PSI - Issue 44

Maria Zucconi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 315–322 Maria. Zucconi et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

319

5

The outcomes of the structural analyses referred to other seismic intensities show similar trends so, for the sake of brevity, they are not reported and further discussed in this paper. For the loss assessment analyses presented in the following section it is necessary to define the collapse fragility curve of the building. The collapse condition, used for the calculation of the collapse fragility curve, has been defined in the time history analyses as the attainment of one of the following sub-conditions: • the ultimate rotation for a column; • the ultimate rotation for a beam; • the displacement capacity in one of the shear sliding hinges; • an interstorey drift ratio equal to 5%.

Fig. 3 Median values of PFA for the time-history analyses at 63% and 10% in 50 years HLs.

Fig. 4 Median values of IDR for the time-history analyses at 63% and 10% in 50 years HLs.

5. Loss assessment In this work, the FEMA P-58 methodology [27] was used to assess the seismic economic losses in terms of Loss Hazard curve, which expresses the Mean Annual Frequency of Exceedance (MAF) a specific decision variable (e.g., Repair Cost), and Expected Annual Losses (EAL), defined as the area subtended by the loss hazard curve. The seismic performance of the building was evaluated following the Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) method proposed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, as several other works available in the literature [7,e.g. 28–30]. In particular, the Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT) [31] software, which performs the probabilistic assessment of the economic losses described in the FEMA-P58 methodology, was used for the life-cycle analysis of the selected case study.