Risk Assessment of Retrofitted Steel Structures Based on FEMA P-58: a Case Study-School Buildings in Kermanshah

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Graduated M.Sc. in Earthquake Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Natural Disasters Prevention Research Center, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor, Natural Disasters Prevention Research Center, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Structural Hybrid Simulation Research Lab, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.

5 Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

Abstract

Earthquake, as a common natural disaster, has always been a serious threat to human beings, cities, and infrastructures. Schools are regarded as the representative of educational centers, where students spend a lot of time. Therefore, the seismic performance of such buildings should be guaranteed completely. In this study, in collaboration with the organization for Development, Renovation, and Equipment of Schools (DRES) in Iran a steel school building in Kermanshah city was chosen and its seismic risk was assessed incorporating FEMA P-58 methodology in two states of before and after retrofitting process. The Lateral resisting system of the school in one direction is Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF), and in the other direction is Concentrically Braced Frame (CBF). Due to weakness in the lateral resisting system, it was suggested that some of the braces should be replaced with stronger ones. In this study, the probability distribution of repairing time and repairing cost for different structural and non-structural components in 3 hazard levels containing 50%, 10%, and 2% in 50 years was obtained using risk analysis. The results show that in all 3 hazard levels, an increase in stiffness after retrofitting has led to a decline in loss of drift sensitive components and a rise in acceleration sensitive components. Due to the dominance of the number of drift-sensitive components in this case study, the total damages and repairing time after retrofitting have negligibly decreased.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Hayward, B. M. (2013). Rethinking resilience: reflections on the earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, 2010 and 2011. Ecology and Society, 18(4).
  2. Mimura, N., Yasuhara, K., Kawagoe, S., Yokoki, H., & Kazama, S. (2011). Damage from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami-a quick report. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 16, 803-818.
  3. Nadim, F., Moghtaderi-Zadeh, M., Lindholm, C., Andresen, A., Remseth, S., Bolourchi, M. J., ... & Tvedt, E. (2004). The Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2, 119-153.
  4. Eghbali, M., Samadian, D., Ghafory-Ashtiany, M., & Dehkordi, M. R. (2020). Recovery and reconstruction of schools after M 7.3 Ezgeleh-Sarpole-Zahab earthquake; part II: Recovery process and resiliency calculation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 139, 106327.
  5. Samadian, D., Eghbali, M., Dehkordi, M. R., & 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 Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 139, 106305.
  6. Baker, J. W., & Cornell, C. A. (2008). Uncertainty propagation in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Structural Safety, 30(3), 236-252.7.
  7. Yang, T., et al., Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: Methodology and implementation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2009. 135(10): p. 1146-1154.
  8. Filiatrault, A., & Sullivan, T. (2014). Performance-based seismic design of nonstructural building components: The next frontier of earthquake engineering. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 13, 17-46.9.
  9. Zeng, X., et al., Application of the FEMA-P58 methodology for regional earthquake loss prediction. Natural Hazards, 2016. 83(1): p. 177-192.
  10. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2012). Seismic performance assessment of buildings.
  11. FEMA, P. (2012). 58-2, Seismic performance assessment of buildings volume 2: Implementation guide. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  12. Joyner, M. D., & Sasani, M. (2020). Building performance for earthquake resilience. Engineering Structures, 210, 110371.
  13. Yazdanpanah, O., Dolatshahi, K. M., & Moammer, O. (2021). Earthquake-induced economic loss estimation of eccentrically braced frames through roof acceleration-based nonmodel approach. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 187, 106888.
  14. Kor, E., & Ozcelik, Y. (2022, June). Seismic performance assessment of concentrically braced steel frames designed to the Turkish Building Earthquake Code 2018. In Structures (Vol. 40, pp. 759-770). Elsevier.
  15. 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. Engineering Structures, 189, 129-146.
  16. Yekrangnia, M., Bakhshi, A., Ghannad, M. A., & Panahi, M. (2021). Risk assessment of confined unreinforced masonry buildings based on FEMA P-58 methodology: a case study—school buildings in Tehran. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19, 1079-1120.
  17. Office of Technical Affairs, Standards Development, and Earthquake Risk Reduction, List of Services for Seismic Rehabilitation Studies of Existing Buildings, Publication No. 251, 1st Edition, Deputy of Planning and Strategic Supervision, 2007. (in Persian)
  18. VPSPS (Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision). Instruction for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. No.360. First revision. Tehran, Iran: Office of Deputy for Supervision, Department of Technical Affairs; 2014.
  19. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard No. 2800, Fourth Revision, B. a. H. R. (in Persian)
  20. Center, Tehran,Iran, 2015. (In Persian)McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L., & Scott, M. H. (2008). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation: version2. 1.0. URL http://opensees. berkeley. edu.
  21. Road, Housing and Urban Developenment Research Center (BHRC), (2013). National Building Code: No. 10: Design and construction of steel buildings. Tehran, Iran.
  22. Filippou, F. C., Popov, E. P., & Bertero, V. V. (1983). Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints.
  23. Hsiao, P. C., Lehman, D. E., & Roeder, C. W. (2012). Improved analytical model for special concentrically braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 73, 80-94.
  24. Razavian Amrei, S.A., Ghodrati Amiri, G. and Mavaei, M. (2014), "Providing Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) on Bedrock and Uniform Seismic Hazard Spectra for Different Regions of Kermanshah City", Geodynamics Research International Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 02, pp. 1-9.
  25. Council, A.T. and U.S.F.E.M. Agency, Quantification of building seismic performance factors. 2009: US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
  26. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 31(3), 491-514.
  27. Mr, H. M. (2003). Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: Earthquake model. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Washington, DC, 235-260.
  28. Means, R. S. (2017). RS Means online data. Retrieved November, 13, 2017.
Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 57, Issue 7
October 2025
Pages 1265-1288

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics