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

321

7

standard. The nonlinear behavior of the building is accounted introducing flexural and shear plastic hinges located at the extremities of the structural members, defined by three-linear and bi-linear laws, respectively. The numerical model also accounts for the joint deformability thanks to the introduction of a flexural spring located at the center of the panel joint to which was assigned a three linear moment-rotation relationship calibrated as a function of the different axial loads pertaining to each floor and distinguishes external and internal joints. Thirty bi-directional acceleration ground motion records were selected from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) database. The higher spectral acceleration was applied two times to the structure by rotating the pairs of 90° degrees in order to account for the variability connected to the directionality of the ground motion. Incremental dynamic analyses were performed considering eight hazard levels. The structural analysis results, expressed in terms of peak interstory drift ratio and peak floor acceleration, were implemented in PACT software for the life cycle assessment of the buildings. The element fragility functions and the element consequence functions were selected from the FEMA-P58 database. The economic losses, estimated in terms of loss hazard curves, reveal that the first three hazard levels are the most relevant for evaluating the expected annual losses, estimated equal to 1.70%. The loss results undergo only slight variation if the bi-directional ground motion is rotated in order to have the greatest spectral acceleration in one of the main directions of the buildings. This result is due to the higher vulnerability of the structure in the Y-direction (the weakest one) that conditioned the seismic performance of the entire building whether the higher spectral acceleration is applied in X or Y direction because, in any case, the building collapse is registered in the weakest direction. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support received by the Italian Department of Civil Protection (ReLUIS 2022–2024 Grant—Inventory of existing structural and building types- CARTIS). References [1] J. Jia, Modern Earthquake Engineering, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31854-2. [2] EC8-3, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, 2005. [3] R.O. Hamburger, C. Rojahn, J.A. Heintz, M.G. Mahoney, FEMA P58 : Next-generation building seismic performance assessment methodology, in: Proc. 15th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., Lisboa, Portugal, 2012: p. 10. [4] M. Zucconi, L. Sorrentino, R. Ferlito, Principal component analysis for a seismic usability model of unreinforced masonry buildings, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 96 (2017) 64–75. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.02.014. [5] B. Ferracuti, M. Savoia, M. Zucconi, RC frame structures retrofitted by FRP-wrapping: A model for columns under axial loading and cyclic bending, Eng. Struct. 207 (2020) 110243. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110243. [6] R. Han, Y. Li, J. van de Lindt, Seismic Loss Estimation with Consideration of Aftershock Hazard and Post-Quake Decisions, ASCE ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 2 (2016). doi:10.1061/AJRUA6.0000875. [7] F. Romano, M.S. Alam, M. Zucconi, M. Faggella, A.R. Barbosa, B. Ferracuti, Seismic demand model class uncertainty in seismic loss analysis for a code-designed URM infilled RC frame building, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19 (2021) 429–462. doi:10.1007/s10518-020-00994 x. [8] C. Del Vecchio, M. Eeri, M. Di Ludovico, A. Prota, Repair costs of reinforced concrete building components: From actual data analysis to calibrated consequence functions, Earthq. Spectra. 36 (2020) 353–377. doi:10.1177/8755293019878194. [9] M. Zucconi, M. Di Ludovico, L. Sorrentino, Census-based typological usability fragility curves for Italian unreinforced masonry buildings, Bull. Earthq. Eng. (2022) 1–20. doi:10.1007/s10518-022-01361-8. [10] M. Di Ludovico, G. De Martino, A. Masi, G. Nicodemo, A. Prota, L. Sorrentino, M. Zucconi, Loss functions for the risk assessment of residential buildings, in: 3rd Eur. Conf. Earthq. Eng. Seismol., Bucharest, Romania, 2022: p. 15. [11] M. Zucconi, M. Bovo, B. Ferracuti, Fragility Curves of Existing RC Buildings Accounting for Bidirectional Ground Motion, Buildings. 12 (2022) 872. doi:10.3390/buildings12070872. [12] M. Zucconi, M. Sabene, M. Kioumarsi, B. Ferracuti, Pre-code RC bare frame : seismic retrofit with alternative strategies, in: AIP Conference Proceeding (Ed.), ICNAAM 2019 - 17th Int. Conf. Numer. Anal. Appl. Math., Rhodes, September 23-28, 2019: pp. 1–4. [13] M. Sabene, M. Zucconi, S. Pampanin, B. Ferracuti, Calibration and Numerical Modeling of Rc Beam-Column Joints Designed for Gravity Loads, in: COMPDYN 2021 8th Int. Conf. Comput. Methods Struct. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. Methods Struct. Dyn. Earthq. Eng.,