Stochastic Characterization of Aftershock Building Seismic Performance
- Author(s): Shokrabadi, Mehrdad
- Advisor(s): Burton, Henry V
- et al.
The increase in seismic activity after a large-magnitude earthquake coupled with the reduction in the lateral load-carrying capacity of the affected structures presents a significant human and financial risk to communities. The focus of this study is placed on formulating a framework for quantifying the impact of both the elevated post-mainshock seismic hazard as well as the mainshock-induced structural damage on building seismic performance. The viability of the proposed framework is examined through its application to mainshock-aftershock seismic performance evaluation of a set of reinforced concrete frames. Additionally, discrepancies between the frequency content of mainshock and aftershock ground motions and their impact on the seismic performance of RC moment frames is investigated. Two metrics are used in evaluating the seismic performance; seismic risk and seismic-induced financial losses. Both metrics are evaluated in both pre- and post-mainshock environments. The time-dependent nature of seismic hazard in the post-mainshock environment is accounted for through the adoption of a Markov risk assessment framework. In the post-mainshock environment, the seismic risk is examined as a function of the time elapsed since the mainshock’s occurrence while in the pre-mainshock environment, the risk is investigated during an assumed lifespan of 50 years for the studied structures. For the buildings and the high-seismicity site used in this study, both the increased post-mainshock seismic hazard as well as the reduction in the structural capacity are found to have a great influence on the seismic risk. The application of the proposed frameworks for seismic performance under mainshock-aftershock ground motions to the reinforced concrete frame buildings in Los Angeles County is also demonstrated. The outcomes of the regional seismic performance analysis show that omitting aftershocks from the seismic performance steps would lead to underestimating annual expected seismic risk and loss by up to 50% and 15%.