Seismic resilience of tall buildings - benchmarking performance and quantifying improvements
Abstract/Contents
- Abstract
- Modern tall buildings are generally not considered to be a large contributor to the seismic risk of cities, based on the presumption that they are designed and built with sufficient safeguards to ensure good performance. This is in spite of the fact that current building code provisions have few, if any, provisions to ensure that tall buildings have better performance than other low-rise structures. This implies that a 40-story building is not expected, or designed, to perform any better than a one-story building following a large seismic event, despite the huge differences in the consequences of collapse and/or damage to these type of structures. The performance of a 42-story couple core wall building located in downtown San Francisco, designed using a state-of-the-practice performance-based approach, is evaluated. Two additional structural schemes, damped outriggers and base isolation, and one additional non-structural scheme are investigated. Non-linear response history analysis is conducted on each of the three structural building designs in order to assess the structural performance at five different seismic hazard levels. Subsequently, the expected building repair cost and downtime are estimated for each scheme; there are six schemes in total when considering the additional non-structural design scheme. The baseline building is expected to suffer financial losses exceeding 15% of the total building cost and functional downtime of almost 2 years (84 weeks) following a design level earthquake. The damped outrigger and base isolation schemes are found to reduce financial losses and downtime, with an expected loss of 14% and 10% of the building cost, respectively and an expected functional downtime of 62 weeks and 43 weeks, respectively following a design-level earthquake. The non-structural design alternative, which also includes provisions to reduce building downtime, was found to reduce loss and downtime in all cases. The best performing building is the base-isolated building with enhanced non-structural design, expected to experience losses of 2.4% of the building value and functional downtime of only 6 weeks following a design-level earthquake. A cost-benefit analysis reveals that all schemes are preferable to the baseline building. The payback period for the two structural design alternatives is found to be 4.6 years and 6.6 years for the damped outrigger and the base isolation schemes, respectively, and the payback period for the non-structural design alternatives are 5.3 years, 9.0 years and 8.7 years for the fixed base, damped outrigger and the base isolation schemes, respectively.
Description
| Type of resource | text |
|---|---|
| Form | electronic; electronic resource; remote |
| Extent | 1 online resource. |
| Publication date | 2014 |
| Issuance | monographic |
| Language | English |
Creators/Contributors
| Associated with | Tipler, Jennisie |
|---|---|
| Associated with | Stanford University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. |
| Advisor | Deierlein, Gregory G. (Gregory Gerard), 1959- |
| Thesis advisor | Deierlein, Gregory G. (Gregory Gerard), 1959- |
Subjects
| Genre | Theses |
|---|
Bibliographic information
| Statement of responsibility | Jennisie Tipler. |
|---|---|
| Note | Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. |
| Thesis | Thesis (Engineering)--Stanford University, 2014. |
| Location | electronic resource |
Access conditions
- Copyright
- © 2014 by Jennisie Frances Tipler
- License
- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC).
Also listed in
Loading usage metrics...