Simplified Analytical/Mechanical Procedure for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation and Loss Assessment of Buildings
- 1.1k Downloads
The crucial need to develop and implement simple and cost-effective repair and retrofit strategies and solutions for existing structures has been once again emphasized, if at all needed, by the recent catastrophic earthquake events. The significant socio-economic impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes sequence in 2010–2011 as well as of the “series” of independent events within few years in Italy (L’Aquila 2009; Emilia 2012; Central Italy 2016) have triggered a stepchange in the high-level approach towards the implementation of seismic risk reduction, introducing either a mandatory enforcement or significant financial incentives for a national-wide program to assess (and reduce by remedial intervention) the seismic vulnerability/capacity of the whole (non-dwelling) building stock, including safety and expected repairing costs (direct economic losses). This chapter provides an overview of the motivations, challenges and (possible) solutions for such a complex and delicate task with the intent to stimulate awareness, discussion and synergetic actions within the wider international community. Particular focus will be given to the development and on-going continuos refinement of a simplified analytical-mechanical methodology—referred to as SLaMA (Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis) method—as part of a proposed integrated methodology for either pre- and post-earthquake safety evaluation and loss assessment of buildings, in order to support the engineering community and stakeholders through the various steps of the decision making process of risk (assessment and) reduction.
The urgency of a medium-long-term plan for seismic retrofit and risk reduction strategy at a national scale is becoming increasingly evident in most of the seismic-prone countries worldwide.
With no doubt the assessment of the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings and the definition of appropriate solutions—i.e. structurally effective, easy to apply, cost-effective, possibly reversible and respectful of the architectural, heritage and cultural conservation requirements—hide a level of significantly higher complexity than designing new structures.
Even more when dealing with damaged buildings in the aftermath of an earthquake event: some of the most controversial issues in the recent earthquakes have in fact been the evident difficulty and lack of knowledge/guidelines in terms of: (a) evaluation of the residual capacity of a damaged building to sustain subsequent aftershocks; (b) selection and implementation of a set of reliable repairing techniques to bring back the structure “at least” to its conditions before the earthquake; and (c) capacity to predict the cost (or cost-effectiveness) of such a repair intervention, when compared to fully replacement costs and accounting for potential aftershock in the near future.
Moreover, as if the technical complexity was not a sufficient deterrent, the constraint of economic resources for a national scale implementation and the lack of a prioritization plan, based on risk considerations, loss assessment and cost–benefit analyses, are often referred to, or blamed as, primary obstacles to the practical implementation of such a broad and ambitious project. Yet, studies and comparative evaluations of the social-economic effectiveness of a seismic prevention strategy, when opposite to a post-event reaction/repair/reconstruction approach, clearly show its significant long-term and national benefits.
To tackle this delicate issue, it is necessary to improve and standardize the tools and procedures (‘protocols’) for the ‘diagnosis’ and ‘prognosis’ of the seismic vulnerability and of the expected performance of existing buildings, in order to estimate, prior to the event, as well as assess, in the aftermath of the earthquake, both the seismic safety as well as the socio-economic impact/consequences/losses.
Such procedures should be based on state-of-the-art but simplified methodologies—preferably analytical rather than numerical approaches—that could highlight the structural weaknesses of the building system, while ensuring consistency of results and proper level of independently from the operators. Similarly, suitable ‘therapeutic pathways’, i.e. appropriate repair/retrofit strategies, can be defined by comparing alternative options through a cost–benefit approach.
This chapter provides an overview of recent developments at international level in terms of methodologies and regulatory approaches as well as ‘diagnosis’ protocols and procedures for either pre- and post-damage of existing buildings, with particular attention to (a) the features of the recently adopted national plan for seismic risk reduction in New Zealand, following the recent and devastating 2010–2011 earthquake sequence in Christchurch, (b) the associated seismic assessment and rating methodology, incorporated in the New Zealand Guidelines on Seismic Assessment of Existing Building (NZSEE 2017) and endorsed by the Mnistry of Business Innovation and Employment and (c) the Seismic Risk Classification guidelines introduced in Italy in 2017 (ITA 2017), following two decades of severe earthquake events, and including both safety and economic-loss considerations.
Building on, and merging, these recent developments, an integrated methodology for the evaluation and assessment of either pre-earthquake as well as post-earthquake safety and losses, based on a simplified analytical-mechanical approach, referrred to as SLaMA (Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis), is presented.
1.2 Seismic Risk Reduction Policies
1.2.1 The New Zealand Passive Approach—“Before”
Before the dramatic Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 2010–2011 in New Zealand, the preparation and implementation of seismic risk reduction policies were delegated to the local territorial authorities (TAs). With the exception of the capital city of Wellington, who had initiated an active approach with a trial assessment on a large sample of buildings, the typical policy adopted by the TAs was based on a ‘passive’ approach, similar to the general trend at international level in major seismic-prone countries. According to such policy, there was no mandatory requirement to assess the seismic vulnerability and capacity of existing private or public buildings unless the owner aimed for a change of use, increase in volume or structural alteration. The Building ACT (2004) had defined a minimum level of ‘seismic safety’ for a building corresponding to the exceedance of its ‘ultimate capacity’ under a ‘moderate’ Earthquake, the latter being defined as “an earthquake that would generate shaking at the site of the building that is of the same duration as, but that is one-third as strong as, the earthquake shaking (determined by normal measures of acceleration, velocity and displacement) that would be used to design a new building”.
At this stage, the owner of an Earthquake Prone Building (EPB) was obliged to retrofit/strengthen the building (even just) above the minimum threshold of 33%NBS—at his/her expenses—but only if he/she intended to proceed with the alteration/change of use of the buildings. A potential loophole of such a passive approach– potentially carrying legal liability or at least ethical responsibility—was thus that the owner, either private or public, could opt out and maintain the status quo (“no action” or “do-nothing” approach), in spite of being aware of the high seismic risk of the building and thus of the life-safety risk for the occupants.
It is also important to note here that, as shown in the same figure/table with the same green band, the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, from its first document NZSEE2006 and furthermore in the significantly revised version NZSEE2017, has been strongly recommending to target 67% NBS as a minimum objective of the retrofit and, as practically as possible, a higher value.
126.96.36.199 Relationship Between %NBS and Collapse Risk
Already the original NZSEE2006 Guidelines were qualitatively discussing the approximate correlation between the %NBS of an existing building and its actual (predicted and approximate) relative seismic risk, intended as a multiplier of the Life Safety (or Collapse) probability of the building when compared to that of an ‘equivalent’ new building.
Such considerations can suggest interesting corollaries—as confirmed by recent numerical studies (Ligabue et al. 2015, Fig. 1.2 right)—in terms of seismic retrofit strategies. Starting from a high risk building with a %NBS below 33% and a seismic rating D or E, small but focused local retrofit interventions, able to moderately improve the %NBS within the same class, could lead to a substantial and proportionally more significant reduction of the seismic risk in terms of Life Safety, whilst improving the overall reliability of the seismic response of the building, i.e. reducing the dispersion and uncertainties related to the behaviour of the structures.
1.2.2 The New National Plan for Seismic Risk Reduction in New Zealand
In the aftermath of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence and following the recommendation from the ‘Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission of inquiry’ (CERC 2012), the New Zealand Government decided to radically ‘change gear’ in terms of seismic risk reduction strategies and policies, moving from a ‘passive’ approach to an ‘active’ and mandatory one at a national level.
The Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (2016), taking effects from 1 July 2017, introduced major step-changes to the way earthquake prone buildings are identified and managed under the Building Act, under a new national plan for managing buildings in New Zealand. Explicit intent of this national policy framework is to ensure a more consistent and homogeneous approach across the country in the management of the seismic risk for private and public buildings, trying to achieve a balance between (1) Life safety, (2) Cost of strengthening/retrofitting or removing buildings and (3) Considerations on Heritage Buildings.
Important to highlight that the owners should bear the costs for these seismic evaluation and remediation actions. No specific financial incentives, as for example implemented in the recent Italian Guidelines for the classification of the seismic risk (Giovinazzi and Pampanin 2017), were introduced at that stage nor were envisaged in the near future for ordinary buildings in New Zealand. Discussions are taking place in some local municipalities to address the issue of preservation of heritage buildings, often owned by private people, but with a significant yet non-tangible value for the overall community.
188.8.131.52 The NZSEE2017 Guidelines on Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings
As part of the new national risk reduction plan, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Economy (MBIE) was in charge of the development of new guidelines for the Seismic Assessment (and Rating) of Existing Buildings, with particular focus on a consistent procedure to be used on a daily based by practitioner engineer and Territorial Authorities (TAs) to identify Earthquake Prone Buildings. Following a major multi-year effort of the selected committee, which actually started in 2014 following the CERC Recommendations, the older version of the NZSEE2006 was significantly rewritten and integrated with the more recent lessons and know-how from earthquake events, as well as from the national and international state-of-art and latest research findings.
As it stands, the new NZSEE2017 guidelines “The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings” represents the key tool for the actual implementation of the national risk reduction plan. An overview of the motivations, scope and methodology can be found in (Pampanin 2017), with design example and numerical studies on different Structural systems in (Vecchio et al. 2017, 2018) and (Gentile et al. 2019a, b, c, d), respectively.
In particular, the NZSEE2017 guidelines place significant effort and focus to the use of a simplified analytical procedure—referred to as SLaMA Approach, acronym for ‘Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis’, for the evaluation of the capacities (in terms of combination of forces and displacements) of structural elements, connections, subassemblies and seismic-resistant systems, as a fundamental starting point for any vulnerability/safety study and thus prior to any numerical modelling or more sophisticated (but not necessarily more accurate) analysis.
It is an explicit approach to revamp the importance of looking at the big picture with an holistic view, of understanding and controlling the design and thus restore the crucial role of the structural/geotechnical engineers, today often and unfortunately relegated, at least in the views of non-technical customers and decision makers, to the mere role of ‘structural calculators’.
Furthermore, as the SLaMa approach allows to highlight the critical structural weaknesses, to evaluate the hierarchy of strength and the sequence of events/mechanisms, it naturally forms the fundamental first step (‘diagnosis’) to define appropriate retrofit strategies and technique ( ‘prognosis’ and ‘therapeutic protocol’) and critically compare alternative options by considering the overall performance improvement under different earthquake intensity levels, and the achievable reduction of the direct and indirect losses, evaluated through Expected Annual Losses (EAL) or similar indicators.
1.2.3 The New Italian Guidelines 2017 Seismic Risk Classification and Financial Incentives
While Life Safety is, and must remain, the highest priority and target of seismic risk reduction policies, the crucial need to consider, assess and, most importantly, reduce the significant direct and indirect losses associated to the damage of structures and infrastructures has become more and more evident. At international level, such considerations have been recently implemented into a regulatory proactive approach for seismic risk reduction based on financial incentives in Italy. Following the significant socio-economic impacts suffered by Italy in the past 20 years following a series of events dislocated across the whole nation (Umbria-Marche 1997; Molise 2002; L’Aquila 2009; Emilia 2012, Central Italy 2016), the government has recently issued (effective from 1 March 2017) a new law providing financial incentives to seismically retrofit privately owned buildings with tax deductions (recoverable in five years, but with the possibility of transferring this tax credit to third parties such as financial institutes, contractors etc.) of 75–85% of the cost of the retrofit intervention) depending on level of improvement in terms of Risk Class (grades A-G) from the status quo (ITA 2017).
a Safety Index IS-V, (equivalent to the %NBS used in the NZSEE2006 and now NZSEE2017 guidelines) defined as the capacity/demand ratio at Life Safety limit state and
the Expected Annual Losses, EAL (Perdita Annua Media, PAM, in Italian) able to take into account the various performances under different intensity levels and limit states
The Risk Class for a building under analysis will be identified as the minimum of the risk classes determined based on the IS-V (=%NBS) and on the PAM (=EAL) assessed grades, i.e. Risk Class = MIN (IS-V/%NBS Class; PAM/EAL Class).
NZSEE2017 Matrix—% NBS, Grade, Level of Risk, Remedial Actions (modified after per Building Act 2016)
ITA2017 Matrix—safety index IS-V (=% NBS), risk classes, grades, EAL classes and ranges
IS-V > 100
EAL ≤ 0.5%
80% ≤ IS-V < 100%
0.5% < EAL ≤ 1.0%
60% ≤ IS-V < 80%
1.0% < EAL ≤ 1.5%
45% ≤ IS-V < 60%
1.5% < EAL ≤ 2.5%
30% ≤ IS-V < 45%
2.5% < EAL ≤ 3.5%
15% ≤ IS-V < 30%
3.5% < EAL ≤ 4.5%
IS-V < 15%
4.5% < EAL ≤ 7.5%
7.5% ≤ EAL
1.3 The SLaMA Analytical-Mechanical Assessment Procedure
In line with the Park, Paulay and Priestley ‘School’, in the new NZSEE2017 guidelines, and specifically at the Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) level (Tier 2), particular attention has been given to the development of an advanced, reliable while simplified methodology, referred to as SLaMA (Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis), based on an analytical and mechanical approach, i.e. basically “by hand” or using a spreadsheet, rather than and prior to a numerical (i.e. finite element and computer-based).
Step 1(a): the flexural and shear capacity (in terms of both forces and displacements) of the structural elements;
Step 1(b): the hierarchy of strength and sequence of events of the connections and beam-column subassemblies [according to Pampanin and Bolognini (2007)]
Step 1(c): the local and global collapse mechanisms of the seismic-resisting systems and, finally, the global capacity curve
More specifically, given the NZSEE2017 key focus on Life Safety, such an analytical approach allows to evaluate the level of ‘relative’ (Life) Safety when compared to a newly built structure, by means of the %NBS index (New Building Standard, a capacity-demand ratio) and to associate a seismic risk rating or class (from A to E, with indicative ranges of collapse probabilities when compared to a brand-new structure).
As demonstrated in a series of analytical–numerical comparisons (Bianchi et al. 2019; Gentile et al. 2019a, b, c, d; Vecchio et al. 2017, 2018), the SLaMa analytical procedure provides quite reliable results, particularly satisfactory when considering the simplicity of the method.
Refinement of the results can be obtained by preparing a non-linear numerical lumped plasticity model, ‘informed’ by the hierarchy of strength and local mechanism predicted by SLaMA, and running pushover or time history analyses.
1.3.1 Selection of Retrofit Strategies and Techniques
The SLaMa method can be used for a relatively quick yet reliable – when compared to what required by more complex and detailed non-linear pushover and time-history analyses – estimation of the expected behavior and performance of the building (or classes of buildings) before and after a retrofit/strengthening intervention, thus becoming a fundamental supporting tool for the implementation of a medium-long term strategy of seismic-risk reduction at national scale.
1.3.2 Quantifications of Impairment—Loss Estimation
The relationship between PGA and Return Period depends on the local seismicity and earthquake magnitude.
The sub indexes C and D indicate ‘Capacity’ and ‘Demand’ respectively.
In order to create a MAF versus % Reconstruction Cost curve it is necessary to estimate the relationship between an Engineering Demand Parameter (e.g. Drift, acceleration), the Level of Damage/Limit States and the repairing costs associated to that level of damage.
Following the L’Aquila 2009 earthquake in Italy and the repair/reconstruction phases, covered by government funds through a very comprehensive scheme, a unique and detailed database of costs of reconstruction versus damage levels was collected and published in a “White Paper” or “Libro bianco” (Ludovico et al. 2017a, b).
Correlation between the various Limit States (IO, DC, LS, CP) and the Reconstruction Costs according to the ITA2017 guidelines
Reconstruction cost RC (%)
Collapse or total economic loss
Near collapse, NC
Life safety, LS
Damage control, DC
Immediate operational, IO
The Expected Annual Loss, evaluated as the integral of the MAF versus 1/Tr curve thus the Area underneath that curve, represents the overall repairing costs so calculated/estimated during the life-span of the building divided by the 50 years (or whatever assumed as a Life-span) of the structure.
This comprehensive procedure to evaluate the Expected Annual Loss (EAL) directly from capacity curves and earthquake demands (ADRS Spectra) is well recognized within the scientific community but unique at a worldwide level in terms of regulatory provision.
Such an approach is a direct and practical response to the lessons learnt from recent earthquakes, acknowledging and highlighting the severe and significant repairing costs associated to non-structural elements (partitions/ infills, facades, ceilings, services) under “frequent’ earthquakes (i.e. minor-moderate earthquake and relatively small return period Tr of 25–100 years), when compared to more ‘rare’ events (i.e. major-severe intensity and large return period Tr of 500–1000 years or above) typically used as a design level reference, when thus focusing on “Life Safety” as primary Limit State.
the Probable Frequent Loss (PFL) defined by Porter et al. (2004a) as the mean loss resulting from shaking with a 10% exceedance probability in 5 years (i.e. Return Period Tr = 50 yrs) and/or
the Probable Maximum Loss defined as the mean loss resulting from shaking with a 10% exceedance probability in 50 years (i.e. Tr = 500 yrs)
This latter Scenario-Based Assessment approach focuses into a specific window within the building life-time response and provides a complementary information to the EAL, which instead gives a more comprehensive, yet general and thus spread across the various limits states (and earthquake intensity), view of the overall building performance under a range of seismic excitations.
1.4 Post-Earthquake Residual Capacity of Damaged Buildings
In New Zealand, the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 2010–2011 and, again few years later, the Kaikoura Earthquake 2016, similarly to the several earthquake events occurred in the past decades at international level, have highlighted the complexity and uncertainties associated with the delicate decision of repair versus demolition, due to the lack of: (a) evidence-based information/knowledge, (b) codified ad-hoc guidelines related to the (b1) evaluation of the residual capacity of a damaged building to sustain subsequent aftershocks and (b2) the selection and implementation of appropriate cost-effective repairing techniques to ‘restore’ the building to its pre-earthquake conditions (CERC 2012).
In the past years a significant research effort has been dedicated at both national and international level [US, Europe and Japan, FEMA 306 (1998), JBDPA (2015)] to gain a better understanding on the residual capacity of buildings following an earthquake event (Cuevas et al. 2014, 2015; Cuevase and Pampanin 2016, 2017; Loporcaro et al. 2014. 2017, 2018, 2019; Luco et al. 2004; Ludovico et al. 2013; Maeda 2008; Maeda and Eon-Kang 2009; Maeda et al. 2012, 2017; Mukai et al. 2017; Polese et al. 2012).
In New Zealand, the on-going findings and key outcomes of the first NZ-based project on Residual Capacity and Repairing Options [NHRP Funded, Contestable round 2012, (Pampanin et al. 2015)], have formed the basic knowledge platform of the activities of a special MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) committee/working group on the topic residual capacity (Cuevas et al. 2014, 2015; Cuevas and Pampanin 2016, 2017; Loporcaro et al. 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019), leading to the development of a draft framework for the evaluation of the residual capacity of buildings (Elwood et al. 2016).
Further developments have been obtained in the recent past, suggesting to merge the benefits of different methodologies into one general analytical-mechnical approach, based on an evolution of the SLaMa method, as described and proposed in the following sections.
1.4.1 Effects of Damage on Future Building Performance
Provided appropriate/reliable reduced capacity curves are derived, the aforementioned general SLaMA-based approach for the assessment of seismic safety as well as the estimation of losses can be implemented for either the as-built (un-damaged), the damaged and the repaired/retrofitted (with different solutions and targeted performance) configurations, providing valuable insights to support the decision making process for various stakeholders (e.g. alternative retrofit solutions, territorial scale approach, repair versus demolition, cost/benefit analysis).
184.108.40.206 General Procedure to Evaluate the Impairment of the Capacity Curves (FEMA306/307-Type)
“Understanding the effects of damage on future building performance” has been the declared first ‘objective’ of the ATC-43 project (which delivered the FEMA306 and 307 guidelines) building on a thorough review (yet dated 1998) of available analysis techniques, field observations, test data, and emerging evaluation and design methodologies, and complemented by further analytical/numerical work.
As noted in the FEMA 306 document “The quantitative evaluation of the effects of earthquake damage on structures requires the selection of a measurement parameter. Procedures in this document use change in the anticipated performance of the building during future earthquakes as the measurement parameter. This is the change due directly to effects of earthquake damage on the basic structural properties that control seismic performance. If the structural property changes are estimated, the corresponding change in future performance can also be estimated”.
The quantitative procedure proposed to assess and compare the relative performance of the building in its pre-damage, post-damage and repaired state relies upon non-linear static analysis techniques (i.e. capacity spectrum method), thus fully consistent with, and achievable with, the SLAMa Method.
component type (wall, pier, spandrel, coupling beam);
extent of damage (minor-moderate-severe) and
mode of damage/behaviour (ductile vs. brittle)
The effects of damage on the component backbone curve behaviour are taken into account by means of modification/reduction factors of stiffness (\(\lambda\)K), strength (\(\lambda\)Q), deformation capacity (\(\lambda\)D) and Residual Drift (RD), calibrated numerically and experimentally.
The values of these modification/reduction factors, for each component of the structural system, depend on the type of damage, according to the behaviour mode (ductile vs. brittle, flexure vs. shear prone) and the severity of damage (insignificant, slight, moderate, severe, extreme).
The FEMA 306 and 307 Guidelines provides a component Damage Classification Guide in the form of table/charts/schetces to assist the engineer with the classification of type (behaviour mode) and severity of the damage, and derive associated component modifications factors. Modifications factors are also presented to account for repair/restoration. The documents primarily focuses on reinforced concrete and masonry wall buildings, with some insights into infills and their interactions with the surrounding frames. Limited information is available in literature for other type of structural systems and components, such as beam-column joints, beam plastic hinges, column flexural, lap splice or shear failure, floor/diaphragm behavior. Yet, recent numerical/experimental investigation in the past years have started filling the gap: in (Ludovico et al. 2013; Polese et al. 2012) modification factors were proposed to evaluate the residual capacity of non-confirming RC columns typical of the Mediterranean region; furthermore, experimental and numerical investigations on cumulating damage, residual capacity and repairing options for plastic hinges in beam-column subassemblies and beam cantilever as well as on the effects on strain hardening and low-cycle fatigue in steel rebars on the overall plastic hinge behavior and repairability have been carried out in New Zealand (Cuevas et al. 2014, 2015; Cuevas and Pampanin 2016, 2017; Elwood et al. 2016; Loporcaro et al. 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019; Luco et al. 2004; Maeda 2008; Maeda and Eon-Kang 2009; Maeda et al. 2012, 2017; Mukai et al. 2017; Pampanin et al. 2015).
220.127.116.11 Proposed SLaMA-Based Procedure for Pre- and Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation and Loss Assessment of Buildings
Building on, a merging, the aforementioned recent development and approaches, and relying upon the current modifications factors and/or deriving specific ones (based on numerical/experimental evidences) as needed, a general and consolidated SLaMA-based method can be adopted, moving from component level to subassembly and structural system level, for the safety evaluation and loss assessment of buildings in either pre- or post-earthquake, in the as-built or retrofitted/repaired, configurations.
In general terms, depending on the assessed level of damage occurred in each component and subassembly (to be evaluated through a SLaMA force–displacement curve and ADRS spectrum), the capacity curves (momento-rotation, force–displacement) of each component can be updated with the appropriate corresponding modifications factors (in terms of stiffness, strength, deformation capacity and residual drfit/chord rotation) as provided by the most current and relevant literature. A second iteration of the SlaMA methology on the building, assuming this damage state configuration, would identify new critical structural weaknesses and possible new sequence of events, due to a modified internal hierarchy of strength, thus leading to local and global mechanism. ADRS curves would be selected to represent either the code design level, whereby a post-earthquake safety check is required, or selected levels of expected aftershocks or scenerio-based events. The effects of cumulating cycles can be implemented in the procedure by means of strength degradation curves, either depending on the number of cycles and/or level of ductility at a member level, as well as bond-deterioration or stress-decay curve at a material level.
In addition to safety check and residual capacity (to withstand further aftershocks or new events) considerations, various type of losses, as previously described, e.g. EAL, PFL, or PML or other KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) such as the loss of building operability (downtime), can be evaluated, providing very valuable support to the decision making process.
Such information, related to the potential value, or loss of value, of a building in the aftermath of minor-moderate earthquake events (or in the case of aftershocks following the main shock) could be of direct interest and practical use as part of the discussion between insurance/reinsurance companies and owners or other interested parties.
1.5 Concluding Remarks
This chapter has provided an overview of recent developments at international level in terms of methodology and regulatory approaches as well as “diagnosis” protocols and procedures for either pre- and post-damage of existing buildings.
Building on, and merging, these recent developments, an integrated methodology for the evaluation and assessment of either pre-earthquake as well as post-earthquake safety evaluation and loss assessment of buildings, based on a simplified analytical-mechanical approach, referrred to as SLaMA (Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis), has been presented, in order to support the engineering community as well as the various stakeholders through the various steps of the decision making process of risk assessment and reduction.
Worth reminding that, in addition to the opportunity and value of sharing the technical content of these recent developments, the key goal remains to stimulate awareness, discussion within, as well as outside (equally if not more important) the technical community, and foster synergetic political actions for a more proactive and comprehensive implementation of seismic risk reduction programs and international level.
- Building Act (2004) Department of building and housing-Te Tari Kaupapa Whare, ministry of economic development, New Zealand Government, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
- Beetham T (2013) Simplified displacement based performance assessment of retrofit alternatives for decision making. Master thesis, IUSS, University of Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Bianchi S, Ciurlanti, J, Pampanin S (2019) A SLaMA-based analytical procedure for the Cost/Performance-based evaluation of buildings. In: Compdyn Conference, Crete, GreeceGoogle Scholar
- Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act (2016) New Zealand Government, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
- CERC (2012) Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission, https://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz
- Cuevas RA, Pampanin S (2016) Assessing the seismic residual fatigue life of reinforced concrete frame buildings: a proposed framework. In: 16th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resiliency, Nara, JapanGoogle Scholar
- Cuevas A, Pampanin S (2017) Post-seismic capacity of damaged and repaired reinforced concrete plastic hinges extracted from a real building. In: 16th WCEE, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, January 9–13, 2017 paper 3142Google Scholar
- Cuevas A, Akguzel U, Pampanin S (2014) Preliminary numerical investigation on the seismic residual capacity of reinforced concrete plastic hinges. In: 2nd European Conference in Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul 25–29 AugGoogle Scholar
- Cuevas A, Pampanin S, Carr A, Ozbolt J (2015) Seismic residual capacity of reinforced concrete frames: Part I: General Framework. Research Report UC 2015–4, Part I, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
- Del Vecchio C, Gentile R, Pampanin S (2017) The simple lateral mechanism analysis (SLaMA) for the seismic performance assessment of a case study building damaged in the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake. University of Canterbury Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Research Report 2016–02, New Zealand, ISSN 1172–9511Google Scholar
- Del Vecchio C, Gentile R, Di Ludovico M, Uva G, Pampanin S (2018) Implementation and validation of the simple lateral mechanism analysis (SLaMA) for the seismic performance assessment of a damaged case study building. J Earthq Eng Doi/full/. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1483278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elwood KJ, Marder K, Pampanin S, Cuevas RA, Smith P, Cattanach A, Stannard M (2016) Draft framework for assessing residual capacity of earthquake-damaged concrete buildings. In: New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
- FEMA 306 (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings: Basic procedures manual. ATC, Redwood City, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
- Gentile R, Pampanin S, Raffaele D, Uva G (2019b) Non-linear analysis of RC masonry-infilled frames using the SLaMA method: Part 1—mechanical interpretation of the infill/frame interaction and formulation of the procedure. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00580-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giovinazzi S, Pampanin S (2017) Simplified approaches for the seismic risk rating of reinforced concrete buildings and the selection of retrofit strategies. In: XVII ANIDIS, Italian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Pistoia, 17–22 SeptGoogle Scholar
- ITA2017 (2017) Annex A to the D.M. n. 65 del 7–03–2017 “Linee Guida per la Classificazione del Rischio Sismico delle Costruzioni” (in Italian)Google Scholar
- JBDPA (2015) Guideline for Post-earthquake Damage Evaluation and Rehabilitation (in Japanese), Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association Google Scholar
- Ligabue V, Savoia M, Pampanin S (2015) Repairing/retrofitting vs. replacing? evaluating the cost-effectiveness of alternative options to support decision making, NZSEE Conference, RotoruaGoogle Scholar
- Loporcaro G, Pampanin S, Kral MV (2014) Investigating the relationship between hardness and plastic strain in reinforcing steel bars. In: NZSEE Conference, Auckland, 21–23 March, Paper No. P22Google Scholar
- Loporcaro G, Kral M, Pampanin S (2017) Case study: application of the hardness method to estimate the residual capacity of reinforcement in an earthquake damaged building. In: 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, January 9–13, 2017, paper n. 2075Google Scholar
- Loporcaro G, Pampanin S, Kral MV (2018) Estimating plastic strain and residual strain capacity of earthquake-damaged steel reinforcing bars. J Struct Eng 144(5). https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001982
- Loporcaro G, Pampanin S, Kral MV (2019) Long-term strain-ageing effects on low-carbon steel reinforcement. Const Build Mater 228. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.332
- Luco N, Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004) Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada. Paper no. 2405Google Scholar
- Maeda M (2008) Effect of seismic retrofit on seismic risk mitigation for reinforced concrete buildings. In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
- Maeda M, Nakano Y, Lee KS (2012) Post-earthquake damage evaluation for R/C buildings based on residual seismic capacity. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Maeda M, Nishida T, Matsukawa K, Murakami M (2017) Revision of guideline for postearthquake damage evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings in Japan. In: 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
- MBIE (2016)—Building (Earthquake prone Buildings) Amendment Act, 2016, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, NZ. Portal ‘Managing Earthquake Prone Buildings’, https://www.building.govt.nz/managing-buildings/managing-earthquake-prone-buildings/
- NZS1170.5 (2004) Structural design actions. Part 5: Earthquake actions—New Zealand, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZGoogle Scholar
- NZSEE (2006) Assessment and improvement of the seismic performance of existing buildings, New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, https://www.nzsee.org.nz/publications/assessment-and-improvement-of-the-structural-performance-of-buildings-in-earthquake/
- NZSEE (2017) The seismic assessment of existing buildings (the guidelines), New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, Version October 2016. https://www.eq-assess.org.nz/
- Pampanin S (2017) Towards the practical implementation of performance-based assessment and retrofit strategies for RC buildings: challenges and solutions. In: SMAR2017- Fourth conference on Smart Monitoring, Assessment and Rehabilitation of Structures, Keynote Lecture, 13-15 Sept, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Pampanin S, Bolognini, Pavese D (2007) Performance-based seismic retrofit strategy for existing reinforced concrete frame systems using FRP composites. ASCE J Comp Const, Special Issue on “Recent International Advances in FRP Research and Application in Construction 11(2):211–226. ISSN 1090–0268/2007/2–211–226Google Scholar
- Pampanin S, Cuevas A, Kral M, Loporcaro G, Scott A, Malek A (2015) Residual capacity and repairing options for reinforced concrete buildings, Research Report Prepared for the Natural Hazard Research Platform, Contract 2012-UOC-02-NHRPGoogle Scholar
- Polese M, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G (2012) Residual capacity of earthquake damaged buildings. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.