Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparison of traditional vs low-damage structural and non-structural building systems through a cost/performance-based evaluation

  • S. Bianchi*
  • , Jonathan Ciurlanti
  • , Stefano Pampanin
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Innovative damage-mitigation technologies have been recently developed to improve the seismic performance of structural and non-structural elements. The combination of these solutions can lead to a high-performance and cost-efficient building system, capable of sustaining earthquakes with limited damage and reduced socio-economic losses. This article investigates the convenience of implementing damage-control solutions through a cost/performance-based evaluation of multi-story-reinforced concrete buildings, comprising alternative combinations of traditional vs low-damage technologies for both structural skeletons (frames, walls) and non-structural elements (heavy/light facades, heavy/light partitions, suspended ceilings). The significant benefits of the innovative systems are investigated through loss assessment studies, implemented using a practical approach based on numerical pushover analyses and the capacity spectrum method. The parametric analyses confirm that the integrated low-damage structural/non-structural system can lead to significant savings, in these specific cases, in the range of 150–300 €/m2 during the 50-year building-life and downtime reductions at ultimate limit state in the order of 2–7 months.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)366-385
Number of pages20
JournalEarthquake Spectra
Volume37
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • low-damage
  • performance-based
  • non-structural
  • integrated system
  • post-earthquake losses
  • savings

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of traditional vs low-damage structural and non-structural building systems through a cost/performance-based evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this