Evaluación técnico económica del uso de aisladores sísmicos en el pabellón de la Facultad de Ingeniería Civil de la Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú
Fecha
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Resumen
Está demostrado que la tecnología del aislamiento sísmico mejora significativamente el
comportamiento estructural de los edificios, a pesar de ello, el Código Sísmico Peruano E.030,
obliga el uso de esta tecnología únicamente a hospitales ubicados en zonas de alto riesgo sísmico.
La razón principal de esta limitación es el elevado costo inicial de la implementación de esta
tecnología en relación a un sistema convencional.
Para fomentar el uso de esta tecnología en edificaciones no hospitalarios es importante que
se demuestre el beneficio económico durante el ciclo de vida del edificio. Esta investigación
presenta un análisis comparativo del costo-beneficio en el uso de la tecnología de aislamiento en
un edificio universitario con respecto al mismo edificio diseñado con un sistema convencional.
Para la evaluación del desempeño en base a costos probables de reparación se hace uso de la
metodología FEMA P-58.
Considerando el sismo de nivel de diseño (TR=475años), se determinó que el edificio
convencional alcanza una pérdida del 27.7% del costo total del edificio, mientras que, el edificio
aislado tiene una pérdida del 1.8% del costo total del edificio. En la evaluación de los objetivos de
Resiliencia Sísmica se determinó que el edificio convencional no alcanza ningún objetivo de
resiliencia, mientras que el edificio aislado alcanza la certificación de platino, que es el objetivo
más alto de Resiliencia Sísmica. Puesto que, en el edificio aislado se obtuvo pérdidas menores a
2.5%, el tiempo de inactividad esperado es menor a 72 horas, los componentes estructurales y
contenido no se ven dañados, garantizándose de esta forma la funcionalidad continua en el edificio.
Se determinó que el costo de reparación anual esperada (EAL) a consecuencia de todos los
probables sismos que pueden acontecer a lo largo de un año es de $ 25 697.00 dólares para el
edificio convencional, frente a $ 1006.00 dólares para el caso del edificio aislado. Finalmente, se
encontró que el costo de uso de la tecnología de aislamiento se justificaría en 30 años y que el
beneficio total durante el ciclo de vida útil (Tv=50años) del edificio es de $. 88 300 dólares, que
representa el 20% el costo del sistema de aislamiento.
It has been proven that seismic isolation technology significantly improves the structural performance of buildings. Despite this, Peruvian Seismic Code E.030 only requires the use of this technology in hospitals located in high seismic risk areas. The main reason for this limitation is the high initial cost of implementing this technology compared to a conventional system. To promote the use of this technology in non-hospital buildings, it is important to demonstrate the economic benefits over the building's life cycle. This research presents a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the use of insulation technology in a university building compared to the same building designed with a conventional system. The FEMA P-58 methodology is used to evaluate performance based on probable repair costs. Considering the design earthquake (TR=475 years), it was determined that the conventional building suffers a loss of 27.7% of the total cost of the building, while the isolated building suffers a loss of 1.8% of the total cost of the building. In the evaluation of Seismic Resilience objectives, it was determined that the conventional building does not achieve any resilience objectives, while the isolated building achieves platinum certification, which is the highest Seismic Resilience objective. Since the isolated building had losses of less than 2.5%, the expected downtime is less than 72 hours, and the structural components and contents are not damaged, thus ensuring the building's continued functionality. It was determined that the expected annual repair cost (EAL) as a result of all probable earthquakes that may occur over the course of a year is $25,697.00 for the conventional building, compared to $1,006.00 for the isolated building. Finally, it was found that the cost of using isolation technology would be justified in 30 years and that the total benefit over the useful life cycle (Tv=50 years) of the building is $88,300, which represents 20% of the cost of the isolation system.
It has been proven that seismic isolation technology significantly improves the structural performance of buildings. Despite this, Peruvian Seismic Code E.030 only requires the use of this technology in hospitals located in high seismic risk areas. The main reason for this limitation is the high initial cost of implementing this technology compared to a conventional system. To promote the use of this technology in non-hospital buildings, it is important to demonstrate the economic benefits over the building's life cycle. This research presents a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the use of insulation technology in a university building compared to the same building designed with a conventional system. The FEMA P-58 methodology is used to evaluate performance based on probable repair costs. Considering the design earthquake (TR=475 years), it was determined that the conventional building suffers a loss of 27.7% of the total cost of the building, while the isolated building suffers a loss of 1.8% of the total cost of the building. In the evaluation of Seismic Resilience objectives, it was determined that the conventional building does not achieve any resilience objectives, while the isolated building achieves platinum certification, which is the highest Seismic Resilience objective. Since the isolated building had losses of less than 2.5%, the expected downtime is less than 72 hours, and the structural components and contents are not damaged, thus ensuring the building's continued functionality. It was determined that the expected annual repair cost (EAL) as a result of all probable earthquakes that may occur over the course of a year is $25,697.00 for the conventional building, compared to $1,006.00 for the isolated building. Finally, it was found that the cost of using isolation technology would be justified in 30 years and that the total benefit over the useful life cycle (Tv=50 years) of the building is $88,300, which represents 20% of the cost of the isolation system.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Aisladores, Ingeniería antisísmica, Construcción--Ciclo de vida, Análisis costo-beneficio
Citación
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
