پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 22 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 705 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,149 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 71,477,084 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 63,194,590 |
Sensitivity Analysis of Engineering Demand Parameters: Empirical and Analytical Approaches to Structural Loss Estimation | ||
| Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering | ||
| مقاله 26، دوره 13، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 40، بهمن 2025، صفحه 25-46 اصل مقاله (1.65 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Regular Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22075/jrce.2025.35649.2193 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Roi Milyardi* 1؛ Krishna Suryanto Pribadi2؛ Muhamad Abduh2؛ Irwan Meilano3؛ Erwin Lim4؛ Reini Wirahadikusumah2؛ Patria Kusumaningrum4؛ Eliza Rosmaya Puri5 | ||
| 1Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia | ||
| 2Professor, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia | ||
| 3Professor, Faculty of Earth Science and Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia | ||
| 4Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia | ||
| 5Instructor, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 03 آبان 1403، تاریخ بازنگری: 17 آذر 1403، تاریخ پذیرش: 25 دی 1403 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Variations in the engineering demand parameter (EDP) of a region significantly affect the fragility curve, which is believed to impact the estimation of earthquake losses; hence, there is a need to adjust for different regional characteristics. In earthquake-prone regions that already have empirical EDP databases, fragility curve development generally uses this information. Regions without EDP databases require additional effort to start their development or adopt existing methods as a short-term solution. Some studies show that direct adoption is oblivious to the consequences of the resulting estimation deviations. This study investigates the effect of EDP variations derived from an analytical method—incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)—and two empirical methods—HAZUS and RISK-EU—on seismic loss estimation in typical school buildings in Bandung City, Indonesia. Three school buildings are used as case studies, with existing structural data collected through non-destructive testing on each building used for the analytical method. The observed earthquake losses are estimated in a single hazard scenario at eight return periods and in the form of annualized earthquake losses (AEL). The results of this study illustrate that the EDP variation has a significant impact on loss estimation based on the relative difference determined with the analytical method. The sensitivity analysis results indicate that the HAZUS method has a relative deviation of 2.61%–74.62% in the single hazard scenario and 19.66%–71.90% in the AEL, and the RISK-EU method shows a relative deviation of 3.48%–672.03% in the single hazard scenario and 53.44%–222.82% in the AEL. Simultaneously, the absolute deviation in the single hazard scenario shows that the HAZUS method has a deviation of <12%BRC (building replacement cost) and the RISK-EU method <15%BRC. The absolute deviation value can be utilized as a reference when considering directly adopting empirical methods in developing countries that do not have an EDP database. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Structural loss estimation؛ Fragility curve؛ HAZUS؛ School building؛ Annualized earthquake losses | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1] Navas-Sánchez L, Jiménez-Martínez M, González-Rodrigo B, Hernández-Rubio O, Dávila-Migoya LD, Orta-Rial B, et al. A methodology to assess and select seismic fragility curves: Application to the case of Costa Rica. Earthq Spectra 2023;39:1380–409.
[2] Adibi M, Talebkhah R. Seismic Reliability of the Non-Code-Conforming RC Building Due to Vertical Mass Irregularity Effect. J Rehabil Civ Eng 2022;10:14–32. https://doi.org/10.22075/JRCE.2021.23630.1516.
[3] Irfan Z, Abdullah, Afifuddin M. Development of fragility curve based on incremental dynamic analysis curve using ground motion Aceh earthquake. E3S Web Conf 2022.
[4] Bose S, Stavridis A, Anastasopoulos P, Sett K. Fragility Curves For A School Building In Nepal Accounting For Uncertainties In Material Parameters. 18th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., 2024, p. 1–12.
[5] Seki M, Nakajima Y, Matsuo J, Marukawa R. Application Of Simplified Seismic Evaluation Methods For Existing RC Buildings in Myanmar. 18th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., 2024, p. 1–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01083-3.
[6] Milyardi R, Pribadi KS, Meilano I, Lim E. Identifying the potential development of HAZUS model as an earthquake disaster loss model for school buildings in Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 2023;1244. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012022.
[7] FEMA-NIBS. HAZUS Earthquake Model Technical Manual. Fed Emerg Manag Agency 2020.
[8] Crowley H, Despotaki V, Silva V, Dabbeek J, Romão X, Pereira N, et al. Model of seismic design lateral force levels for the existing reinforced concrete European building stock. Bull Earthq Eng 2021;19:2839–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01083-3.
[9] Solanki VR, Jadhav P, Prashant A. Uncertainties of shear forces and bending moments in retaining wall due to earthquake loading. Adv. Comput. Methods Geomech. IACMAG Symp. 2019 Vol. 1, Springer; 2020, p. 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0886-8_4.
[10] Ansari A, Seshagiri Rao K, Jain AK. Seismic Microzonation of the Himalayan Region Considering Site Characterization: Application toward Seismic Risk Assessment for Sustainable Tunneling Projects. Nat Hazards Rev 2024;25. https://doi.org/10.1061/nhrefo.nheng-1815.
[11] Thadagani KS, Ansari A, Seshagiri Rao K, Shekhar S. Investigating the response of Urban Underground Utilities (3U) within an elastic and elastoplastic geological formation: Employing numerical and analytical techniques. Model Earth Syst Environ 2024;10:4921–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-024-02042-y.
[12] Hancilar U, Sesetyan K, Cakti E. Comparative earthquake loss estimations for high-code buildings in Istanbul. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2020;129:105956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105956.
[13] Lee J-H, Ansari A, An H, Jeong J-Y. Seismic loss and resilience modeling of bridges in soft soils: towards the design of sustainable transportation infrastructure facilities. Sustain Resilient Infrastruct 2024;9:473–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2024.2328979.
[14] Ansari A, Rao KS, Jain AK. An integrated approach to model seismic loss for the Himalayan infrastructure projects: Decision-making and functionality concept for disaster mitigation. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2023;82:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-023-03422-x.
[15] BPS. Total Population by Regency/City in West Java, 2018-2020 2020. https://jabar.bps.go.id/indicator/12/133/1/jumlah-penduduk-menurut-kabupaten-kota.html (accessed September 14, 2022).
[16] Sari AM, Fakhrurrozi A, Syahbana AJ, Sarah D, Setiadi B, Daryono MR, et al. Seismic hazard on West Bandung district using non-linear earthquake response analysis. E3S Web Conf 2021;331:07003. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202133107003.
[17] Handayani AP, Prasetyaningrum AA, Klicek T, Aswin R. Building Resilience through Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Lembang and Greater Bandung Area 2023. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2023.61103.
[18] Daryono MR, Natawidjaja DH, Sapiie B, Cummins P. Earthquake Geology of the Lembang Fault, West Java, Indonesia. Tectonophysics 2019;751:180–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.12.014.
[19] BNPB. Data Informasi Bencana Indonesia 2022. https://dibi.bnpb.go.id/xdibi (accessed May 24, 2022).
[20] BPS. Indonesia’s Education Statistics 2020. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik; 2020.
[21] Milyardi R, Desiani A, Wong H, Setiawan D, Husada G. Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of School Buildings: A case study in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Disaster Adv 2023;16:49–59. https://doi.org/10.25303/1609da049059.
[22] Nugroho WO, Sagara A, Imran I. The evolution of Indonesian seismic and concrete building codes: From the past to the present. Structures 2022;41:1092–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.032.
[23] Muntafi Y, Nojima N, Jamal AU. Damage Probability Assessment of Hospital Buildings in Yogyakarta, Indonesia as Essential Facility due to an Earthquake Scenario. J Civ Eng Forum 2020;6:225. https://doi.org/10.22146/jcef.53387.
[24] Aulady MFN, Fujimi T. Earthquake loss estimation of residential buildings in bantul regency, Indonesia. Jamba J Disaster Risk Stud 2019;11:1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v11i1.756.
[25] Alam MS, Haque SM. Multi-dimensional earthquake vulnerability assessment of residential neighborhoods of Mymensingh City, Bangladesh: A spatial multi-criteria analysis based approach. J Urban Manag 2022;11:37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2021.09.001.
[26] Jamal-ud-din, Ainuddin S, Murtaza G, Faiz S, Muhammad AS, Raheem A, et al. Earthquake vulnerability assessment through spatial multi-criteria analysis: a case study of Quetta city, Pakistan. Environ Earth Sci 2023;82:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-023-10967-3.
[27] Saretta Y, Sbrogio L, Valluzzi MR. Seismic response of masonry buildings in historical centres struck by the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Calibration of a vulnerability model for strengthened conditions. Constr Build Mater 2021;299:123911. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123911.
[28] Freddi F, Galasso C, Cremen G, Dall’Asta A, Di Sarno L, Giaralis A, et al. Innovations in earthquake risk reduction for resilience: Recent advances and challenges. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2021;60:102267. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102267.
[29] Gandage S, Goel MD. Seismic Fragility Assessment of RC Building Using HAZUS Methodology and Incremental Dynamic Analysis. ASPS Conf Proc 2022;1:731–8. https://doi.org/10.38208/acp.v1.575.
[30] Felsenstein D, Elbaum E, Levi T, Calvo R. Post-processing HAZUS earthquake damage and loss assessments for individual buildings. Nat Hazards 2021;105:21–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04293-1.
[31] Aroquipa H, Hurtado AI. Incremental seismic retrofitting for essential facilities using performance objectives: A case study of the 780-PRE school buildings in Peru. J Build Eng 2022;62:105387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105387.
[32] Milutinovic Z V., Trendafiloski GS. WP4 Vulnerability of Current Buildings. 2003.
[33] Cardona OD, Ordaz MG, Yamin LE, Marulanda MC, Barbat AH. Earthquake loss assessment for integrated disaster risk management. J Earthq Eng 2008;12:48–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460802013495.
[34] Vamvatsikos D, Allin Cornell C. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.
[35] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Application of Incremental Dynamic Analysis to an RC- Structure 1966:1–12.
[36] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. The Incremental Dynamic Analysis and Its Application To Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering. 12th Eur. Conf. Earthq. Eng., 2002, p. 10.
[37] Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Naderpour H, Eghbali M. Seismic resilience evaluation based on vulnerability curves for existing and retrofitted typical RC school buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2019;127:105844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105844.
[38] K.L. Su R. Typical Collapse Modes of Confined Masonry Buildings under Strong Earthquake Loads. Open Constr Build Technol J 2011;5:50–60. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801105010050.
[39] Su RKL, Lee CL. Development of seismic fragility curves for low-rise masonry infilled reinforced concrete buildings by a coefficient-based method. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2013;12:319–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0174-0.
[40] PUSGEN. Indonesia Earthquake source and hazard map 2017. Bandung: Ministry of Public Works and Housing of Indonesia; 2017.
[41] CEN. Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 2: Bridges. 2005.
[42] Idris Y, Cummins P, Rusydy I, Muksin U, Syamsidik, Habibie MY, et al. Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment after the 6.5 Mw Earthquake on December, 7th 2016 in Pidie Jaya, Indonesia. J Earthq Eng 2022;26:409–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1689868.
[43] Gentile R, Galasso C, Idris Y, Rusydy I, Meilianda E. From rapid visual survey to multi-hazard risk prioritisation and numerical fragility of school buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2019;19:1365–86. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-1365-2019.
[44] USGS, arcgis. Vs30 Map Viewer 2023. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8ac19bc334f747e486550f32837578e1 (accessed September 15, 2022).
[45] BSN. SNI 1726-2019 - Procedures for Planning Earthquake Resistance for Building and Non-Building Structures. Jakarta: Badan Standardisasi Nasional; 2019.
[46] BSN. Test method for wave propagation speed through concrete (SNI ASTM C597:2012). 2012.
[47] BSN. Hard concrete reflective number test method ( ASTM C 805-02 , IDT )-SNI ASTM C597 : 2012. Jakarta: Badan Standarisasi Nasional; 2012.
[48] Computers and Structures Inc. ETABS Training manuals 2023. https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/doc/ETABS+Training+manuals (accessed November 26, 2023).
[49] ASCE/SEI. Asce/SEI 41-17. 2017.
[50] PEER. PEER Ground Motion Database 2023. https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/ (accessed November 26, 2023).
[51] Supendi P, Winder T, Rawlinson N, Bacon CA, Palgunadi KH, Simanjuntak A, et al. A conjugate fault revealed by the destructive Mw 5.6 (November 21, 2022) Cianjur earthquake, West Java, Indonesia. J Asian Earth Sci 2023;257:105830. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2023.105830.
[52] Gunawan E, Widiyantoro S, Marliyani GI, Sunarti E, Ida R, Gusman AR. Fault source of the 2 September 2009 Mw 6.8 Tasikmalaya intraslab earthquake, Indonesia: Analysis from GPS data inversion, tsunami height simulation, and stress transfer. Phys Earth Planet Inter 2019;291:54–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2019.04.004.
[53] Muntafi Y. Development of Pushover Analysis on HAZUS Method to Determine Building Damage Probability as an Earthquake Mitigation Efforts 2016.
[54] Lang DH, Singh Y, Prasad JSR. Comparing empirical and analytical estimates of earthquake loss assessment studies for the city of Dehradun, India. Earthq Spectra 2012;28:595–619. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000004.
[55] Baker JW. Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground motion scaling. Pacific Conf Earthq Eng 2007:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
[56] Bermúdez CA, Barbat AH, Pujades L. Seismic vulnerability and fragility of steel buildings. World Conf Earthq Eng 2008:1–8.
[57] Uma SR, Ryu H, Luco N, Liel AB, Raghunandan M. Comparison of main-shock and aftershock fragility curves developed for New Zealand and US buildings. 9th Pacific Conf Earthq Eng 2011:1–9.
[58] Mansouri I, Hu JW, Shakeri K, Shahbazi S, Nouri B. Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of Steel and RC Moment Buildings Using HAZUS and Statistical Methodologies. Discret Dyn Nat Soc 2017;2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2698932.
[59] Andrade RB, Pereira EMV, Cavalcante GHF, Vieira LCM, Siqueira GH. Seismic fragility assessment for a RC building in seismically stable Brazil: A sensitivity analysis. J Build Eng 2022;60:105184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105184.
[60] Remo JWF, Pinter N. Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA. Nat Hazards 2012;63:1055–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0206-5.
[61] Bendito A, Rozelle J, Bausch D. Assessing Potential Earthquake Loss in Mérida State, Venezuela Using Hazus. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2014;5:176–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-014-0027-0.
[62] Levi T, Bausch D, Katz O, Rozelle J, Salamon A. Insights from Hazus loss estimations in Israel for Dead Sea Transform earthquakes. Nat Hazards 2015;75:365–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1325-y.
[63] Ploeger SK, Atkinson GM, Samson C. Applying the HAZUS-MH software tool to assess seismic risk in downtown Ottawa, Canada. Nat Hazards 2010;53:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9408-x.
[64] Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N. Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: Application to Barcelona. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28:851–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.006.
[65] Lantada N, Pujades LG, Barbat AH. Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation. A comparison. Nat Hazards 2009;51:501–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9212-4.
[66] Gulati B. Earthquake Risk Assessment of Buildings: Applicability of HAZUS in Dehradun, India 2006:112. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 793 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 413 |
||