On the fragility of non‐structural elements in loss and recovery: Field observations from Japan

Abstract

AbstractThe role of non‐structural elements (NSEs) in the seismic performance of buildings has been highlighted in past years. Research studies following state‐of‐the‐art methodologies generally find that when the structural collapse is not of significant concern, NSEs tend to dominate the repair costs and financial investment required in a building. This paper examines field observations from interviews and data collected from commercial buildings via structural health monitoring (SHM) following the 2018 Osaka earthquake in Japan. It suggests that fragility functions used in current methodologies for estimating NSE damage may not be entirely representative of the in‐situ reality and possibly underestimate actual damage. Additionally, interviews with building owners/managers indicate that the alarm and financial impact of NSEs was not as critical as anticipated, with much of the observed NSE damage not of serious concern and tolerable in many cases. This article provides discussion and insight into possible causes for these differences before discussing how current methodologies can benefit from these observations. It is believed that many of the fragility functions currently used to estimate NSE damage may not be representative because of differences in installation conditions and loading protocols used in experimental testing, possible interaction with other elements, variability in the quality of workmanship during installation and possible wear, tear and degradation during service. On the other hand, it is seen how SHM data recorded during seismic events may provide valuable data for an alternative means to develop fragility functions. Furthermore, it is seen that when building recovery states (RSs) other than the implicitly assumed ‘full recovery’ state used in guidelines like FEMA P‐58 are explored, the role of NSEs in direct monetary losses significantly reduces. This coincides with the field observations in Japan regarding the impact of NSEs and supports the recent developments in functional recovery on what building owners and occupants are prepared to tolerate post‐earthquake. It indicates that when discussing the relative importance of different building performance groups, it is vital that the expected RS is also stated, as for most decision‐makers following major events, functionality rather than full recovery remains the primary goal; hence, repairs and proactive measures should bear this in mind for more effective use of resources.