Seismic performance assessment of “hybrid” structures using two-level multy group GIS oriented approach: case studies

  • Roberta Apostolska
  • Golubka Necevska-Cvetanovska
  • Veronika Shendova
  • Julijana Bojadjieva
Case Study Report
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, a two-level multi-group approach to seismic performance assessment of existing building stock is presented and discussed. The first level of assessment is a simple visual screening based on the principles originally developed in FEMA (Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook—FEMA 154 and 155, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, 2002). The second level of assessment is based on an integrated approach (field survey, geotechnical investigations, experimental testing and analytical investigations) with incorporated procedures of different levels of complexity. The acceptance criteria for assessment are founded on demand versus capacity relationships, defined at element and story level. The developed approach was applied in performance assessment of the existing buildings in Karposh, which is one of the largest and oldest municipalities in Skopje, the capital of the Republic of Macedonia. Rapid visual screening (level_1 activity) was performed for 161 existing buildings. For two selected buildings, level_2 assessment was carried out. The results from the assessment were uploaded into the existing geo-referenced building inventory database on the Karposh municipality that represents a practical tool for the decision makers in enforcing decisions on design and construction of seismically resilient building environment.

Keywords

Seismic performance assessment Existing buildings “Hybrid” structures Rapid visual screening Two-level multi-group approach Demand Capacity Ductility Relative displacements GIS-oriented 

References

  1. Ansal A, Kurtuluş A, Tönük G (2010) Seismic microzonation and earthquake damage scenarios for urban areas. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(11):1319–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apostolska R, Necevska-Cvetanovska G (2012) Assessment of seismic stability and safety of enlargement and additionally built Attic on residential structure at Rugjer Boshkovikj str. No.7, Karposh Municipality, Skopje (in Macedonian), IZIIS Report no. 2012-48Google Scholar
  3. Apostolska R, Shendova V, Bozinovski Z (2010) Evaluation of global stability and seismic resistance of the existing structural system of the building embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherland in Skopje. IZIIS Report 2010-46Google Scholar
  4. Aydinogly MN (2005) A code approach for deformation-based seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. In: Proceedings of the international workshop SPEAR (Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings)—an event to honour the memory of Prof. Jean Donea, Ispra, 4–5 April 2005 Proceedings Editors: Michael Fardis, University of Patras Paolo Negro, Joint Research Centre 2005 EUR 21768 ENGoogle Scholar
  5. Bal I, Tezcan S, Gulay G (2006) Advanced application of the P25 scoring method for the rapid assessment of RC buildings. In: Proceedings of the First European Conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (a joint event of the 13th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and 30th General Assembly of the ESC), Geneva, Switzerland, 3–8 September 2006.CEN. (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Bozinovski Z, Shendova V, Stojanoski B, Necevska Cvetanovska G, Apostolska R, Gjorgjievska E, Jekic G (2012) Seismic strengthening of the parliament building of Republic of Macedonia: necessity, solution and construction In: Proceedings of the fifteen world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisboa, 24–28 September 2012, (ID2937)Google Scholar
  7. Dom-Disajn DOO Skopje (2011) Final executive design project for enlargement of additional two stories of residential building Partizanski odredi 48a, Skopje. Technical number 15/2011)Google Scholar
  8. EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general Rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (2004). European Committee of Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Fajfar P, Gaspersic P (1996) The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25:23–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FEMA (2002) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook—FEMA 154 and 155, 2nd edn. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  11. Gavrilovic P, Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Gjorgjievska E (1997) Repair, strengthening and analysis of the court building in Skopje. IZIIS Report 1997Google Scholar
  12. IZIIS, RZZSK, GCI, Joint Research Project. Seismic strengthening, conservation and restoration of churches dating from the Byzantine period (9th–14th century) in Macedonia. First phase of investigations vol. 1–6, Reports: ISIIS 500-76-91/(1–6); Second phase of investigations vol. 7–10, Reports: ISIIS 92-71/(710); Third phase of investigations vol. 11 and 12, Reports: ISIIS 94-68/(1, 2), 500-76-91/(1–6), 1991–1994Google Scholar
  13. Jain S, Mitra K, Kumar M, Shah M (2010) A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India. Earthq Spectra 26(3):709–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. JBDPA (2001) Standard for seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings. The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  15. Jurukovski D, Gavrilovic P, Cvetanovska G, Gjorgjievska E (1997) Earthquake resistant design of the treasure building structure of the National Bank of Kazakstan, Alma Ata. In: Proceedings of the IV national conference on earthquake engineering, Ankara, Turkey, 17–19 September, pp 439–445Google Scholar
  16. Jurukovski D, Gavrilovic P, Necevska Cvetanovska G, Sendova V, Apostolska R, Stojanovski B, Gjorgjievska E (2000) Structural design of Recupero Stabilimento Calce Cementi in Localita POZANO, Castalammare di Stabia—NA—ITALY. IZIIS Reports 2000-60 to 2000-69Google Scholar
  17. Kappos A, Penelis GG (2010) Earthquake resistant concrete structures. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  18. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krstevska L, Tashkov LJ (2012) Experimental non-destructive tests for definition of actual dynamic characteristics of the structure of the Residential Building at Blvd. Partizanski odredi 48a by Application of the Ambient Vibration Method, IZIIS Report. 2012-49/2 (in Macedonian)Google Scholar
  20. Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Apostolska R (2008) Consolidation, rebuilding and strengthening of the Clement’s church, St. Panteleymon-Plaoshnik-Ohrid. Eng Struct J 30(8):2185–2193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Necevska-Cvetanovska, Apostolska R (2012) Methodology for seismic assessment and retrofitting of RC building structures. In: Proceedings of fifteen world conference on earthquake engineering Lisboa, 24–28 September 2012, (Paper ID 2149)Google Scholar
  22. Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Cvetanovska J (2010) Displacement-based seismic design and assessment of R/C building structures. In: Proceedings of the 14 European conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid, 2010Google Scholar
  23. Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Petrusevska R (2000) Methodology for seismic design of R/C building structures In: Proceedings of the 12 world conference on earthquake engineering, New Zealand, February 2000Google Scholar
  24. Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Bozinovski Z, Apostolska R, Shendova V (2008) Static, seismic and seismic analysis of the newly design state of the structure, Public Health Institution “State Hospital” in Kicevo. IZIIS Report 2008-73Google Scholar
  25. Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Apostolska R, Shendova V, Cvetanovska J (2012) Methodology for geo-referenced inventory and following of the state of the existing building structures in the territory of the Karposh Municipality, Skopje (in Macedonian), IZIIS Report no. 2012-56Google Scholar
  26. Necevska-Cvetanovska G et al. (2013) Upgrading of information system with new attributes for inventorying and monitoring of seismic stability and safety of existing structures in Karposh Municipality—GIS environment, volume 1, visual inspection and opinion about existing state of structures in Karposh municipality and inventorying in the defined form, IZIIS Report no. 2013-47Google Scholar
  27. Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Apostolska R, Shendova V, Vitanova M, Cvetanovska J (2014) Geo-referenced inventory toward seismic safety of existing building—case study Karposh Municipality Skopje In: Proceedings on the Second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, 25–29 August 2014Google Scholar
  28. Ozcebe G, Sucuoglu H, Yucemen S, Yakut A, Kubin J (2003) Seismic risk assessment of existing building stock in Instanbul—a pilot application in Zeytinburnu District, 2003Google Scholar
  29. Ozdemir P, Boduroglu MH, Ilki A (2005) Seismic safety screening method. SPEAR (Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings). In: Proceedings of the international workshop SPEAR (Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings)—an event to honour the memory of Prof. Jean Donea, Ispra, 4-5 April 2005 Proceedings Editors: Michael Fardis, University of Patras Paolo Negro, Joint Research Centre 2005 EUR 21768 ENGoogle Scholar
  30. Park R, Pauly T (1975) Reinforced concrete structures. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Park YJ, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK (1987) IDARC: inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete frame-shear-wall structures. Technical Report NCEER-87-0008, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinto PE, Franchin P (2015) Existing buildings: the New Italian provisions for probabilistic seismic assessment, perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology. In: Ansal A (ed) Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 34. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  33. PIOVSP (1981) Code of technical regulations for the design and construction of buildings in seismic regions. No. 31 (25.2.1981), Official Gazette of (former) SFRYGoogle Scholar
  34. PSOROV (1985) Code of technical regulations for rehabilitation, strengthening and reconstruction of buildings damaged by earthquakes and for reconstruction and revitalization of buildings. No. 52 (4.10.1985), Official Gazette of (former) SFRYGoogle Scholar
  35. SAP2000 Integrated software for structural analysis and design, https://www.csiamerica.com/products/sap2000
  36. Sesov V et al. (2012) Definition of actual seismic parameters by special experimental investigations on the site of the residential building at Blvd. Partizanski odredi 48a, IZIIS Report 2012-49/1 (in Macedonian)Google Scholar
  37. Shendova V, Gavrilovic P, Stojanoski B (2008) Integrated approach to repair and seismic strengthening of Mustafa Pasha Mosque in Skopje In: Seismic engineering international conference, MERCEA09, Reggio di Calabria, 2008Google Scholar
  38. Shendova V, Cvetanovska GN, Bozinovski Z, Jekic G, Gjorgjievska E, Stojanoski B, Zlateski A, Vitanova M (2012) Analytical Verification of the Seismic Stability and Safety of the Residential Building at Blvd. Partizanski odredi 48a, IZIIS Report. 2012-49/3, (in Macedonian)Google Scholar
  39. Shendova V, Rakicevik Z, Garevski M, Apostolska R, Bozinovski Z (2014) Implementation of Experimentally Developed Methodology for Seismic Strengthening and Repair of Historic Monuments. In: Ilki A, Fardis MN (eds.) Seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of structures, geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering 26,  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00458-7_8,© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
  40. Simeonov B, Kladek I, Cvetanovska NG, Trajkovski V (1985) Investigation of the effects of the Mechoacan earthquake of September 19, 1985 and analysis for determination of the existing and improved seismic resistance of the buildings in the urban area of Monoalco—Tlatelolco, Mexico, Vol. VI: Static and dynamic response analysis of existing and improved structural system of Type “C”, Buildings, Report IZIIS 85-121-3Google Scholar
  41. Sinkovic K, Perus I, Fajfar P (2016) Assessment of the seismic performance of low-rise RC structures by procedures with different levels of complexity. Bull Earthq Eng 14(1):213–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sucuoglu H, Yazgan U, Yakut A (2007) A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building stock. Earthq Spectra 23:441–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tomazevic M (1999) Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings, vol I. Imperial College Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UNDP/UNIDO Project (1984) Building construction under seismic conditions in the Balkan Region: design and construction of stone and brick-masonry buildings, Project ref. 79/015, vol. 3, 1984Google Scholar
  45. Velkov M, Necevska-Cvetanovska G et al. (1991) Static and seismic analysis of the existing state of the structure “RC building Tower 5”, Kozle settlement, Skopje. IZIIS Report 85-91/IGoogle Scholar
  46. Velkov M, Necevska-Cvetanovska G et al. (1991) Repair and strengthening and analysis of the strengthened structure RC building Tower 5, Kozle settlement, Skopje. IZIIS Report 85-91/II and IIIGoogle Scholar
  47. Velkov M, Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Gjorgjievska E, Stojanovski B (1982) Repair and strengthening of the selected buildings in the old town of Budva. IZIIS Report 82-7Google Scholar
  48. Yakut A, Erberik A, Ilki A, Sucuoglu H, Akkar S (2014) Rapid seismic assessment procedures for the Turkish building stock. seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of structures. In: Ilki and Fardis (Eds). Vol. 26 Volume 26 of the series Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering pp 15–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberta Apostolska
    • 1
  • Golubka Necevska-Cvetanovska
    • 1
  • Veronika Shendova
    • 1
  • Julijana Bojadjieva
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, IZIISSs Cyril and Methodius UniversitySkopjeRepublic of Macedonia

Personalised recommendations