Seismic performance evaluation support device, seismic performance evaluation support method, and seismic performance evaluation support program

Abstract

To provide an aseismatic performance evaluation support device, an aseismatic performance evaluation support method and an aseismatic performance evaluation support program for more rationally evaluating the aseismatic performance of a building compared with a conventional technology.SOLUTION: The seismic performance evaluation support device 10 includes an acquiring unit 11A that acquires seismic motion group information indicating a plurality of types of seismic motion groups predetermined as seismic motion that may damage a building, and position information indicating a construction position of the building to be evaluated, a creating unit 11B that creates a fragility curve for each of the seismic motion groups by performing incremental dynamic analysis on the building using each of the plurality of types of seismic motion groups, a deriving unit 11C that derives a comprehensive fragility curve of the building by calculating a weighted average of the plurality of created fragility curves using a weighting factor indicating a ratio of a degree of influence at the construction position of each of the plurality of types of seismic motion groups, and a presenting unit 11D that presents information corresponding to the derived fragility curve.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 4

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a seismic performance evaluation support device, a seismic performance evaluation support method, and a seismic performance evaluation support program. [Background technology]

[0002] Due to the increasing severity of earthquake disasters in recent years, emphasis has been placed on the resilience of buildings, and as a result, the demands placed on the evaluation of the seismic performance of buildings and on seismic design have also increased.

[0003] Conventionally, the following technologies have been used to evaluate the seismic performance of buildings and contribute to seismic design.

[0004] Patent Document 1 discloses a method for estimating input earthquake motion that aims to prevent the earthquake resistance performance required of a structure from becoming excessively large, thereby reducing the construction costs of the structure.

[0005] This method for estimating input seismic motion is a method for estimating input seismic motion to be used as a design load for a structure, and is characterized by generating multiple fault models using a probabilistic method, with each of multiple parameters related to faults being a random variable, estimating ground surface seismic motion for each of the multiple fault models based on the propagation characteristics of the seismic motion from the epicenter to the ground surface at the construction site of the structure, calculating multiple response spectra from the multiple ground surface seismic motions generated for the multiple fault models, calculating the average value and standard deviation value of the multiple response spectra, calculating a required response spectrum that satisfies the required performance of the structure based on the sum of the average value and a value based on the standard deviation value, and estimating input seismic motion that conforms to the required response spectrum.

[0006] Patent Document 2 discloses an earthquake-resistant design method aimed at carrying out earthquake-resistant design of buildings that belong to the category of standardized buildings, taking into account the degree of damage to the building, which is closely related to the repairability of the building.

[0007] This earthquake-resistant design method is an earthquake-resistant design method for a target building that belongs to a category of standardized buildings constructed based on predetermined standards and has a desired floor plan, and includes a damage information derivation step of deriving a relationship between a story deformation angle and a damage degree at each part through an experiment using a structural model that belongs to the category of standardized buildings and that has actually been constructed; a condition setting step of setting a provisionally determined earthquake motion index value for design, a damage tolerance value when an earthquake having the earthquake motion index value acts on the target building, and provisional setting values ​​for component arrangement related to earthquake resistance for provisionally determining the target building; a response analysis step of virtually inputting seismic waves having the earthquake motion index value to the provisionally determined target building and deriving a relationship between the earthquake motion index value and the story deformation angle in the provisionally determined target building; a damage assessment value derivation step for deriving a damage assessment value based on the degree of damage when an earthquake having a reference value acts on the provisionally determined target building, based on the relationships derived in the damage information derivation step and the response analysis step; and a comparison step for comparing the damage assessment value with the damage tolerance value, wherein if the damage assessment value exceeds the damage tolerance value in the comparison step, the condition setting step, the damage information derivation step, and the comparison step are repeated by changing at least one of the seismic motion index value, the damage tolerance value, and the provisional set value until the damage assessment value becomes equal to or less than the damage tolerance value, and if the damage assessment value becomes equal to or less than the damage tolerance value in the comparison step, the provisional set value is determined to be the set value for the confirmed component arrangement of the target building.

[0008] Patent Document 3 discloses a quantitative seismic performance evaluation program for structures that aims to enable accurate assessment of damage during an earthquake even at a stage when the specifications and costs of the structure's components have not yet been determined.

[0009] This quantitative seismic performance evaluation program causes a computer to function as: a storage means for storing the installation location, service period, and response characteristics to earthquake motion of a target structure for evaluating the seismic performance of the target structure; a response value calculation means for inputting multiple earthquake motions with occurrence probabilities expected at the installation location during the service period and calculating maximum response values ​​with occurrence probabilities of acceleration and deformation occurring in the target structure according to the response characteristics; an expected value calculation means for calculating expected seismic response values ​​of acceleration and deformation occurring in the target structure during the service period from the maximum response values ​​and occurrence probabilities of acceleration and deformation; and a performance evaluation means for evaluating the seismic performance of the target structure using the product of the expected seismic response values ​​of acceleration and deformation or their reciprocals as a seismic performance index. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0010] [Patent Document 1] Patent Publication No. 2021-188911 [Patent Document 2] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2012-146188 [Patent Document 3] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2009-271684 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0011] On the other hand, in the structural design of buildings in Japan, the Building Standards Act covers two levels of earthquake motion: level 1 and level 2. Consideration of levels not covered, i.e., earthquake motion of level 3 or above, is left to the discretion of the individual structural designer.

[0012] In contrast to this, the seismic performance evaluation methods used overseas, particularly by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), take into account Level 3 earthquake motion and margin levels when evaluating seismic performance. In Japan as well, measures against Level 3 earthquake motion are required, and research is being conducted on design methods that take margin levels into account.

[0013] Therefore, one possible method for evaluating the seismic performance of buildings constructed in Japan is to use the earthquake ground motion groups used in FEMA's seismic performance evaluations. However, these earthquake ground motion groups are derived from observation records from around the world, and do not take into account the diversity, regional characteristics, and other aspects of earthquakes within Japan, making them unsuitable for evaluating the seismic performance of buildings constructed in Japan. For this reason, there is a problem with this method in that it is not necessarily possible to rationally evaluate the seismic performance of buildings.

[0014] In contrast, a method of evaluating the seismic performance of a building using various earthquake motions that have occurred in Japan in the past is also considered. However, in this case, it is difficult to take into account earthquake motions that are unique to the construction location of the building, and depending on the construction location, the seismic performance may be excessive. Therefore, this method also has the problem of not necessarily being able to rationally evaluate the seismic performance of a building.

[0015] The technology disclosed in Patent Document 1 takes into consideration the construction location of the building, but it is necessary to estimate the input earthquake motion each time, and therefore it is not necessarily a rational method. Furthermore, the technology disclosed in Patent Document 2 does not take into consideration the regional characteristics of the construction location of the building, and furthermore, the technology disclosed in Patent Document 3 takes into consideration the strength of the earthquake at the construction location, but does not consider the characteristics of the earthquake motion.

[0016] The present disclosure has been made in consideration of the above facts, and aims to provide a seismic performance evaluation support device, a seismic performance evaluation support method, and a seismic performance evaluation support program that can evaluate the seismic performance of a building more rationally compared to conventional techniques. [Means for solving the problem]

[0017] The seismic performance evaluation support device according to the present invention as set forth in claim 1 comprises: an acquisition unit that acquires earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups that are predetermined in Japan as earthquake motions that can damage buildings, and location information that indicates the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance; a creation unit that creates a fragility curve for each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups by performing incremental dynamic analysis of the building using each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups; a derivation unit that derives a comprehensive fragility curve for the building by taking a weighted average of the multiple created fragility curves using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups at the construction location, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction location indicated by the location information; and a presentation unit that presents information corresponding to the derived fragility curve.

[0018] According to the seismic performance evaluation support device of the present invention as set forth in claim 1, in Japan, earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups predetermined as earthquake motions that can damage buildings, and location information indicating the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance are obtained, and an incremental dynamic analysis is performed on the building using each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups to create a fragility curve for each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups.A weighted average of the created multiple fragility curves is taken using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups at the construction location, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction location indicated by the location information, to derive a comprehensive fragility curve for the building, and information corresponding to the derived fragility curve is presented.By doing so, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of a building using multiple types of earthquake motion groups that have different effects on buildings, taking into account the diversity of earthquakes in Japan, and incorporating the trends of earthquake motion at the construction location.As a result, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of a building more rationally than with conventional techniques.

[0019] The seismic performance evaluation support device according to the present invention described in claim 2 is the seismic performance evaluation support device described in claim 1, wherein the weighting coefficient is a coefficient determined in advance using hazard map information at the construction location.

[0020] According to the seismic performance evaluation support device of the present invention described in claim 2, the weighting coefficient can be set using existing information by using a coefficient that is predetermined using hazard map information at the construction location.

[0021] The earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device according to the present invention as set forth in claim 3 is the earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device as set forth in claim 1 or claim 2, wherein the multiple types of earthquake motion groups are four types of earthquake motion groups: average earthquake motion groups, pulse active fault earthquake motion groups, non-pulse active fault earthquake motion groups, and trench earthquake motion groups.

[0022] According to the earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device of the present invention as set forth in claim 3, by setting the multiple types of earthquake motion groups to four types of earthquake motion groups: average earthquake motion groups, pulse active fault earthquake motion groups, non-pulse active fault earthquake motion groups, and subduction zone earthquake motion groups, these four types of earthquake motion groups can generally explain earthquakes in Japan, so the earthquake resistance performance of buildings can be evaluated more rationally compared to when earthquake motions other than these are also applied. Note that, while volcanic earthquake motions are a typical example of earthquake motions other than these, these earthquake motions have relatively small amplitudes and it is not often expected that buildings will be constructed near volcanoes, so these earthquake motions are excluded from the scope of the invention as set forth in claim 3.

[0023] The earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device according to the present invention as set forth in claim 4 is the earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device as set forth in claim 3, wherein the multiple types of earthquake motion groups are three types of earthquake motion groups: the pulse active fault type earthquake motion group, the non-pulse active fault type earthquake motion group, and the trench type earthquake motion group.

[0024] According to the earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device of the present invention as set forth in claim 4, by dividing the multiple types of earthquake motion groups into three types, namely, pulse active fault earthquake motion groups, non-pulse active fault earthquake motion groups, and subduction zone earthquake motion groups, it is possible to narrow down the earthquake motions to be applied to the three types of earthquake motion groups that have the greatest impact on the collapse of buildings among the four types of earthquake motion groups, and as a result, it is possible to evaluate the earthquake resistance performance of a building more rationally compared to when earthquake motion groups other than these three types are also applied.

[0025] The earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device according to the present invention as set forth in claim 5 is the earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device as set forth in claim 4, wherein the plurality of types of earthquake motion groups are two types of earthquake motion groups: the pulse active fault type earthquake motion group and the trench type earthquake motion group.

[0026] According to the earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device of the present invention as set forth in claim 5, by setting the multiple types of earthquake motion groups to two types of earthquake motion groups, namely, pulse active fault earthquake motion groups and subduction zone earthquake motion groups, it is possible to narrow down the earthquake motions to be applied to the two types of earthquake motion groups that have a particularly large impact on the collapse of buildings among the three types of earthquake motion groups.As a result, it is possible to evaluate the earthquake resistance performance of a building more rationally compared to when earthquake motion groups other than these two types are also applied.

[0027] The seismic performance evaluation support method according to the present invention as set forth in claim 6 executes the following processing: a computer acquires earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups that are predetermined in Japan as earthquake motions that can damage buildings, and location information indicating the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance; performs incremental dynamic analysis of the building using each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups to create a fragility curve for each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups; derives a comprehensive fragility curve for the building by taking a weighted average of the created fragility curves using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups at the construction location, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction location indicated by the location information; and presents information corresponding to the derived fragility curve.

[0028] According to the seismic performance evaluation support method of the present invention as set forth in claim 6, in Japan, earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups predetermined as earthquake motions that can damage buildings, and location information indicating the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance are obtained, and an incremental dynamic analysis is performed on the building using each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups to create a fragility curve for each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups.A weighted average of the created multiple fragility curves is taken using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups at the construction location, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction location indicated by the location information, to derive a comprehensive fragility curve for the building, and information corresponding to the derived fragility curve is presented.By doing so, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of a building using multiple types of earthquake motion groups that have different effects on buildings, taking into account the diversity of earthquakes in Japan, and incorporating the trends of earthquake motions at the construction location.As a result, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of a building more rationally than with conventional techniques.

[0029] The seismic performance evaluation support program of the present invention as set forth in claim 7 causes a computer to execute the following processing: acquire earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups that are predetermined in Japan as earthquake motions that can damage buildings, and location information indicating the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance; perform incremental dynamic analysis of the building using each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups to create a fragility curve for each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups; derive a comprehensive fragility curve for the building by taking a weighted average of the multiple created fragility curves using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups at the construction location, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction location indicated by the location information; and present information corresponding to the derived fragility curve.

[0030] According to the seismic performance evaluation support program of the present invention as set forth in claim 7, earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups predetermined as earthquake motions that can damage buildings in Japan, and location information indicating the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance are obtained, and an incremental dynamic analysis is performed on the building using each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups to create a fragility curve for each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups.A weighted average of the created multiple fragility curves is taken using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the multiple types of earthquake motion groups at the construction location, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction location indicated by the location information, to derive a comprehensive fragility curve for the building, and information corresponding to the derived fragility curve is presented.By doing so, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of a building using multiple types of earthquake motion groups that have different effects on buildings, taking into account the diversity of earthquakes in Japan, and incorporating the trends of earthquake motions at the construction location.As a result, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of a building more rationally than with conventional techniques. [Effects of the Invention]

[0031] As described above, according to the present invention, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of a building more rationally than with conventional techniques. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0032] [Figure 1] 1 is a block diagram showing an example of a hardware configuration of a seismic performance evaluation support system according to an embodiment. [Figure 2] These figures are used to explain the problems of conventional technology. The left figure shows the current state of structural design of buildings in Japan, and the right figure shows fragility curves used to explain the current state of structural design of buildings overseas (mainly the United States). [Figure 3] This is a diagram showing an example of the flow of FEMA's method for evaluating the seismic performance of buildings. [Figure 4] 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a functional configuration of a seismic performance evaluation support device according to an embodiment. [Figure 5]1 is a graph illustrating a method for creating a fragility curve according to an embodiment. [Figure 6] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a method for creating a comprehensive fragility curve according to an embodiment. [Figure 7] FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram showing an example of the configuration of a seismic motion group information database according to the embodiment. [Figure 8] FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a configuration of a weighting coefficient information database according to the embodiment. [Figure 9] 10 is a graph showing hazard map information for explaining a method for deriving a weighting coefficient according to an embodiment. [Figure 10] 10 is a graph showing hazard map information for explaining another method of deriving a weighting coefficient according to the embodiment. [Figure 11A] 1 is a graph showing an example of a fragility curve for an active fault type earthquake motion group according to an embodiment. [Figure 11B] 1 is a graph showing an example of a fragility curve for a group of subduction-zone earthquake motions according to an embodiment. [Figure 12A] 1 is a graph illustrating an example of a comprehensive fragility curve according to an embodiment. [Figure 12B] 10 is a graph showing another example of a comprehensive fragility curve according to an embodiment. [Figure 13] 10 is a flowchart showing an example of the flow of a seismic performance evaluation support process according to the embodiment. [Figure 14] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a construction location input screen according to the embodiment. [Figure 15] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a fragility curve display screen according to the embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0033] An example of a seismic performance evaluation support system to which the seismic performance evaluation support device, the seismic performance evaluation support method, and the seismic performance evaluation support program according to the present invention are applied will be described in detail below.

[0034] First, the configuration of a seismic performance evaluation support system 90 according to this embodiment will be described with reference to Fig. 1. Fig. 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the seismic performance evaluation support system 90 according to this embodiment.

[0035] 1, a seismic performance evaluation support system 90 according to this embodiment includes a seismic performance evaluation support device 10 connected to the Internet 60. The seismic performance evaluation support system 90 according to this embodiment is a system for supporting the evaluation of the seismic performance of buildings at their construction locations in Japan.

[0036] The seismic performance evaluation support device 10 according to this embodiment includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 11 as a computer, a memory 12 as a temporary storage area, a non-volatile storage unit 13, an input unit 14 such as a keyboard and a mouse, a display unit 15 such as a liquid crystal display, a medium read / write device (R / W) 16, and a communication interface (I / F) unit 18. The CPU 11, memory 12, storage unit 13, input unit 14, display unit 15, medium read / write device 16, and communication I / F unit 18 are connected to one another via a bus B. The medium read / write device 16 reads information written in a recording medium 17 and writes information to the recording medium 17.

[0037] The storage unit 13 according to this embodiment is realized by an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), an SSD (Solid State Drive), a flash memory, or the like. A seismic performance evaluation support program 13A is stored in the storage unit 13 as a storage medium. The seismic performance evaluation support program 13A is stored (installed) in the storage unit 13 when a recording medium 17 on which the program 13A is written is set in the medium reading and writing device 16 and the medium reading and writing device 16 reads the program 13A from the recording medium 17. The CPU 11 reads the seismic performance evaluation support program 13A from the storage unit 13 as appropriate, expands it in the memory 12, and sequentially executes the processes of the program 13A.

[0038] The storage unit 13 also stores an earthquake motion group information database 13B and a weighting coefficient information database 13C. The earthquake motion group information database 13B and the weighting coefficient information database 13C will be described in detail later.

[0039] Next, a seismic performance evaluation support method performed by the seismic performance evaluation support system 90 according to this embodiment will be described.

[0040] Figure 2 shows a diagram used to explain the problems with conventional technology. The left diagram in Figure 2 shows the current state of structural design of buildings in Japan, and the right diagram shows fragility curves used to explain the current state of structural design of buildings overseas (mainly in the United States).

[0041] As shown in the left diagram of Figure 2, the Building Standards Act stipulates that the structural design of buildings in Japan must be subject to two levels of earthquake motion: Level 1 and Level 2. As mentioned above, consideration of levels not covered by the Act, i.e., earthquake motion of Level 3 or above, is left to the discretion of the individual designer in charge of the structural design.

[0042] In contrast, as shown in the right-hand diagram of Figure 2, the seismic performance evaluation method used overseas, particularly by FEMA in the United States, takes into account Level 3 earthquake motion and margin levels when evaluating seismic performance. As mentioned above, in Japan too, there are calls for measures to be taken against Level 3 earthquake motion, and research is being conducted on design methods that take margin levels into account.

[0043] Here, the FEMA's method for evaluating the seismic performance of a building will be described with reference to Fig. 3. Fig. 3 is a diagram showing an example of the flow of the FEMA's method for evaluating the seismic performance of a building.

[0044] As shown in Figure 3, FEMA's method for evaluating the seismic performance of buildings begins by preparing information showing a large number of standardized earthquake motion groups, approximately 10 to several tens of waves. Next, an incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is performed, in which each earthquake motion is multiplied by a constant, and the collapse probability, which is the proportion of the building reaching its ultimate state, is calculated for the strength of each earthquake motion group. Note that the "collapse probability" referred to here is also called the "damage probability."

[0045] Next, a fragility curve is created by fitting the calculated collapse probability to multiple plots of the strength of the corresponding earthquake motions, while also taking into account variations other than earthquake motion.

[0046] Then, the seismic performance is evaluated by applying Level 3 earthquake motion and margin levels to the fragility curve obtained by the above processing.

[0047] The earthquake ground motions used in the above FEMA seismic performance evaluation method do not take into account earthquake ground motions that may occur in Japan, and even if this evaluation method is applied to buildings constructed in Japan, it is not necessarily possible to perform a seismic evaluation with sufficient accuracy.

[0048] Therefore, the seismic performance evaluation support system 90 according to this embodiment applies multiple types of typical earthquake motions that can occur in Japan, and calculates a weighted average of the fragility curves created for the multiple types of earthquake motions using weighting coefficients according to the construction location, thereby deriving a comprehensive fragility curve.

[0049] FIG. 4 is a functional block diagram showing an example of the functional configuration of the seismic performance evaluation support device 10 according to this embodiment.

[0050] 4, the seismic performance evaluation support device 10 according to this embodiment includes an acquisition unit 11A, a creation unit 11B, a derivation unit 11C, and a presentation unit 11D. When the CPU 11 of the seismic performance evaluation support device 10 executes the seismic performance evaluation support program 13A, the CPU 11 functions as the acquisition unit 11A, the creation unit 11B, the derivation unit 11C, and the presentation unit 11D.

[0051] The acquisition unit 11A in this embodiment acquires earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups that have been predetermined as earthquake motions that can damage buildings in Japan, and location information indicating the construction location of a building (hereinafter referred to as the "target building") whose seismic performance is to be evaluated.

[0052] The acquiring unit 11A according to the present embodiment acquires the seismic motion cluster information by reading it from the seismic motion cluster information database 13B (described later) stored in advance in the storage unit 13, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, the seismic motion cluster information may be acquired by downloading it from another device such as an external server connected to the Internet 60. The acquiring unit 11A according to the present embodiment acquires the location information by having the user of the seismic performance evaluation support device 10 input it via the input unit 14, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, the location information may be stored in advance in the storage unit 13 and acquired by reading it from the storage unit 13.

[0053] Moreover, the creation unit 11B according to this embodiment creates a fragility curve for each of the plurality of types of earthquake motion groups by performing incremental dynamic analysis for the target building using each of the plurality of types of earthquake motion groups.

[0054] Furthermore, the derivation unit 11C according to this embodiment calculates a weighted average of the multiple fragility curves created by the creation unit 11B using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the multiple types of seismic motion groups at the target construction location, which is predetermined corresponding to the construction location indicated by the location information (hereinafter referred to as the "target construction location"), thereby deriving a comprehensive fragility curve for the target building.

[0055] In this embodiment, the fragility curves are defined by the cumulative distribution function of a log-normal distribution using the following formula (1): where θ in formula (1) represents the median of the plots ("Analysis Results" in FIG. 5), as an example, and β represents the logarithmic standard deviation of the plots.

[0056]

number

[0057] Furthermore, the derivation unit 11C according to this embodiment derives a weighted average of the plurality of fragility curves using the following formula (2): where i in formula (2) represents the number of types of seismic motion groups, and w i represents the weighting coefficient for the i-th earthquake motion group, and the weighting coefficient w i The sum of these is 1.

[0058]

number

[0059] Then, the presentation unit 11D according to this embodiment presents information according to the fragility curve derived by the derivation unit 11C.

[0060] In this embodiment, information indicating the fragility curve itself is applied as the information corresponding to the fragility curve, but this is not limited thereto. For example, various information that can be read from the derived fragility curve may be applied as the information corresponding to the fragility curve. Furthermore, in this embodiment, presentation by the presentation unit 11D is applied by display on the display unit 15, but this is not limited thereto. For example, presentation by the presentation unit 11D by voice using a voice generation device or by printing using an image forming device may be applied as the presentation by the presentation unit 11D.

[0061] In this embodiment, the weighting coefficients are obtained using hazard map information for the target construction location, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, the weighting coefficients may be the relative values ​​of the influence of each of the multiple types of earthquake motions on the target construction location, which are empirically assumed by the user of the seismic performance evaluation support device 10.

[0062] In addition, in this embodiment, four types of earthquake ground motions are applied as the multiple types of earthquake ground motions: average earthquake ground motions (so-called public notice waves), pulse active fault earthquake ground motions, non-pulse active fault earthquake ground motions, and subduction zone earthquake ground motions. The reason why these four types of earthquake ground motions are applied in this embodiment is because these four types of earthquake ground motions can generally explain earthquakes in Japan, and they allow for a more rational evaluation of the seismic performance of buildings compared to when other earthquake ground motions are also applied. Note that a representative example of earthquake ground motions other than the four types above is volcanic earthquake ground motion, but this earthquake ground motion has a relatively small amplitude and it is not often expected that buildings will be constructed near volcanoes. For this reason, this earthquake ground motion is not included in this embodiment.

[0063] In addition, trench-type earthquake motion groups and pulse-type active fault earthquake motion groups are earthquake motion groups that include long-period earthquake motion, while average-type earthquake motion groups and non-pulse-type active fault earthquake motion groups are earthquake motion groups that do not include long-period earthquake motion.

[0064] In this embodiment, the above four types of earthquake ground motion groups are applied as the above multiple types of earthquake ground motion groups, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, three types of earthquake ground motion groups, namely, pulse active fault earthquake ground motion groups, non-pulse active fault earthquake ground motion groups, and subduction zone earthquake ground motion groups, or two types of earthquake ground motion groups, namely, pulse active fault earthquake ground motion groups and subduction zone earthquake ground motion groups, may be applied as the above multiple types of earthquake ground motion groups.

[0065] In the case where the above three types of earthquake motion groups are applied, it is possible to narrow down the earthquake motions to the three types of earthquake motion groups that have the greatest impact on building collapse among the four types of earthquake motion groups, and as a result, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of buildings more rationally compared to when earthquake motions other than these three types are also applied.In addition, in the case where the above two types of earthquake motion groups are applied, it is possible to narrow down the earthquake motions to the two types of earthquake motion groups that have the greatest impact on building collapse among the three types of earthquake motion groups, and as a result, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of buildings more rationally compared to when earthquake motions other than these two types are also applied.

[0066] FIG. 6 shows a diagram for explaining a method for creating a comprehensive fragility curve according to this embodiment.

[0067] 6, the acquisition unit 11A according to this embodiment acquires earthquake ground motion group information indicating the above-mentioned multiple types of earthquake ground motion groups, which indicates four types of earthquake ground motion groups: average earthquake ground motion group e1, pulse active fault earthquake ground motion group e2, non-pulse active fault earthquake ground motion group e3, and trench earthquake ground motion group e4. The acquisition unit 11A according to this embodiment also acquires location information indicating the target construction location.

[0068] In addition, the creation unit 11B according to this embodiment creates fragility curves f1 to f4, one for each of the four types of seismic motion groups, and the derivation unit 11C according to this embodiment applies weighting coefficients obtained from the hazard map information at the target construction location indicated by the acquired location information to the corresponding fragility curves f1 to f4 and takes a weighted average, thereby deriving an overall fragility curve F.

[0069] Next, the earthquake motion cluster information database 13B according to this embodiment will be described with reference to Fig. 7. Fig. 7 is a schematic diagram showing an example of the configuration of the earthquake motion cluster information database 13B according to this embodiment.

[0070] As shown in FIG. 7, the earthquake motion group information database 13B according to this embodiment stores information on types and earthquake motion groups.

[0071] The type is information indicating the type of earthquake ground motion group to which the seismic performance evaluation support system 90 is applied, and in this embodiment, it is information indicating each of the above-mentioned average earthquake ground motion group, pulse active fault earthquake ground motion group, non-pulse active fault earthquake ground motion group, and trench earthquake ground motion group. Also, the earthquake ground motion group is information indicating the corresponding earthquake ground motion group itself.

[0072] Next, the weighting coefficient information database 13C according to this embodiment will be described with reference to Fig. 8. Fig. 8 is a schematic diagram showing an example of the configuration of the weighting coefficient information database 13C according to this embodiment.

[0073] As shown in FIG. 8, the weighting coefficient information database 13C according to this embodiment stores information on construction positions and weighting coefficients in association with each other.

[0074] The construction location is information indicating each of the predetermined sectional areas (in this embodiment, cities, wards, towns, and villages) that can be used as the construction location of the target building in the area (in this embodiment, the entire country of Japan) that is the target of evaluation by the seismic performance evaluation support system 90. The weighting coefficient is information indicating the weighting coefficient itself that is applied when the target building is constructed in the corresponding sectional area.

[0075] In the example shown in Figure 8, when Sapporo City in Hokkaido is used as the target construction location, the following weighting coefficients are applied: w1 for average earthquake motion groups is 0.1; w2 for pulsed active fault earthquake motion groups is 0.2; w3 for non-pulse active fault earthquake motion groups is 0.3; and w4 for trench earthquake motion groups is 0.4.

[0076] In this embodiment, as described above, the weighting coefficients are determined from the hazard map information for the corresponding construction location and registered in advance in the weighting coefficient information database 13C. The method for determining the weighting coefficients from the hazard map information will be described below. In this case, to avoid confusion, the case where only two types of earthquake ground motion clusters, namely, subduction-zone earthquake ground motion clusters and active-fault earthquake ground motion clusters, are applied as the types of earthquake ground motion clusters to be targeted will be described.

[0077] Fig. 9 shows a graph illustrating hazard map information used to explain the method for deriving weighting coefficients according to this embodiment. In the graph shown in Fig. 9, the horizontal axis represents earthquake magnitude, and the vertical axis represents the degree of influence of each earthquake ground motion group. In the graph shown in Fig. 9, the gray masked areas represent areas of subduction-zone earthquake ground motion groups, and the black masked areas represent areas of active-fault earthquake ground motion groups.

[0078] In this embodiment, when the influence levels for each earthquake magnitude for two types of earthquake motion groups, subduction zone earthquake motion groups and active fault earthquake motion groups, are as shown in Fig. 9, the ratio of the area of ​​each region is applied as the corresponding weighting factor. In the case where there are four types of earthquake motion groups to be applied, the weighting factor for each earthquake motion group is applied according to the ratio of the magnitude of the influence level of the corresponding earthquake motion group at the target construction location, using the same concept.

[0079] In this manner, in this embodiment, the weighting coefficient is determined uniformly regardless of the earthquake scale, but this is not limiting. For example, the weighting coefficient may be changed depending on the earthquake scale.

[0080] For example, if the hazard map information used to determine the weighting factors is that shown in Figure 10, the relative influence of active-fault earthquake ground motions gradually increases up to the earthquake magnitude at which the influence of active-fault earthquake ground motions peaks. In contrast, the influence of active-fault earthquake ground motions gradually decreases for earthquakes of magnitudes above that magnitude. Therefore, when changing the weighting factor ratio according to earthquake magnitude, the ratio of the weighting factors for subduction-zone earthquake ground motions and active-fault earthquake ground motions is changed according to the change in the influence ratio. In the following, the method of uniformly determining the weighting factor ratio regardless of earthquake magnitude is referred to as the "first weighting factor determination method," and the method of varying the weighting factor ratio according to earthquake magnitude is referred to as the "second weighting factor determination method."

[0081] FIG. 11A shows a graph illustrating an example of a fragility curve for active fault earthquake motions according to this embodiment, and FIG. 11B shows a graph illustrating an example of a fragility curve for subduction zone earthquake motions according to this embodiment.

[0082] In this case, the overall fragility curve when the weighting coefficients are determined using the first weighting coefficient determination method is as shown in Figure 12A. In this case, the overall fragility curve when the weighting coefficients are determined using the second weighting coefficient determination method is as shown in Figure 12B. The example shown in Figure 12A illustrates a case where the weighting coefficient for subduction-zone earthquake motions is 0.85 and the weighting coefficient for active-fault earthquake motions is 0.15. The example shown in Figure 12B illustrates a case where the weighting coefficient for subduction-zone earthquake motions gradually increases from 0.25 to 0.75, while the weighting coefficient for active-fault earthquake motions gradually decreases from 0.75 to 0.25.

[0083] As an example, as shown in Figure 12A, when the first weighting coefficient determination method is applied as a method for determining weighting coefficients, the overall fragility curve is located between the fragility curves corresponding to each seismic motion group and at a position where the ratio of the distance to each fragility curve for the same earthquake magnitude is the same regardless of the earthquake magnitude. In contrast, as shown in Figure 12B, when the second weighting coefficient determination method is applied as a method for determining weighting coefficients, the overall fragility curve is located between the fragility curves corresponding to each seismic motion group and at a position where the ratio of the distance to each fragility curve for the same earthquake magnitude changes.

[0084] Next, the operation of the seismic performance evaluation support device 10 according to this embodiment will be described with reference to Figs. 13 to 15. Fig. 13 is a flowchart showing an example of the flow of the seismic performance evaluation support process according to this embodiment. The seismic performance evaluation support process is started when a user of the seismic performance evaluation support device 10 inputs instruction information indicating a predetermined execution instruction via the input unit 14. Note that, in order to avoid confusion, a case will be described here in which the earthquake motion group information database 13B and the weighting coefficient information database 13C have already been constructed. Also, in order to avoid confusion, a case will be described here in which a target building has been specified in advance, and information (hereinafter referred to as "building information") required to derive the collapse probability for the intensity of the earthquake motion group regarding the target building has already been registered in the storage unit 13.

[0085] In step 100 shown in FIG. 13, the CPU 11 reads out information indicating all earthquake motion clusters (hereinafter referred to as “earthquake motion cluster information”) from the earthquake motion cluster information database 13B, and also reads out the above-mentioned building information from the storage unit 13.

[0086] In step 102, the CPU 11 controls the display unit 15 to display a construction location input screen with a predetermined configuration, and in step 104, the CPU 11 waits until predetermined information is input.

[0087] An example of a construction location input screen according to this embodiment is shown in Fig. 14. As shown in Fig. 14, the construction location input screen according to this embodiment displays a message prompting the user to input a target construction location. The construction location input screen according to this embodiment also displays a first input area 15A for inputting a prefecture and a second input area 15B for inputting a city, ward, town, or village.

[0088] 14 is displayed, the user inputs the prefecture and city / ward / town / village corresponding to the target construction location in the first input area 15A and the second input area 15B, and then designates the end button 15C via the input unit 14. When the end button 15C is designated, the determination in step 104 is affirmative, and the process proceeds to step 106.

[0089] In step 106, the CPU 11 reads out the weighting coefficient corresponding to the target construction location input by the user on the construction location input screen from the weighting coefficient information database 13C. In step 108, the CPU 11 uses the read-out building information to create a fragility curve for each of the four types of earthquake motion groups, as described above.

[0090] In step 110, the CPU 11 calculates a weighted average of the four created fragility curves using the read weighting coefficients, as described above, to derive a comprehensive fragility curve.

[0091] In step 112, the CPU 11 controls the display unit 15 to display a fragility curve display screen having a predetermined configuration for displaying information corresponding to the derived overall fragility curve (in this embodiment, the fragility curve itself), and then terminates this seismic performance evaluation support process.

[0092] Fig. 15 shows an example of a fragility curve display screen according to this embodiment. As shown in Fig. 15, the fragility curve display screen according to this embodiment displays the derived fragility curve F and the collapse probability for a Level 3 earthquake motion and a safety margin level. Therefore, by referring to the fragility curve display screen, the user can visually and intuitively grasp the fragility curve and the collapse probability.

[0093] As described above, according to this embodiment, earthquake motion cluster information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion clusters predefined in Japan as earthquake motions that can damage buildings and location information indicating the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance are acquired, and an incremental dynamic analysis is performed on the building using each of the multiple types of earthquake motion clusters to create a fragility curve for each of the multiple types of earthquake motion clusters. A weighted average of the created fragility curves is calculated using a weighting factor predefined for the construction location indicated by the location information, which indicates the proportion of influence of each of the multiple types of earthquake motion clusters at the construction location, to derive a comprehensive fragility curve for the building, and information corresponding to the derived fragility curve is presented. Therefore, taking into account the diversity of earthquakes in Japan, it is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of a building using multiple types of earthquake motion clusters that have different effects on the building, thereby enabling a more rational evaluation of the seismic performance of a building compared to conventional techniques.

[0094] Furthermore, according to this embodiment, the weighting coefficient is a coefficient determined in advance using hazard map information for the construction location, so that the weighting coefficient can be set using existing information.

[0095] Furthermore, according to this embodiment, the multiple types of earthquake ground motion groups are classified into four types: average earthquake ground motion groups, pulse active fault earthquake ground motion groups, non-pulse active fault earthquake ground motion groups, and subduction zone earthquake ground motion groups. These four types of earthquake ground motion groups are sufficient to explain most earthquakes in Japan, so the seismic performance of buildings can be evaluated more rationally than when other earthquake ground motions are also applied.

[0096] In the above embodiment, the case where the seismic performance evaluation support device of the technology disclosed herein is applied to the seismic performance evaluation support device 10 configured as a single device has been described, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, the seismic performance evaluation support device of the technology disclosed herein may be configured by a plurality of devices.

[0097] An example of this form is a form in which at least one of the seismic performance evaluation support program 13A, the seismic motion group information database 13B, and the weighting coefficient information database 13C is registered in a device such as an external server different from the seismic performance evaluation support device 10, and the seismic performance evaluation support program 13A is executed by the seismic performance evaluation support device 10. Also, a single seismic performance evaluation support program 13A may be divided into multiple partial processes, and the processes may be distributed among multiple devices.

[0098] In the above embodiment, the seismic performance of a building can be evaluated on a city, ward, town, or village basis, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, the seismic performance may be evaluated on a prefecture basis, or on a regional basis such as the Kanto region or the South Kanto region.

[0099] Furthermore, in the above embodiment, for example, the following various processors can be used as the hardware structure of the processing unit that executes each process of the acquisition unit 11A, creation unit 11B, derivation unit 11C, and presentation unit 11D. As described above, the various processors include a CPU, which is a general-purpose processor that executes software (programs) and functions as a processing unit, as well as dedicated electrical circuits that are processors having a circuit configuration specifically designed to execute specific processes, such as a programmable logic device (PLD) that is a processor whose circuit configuration can be changed after manufacture, such as an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array), and an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit).

[0100] The processing unit may be configured with one of these various processors, or may be configured with a combination of two or more processors of the same or different types (for example, a combination of multiple FPGAs, or a combination of a CPU and an FPGA).The processing unit may also be configured with a single processor.

[0101] Examples of configuring a processing unit with a single processor include, first, a form in which one processor is configured with a combination of one or more CPUs and software, and this processor functions as the processing unit, as typified by computers such as client and server. Second, a form in which a processor is used to realize the functions of the entire system, including the processing unit, on a single IC (Integrated Circuit) chip, as typified by systems on chips (SoCs). In this way, the processing unit is configured using one or more of the above-mentioned various processors as a hardware structure.

[0102] Furthermore, more specifically, the hardware structure of these various processors can be an electric circuit that combines circuit elements such as semiconductor elements. [Explanation of symbols]

[0103] 10. Earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device 11 CPU 11A Acquisition Department 11B Creation Department 11C Derivation part 11D Presentation section 12 Memory 13 Storage section 13A Earthquake Resistance Performance Evaluation Support Program 13B Earthquake motion cluster information database 13C Weighting Factor Information Database 14 Input section 15 Display section 15A First input area 15B Second input area 15C Exit button 16 Media reading and writing device 17 Recording Media 18 Communication I / F section 60 Internet 90 Earthquake Resistance Performance Evaluation Support System e1~e4 earthquake motion group f1~f4 Fragility curves (for each type of earthquake ground motion) F Fragility curve (comprehensive)

Claims

1. an acquisition unit that acquires earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups that have been predetermined in Japan as earthquake motions that may cause damage to buildings, and location information indicating the construction location of a building whose seismic performance is to be evaluated; a creation unit that creates a fragility curve for each of the plurality of types of earthquake motion groups by performing incremental dynamic analysis for the building using each of the plurality of types of earthquake motion groups; a derivation unit that derives a comprehensive fragility curve for the building by taking a weighted average of the created fragility curves using a weighting coefficient that indicates a proportion of an influence of each of the plurality of types of seismic motion groups at the construction position, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction position indicated by the location information; and a presentation unit that presents information according to the derived fragility curve; A seismic performance evaluation support device equipped with

2. The weighting coefficient is a coefficient determined in advance using hazard map information at the construction location. The earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device according to claim 1.

3. The plurality of types of earthquake ground motions are four types of earthquake ground motions: average earthquake ground motions, pulsed active fault earthquake ground motions, non-pulse active fault earthquake ground motions, and subduction zone earthquake ground motions. The earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device according to claim 1 or 2.

4. The plurality of types of earthquake motion groups are three types of earthquake motion groups: the pulse active fault type earthquake motion group, the non-pulse active fault type earthquake motion group, and the subduction zone type earthquake motion group. The earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device according to claim 3.

5. The plurality of types of earthquake ground motions are two types of earthquake ground motions: the pulse-type active fault earthquake ground motions and the subduction zone earthquake ground motions. The earthquake resistance performance evaluation support device according to claim 4.

6. The computer In Japan, earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups that have been predetermined as earthquake motions that may cause damage to buildings and location information indicating the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance are acquired, performing incremental dynamic analysis of the building using each of the plurality of types of earthquake motion groups to create a fragility curve for each of the earthquake motion groups; deriving a comprehensive fragility curve for the building by taking a weighted average of the created fragility curves using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the plurality of types of seismic motion groups at the construction position, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction position indicated by the location information; Present information according to the derived fragility curve, A method for supporting seismic performance evaluation that executes processing.

7. In Japan, earthquake motion group information indicating multiple types of earthquake motion groups that have been predetermined as earthquake motions that may cause damage to buildings and location information indicating the construction location of a building to be evaluated for seismic performance are acquired, performing incremental dynamic analysis of the building using each of the plurality of types of earthquake motion groups to create a fragility curve for each of the earthquake motion groups; deriving a comprehensive fragility curve for the building by taking a weighted average of the created fragility curves using a weighting coefficient that indicates the proportion of the influence of each of the plurality of types of seismic motion groups at the construction position, the weighting coefficient being predetermined corresponding to the construction position indicated by the location information; Present information according to the derived fragility curve, A seismic performance evaluation support program that executes processing on a computer.

Images