18(2):331–343.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-013-9377-0 Google Scholar
  31. Medvedev J (1962) Engineering seismology. Science Academy Press, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  32. Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2007) SELENA v2.0—user and technical manual v2.0. NORSAR, KjellerGoogle Scholar
  33. Navarrete B, Canales MD, Vera AV, Maldonado AAB, González LBR, Aguilar SE, Calderón EDV (1988) Damage statistics of the September 19, 1985 Earthquake in Mexico city. In: Beedle LS (ed) Second century of the skyscraper. Springer, Boston, pp 657–666.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6581-5_56 Google Scholar
  34. Navarro M, Enomoto T, Yamamoto T, García-Jerez A, Vidal F, Bretón M (2008) Analysis of site effects and their correlation with damage distribution observed during the Colima (Mexico) earthquake of January 21, 2003. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 12–17Google Scholar
  35. Peláez JA, Hamdache M, Casado CL (2005) Updating the probabilistic seismic hazard values of northern Algeria with the 21 May 2003 M 6.8 Algiers earthquake included. Pure Appl Geophys 162(11):2163–2177.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-005-2708-5 Google Scholar
  36. Salameh C, Bard P-Y, Guillier B, Harb J, Cornou C, Gérard J, Almakari M (2017) Using ambient vibration measurements for risk assessment at an urban scale: from numerical proof of concept to Beirut case study (Lebanon). Earth Planets Space 69(1):60.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0641-3 Google Scholar
  37. Scholl RE (1989) Observations of the performance of buildings during the 1985 Mexico earthquake, and structural design implications. Geotech Geol Eng 7(1):69–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01552841 Google Scholar
  38. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1969) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report No. EERC 70-10 Earthquake Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh SK, Lermo J, Dominguez T, Ordaz M, Espinosa JM, Mena E, Quaas R (1988) The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985–a study of amplification of seismic waves in the Valley of Mexico with respect to a hill zone site. Earthq Spectra 4:653–673Google Scholar
  40. Teves-Costa P, Oliveira CS, Senos ML (2007) Effects of local site and building parameters on damage distribution in Angra do Heroísmo—Azores. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(11):986–999Google Scholar
  41. Theodoulidis N, Cultrera G, De Rubeis V et al (2008) Correlation between damage distribution and ambient noise H/V spectral ratio: the SESAME project results. Bull Earthq Eng 6:109.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9060-y Google Scholar
  42. Trifunac MD, Todorovska MI (2000) Can aftershock studies predictsite amplification factors? Northridge, CA, earthquake of 17 January 1994. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19(4):233–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00011-7 Google Scholar
  43. Vargas YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Hurtado JE (2013) Incremental dynamic analysis and pushover analysis of buildings. A probabilistic comparison. In: Papadrakakis M, Stefanou G, Papadopoulos V (eds) Computational methods in stochastic dynamics. Computational methods in applied sciences, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5134-7_17 Google Scholar
  44. Vidic T, Fajar P, Fischinger M (1994) Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength displacement. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 23:507–521Google Scholar
  45. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 117(1):89–107Google Scholar
  46. Zhao Z, Xu J, Kubota R, Yasuhiko W, Syozo K (2004) Collapse ratios of buildings due to the 1995 Kobe earthquake and interference between S-wave and the second surface wave at basin edge. Chin Sci Bull 49(2):189–195Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Risk Assessment and Management Laboratory (RISAM), Faculté de TechnologieUniversité Abou BekrBelkaïdTlemcenAlgeria
  2. 2.Faculté de TechnologieUniversity of DjelfaDjelfaAlgeria
  3. 3.Institut de Sciences de la Terre (ISTerre), CNRS, IRD, IFSTTARUniversité Grenoble-AlpesGrenoble Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations