Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Influence of Infill Walls on Resilience Index of RC Schools Using the BIM Analysis and FEMA P-58 Methodology

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, general method of evaluation based on resilience has been investigated using PACT software and available mathematical functions. In this regard, in accordance with Standard No. 6 and 9 of National Building Regulations (NBR) and Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, a school with intermediate concrete moment frames and shear walls has been designed. The school was modeled in the Revit software with two different levels of detail (LOD) of 300 and 350. The difference between these two levels is the accuracy of infill walls modeling. Then, using ETABS software, nonlinear dynamical analysis (nonlinear time history analysis) for frames was performed considering the impact of near-field and far-field earthquakes to obtain the fragility curves. After that, the fragility curves were calculated for all structural and non-structural components related to different damage levels in FEMA code and eventually, resilience values were obtained. In fact, the results of ETABS software were entered as input into PACT software and the outputs such as damage median, recovery time and etc. were used to determine the resistance. The results show that reducing the seismic responses of building in LOD350 model leads to a 184-days reduction in recovery and 12% increase in resilience, which indicates the importance of detailed modelling in earthquake damage evaluation. The values of recovery times for buildings with LOD300 and LOD350 have been obtained as 352 and 167 days, respectively, while normalized curves of damage cumulative distribution shows that median costs of repair for LOD300 and LOD350 buildings were 22 and 10%, respectively. The comparison between maintenance cost curves demonstrates that the median cost of damage in LOD350 building is about 12% less than LOD300 building.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig.4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig.10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hwang S-H, Lignos DG (2017) Earthquake-induced loss assessment of steel frame buildings with special moment frames designed in highly seismic regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:2141–2162. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lu X, Zeng X, Xu Z, Guan H (2018) Improving the accuracy of near real-time seismic loss estimation using post-earthquake remote sensing images. Earthq Spectra 34:1219–1245. https://doi.org/10.1193/041417EQS072M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (2012) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1 – Methodology, https://www.fema.gov/media-librarydata/13964950198480c9252aac91dd1854dc378feb9e69216/FEMAP-58_Volume1_508.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2018

  4. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2):1–3

  5. Moehle J, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004, paper no. 679. https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_679.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2004

  6. Dimopoulos AI, Tzimas AS, Karavasilis TL, Vamvatsikos D (2016) Probabilistic economic seismic loss estimation in steel buildings using post-tensioned moment-resisting frames and viscous dampers. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45:1725–1741. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Del Gobbo GM, Blakeborough A, Williams MS (2018) Improving total-building seismic performance using linear fluid viscous dampers. Bull Earthq Eng 16:4249–4272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0338-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance (2004)1st ed. Brussels: BSi EN 1998-1, 2004

  9. Joyner MD, Sasani M (2020) Building performance for earthquake resilience. Eng Struct 210:110371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Misir IS, Ozcelik O, Girgin SC, Yucel U (2016) The behavior of infill walls in RC frames under combined bidirectional loading. J Earthq Eng 20:559–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1104748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dias-Oliveira J, Rodrigues H, Asteris PG, Varum H (2022) On the seismic behavior of masonry infilled frame structures. Buildings 12:1146. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brodsky A, Yankelevsky DZ, Rabinovitch O (2021) Shearing of infill masonry walls under lateral and vertical loading. J Build Eng 38:102147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Fakih A, Mohammed BS, Wahab MMA et al (2020) Flexural behavior of rubberized concrete interlocking masonry walls under out-of-plane load. Constr Build Mater 263:120661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Al-Fakih A, Al-Osta MA (2022) Finite element analysis of rubberized concrete interlocking masonry under vertical loading. Materials (Basel) 15:2858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A (2015) Modelling of masonry infill walls participation in the seismic behaviour of RC buildings using OpenSees. Int J Adv Struct Eng 7:117–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-015-0086-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Memari AM, Aliaari M (2018) Finite element modeling of masonry infill walls equipped with structural fuse. In: New trends in structural engineering. IntechOpen, London

  17. Vitiello U, Ciotta V, Salzano A et al (2019) BIM-based approach for the cost-optimization of seismic retrofit strategies on existing buildings. Autom Constr 98:90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.10.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lu X, Yang Z, Xu Z, Xiong C (2020) Scenario simulation of indoor post-earthquake fire rescue based on building information model and virtual reality. Adv Eng Softw 143:102792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.102792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun Q, Turkan Y (2020) A BIM-based simulation framework for fire safety management and investigation of the critical factors affecting human evacuation performance. Adv Eng Informatics 44:101093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Xu Z, Zhang Z, Lu X et al (2018) Post-earthquake fire simulation considering overall seismic damage of sprinkler systems based on BIM and FEMA P-58. Autom Constr 90:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Xu Z, Lu X, Zeng X et al (2019) Seismic loss assessment for buildings with various-LOD BIM data. Adv Eng Informatics 39:112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2018.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Xu Z, Zhang H, Lu X et al (2019) A prediction method of building seismic loss based on BIM and FEMA P-58. Autom Constr 102:245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zeng X, Lu X, Yang TY, Xu Z (2016) Application of the FEMA-P58 methodology for regional earthquake loss prediction. Nat Hazards 83:177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2307-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferner H, Wemyss M, Baird A, Beer A, Hunter D (2014) Seismic performance of nonstructural elements within buildings. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Annual Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, March 21–23, 2014, Paper no. 69 http://db.nzsee.org.nz/2014/oral/69_Ferner.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2014

  25. Yang TY, Atkinson JC, Tobber L (2015) Detailed seismic performance assessment of high-value-contents laboratory facility. Earthq Spectra 31:2117–2135. https://doi.org/10.1193/092313EQS259M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Perrone D, Filiatrault A (2017) Automated seismic design of non-structural elements with building information modelling. Autom Constr 84:166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alirezaei M, Noori M, Tatari O et al (2016) BIM-based damage estimation of buildings under earthquake loading condition. Procedia Eng 145:1051–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McKenna F, Fenves GL (2016) OpenSees (Open system for earthquake engineering simulation), version 2.5.0” pacific earthquake engineering research center. Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  29. Terzic V, Kolozvari K, Saldana D (2019) Implications of modeling approaches on seismic performance of low- and mid-rise office and hospital shear wall buildings. Eng Struct 189:129–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Naderpour H, Eghbali M (2016) Evaluation of resilience index using fragility curves. In: Proceedings of 7th internationa l conference on integrated disaster risk management. Iranian Earthquake Engineering Association (IEEA), Isfahan, Iran, pp 1–4

  32. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Samadian D, Eghbali M, Raissi Dehkordi M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M (2020) Recovery and reconstruction of schools after M 7.3 Ezgeleh-Sarpole-Zahab earthquake of Nov. 2017; part I: structural and nonstructural damages after the earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 139:106305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Eghbali M, Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Raissi Dehkordi M (2020) Recovery and reconstruction of schools after M 7.3 Ezgeleh-Sarpole-Zahab earthquake; part II: recovery process and resiliency calculation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 139:106327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sardari F, Raissi Dehkordi M, Eghbali M, Samadian D (2020) Practical seismic retrofit strategy based on reliability and resiliency analysis for typical existing steel school buildings in Iran. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 51:101890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kalantary M, Eghbali M, Samadian D (2021) Quantification of Urban seismic resilience index (a case study of districts 1 and 3 of Zanjan city). J Geogr Environ Hazards 10(3):229–246

    Google Scholar 

  37. Niazi M, Raissi Dehkordi M, Eghbali M, Samadian D (2021) Seismic resilience index evaluation for healthcare facilities: a case study of hospital in Tehran. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 65:102639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hasanzadeh R, Ahmadi J, Eghbali M et al (2021) Reduction of seismic resiliency of RC structures caused by chloride corrosion for typical school buildings located in hot climates. Structures 34:4060–4076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ekhlaspoor A, Raissi Dehkordi M, Eghbali M, Samadian D (2022) Pre-event assessment of seismic resilience index for typical iranian buildings via a web-based tool. Int J Civ Eng 20:257–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00657-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hejazi M, Jalaeefar A (2021) Effect of infills on seismic resilience of special steel moment resisting frames. Structures 33:2771–2791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. González C, Niño M, Jaimes MA (2020) Event-based assessment of seismic resilience in Mexican school buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 18:6313–6336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00938-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fu Z, Gao R, Li Y (2021) Measuring seismic resilience of building portfolios based on innovative damage ratio assessment model. Structures 30:1109–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shamout S, Boarin P, Mannakkara S (2020) “Retrofitting for resilience: A multi-hazard approach” APRU 2020 Sustainable Cities and Landscapes PhD Symposium.

  44. Lu X, Chen A (2022) Quantitative evaluation and improvement of seismic resilience of a tall frame shear wall structure. Struct Des Tall Spec Build. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vona M, Flora A, Carlucci E, Foscolo E (2021) Seismic retrofitting resilience-based for strategic RC buildings. Buildings 11:111. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11030111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hosseinzadeh S, Galal K (2021) Probabilistic seismic resilience quantification of a reinforced masonry shear wall system with boundary elements under bi-directional horizontal excitations. Eng Struct 247:113023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Autodesk (2021) Revit Built for building information modeling, https://www.autodesk.com/products/revit/overview. Accessed 20 July 2021

  48. CSI (2005) Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000®, ETABS® and SAFE™. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA, p 415

    Google Scholar 

  49. Oti AH, Tizani W (2015) BIM extension for the sustainability appraisal of conceptual steel design. Adv Eng Informatics 29:28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2014.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sigalov K, König M (2017) Recognition of process patterns for BIM-based construction schedules. Adv Eng Informatics 33:456–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2016.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Scherer RJ, Katranuschkov P (2018) BIMification: How to create and use BIM for retrofitting. Adv Eng Informatics 38:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2018.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lee S-K, Kim K-R, Yu J-H (2014) BIM and ontology-based approach for building cost estimation. Autom Constr 41:96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. BIM Forum (2017) Level of development specification for building information models, https://bimforum.org/. Accessed 12 June 2021

  54. Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC). Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings.” (Standard no. 2800) 4th edn, Tehran, Iran

  55. FEMA (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, vol 356. FEMA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  56. PEER (2013) PEER NGA-WEST 2 ground motion database. http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/site

  57. Organization for Development, Renovating, and Equipping Schhols of Iran (DRES), Guideline for evaluation and retrofitting of school buildings with infill walls, Standard No. 398, authomn, 2015.

  58. Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M (2010) Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng Struct 32:3639–3649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morteza Raissi Dehkordi.

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.

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

Soltani, M., Raissi Dehkordi, M., Eghbali, M. et al. Influence of Infill Walls on Resilience Index of RC Schools Using the BIM Analysis and FEMA P-58 Methodology. Int J Civ Eng 21, 711–726 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00777-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00777-2

Keywords

Navigation