Seismic resilience: Innovations in structural engineering for earthquake-prone areas

Ali K. Al-Asadi; Salih Alrebeh

doi:10.1515/eng-2024-0004

Article Open Access

Seismic resilience: Innovations in structural engineering for earthquake-prone areas

Ali K. Al-Asadi and Salih Alrebeh

Published/Copyright: April 16, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Open Engineering Volume 14 Issue 1

Abstract

Objective

The contemporary structural engineering notion of "seismic resilience" is to yield a public to its pre-earthquake state in precise time. The goal of our research is the OMRF (Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame), which is mid-rise building that had exposed to several earthquakes. The research examined the constructions mechanical act and seismic confrontation.

Methods

For hazard evaluations, the building's proneness and functionality were measured using the Seismic Resilience Index (SRI) and delicateness tops. The course had five critical phases: Selecting the goal buildings, picking and ascending a assembly of repetitive seismic ground motion (SGM) archives, emerging brittleness outsides, manufacture incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), and scheming the functionality curve using the seismic resilience index (RI) are the other steps. Findings: It was evident from the hazard evaluation, which included IDA and flimsiness surface examination, that the nominated assemblies required the structural integrity needed to endure a 15-second repeated earthquake.

Novelty

As the probable seismic ground acceleration raised, it was also probable to figure the variation in functionality, SRI, resilience, structural losses, and the amount of time desirable to mend from numerous presentation stages. These outcomes highpoint the worth of cutting-edge structural engineering methods for educating buildings' seismic resilience in earthquake-prone districts. More resilient configurations that can better endure and recover from seismic shocks can be attained by addressing strategy errors and improving structural presentation.

Keywords: seismic resilience; structural engineering; earthquake-prone areas; functionality; seismic events; vulnerability assessment; fragility surfaces; seismic ground motion

1 Introduction

Unexpected energy entering the world’s outer layer and creating seismic waves causes an earthquake, a rare phenomenon with distinctive characteristics. When creating earthquake-safe designs, a number of preventive measures need to be consolidated [1]. The designs that are meant to fend off an earthquake’s impact on them are called earthquake-safe designs. The phrase “earthquake-safe development” refers to a type of construction where an earthquake has little to no effect or is inconsequential. Nevertheless, no development can be totally protected against the damage caused by earthquakes. The main goal of earthquake-safe development is to build stronger structures than their traditional counterparts so that the death toll can be kept to a minimum by taking precautions early in the development process. Development, therefore, anticipates measures to ensure solidity, usability, strength, and high levels of security in seismically vulnerable places.

The compromise strength request and the construction’s flexibility (dislodging) request are contrasted in routine seismic assessment of designs. Planning the design while considering the objectives of the implementation has lately been improved. Recent earthquake plan codes have included the exhibition-based plan technique [2]. In a cut-off state, the uprooting of the execution target is regarded as the response boundary of a replacement single-level of opportunity (SLO) architecture. The strain-based limit state and the degree of damage to a limit range bend can both be related to the structural reaction to relocation relocation for example, dislodging based plan approach (DBPA).

“Resilience” is an exhibition assessment philosophy that was primarily developed by the multidisciplinary place for earthquake engineering exploration (Multidisciplinary Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research [MCEER]) to enhance the “decision-making” approach for the evaluation of seismic execution of structural frameworks. It also involves the dissemination and advancement of new knowledge and innovations for strengthening networks’ resilience to earthquakes and other catastrophic events [3]. To put it another way, the main goal of the resilience-based plan (RBP) is to “versatilize” networks. When a disaster strikes, it aims to support initiatives and developments that enable local government and the built environment to quickly regain their capabilities.

Seismic resilience is defined by the MCEER terminology as a choice variable displacement versatilize that compares the seismic exhibition recovery and a supplied loss expected to maintain the functionality of the structure with minimal disruption. To determine whether procedures and activities might lessen or eliminate disturbances during seismic events, the seismic resilience system can examine misfortunes and altered pre- and post-occasion estimates [4]. As a result, Chang and Miles provided a succession of quantitative resilience proportions and used them to investigate the context of a real local location (seismic relief of a water framework) [5]. A probabilistic approach to handling the lifetime assessment of seismic resilience of breaking down large designs was promoted by Biondini et al. [6]. A typical reference framework for the evaluation of medical care offices exposed to earthquakes was brought together by Cimellaro et al. [2], who also offered a quantitative examination of the concepts of disaster resilience.

The seismic behaviour of low-to-medium-ascent reinforcement concrete structures retrofitted with steel supports and fiber reinforcement polymer composites is surveyed using a planned structure for a clinic complex framework that was recently assessed by the execution-based plan (EBD) approach by [7] Niro Mandi et al. (2010) and Hadigeh et al. (2015). Even while this type of plan avoids human fatalities, it cannot keep up with functionality or breaking point damages caused by the recently developed Resilience-Based Earthquake Plan.

1.1 Objective of the study

Determine the most important areas for improvement in existing structures’ seismic vulnerability in Iraq’s earthquake-prone regions.
Perform study and generate cutting-edge structure approaches and materials that are particularly intended to rise seismic resistance in Iraq's earthquake-prone sections.
Form reasonable retrofitting strategies to strengthen present manufacture and lower probable earthquake harm in Iraq.
Enhance teamwork between local players, national administrations, and foreign authorities to improve thorough principles and approvals for seismic elasticity in Iraq's assembly area.

2 Literature review

The emphasis on seismic threat and danger calculation was conducted in Iraq. The authors concentrated on influential the seismic risk ranks in different Iraqi districts and estimating the linked threats [8]. The review engaged probabilistic seismic risk analysis (PSRA), which complete use of geotechnical limitations and showable earthquake information. The outcomes exposed shifting ranks of seismic threat throughout Iraq, importance sections with better vulnerability.

Our team has conducted an innovative study of execution-based seismic plans of continued large structures in Iraq. The research has detected present plan trials looking for breaches and difficulties [7]. The engineers stressed the significance of considering implementation strategies, such as transferring founded plans, in order to work on the seismic fight of associations in Iraq.

The ongoing processes and trials related with seismic scheduling and calculation of sustained large assemblies in Iraq were addressed in facts. The assessment covered all public and international plan codes and principles in feature [9]. The authors pointed out application defects in the seismic plan activities and restricted the updated requisite seismic plan procedures that were precisely designer to the Iraqi framework.

A appropriate examination on the seismic retrieval of presently sustained large structures in Iraq was presented by other group of researchers [10]. The review absorbed on the appraisal of an existing school that was being built and proposed retrofitting systems to recover its seismic performance [10]. The authors calculated the practicality of numerous retrofitting plans using nonlinear static analysis. The answers comprised the implication of retrofitting in enhancing the seismic struggle of existing strategies in Iraq. Other team has focused on improving Iraq's seismic resilience via spending routes for adjusting current guidelines [11]. The assessment studied numerous retrofitting skills and their application in improving the seismic presentation of buildings. The authors argued retrofitting evaluations like outside supporting, jacketing, and base separation while dismembering contextual study. The discoveries highlighted the value of retrofitting as a clever strategy to progress seismic resilience in Iraq.

In order to center on the seismic accomplishment and resilience of reinforced big buildings in Iraq, oversaw a contextual examination. The analysis contains a nonlinear dominant research and brittleness valuation of a representative building [9]. The findings highlighted the tremor of already-built, large-scale arrangements in Iraq and stressed the basic developed plans need and retrofitting approaches to upsurge their seismic resilience.

A contextual analysis on the seismic threat valuation of public structures in Iraq was presented by Al-Qaisi and Al-Kawaz in 2021. Using susceptibility calculation measures like visual assessment, delicateness researches, and harm scenarios, the evaluation involved assessing the seismic performance of designated public abilities [12]. The answers highlighted the need for broad evaluations of seismic weakness and emphasized the meaning of retrofitting steps to lessen the seismic dangers related with public services in Iraq.

3 Seismic resilience index (SRI) concepts

The Seismic Resilience Index (SRI) is defined as a vital means for centering on a construction's capability to resist quantified presentation and dependability principles over an prolonged period of time. This study will use a number of innovations to develop the SRI. A few components will be used to quickly model the selected working [13]. Then, ground motions from earthquakes that have already been recorded will be chosen, followed by incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). All of this will lead to an improvement in surfaces and bends that are brittle and vulnerable. The final step will be the development of a functionality bend that aids in calculating SRI, energy (R), and losses of resilience (LOR).

3.1 Modelling structural configuration

The four-story, built-up substantial model with a typical chunk thickness of 200 mm and a total level of 12.0 m was the subject of this assessment. The structural framework chosen for horizontal opposition is the standard second opposing casing (ordinary moment resisting frame [OMRF]). The model was built according to the requirements of the ACI318-14 code for gravity loads and UBC1997 OMRF for seismic loads.

As building materials, the compressive strength (fc) of a building of 35 MPa cement and yield strength (fy) of a steel bar of 420 MPa were used. According to the seismic code, the structure was found to be in seismic zone 4 with ground section SD, seismic intensity Ca = 0.44 and Cv = 0.64. For gravity loads, the dead burden and live burden were computed at 2 and 4 kN/m², respectively [7]. The segments’ cross-sectional areas were created using drop light emissions of mm by 500 mm and diameters of 300 mm × 300 mm. As 1% of the longitudinal rebars in the section should be supported, 8T12 was utilized for segment fortifications, and T8 was divided into 300 mm-long segments for cross-over support in accordance with the calculations for the plan. The design required the use of 2T12 as the top support for the bars and 3T12 as the base longitudinal support. The specified building model is shown in a three-dimensional (3D) shape with rise views in Figure 1.

Figure 1

A 3D model of a specific, targeted building with elevation views.

3.2 Selection of ground motion repeatedly

A number of studies have investigated the effects of repeated ground vibrations induced by earthquakes on the reaction behaviours of structures. They found that frequent earthquakes have a significant effect on both the inelasticity and buoyancy of the floor-to-floor distance. Thus, the impact of earthquakes that have already occurred is given in this review.

Every single ground motion record received two legitimate seismic configurations, particularly those for Chalfant Valley, Royal Valley, and Mammoth Lakes, all from the same station but with distinct record titles. Every ground motion record for an event had a period timespan of seconds [14]. Between the two back-to-back seismic occurrences, a second gap was added. According to Hatzigeorgiou and Liolios’ hypothesis, this hole was completely adequate to minimize the removal of any building owing to constricting and returning to the excess state. It also had no dislike of possible speed increase esteems. The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Exploration Centre (Friend) database was used to choose the three tiresome events.

The identification of accurate ground motion records is ultimately very essential to play out the IDA and lay down fragility surfaces or bends, as indicated by worldwide standard codes, such as FEMA356, UBC1997, and IBC2000. A vulnerability assessment evaluation had to be supported by at least three ground motion records, or seven in accordance with these standard procedures. Finally, the selected seismic occurrences were scaled in relation to the location of the structure, the UBC97 target range.

3.3 Procedure for assessing the operation of the SRI

The MCEER uses a special concept called resilience to assess the seismic capacity of structures. In order to generalize resilience’s functioning into 0 and 1, resilience is assessed on a scale from 0 to 100%, with 0% signifying the most extreme dissatisfaction and 100% signifying no design disintegration [15]. The SRI’s usage as a seismic marker and a recovery tool that can aid in reducing the direct and indirect damage brought on by earthquakes is supported by a variety of data.

SRI is defined as the ability of a structure to continue functioning during recovery periods or the ability of its design to withstand earthquakes without sacrificing the function. Similarly, SRI can be seen as a solution to functional problems that seismic regulations have ignored. The region under functional bending treats the design function as Q(t), as shown in equation (1), with the restoring force R as a component of Q(t) and the event time OE t with recovery time T demonstrated design resilience by treating, as shown in equation (2). REC is performed along with the overall control time Tender Loving Care.

Functionality:

(1) ϱ ( t ) = 1 − { L ( I , T REC ) × [ H ( t − t OE ) − H ( t − ( t OE + T REC ) ) × f REC ( t , t OE , T REC ) } .

Resilience (R):

(2) R = ∫ T OE T REC ϱ ( t ) T I . C .

3.4 Loss function evaluation

Misfortunes are genuinely unforeseeable and particular to any event examined in extraordinary circumstances, such as a fear-based oppressor attack, an accident, or another man-made tragedy. Calamities caused by seismic displacement are typically difficult to forecast and estimate. It is possible to create a few standardized practices, nonetheless, to distinguish between various types of tragedies [16].

Generally speaking, there are two types of misfortunes on the list: direct misfortunes and aberrant misfortunes. The instant misfortune is linked to structural harms and misfortunes, while the indirect miseries are referenced to causalities, societal, and financial calamities. In this study, the quantitative assessment of contingent economic damage, human setbacks, and disasters requires a complex approach, ultimately relying on the risk of widespread structural damage, hence the immediate impact of suffering. Risk is heavily considered.

The imminent tragedy was calculated using equation (3), which aims to represent the discrete damage probabilities of the four damage states from the vulnerability surface as the vulnerability analysis. According to FEMA 356, the degree of structural damage sustained during an earthquake impacted the structure’s presentation and outcome. This was accomplished by considering the vertical and even parallel power opposing parts. These four execution levels were categorized and chosen as an engineering request boundary (ERB) based on the percentage between story float proportion (% inter-storey drift ratio [% ISDR]). Execution levels for each damage state are shown in Table 1 (Figures 2 and 3):

(3) L D = ∑ P E ( DS = K ) × r k ,

where L _D is the immediate misfortune, and K is the comparing harm proportion for each cutoff condition and harm express that was determined from the HAZUS MR4 specialized guidebook, as shown in Table 2. Every exhibition level’s injury situation is addressed in (K).

Table 1

Damage state performance levels, along with the corresponding damage measures

Damage state (DS)	Damage description	% ISDR
Immediate occupancy (IO)	Minor structural components have suffered severe damage; however, the building’s stability or lateral resistance both before and after the earthquake are unaffected	2.0%
Damage control (DC)	Some repairable damage is acceptable, but the repair cost should be significantly lower than the replacement cost	2.40%
Life safety (LS)	Due to extensive damage, repair is possible, but expensive and economically inefficient. Despite minor losses, the structure is still intact	3.0%
Collapse prevention (CP)	The building is on the verge of experiencing localized or total failure	3.40%

Figure 2

The damage state performance levels are described, along with the corresponding damage measures.

Figure 3

Building damage rates are provided in the HAZUS MR4 technical documentation.

Table 2

Building damage rates are provided in the HAZUS MR4 technical documentation

DS	Damage ratio (rk)
IO	1.21
DC	1.31
LS	1.72
CP	2.1

The difference between the two combined circulatory capabilities as opposed to the foster fragility surface for each condition, as shown in equations (4)–(8), was used to determine the discrete harm.

(4) P [ Damage > DS ] = ∅ In ( IM ) − λ ς ,

where I represents the total capacity for conveyance, IM represents a power measure, ∅ represents the mean value, and ς represents the standard deviation.

(5) P [ DS = IO ] = P [ DS = IO ] − P [ DS = DC ] ,

(6) P [ DS = DC ] = P [ DS = DC ] − P [ DS = LS ] ,

(7) P [ DS = LS ] = P [ DS = LS ] − P [ DS = CP ] ,

(8) P [ DS = CP ] = P [ DS = CP ] .

Equations (4)–(8) explain the differences between the two powers that are specific in determining the building damage rate. Equation (4) is used to measure the damage when it is more than the DC using the mean of In ( IM ) subtracted by λ . The results are divided by standard deviation ς . In Equation (5), DS is equal to IO and eventually these results will be equal to DC equal to IO subtracted by Ds equal to DC.

In equation (6), DS equal to DC and eventually these results will be equal to DS equal to DC subtracted by DS equal to LS.

In equation (7), DS equal to LS and eventually these results will be equal to DS equal to LS subtracted by DS equal to CP.

In equation (8), DS equal to CP when the building is stable.

3.5 Time and function of recovery

The development and demonstration of the design’s post-seismic event repair will be addressed for restoration activities and time. As a result, it is essential to evaluate recovery time and capacity following a seismic event when assessing seismic resilience. Different forms of recovery skills may be chosen depending on the framework and the reaction of society [17]. For example, here are three possible recovery functions: mathematical, surprising, and direct. Since each capacity has a different method of rebuilding, it is incorporated to survey the structure’s functionality, where the upgrades for recovery vary depending on the type of recovery capabilities. As the least sophisticated capability that is typically used when there is no free information about an emergency involving executives and assets, the straight capability is taken into consideration in this assessment to evaluate the functionality of the structure. Equations (9)–(11) illustrate capabilities that could be used to speed up the healing process and its capability path:

(9) Linear function : f rec ( t , t OE , T REC ) = 1 − t − t OE T REC ,

(10) Exponential function : f rec ( t , t OE , T REC ) = exp − ( t − t OE ) ( In 200 ) T REC ,

(11) Trigonometric function : f rec ( t , t OE , T REC ) = 0.5 1 + cos ⁡ Π t − t OE T REC .

4 Results and discussion

A mathematical model of the mid-ascent design was created using a limited component finite element stage in which a nonlinear time history study was developed to support progressive and strong research bending. One important parametric tool for assessing the designs’ potent behaviours is the IDA bends. This bend illustrates how rapid changes in damaged states have a direct impact on how the structure functions. Following seismic disasters, three methods for rebuilding are commonly considered. There are three possibilities: IO stage inaction, DC and LS stage rebuilding, and CP stage replacement [18].

For instance, if rapid inhabitancies were to occur, no retrofitting would have needed to be done prior to reaching 0.78 g. However, it is recommended to perform 1.24 and 1.54 g refitting activities in the DC and well-being tiers, respectively, before reaching the fall phase when replacement activities at 2.15 g are the only option, and it is just the beginning. Table 3 summarizes the types of preparatory activities and structural execution levels.

Table 3

Damaging state’s preparedness measurements calculated in IM

DS	IM of each damage state Sa (T1) (g)	Preparedness action of each stage
IO	0.78	No action
DC	1.24	Restoration – repairing action
LS	1.54	Restoration – repairing action
CP	2.15	Replacement action

Once the IDA was completed, a weak face and a weak bend were created for each damage state, and the probability of reaching or exceeding the damage state for a given performance measure (IM) was calculated. The average velocity rise Sa (T1) was chosen because it was used in this work to simulate a nonlinear time history analysis. In order to focus on the impact of a 15-s earthquake event with a 100-s pause between two monotonous earthquakes, the time of the occasional earthquake event was used as a second boundary for culturing the vulnerability surface selected. The mean values and standard deviations are used to summarize the vulnerability surface ratings shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Developing fragility surfaces’ log-normal distribution parameters for each damage condition

DS	IO		DC		LS		CP
DS	λ	ς	λ	ς	λ	ς	λ	ς
Log-normal parameters for midrise building	1.788	1.358	2.444	1.475	2.683	1.426	3.33	1.542

Figure 4 shows a statistical display for Table 4 that explains the X-axis of the damage state DS, and the Y-axis explains the log-normal parameters for midrise buildings (λ and ς). The results showed that CP exhibits the highest value of λ, LS is slightly more than DC, and IO is the lowest value among all variables.

Figure 4

Developing fragility surfaces’ log-normal distribution parameters for each damage condition.

The standard deviation values were slightly equal in all cases.

The analysis focused on four output measurements (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g) and further applied recovery preparedness measures related to 15 s of two repeated seismic events, and the occasional 100 s of Hall was forgotten [19]. When a ground moving force of 1.0 g is applied, the structure is actually operating in a state of momentary colonization with a probability of reaching more than 55% damage, and 20% in other damage states, 5, and 3. 41% achieved DC, health status, or failure management status. However, the design was compromised in two ways.

Life support and DC are performed when a building is subjected to a larger force component of 1.50 g. Still, it is recommended to perform a certain amount of repairable activity with a probability of meeting or exceeding 55 and 37%, respectively, with a slight increase in damage probability of 23% during the down phase. The design was stable and could be established at a life-safety stage with a 56% probability of injury and a 45% probability of a foreseeable failure condition, but at a power ratio of 2.0 g, the losses were high, and recovery cycles were required. Last but not least, for IDA bows, ground-moving forces greater than 2.0 g will result in extensive damage to the design, with near or complete damage by the time the damage probability reaches 200%. The design works to reach the maximum degree for the stage of survival and well-being. Additionally, at 2.50 g, when the penalty hits a 55% chance, it starts taking significant damage. After the building was demolished by a vulnerability assessment from IDA to vulnerability surfaces, the standard plan for the second edge of the building determined that the structure would not be able to withstand a 15-s earthquake. By investigating the construction’s practical resilience, depreciation, vigour, and recovery time post-seismic occurrences, the resilience assessment’s execution was also crucial in designing the recuperation cycle for four various harm states. The accumulative harm likelihood of exceeding each of the four harm states is shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Damage likelihood using control damage function (CDF) for each damage condition

Intensity measure, Sa (TI) (g)	IO (%)	DC (%)	LS (%)	CP (%)
1.00	55	20.00	5.00	3.41
1.50	88.00	55.00	37.00	23.00
2.00	200	84.00	56.00	45.00
2.500	200	200	82.00	55.00

Figure 5 shows the statistical application of Table 5, where the X-axis is DS for four weights, while the Y-axis is the percentages for each weight. When the weight is 1 g, it showed differences between all cases, where IO is 55%, DC is 20%, LS is 5%, and CP is 3.41%. When the weight increases to 1.5 g, the IO is 88%, DC is 55%, LS is 37%, and CP decreases to 23%. When the weight increases to 2 g, the IO is 200%, DC is 84%, LS is 56%, and CP is 45%. When the weight increased to 2.5 g, the IO maintained 200% as well as the DC, LC at 82% and CP at 55%. All these data indicate that IO has not changed with the increase in weight from 2 to 2.5 g. By contrast, DC has dramatically increased as the weight increases. LS showed a good increase level, while CP showed a slight increase.

Figure 5

Damage likelihood using CDF for each damage condition.

Figure 6 shows the statistical application of Table 6, where the X-axis is DS for four weights, while the Y-axis is the percentages for each weight. In the state of using 1 g, the IO scored the highest percentage of 36%, while DC scored 20%, LS scored 5%, and CP scored 4%.

Figure 6

Probability of discrete damage for various IMs and DS.

Table 6

Chance of distinct damage for different IMs and DS

Intensity measure, Sa (TI) (g)	IO (%)	DC (%)	LS (%)	CP (%)
1.00	36	20	5	4
1.50	23	27	20	23
2.00	5	41	41	45
2.500	1	10	34	56

When the weight increased to 1.5 g, the DC showed the highest percentage, while IO and CP showed an equal percentage. Finally, LS showed only 20%.

When the weight increased to 2 g, the DC was equal to LS with 41%. CP scored the highest at 45%, while IO scored the lowest at 5%.

Finally, the CP scored the highest with 56%, followed by LS of 34% and DC of 10%. The IO showed no difference when the weight was increased to 2 g.

To determine the discrete harm likelihood and determine the SRI and its functioning [20], equations (5) to (8) should be applied. The discrete harm likelihood was examined using the vulnerability analysis known as aggregate dispersion capacity that was obtained from the fragility surface [21]. The discrete harm probability resulting from post-seismic events is shown in Table 6 for each harm condition.

As a result, P (DS = K) E with the harm proportion Kr, as shown in Table 7 might be used to determine the immediate harm misfortune LD%.

Table 7

As a stage of readiness, the direct damage loss ratio for various IM and DS

Intensity measure, Sa (T1) (g)	1.0 g-IO	1.5 g-DC	2.0 g-LS	2.50 g-CP
Direct loss (L _D)	1.253	1.527	1.632	1.787

The data in Figure 7 is a statistical application of Table 7; the vertical axis is a direct loss, while the horizontal axis represents the damaged state when the weight changes. CP (2.5 g) has shown the best result (1.787), followed by LS (2 g) (1.632), DC (1.5 g), LD 1.527, and IO (1 g) (1.253). These data have shown that the increase in weight will improve the direct loss for DS cases.

Figure 7

Direct damage loss rates for various IMs and DSs are used as indicators of readiness.

For instance, the degree of design damage affects how long the rehabilitation process takes. This study focused on the interval between the control time (attention), which was the longest period, and the hour of the seismic event (tOE), which was the smallest period, that would allow for full recovery. In this study, it was assumed that the time event took place on the 31st day of the 120-day total control time period. The heartiness, resilience index, and misfortunes for each damaged state are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8

Results of seismic resilience output for the desired building

Seismic resilience outcomes	IO	DC	LS	CP
SRI	1.827	1.872	1.53	1.44
Robustness (R)	72.5%	65.3%	37%	22%
Loss of resilience (LOR)	25.3%	52.7%	83%	98%
Time recovery (TREC)	7 days	24 days	77 days	170 days

Figure 8 shows the application results of seismic resilience output for the desired building. SRI has shown almost similar results for both IO and DC. LS showed lower results, while CP has shown the lowest results of all cases. For robustness, IO was in first place, followed by DC, LS, and CP, which were located in last place.

Figure 8

Results of seismic resilience output for the desired building.

For the LOR, the CP has the highest percentage, followed by LS 83%, DC 25.7%, and finally, IO the lowest with 25.3%. The time recovery (TREC) for IO, DC, LS, and CP were 7, 24, 77, and 170 days, respectively.

5 Conclusions

Data from the specialized domains of earthquake engineering, sociology, and financial considerations are characterized by their seismic resilience. A resilience-based plan brings together information from these diverse fields to create an extraordinary capability that inspires results that are uninfluenced by irrational assumptions or randomness. Preventive measures often need to be consolidated during the development cycle in order for a development to be considered earthquake-safe. This includes combining fresh approaches that may employ smart materials. These are the materials that, due to their inherent qualities, respond specifically to outside improvements and perform certain capabilities. The goal of the project was to use a variety of vulnerability assessments to determine how the proposed monotonous seismic speed increase would affect the normal second opposing casing (OMRF) operating.

The results of this study show how different design levels, resilience indices, performance, structural losses, and time recovery perform with increasing potential seismic velocities (1.0, 1.50, 2.0 g) could be predicted; 2.50 g are required for post-earthquake recovery.
Increasing the seismic force measurements for various damage states from 1.0 g to a maximum of 2.50 g would likely indicate a significant increase in mortality due to damage and further changes in design functionality. In addition, we will extend the recovery period to compensate for the same design consistency as before the earthquake.
Differences in seismic resistance highlighted the impact of post-earthquake OMRF structural flexibility and requirement formability due to differences in ground uplift rates.
The results showed that it is important to consider the seismic capacity of various damage states to assess seismic vulnerability and structural integrity regardless of the level of symptoms.

6 Future direction

Our future direction is to develop a system that will minimize the negative side effects of the earthquake on high-rise buildings. We will reach this result using finite elements or via a computer program. In both cases, we will restrict our work to mathematical equations.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Minen Al-Kafajy for her valuable inputs.

Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.

References

[1] Alipour A, Shafei B. Seismic resilience of transportation networks with deteriorating components. J Struct Eng. 2016;142(8):C4015015.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Cimellaro GP, Solari D, Bruneau M. Physical infrastructure interdependency and regional resilience index after the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake in Japan. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2014;43(12):1763–84.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Eghbali M, Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Dehkordi MR. Recovery and reconstruction of schools after M 7.3 Ezgeleh-Sarpole-Zahab earthquake; part II: Recovery process and resiliency calculation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2020;139:106327.Search in Google Scholar

[4] El-Maissi AM, Argyroudis SA, Nazri FM. Seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies for roadway assets and networks: A state-of-the-art review. Sustainability. 2020;13(1):61.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Chang SE, Miles SB. The dynamics of recovery: A framework. In Modeling spatial and economic impacts of disasters. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2004. p. 181–204.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Biondini E, Rhoades D, Gasperini P. Application of the EEPAS earthquake forecasting model to Italy. Geophys J Int. 2023;234(3):1681–700.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Al-Asadi AK. Modelling of earthquake repellent fibre reinforced concrete. Period Eng Nat Sci. 2019;7(4):1996–2011.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Abdulrahman SH, Kamaruddin SS, Othman N. The effect of non-natural disaster on Iraqi e-services situation: Review and conceptual model. Int J Eng Invent. 2018;7(5):16–21.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Majdi A, Vacareanu R. Evaluation of seismic damage to Iraqi educational reinforced concrete building using FEMA P-58 methodology. Presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing; 2021. p. 012110.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Cardone D, Gesualdi G. Seismic rehabilitation of existing reinforced concrete buildings with seismic isolation: a case study. Earthq Spectra. 2014;30(4):1619–42.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Sultan HK, Mohammed AT. Assessing of the common strengthening methods for existing RC buildings. Pollack Periodica. 2023;18(2):6–11.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Abu-Awad B, Abu-Hammad N, Abu-Hamatteh ZS. Urban and architectural development in amman downtown between natural disasters and great heritage lose: Case study. Int J Archit Urban Dev. 2019;9(3):31–8.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Hariri-Ardebili M, Saouma V. Collapse fragility curves for concrete dams: Comprehensive study. J Struct Eng. 2016;142(10):04016075.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Farsangi EN. The seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies: A state-of-the-art review. Ain Shams Eng J. 2020;11(4):849–64.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Motamed H, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Amini-Hosseini K, Mansouri B, Khazai B. Earthquake risk–sensitive model for urban land use planning. Nat Hazards. 2020;103(1):87–102.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Oyguc R, Toros C, Abdelnaby AE. Seismic behavior of irregular reinforced-concrete structures under multiple earthquake excitations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2018;104:15–32.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Panchireddi B, Ghosh J. Cumulative vulnerability assessment of highway bridges considering corrosion deterioration and repeated earthquake events. Bull Earthq Eng. 2019;17:1603–38.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Titi A, Biondini F. Resilience of concrete frame structures under corrosion. Presented at the 11th International Conference on Structural, Safety & Reliability; 2013. p. 16–20.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Uchida N. Detection of repeating earthquakes and their application in characterizing slow fault slip. Prog Earth Planet Sci. 2019;6(1):1–21.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Dawood MH, Al-Asadi AK. Mechanical properties and flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete beams containing recycled concrete aggregate. Sci Rev Eng Environ Stud (SREES). 2022;31(4):259–69.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Vona M, Mastroberti M, Mitidieri L, Tataranna S. New resilience model of communities based on numerical evaluation and observed post seismic reconstruction process. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018;28:602–9.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-09-10

Revised: 2024-02-27

Accepted: 2024-03-03

Published Online: 2024-04-16

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/eng-2024-0004

Keywords for this article

seismic resilience; structural engineering; earthquake-prone areas; functionality; seismic events; vulnerability assessment; fragility surfaces; seismic ground motion

Creative Commons

BY 4.0