Advertisement

Life-cycle sustainability design of RC frames under the seismic loads

  • Arezoo Nouri
  • Payam AsadiEmail author
  • Masoud Taheriyoun
Original Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Seismic design codes have minimal criteria and serviceability limits for the strength of structures against a selected earthquake hazard level, neglecting the structural performance during the lifetime. Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) includes all the expected damage costs in the lifetime of buildings in terms of all-natural hazards such as the earthquake. In addition, to create an environment-friendly structure, environmental impacts of the entire life-cycle period should be identified and evaluated. Therefore, a novel approach for the sustainable design of reinforced concrete (RC) frames is defined in terms of the life-cycle cost components and societal effects associated with environmental impacts. Expected damage costs included the structural, non-structural, and social damage costs. Environmental impacts have been estimated based on the material consumption during the lifetime due to initial production and operation periods due to repair, and then these impacts were scored. Given the nonlinear behavior of the structure under earthquake excitation, simple response functions have been generated to reduce the analysis time. In this way, the number of nonlinear dynamic analyses which is time-consuming was reduced considerably. The proposed method was used for a RC frame to achieve optimally designed structures by introducing three objective functions. The results indicated that using the proposed methodology, sustainable RC frames were obtained with low computational costs.

Keywords

Sustainable design Life-cycle cost analysis RC frames Environment effects Response functions Optimum seismic design 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ACI318-14. (2014). Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute (ACI).  https://doi.org/10.14359/51706926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahadi, M., & Razi-Ardakani, H. (2015). Estimating the cost of road traffic accidents in Iran using human capital method. International Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2(3), 163–178.  https://doi.org/10.22119/IJTE.2015.9601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AlHamaydeh, M., Aly, N., & Galal, K. (2017). Seismic response and life-cycle cost of reinforced concrete special structural wall buildings in Dubai, UAE. Structural Concrete, 19(3), 771–782.  https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ancheta, T. D., Darragh, R. B., Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., Silva, W. J., Chiou, B. S., et al. (2013). Peer NGA-West2 database.Google Scholar
  5. ASCE 41. (2017). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  6. ASCE/SEI7-16. (2016). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
  7. ATC-13. (1985). Applied ATC-13: Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council (ATC).Google Scholar
  8. Balasbaneh, A. T., Marsono, A. K. B., & Khaleghi, S. J. (2018). Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single-story residential building: Environmental, economic and social assessment. Journal of Building Engineering, 20, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bare, J. (2011). TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 13(5), 687–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Basbagill, J., Flager, F., Lepech, M., & Fischer, M. (2013). Application of life-cycle assessment to early stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts. Building and Environment, 60, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiu, C. K., Noguchi, T., & Kanematsu, M. (2010). Effects of maintenance strategies on the life-cycle performance and cost of a deteriorating RC building with high-seismic hazard. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 8(2), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chou, J. S., & Yeh, K. C. (2015). Life cycle carbon dioxide emissions simulation and environmental cost analysis for building construction. Journal of Cleaner production, 101, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fava, J., Consoli, F., Denison, R., Dickson, K., Mohin, T., & Vigon, B. (1993). A conceptual framework for life cycle impact assessment, workshop report society of environmental toxicology and chemistry (SETAC). Pensacola: Foundation for Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  14. FEMA-227. (1992). A benefit-cost model for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council.Google Scholar
  15. Foraboschi, P. (2016a). The central role played by structural design in enabling the construction of buildings that advanced and revolutionized architecture. Construction and Building Materials, 114, 956–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foraboschi, P. (2016b). Versatility of steel in correcting construction deficiencies and in seismic retrofitting of RC buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 8, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fragiadakis, M., & Lagaros, N. D. (2011). An overview to structural seismic design optimisation frameworks. Computers & Structures, 89(11–12), 1155–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gencturk, B., Hossain, K., & Lahourpour, S. (2016). Life cycle sustainability assessment of RC buildings in seismic regions. Engineering Structures, 110, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guinée, J. B. (2002). Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7(5), 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hossain, K. A. (2013). Structural optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in seismic regions (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
  21. Hossain, K. A., & Gencturk, B. (2014). Life-cycle environmental impact assessment of reinforced concrete buildings subjected to natural hazards. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 22(4), A4014001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kawai, K., Sugiyama, T., Kobayashi, K., & Sano, S. (2005). Inventory data and case studies for environmental performance evaluation of concrete structure construction. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 3(3), 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar, R., & Gardoni, P. (2014). Renewal theory-based life-cycle analysis of deteriorating engineering systems. Structural Safety, 50, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lagaros, N. D. (2007). Life-cycle cost analysis of design practices for RC framed structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 5(3), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lippiatt, B. (2007). BEES 4.0: Building for environmental and economic sustainability technical manual and user guide. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NISTIR).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKenna, F., & Fenves, G. L. (2006). Opensees 2.4.0. Computer software. UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
  27. Mitropoulou, C. C., Lagaros, N. D., & Papadrakakis, M. (2011). Life-cycle cost assessment of optimally designed reinforced concrete buildings under seismic actions. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(10), 1311–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Möller, O., Foschi, R. O., Ascheri, J. P., Rubinstein, M., & Grossman, S. (2015). Optimization for performance-based design under seismic demands, including social costs. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 14(2), 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Möller, O., Foschi, R. O., Rubinstein, M., & Quiroz, L. (2009). Seismic structural reliability using different nonlinear dynamic response surface approximations. Structural Safety, 31(5), 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ozcan-Deniz, G., & Zhu, Y. (2017). Multi-objective optimization of greenhouse gas emissions in highway construction projects. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 162–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sakai, K., Shibata, T., Kasuga, A., & Nakamura, H. (2016). Sustainability design of concrete structures. Structural Concrete, 17(6), 1114–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Varun, Aashish Sharma, Shree, Venu, & Nautiyal, Himanshu. (2012). Life cycle environmental assessment of an educational building in Northern India: A case study. Sustainable Cities and Society., 4, 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wallace, L. A. (1987). Total exposure assessment methodology (TEAM) study: summary and analysis. Volume 1 (No. PB-88-100060/XAB; EPA-600/6-87/002A). Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (USA). Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental Monitoring, and Quality Assurance.Google Scholar
  34. Wen, Y. K., & Kang, Y. J. (2001). Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: Methodology. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(3), 330–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations