Abstract

Seismic risk assessment studies are one of the most important references for measuring the losses caused by earthquakes and implementing mitigation actions. Fragility curves are widely preferred in these studies. This study proposes two methodologies for creating instant decision-making mechanisms in structural health monitoring applications. In the first method, appropriate fragility curves were utilized in the probabilistic assessment of the instantaneous damage state of the structure. Post-earthquake action plans were developed for different thresholds by establishing a relationship between structural damage and loss. Similar action plans were provided through the capacity curve in the second presented method. The two methods were tested for the existing school building considering different seismic hazard levels. While the methodologies presented in this study enable the creation of decision-making mechanisms for a single building, when applied to a group of buildings, they facilitate the rapid identification of critical locations in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, enabling the estimation of loss of life and prediction of the extent of the disaster.

References

[1] Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Farsangi EN. The seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies: A state-of-the-art review. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 2020;11(4):849-864.

[2] Porter K. A beginner’s guide to fragility, vulnerability, and risk. Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering 2015;235-260.

[3] Yesilyurt A, Zulfikar AC, Tuzun C. Seismic vulnerability assessment of precast RC industrial buildings in Turkey. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2021;141:106539.

[4] Baker JW. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2015;31(1):579-599.

[5] Yesilyurt A, Akram MR, Zulfikar AC. Assessment of engineering demand parameters through SHM for RC-structures. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring 2019;9(2):253-261.

[6] Karakostas C, Quaranta G, Chatzi E, Zülfikar AC, Çetindemir O, De Roeck, G, et al. Seismic assessment of bridges through structural health monitoring: a state-of-the-art review. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2024;22(3):1309-1357.

[7] Hart GC, Rojahn C. A decision‐theory methodology for the selection of buildings for strong‐motion instrumentation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1979;7(6):579-586.

[8] TBSDC-2018. Turkish building seismic design code. Ankara: Disaster and Emergency Management Authority; 2018.

[9] Martins L, Silva V. Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic risk analyses. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2021;19(15):6719-6745.

[10] Yesilyurt A, Cetindemir O, Akcan SO, Zulfikar AC. Fragility-based rapid earthquake loss assessment of precast RC buildings in the Marmara region. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2023:88(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2023.88.1.013

[11] Gurpinar A, Abalı M, Yucemen MS, Yesilcay Y. “Feasibility of mandatory earthquake insurance in Turkey”, Report No. 78-05, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Middle East Technical University,1978.

[12] Askan A, Yucemen MS. Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: Application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Struct. Saf 2010;32(4):262-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.001.

[13] DEE-KOERI. “Earthquake risk assessment for the Istanbul metropolitan area”, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Bogazici University Press, Istanbul, Turkey, 2003.

[14] Bal İE, Crowley H, Pinho R, Gülay FG. Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng 2008;28(10-11):914-932.