Report 6

cyan_magenta_giallo_nero
Assessment of Existing Structures

Probabilistic Methods for Seismic
Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides
LESSLOSS Report - 2007/06

EDITOR: P. E. PINTO
Probabilistic Methods
Recent disastrous earthquakes in highly developed and/or
populated areas have brought about the need for an expanded and for Seismic Assessment
explicit recourse to probabilistic approaches for two main purposes:
better control of the expected performances of new construction
and assessment of the expected losses, with accompanying
of Existing Structures
development of mitigation measures, for the built environment.
LESSLOSS is the first European project which includes two sub-
projects dealing with probabilistic risk analysis, of individual
structures and infrastructures, and of urban areas, respectively.
This self-contained document provides a presentation and
illustration of two methods (one based on non-linear static analysis,
the other on non-linear time-history analysis) for probabilistic
seismic risk assessment of individual structures. The presented
methods belong to a class which has been under development
(mainly in the US) since more than a decade, and it is now firmly
established and gaining wide international acceptance. The principal
appeal of these methods is that they require only a limited
background in probability and statistics. While they are presently
directly usable for the assessment of existing structures, their
extension for direct design purposes is currently under way.
In order to facilitate the use of these methods, the type and amount
of information required for their application is also illustrated in
this document. In particular, one chapter introduces the
probabilistic representation, and evaluation, of the seismic hazard
(PSHA) and the issue of selection and scaling of recorded ground
motions for the purpose of dynamic analysis. A further chapter
LESSLOSS Report - 2007/06

gives an overview of the most recent research aimed at developing
models for the capacity (strength or deformability) of structural
members and connections/joints in RC and steel structures.
A detailed presentation of several case-studies illustrating the two
approaches completes the document.
IUSS Press
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia
LESSLOSS RISK MITIGATION FOR EARTHQUAKES AND LANDSLIDES
LESSLOSS Report No. 2007/06
Probabilistic Methods for

Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures
Editor
Paolo E. Pinto
Reviewer
Eduardo Carvalho
July, 2007
Nessuna parte di questa pubblicazione pu essere riprodotta o trasmessa in qualsiasi forma o con qualsiasi mezzo
elettronico, meccanico o altro senza lautorizzazione scritta dei proprietari dei diritti e delleditore.
No parts of this publication may be copied or transmitted in any shape or form, and by any type of electronic,
mechanical or different means, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder and the publisher.
prodotto e distribuito da:

produced and distributed by:
IUSS Press
Via Ferrata 1 - 27100 Pavia, Italy
Tel.: (+39) 0382.516911 - fax: (+39) 0382.529131
Email: info@iusspress.it - web: www.iusspress.it
ISBN: 978-88-6198-010-5
FOREWORD
Earthquake and landslide risk is a public safety issue that requires appropriate mitigation
measures and means to protect citizens, property, infrastructure and the built cultural
heritage. Mitigating this risk requires integrated and coordinated action that embraces a
wide range of organisations and disciplines. For this reason, the LESSLOSS Integrated
Project, funded by the European Commission under the auspices of its Sixth Framework
Programme, is formulated by a large number of European Centres of excellence in
earthquake and geotechnical engineering integrating in the traditional fields of engineers
and earth scientists some expertise of social scientists, economists, urban planners and
information technologists.
The LESSLOSS project addresses natural disasters, risk and impact assessment, natural
hazard monitoring, mapping and management strategies, improved disaster preparedness
and mitigation, development of advanced methods for risk assessment, methods of
appraising environmental quality and relevant pre-normative research.
A major objective of the project is to describe current best practice and advance
knowledge in each area investigated. Thus, LESSLOSS has produced, under the
coordination of the Joint Research Centre, a series of Technical reports addressed to
technical and scientific communities, national, regional and local public administrations,
design offices, and civil protection agencies with the following titles:
Lessloss-2007/01: Landslides: Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilization

Lessloss-2007/02: European Manual for in-situ Assessment of Important Existing
Structures
Lessloss-2007/03: Innovative Anti-Seismic Systems Users Manual
Lessloss-2007/04: Guidelines for Seismic Vulnerability Reduction in the Urban
Environment
Lessloss-2007/05: Guidelines for Displacement-based Design of Buildings and Bridges
Lessloss-2007/06: Probabilistic Methods to Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures
Lessloss-2007/07: Earthquake Disaster Scenario Predictions and Loss Modelling for
Urban Areas
Lessloss-2007/08: Prediction of Ground Motion and Loss Scenarios for Selected
Infrastructure Systems in European Urban Environments
LIST OF LESSLOSS-2007/06 CONTRIBUTORS
Name: Institution
Paolo Emilio Pinto Sapienza University of Rome
Peter Fajfar University of Ljubljana
Marios Chryssanthopoulos University of Surrey
Paolo Franchin Sapienza University of Rome
Matjaz Dolsek University of Ljubljana
Athanasia Kazantzi University of Surrey
This report reflects the contribution of ideas and activity provided over the last three
years by all of the participants in the LESSLOSS Sub-Project 9 Probabilistic risk assess-
ment: methods and applications. This contribution is gratefully acknowledged.
ABSTRACT
This self-contained document provides a presentation and illustration of two methods

(one based on non-linear static analysis, the other on non-linear time-history analysis) for
probabilistic seismic risk assessment of structures. The presented methods belong to a
class which has been under development (mainly in the US) since more than a decade,
and it is now firmly established and gaining wide international acceptance. The principal
appeal of these methods is that they require only a limited background in probability and
statistics. While they are presently directly usable for the assessment of existing structures,
their extension for direct design purposes is currently under way.
In order to facilitate the use of these methods the type and amount of information re-
quired for their application is also illustrated in this document. In particular, one chapter
introduces the probabilistic representation, and evaluation, of the seismic hazard (PSHA)
and the issue of selection and scaling of recorded ground motions for the purpose of dy-
namic analysis. A further chapter gives an overview of the most recent research aimed at
developing models for the capacity (strength or deformability) of structural members and
connections/joints in RC and steel structures.
A detailed presentation of several case-studies illustrating the two approaches completes

the document.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD................................................................................................................................................. i
LIST OF LESSLOSS-2007/06 CONTRIBUTORS ...............................................................................iii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................................................vii
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................1
2. PROBABILISTIC MODELS OF THE SEISMIC ACTION ...........................................................3
2.1 HAZARD, FRAGILITY AND RISK ........................................................................................................3
2.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS ...................................................................................5
2.3 USE OF RECORDED GROUND MOTIONS ..........................................................................................9
2.3.1 Intensity measures for seismic assessment of structures..................................................9
2.3.2 Sufficient and Efficient attributions ..............................................................................10
2.3.3 Sufficiency of first mode spectral acceleration and record selection ............................11
3. PROBABILISTIC MODELLING OF CAPACITY ........................................................................17
3.1 CRITERIA FOR THE DEFINITION OF A GLOBAL DAMAGE-STATE ...............................................17
3.2 MODELS FOR MEMBERS CAPACITY ...............................................................................................19
3.2.1 Nature of the models for assessment and their use in reliability analysis ....................19
3.2.2 Deformation capacity of R.C. members ...........................................................................20
3.2.2.1 Deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns in single bending by

conventional regression analysis ........................................................................................21
viii LESSLOSS Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides

means of Conditional Average Estimator method ......................................................... 25
3.2.2.3 Deformation capacity in biaxial bending........................................................... 39
3.2.3 Shear strength capacity of RC members and joints........................................................ 39
3.2.4 Strength and deformation capacity of structural steel members................................... 42
3.2.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 42
3.2.4.2 Performance levels ............................................................................................... 43
3.2.4.3 Damage types........................................................................................................ 43
3.2.4.4 Member capacity models..................................................................................... 48
3.2.4.5 Global capacity models........................................................................................ 53
4. PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 57
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 57
4.2 USE OF NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 57
4.2.1 Determination of fragility and risk.................................................................................... 61
4.3 USE OF NON LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 64
4.3.1 Numerical integration of hazard and fragility.................................................................. 65
4.3.1.1 Dealing with collapse and non-collapse cases .................................................. 65
4.3.1.2 Fragility as distribution function of the IM value leading to failure .............. 65
4.3.2 Closed-form solution for the mean annual frequency of exceeding the LS ............... 66
4.3.3 Using alternative non-linear dynamic analysis methods to construct a probabilistic

model for the system damage measure Y .................................................................................... 67
4.3.4 The Uncertainty in the Component Capacities............................................................... 68
4.3.5 Evaluation of Global Capacity Uncertainty Parameter UC ......................................... 70
4.3.6 The Uncertainty in structural modelling .......................................................................... 72

Probabilistic Methods for Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures ix
5. APPLICATIONS TO RC STRUCTURES ........................................................................................75
5.1 A 2D REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME .........................................................................................75
5.1.1 Description of the structure ...............................................................................................75
5.1.2 Assessment based on nonlinear static analysis.................................................................77
5.1.2.1 Structural modelling..............................................................................................77
5.1.2.2 Response analysis of the bare frame...................................................................82
5.1.2.3 Assessment of the bare frame .............................................................................86
5.1.2.4 Response analysis of the infilled frame ..............................................................89
5.1.2.5 Assessment of the infilled frame.........................................................................93
5.1.3 Assessment based on nonlinear dynamic analysis...........................................................95
5.1.3.1 Structural modelling..............................................................................................95
5.1.3.2 System model.........................................................................................................96
5.1.3.3 Ground motion records .......................................................................................97
5.1.3.4 Assessment.............................................................................................................99
5.1.4 Discussion of results .........................................................................................................105
5.2 A 3D IRREGULAR REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME ..................................................................108
5.2.1 Description of the structure .............................................................................................108
5.2.2 Assessment based on nonlinear static analysis...............................................................109
5.2.2.1 Structural modelling............................................................................................109
5.2.2.2 Response analysis ................................................................................................111
5.2.2.3 Assessment...........................................................................................................117
5.2.2.4 Remarks on the method.....................................................................................120
5.2.3 Assessment based on nonlinear dynamic analysis.........................................................120

x LESSLOSS Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides
5.2.3.1 Structural modelling ........................................................................................... 120
5.2.3.2 System modelling................................................................................................ 121
5.2.3.3 Ground motion records..................................................................................... 123
5.2.3.4 Limit-state formulation for biaxial response................................................... 123
5.2.3.5 Assessment .......................................................................................................... 124
5.2.4 Discussion of results......................................................................................................... 128
6. APPLICATIONS TO STEEL STRUCTURES .............................................................................. 131
6.1 2D STEEL MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES..................................................................................... 131
6.2 VALIDATION STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................. 131
6.2.1 Description of the structure ............................................................................................ 131
6.2.2 Structural modelling.......................................................................................................... 132
6.2.3 Probabilistic modelling ..................................................................................................... 135
6.2.3.1 Random Variables .............................................................................................. 135
6.2.3.2 Deterministic parameters .................................................................................. 139
6.2.3.3 Monte Carlo (MC) simulation........................................................................... 139
6.2.3.4 Reliability formulation ....................................................................................... 139
6.2.4 Seismic input...................................................................................................................... 140
6.2.5 Response analysis .............................................................................................................. 141
6.2.6 Fragility Assessment ......................................................................................................... 142
6.2.6.1 Interstorey drift angle limit state ...................................................................... 142
6.2.6.2 Roof drift angle limit state................................................................................. 145
6.3 MID-RISE MRF DESIGNED TO EC8 ............................................................................................ 145
6.3.1 Description of the structure ............................................................................................ 146

Probabilistic Methods for Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures xi
6.3.2 Structural modelling ..........................................................................................................147
6.3.3 Probabilistic modelling......................................................................................................148
6.3.3.1 Random variables................................................................................................148
6.3.3.2 Deterministic parameters ...................................................................................148
6.3.4 Seismic input ......................................................................................................................149
6.3.5 Response analysis...............................................................................................................149
6.3.6 Fragility assessment ...........................................................................................................150
6.3.7 Closed-form fragility formulation....................................................................................152
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................157
APPENDIX A. SEISMIC SCENARIO................................................................................................167
SEISMIC HAZARD SURFACE ..................................................................................................................167
SUITE OF GROUND MOTION RECORDS ...............................................................................................170
LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................................173

1. INTRODUCTION
This document has been conceived to provide the user with a self-contained guide to
present-day methods for probabilistic seismic reliability analysis of structures.
Though probabilistic methods are quite well-established since a few decades now, and
have a history of service to code-making in the calibration of lower-level approaches
based on the use of partial factors for material properties, loads and load combinations,
their direct use has never gained wide access in the profession, on account of their ab-
stractness, mathematical complexity and, perhaps more decisively, of the much greater
consciousness on the actual physical terms of the problem, as opposed to the unprob-
lematic guidance offered by the traditional design procedures.
A new and different development can be observed to be taking place in the field of
earthquake engineering, where in the last decade a class of probabilistic methods has
evolved (mainly in the US), characterised by only minimum requirements of probabilistic
background. This feature makes these methods more easily approachable by engineers,
and explains the increasing popularity they are attaining, not just for use in code-support
activity but also as a practical tool for seismic assessment of existing structures, and, in a
close perspective, for the design-check or even the direct design of new structures. In
parallel with this relatively recent development, much research (again, mainly in the US)
has also been devoted to progress higher-order probabilistic methods for dynamic and
in particular seismic problems. The availability of these latter methods has been and still
is of invaluable use in the calibration and assessment of the formerly indicated class of
engineering methods.
For simple that these new methods actually are, their application nevertheless requires
an apparatus of information larger and different in nature with respect to that required
for a deterministic analysis. This includes in particular a probabilistic characterisation of
the seismic action, as well as a description of the capacity of structural members, with
reference to different levels of performance or limit-states, accompanied by a measure of
its variability.
With reference of the above mentioned purpose of self-containedness of this document,

its content has been organised into the following chapters:
2 LESSLOSS Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides
Probabilistic models of the seismic action, where an introduction is provided to

the probabilistic representation, and evaluation, of the seismic hazard at the site
(PSHA) and to the issue of the selection and scaling of recorded ground motions
for the purpose of dynamic analysis.
Probabilistic modelling of capacity, where an overview is given of the most re-
cent research aimed at developing models for the capacity (strength or deform-
ability) of structural members and connections/joints in RC and steel structures.
Probabilistic seismic risk assessment. This chapter forms the core of the docu-
ment and describes two methods, deemed to be representative for the class. Both
methods are based on the same probabilistic framework and differ for the way the
response of the structure to the seismic action is evaluated: via a non-linear static
(pushover) analysis in the first case, and non-linear time-history analysis with re-
corded ground motions in the second. The methods presented contain elements
of novelty and various refinements which are original contributions of the
LessLoss Sub-Project 9.
Applications to RC structures and Applications to steel structures. The last
two chapters present detailed applications of the methods to four structures, two
RC frames, one planar and one spatial, and two plane steel momet-resisting
frames, with fracturing and ductile connections.
2. PROBABILISTIC MODELS OF THE SEISMIC ACTION
The probabilistic model of the seismic action determines the approach to the seismic as-
sessment of a structure. Two main broad categories of models of ground motion can be
distinguished. The first one attempts to describe the probability distribution of the
ground motion time-history, as a function of the main physical source, travel path and
site parameters (seismological models for the generation of synthetic ground motion his-
tories). The second one relies on the widespread availability of real ground motion re-
cordings to separate the description of the ground motion uncertainty into (a) the prob-
ability distribution of a global measure of intensity and (b) a set of appropriately selected
recorded ground motions scaled to represent the variability around any given intensity.
The second modelling approach is the current state-of-the-practice and is described and
used in this report. This chapter presents the procedure for establishing the probability
distribution of a chosen measure of seismic intensity and the selection of real records.
2.1 HAZARD, FRAGILITY AND RISK

The term hazard function, or simply hazard, stands for the probability that a selected scalara
measure of seismic intensity at a site exceeds a given value in a given time interval. The
latter is normally fixed at one year. Among the most widely used local intensity measures
one may cite: modified Mercalli intensity (IMM), peak ground acceleration, velocity and
displacement (PGA, PGV, PGD), and the ordinate of the response spectrum (spectral
ordinate) in terms of acceleration, velocity and displacement ( S a (T ) , S v (T ) , S d (T ) ) at
a specified value of the period T. With reference for example to S a (the argument T is
omitted for brevity) one has thus:
H (S a ) = Pr{S a > s 1 year } = 1 FS (s 1 year )

a
(2.1)
a Much research effort is currently being spent towards the identification of vector intensity meas-
ures of increased efficiency and sufficiency (see Section 2.3.2). The reader is referred to, e.g. [Baker and
Cornell 2005] and [Baker and Cornell 2007].
where often the indication of one year is omitted when unnecessary.
The term fragility function, or simply fragility, stands for the probability of exceeding a given
state of structural performance (probability of failure P f ), as a function of (conditional
to) one parameter describing the intensity of the ground motion, typically the PGA or the
Sa. Since the states of interest are mostly in the non-linear range of behaviour, evaluation
of fragilities normally requires some form of simulation, i.e. performing a set of non-
linear analyses to obtain the statistics of the maximum response, one set for each ground
motion intensity. Given the statistics of the response and a suitable probabilistic model
for it (a frequently chosen model is the lognormal distribution), and knowing the CDF of
the corresponding capacity FC , the fragility can be evaluated as for the fundamental time-
invariant reliability problem, i.e.:
P f (i ) = 0 f D ( i )FC ( )d

(2.2)
where f D is the probability density function of the demand and i stands for the generic
intensity measure selected (often denoted also by IM).
It is noted that although only the intensity of the ground motion appears as the variable
in P f (i ) , this latter is also a function of all the other characteristics of the ground motion,
notably the frequency content and the duration, from which the response is significantly
affected. Hence, the fragility is not exclusively a property of the structure, but also of the
other features of the expected ground motion, and it will be in general different in differ-
ent tectonic environments. The influence of the detailed features of the motion depends
to a significant extent on the choice of the intensity parameter. It is in general considera-
bly reduced if the choice falls on the spectral ordinate close to the fundamental period of
the structure: it would disappear, with such a choice for I, in the case of an elastic SDOF
structure.
The term risk stands for the unconditional probability of exceeding a given limit state.
With the hazard function and the fragility known, the risk ( P f ) is directly obtained as:
dH (i )
P f = 0 P f (i )h (i )di = 0 P f (i ) di (2.3)
di
where h (i ) is the PDF of the intensity measure, equal to the absolute value of the deriva-
tive of the hazard function.
Probabilistic Methods for Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures 5
2.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

Determination of the function H() belongs in principle to engineering seismology. It is
important, however, for the risk analyst to be well aware of the concepts, assumptions
and limitations incorporated in the hazard function utilised in a specific study, due to the
obvious bearing that this function has in the quantification of the end result, i.e. the
probability of failure. A vast literature is available on the subject, see for example the ref-
erences in [Bommer 2002]. In the following the basics of the procedure for the determi-
nation of the hazard, in the form initially proposed by Cornell [1968], are briefly summa-
rised, to serve as a simplified introduction to the topic. The data required to construct a
hazard function consist of:
Knowledge of the different seismogenetic sources whose activity may affect the
site in terms of ground motion (data include geometry, i.e. areal or line exten-
sion, fault mechanism, etc).
Historical and/or geological bases adequate for a probabilistic description of the
activity of each source. The law used in the quasi-totality of practical applica-
tions is the truncated Gutenberg-Richter law on the magnitude of the events
generated by the source:
e m e m
N (m ) = m
u
(2.4)
e m
e
l u
where N(m) is the mean number of events of magnitude M > m per year, is the
mean annual number of events of any magnitude in the interval [m l , m u ] , and
these latter are the estimated upper bound appropriate for the source and lower
bound below which the corresponding motion is not significant for the specific
application, respectively. Parameter describes the distribution of events over
the magnitude range, small values corresponding to larger number of high mag-
nitude events. It is noted that the term within brackets at the right-hand side of
Eq. 2.4 represents the probability that an event has magnitude M>m, among
those events that occur on the average in one year. In other words it gives the
probability Pr{M>m}, conditioned to the occurrence of an event. Information
on the temporal occurrence of the events is contained in the parameter , i.e. the
mean annual rate of all the events, whose use is illustrated subsequently.
A functional relation typically of empirical origin (regression based on historical
or instrumental data) linking the site intensity parameter I of interest to magni-
tude of the event and to its distance R from the site (attenuation function). The
functions in more frequent use are of the general form:
log I = b + g M (m ) + g R (r ) + (2.5)
(I stands generically for any of the previously mentioned intensity measures)

with a zero mean Gaussian variable of given standard deviation. Note that ac-
cording to Eq. (2.5) the attenuation of the intensity is only dependent on the dis-
tance R from epicentre to the site, and not on the direction. Functions of this
type are called circular or isotropic. Azimuth-dependent ground motion
prediction Eq.s have been derived in a few specific cases when knowledge of the
geometry and of the rupture mechanism of the fault allowed a quantitative as-
sessment of directivity effects.
The first step in the evaluation of the hazard H(i) consists in finding the CDF of I based
on those of M, R and and given the functional dependence of Eq. (2.5). The procedure
that is illustrated follows the original derivation by Cornell.
While for some analytical forms of the attenuation function the CDF of I can be obtained
in closed form, in general it has to be evaluated numerically.
The procedure is in all cases to first conditioning on R and and to make use of the ex-
pression of Pr{M > m} in Eq. (2.4) and of Eq. (2.5) to pass from the probability of M to
that of I:
{
Pr{I > i r , } = Pr M > g M
1
[log i b g R (r ) ] } (2.6)
after which for the unconditional probability for each source one has:
Pr{I > i } = R Pr{I > i r , } f R (r ) f ( )drd (2.7)
The integrations over the distance and the can usually be carried out separately, due to
the form of the integrand function. The PDF of R is of the discrete type, since
Pr{R = ri } is simply the ratio of the area Ai of the i-th sub-source into which the
source has been discretised and whose centre of gravity has distance ri from the site, and
the area of the whole source (see Figure 2-1).
Figure 2-1 Numerical integration over the source-to-site distance.
The double integration results in a form (numerical or analytical) which can usually be
well approximated by a negative exponential on I, i.e.:
Pr{I > i } = k0* i k 1

(2.8)
where k0* and k1 are constants whose values depend on the specific form of the ground-
motion prediction Eq. (2.5) and of the geometric features of the seismogenetic zone.
The probability in Eq.(2.8) represents the complementary CDF of I, conditioned to the

occurrence of an event (since Pr{M > m}, from which it has been derived, has the same
meaning). Multiplication of Eq. (2.8) by , the mean annual rate of events, yields the
mean annual rate of exceedances of I = i:
(i ) = Pr{I > i } = k 0 i k 1
(2.9)
with k0 = k0* .
Under the assumption that the temporal sequence of seismic events can be described by a
Poisson process, and considering also that in the seismic case one has normally to deal
with small values of the rate (i ) , this latter provides a good approximation of the annual
probability of exceedance, i.e.:
(i )0 e (i )
H (i ) = Pr{I > i 1 year } = 1 = 1 e (i ) = (i ) for (i ) < 0.2 (2.10)
0!
In general, several sources contribute to the hazard at a site. Their contributions to H(i)
are simply additive due to the assumption of independence of the seismic activity of the
various sources.
As an example, consider the commonly used form of the attenuation function:
log i = b 1 + b 2 m + b 3 log r + (2.11)

which gives m as a function of i for given values of r and :
1
m= (log i b1 b 3 log r ) (2.12)
b2
The conditional complementary CDF of I using the non-truncated Gutenberg-Richter
law N (m ) = e m is:
Pr{I > i r , } = Pr{M > m (i ) r , } =

b3
1 log i log r (2.13)
= exp (log i b 1 b 3 log r ) = c e b 2
e b2
e b2
b2
with c = exp( b1 / b 2 ) . Passing to the natural logarithms one obtains:
b3

Pr{I > i r , } = c i b 2 ln 10
r ln 10 b e
2
b2
= ci k g 1 (r )e
1
b2
(2.14)
The unconditioning of the complementary CDF is achieved by a double integration over

the variables R and . The integrations can be carried out independently. In particular, the
integration on leads to the closed form:
1
2
1
2 / b 2
e
2
b2
e d = e (2.15)
2
while the integration on the distance R is performed numerically as:
A
g 1 (ri ) A i = g 1
(2.16)
i
which is an estimate of the expected value of the function g 1 (r ) .
Finally, the unconditional complementary CDF takes the form:
(
Pr{I > i } = c g e
1
2 / b2
)i k1
= k0* i k
1
(2.17)
from which the hazard immediately follows.
2.3 USE OF RECORDED GROUND MOTIONS
2.3.1 Intensity measures for seismic assessment of structures

A ground motion intensity measure (IM) is, typically, a scalar quantity reflecting some
spectral property of the ground motion; common IM definitions are peak ground accel-
eration (PGA) or first-mode spectral acceleration ( S a ). To be discussed in the following
is the selection of an IM effective in reducing the effort needed in probabilistic seismic
assessment of structures.
As described in Section 3, the outcome of such an assessment is the annual probability of

the event of structural failure, denoted by P f . Again, in the assumption of Poissonian
modelling of the failure events, the frequency f is also numerically equivalent, for
f < 0.2 , to the annual probability of failure P f . The problem of estimating such annual
frequency/probability is often formulated separating the estimation of the structural re-
sponse from the probabilistic characterisation of the seismic action. By the total probabil-
ity theorem one can write:
f = Pr{F | M , R}| d( M , R )| (2.18)
where Pr{F M , R } is the probability of the structure failing conditioned to some ground
motion features herein represented by magnitude (M) and source-to-site distance (R);
while d(M,R) is the annual frequency of occurrence of the (M,R) pair.
The probability Pr{F M , R } is commonly estimated by non-linear dynamic analyses using

an adequate number of ground motion records consistent with the (M,R) range of inter-
est. To estimate f with a standard error of 0.1 the size of the records sample is given by
the squared ratio of the coefficient of variation of the structural response divided by tar-
get standard error 0.1. For example, if the response variable, e.g. maximum interstorey
drift ratio, has a CoV of 0.8 at collapse, then this number is (0.8/0.1)2 or 64. If the (M,R)
pairs of interest are 20, this means that the sample size is 64 times 20 or 1280.
Introducing now an IM, as an additional conditioning seismic feature for P f , Eq.(2.18)

may be rewritten as:
f = Pr{F | IM , M , R} f ( IM | M , R )| d ( M , R )| (2.19)
where f(IM|M,R) is the conditional distribution of the chosen IM to magnitude and dis-
tance. If Pr{F | IM , M , R} Pr{F | IM } the IM is called sufficient since its ability to
predict the structural response given IM is the same as given IM, M and R; therefore one
can write:
f = Pr{F | IM }| d( IM )| (2.20)
where d(IM) is the result of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) as illustrated in
the previous section (with d (IM ) = d (i ) = h (i )di , where it is recalled that
h (i ) = dH di ).
Advantages of using an IM are easily recognized: assuming that the CoV of the response
is about 0.4, this will require 16 records at each IM level. Therefore, if 5 levels are needed
to cover the IM range of interest, then the total number of runs is only about 80 which is
16 times smaller than applying Eq. (2.18) to estimate f with the same accuracy. Moreover,
if records can be scaled to multiple levels of intensity one may use the same sample for
estimating response in the entire IM range reducing the number of required records fur-
ther (but not, obviously, the number of runs). Details about record selection and scaling
issues related to sufficient intensity measure are given in the following sections.
2.3.2 Sufficient and Efficient attributions

By definition, a sufficient IM is one making the structural response variable independent
of earthquake magnitude and distance. An IM is further defined as efficient if the struc-
tural response, given IM, has a relatively small dispersion, which is an indication that the
IM has high correlation with the response. The spectral acceleration at the fundamental
period of the structure ( S a ) is often regarded as a sufficient and efficient IM. Several
studies have in fact demonstrated that for deformation-type responses S a is better (effi-
ciency-wise) than PGA. However, it is worth noting that has also been recently demon-
strated that S a may not be particularly efficient, nor sufficient, for some structures. For
example, for long periods structures (e.g. tall structures), the higher modes typically play a
larger role into the seismic response and S a has less prediction power than for first-mode
dominated structures; it may be indeed insufficient because it is not able to capture the
spectral shape in a range of frequencies where this latter depends more markedly on
magnitude. Further, for soft-soil or near-source records S a may also be inefficient. Sev-
eral studies propose alternative IMs trying to capture spectral shape in a range of interest
to some specific (higher-mode sensitive) structural type. They include both scalar and
vector, linear and non-linear quantities, however they are still not mature to be used in
practice and are not discussed in the following.
2.3.3 Sufficiency of first mode spectral acceleration and record selection

Sufficiency and efficiency of intensity measures reflect on the selection of records for
assessment. The crucial question is the number of accelerograms required for a reliable
estimate of the structural response, whereby this latter has to be described in terms of a
mean (or of a median) value D , and of the corresponding dispersion D . The prob-
lem has been investigated in some depth in recent years, two of the more extensive, rele-
vant studies are briefly illustrated in the following.
Reference is first made to the study in [Shome et al 1998]. The principal aspects therein
investigated are: the identification of a scaling factor of the accelerograms capable of sub-
stantially reducing the scatter in the non-linear response of MDOF structures without
introducing bias in the results, the correctness of scaling the records to significantly
higher or lower intensities, and the correctness of using scaled records from magnitude
ranges different from those that would be in principle required.
The statistical base consists of a total of 80 accelerograms recorded in California on stiff

soil, divided in four groups (G-I to G-IV) of 20 accelerograms according to the M R
ranges (the latter defined as the shortest distance from the rupture zone) reported in
Table 2-1.
As shown in Table 2-1, G-I and G-II have been selected such that their respective aver-
age spectral acceleration S a , at the frequency of 0.95 Hz and for a damping factor of 0.02,
are quite close: 0.12g for G-I and 0.09g for G-II. The frequency and the damping are
those of the reference structure: a five-storey, four-bay steel moment-resisting frame.
Comparison of the inelastic response from G-I and G-II is expected to indicate how
much this latter is affected by the large differences in magnitude and distance, and hence
in the intrinsic characteristics of the motion, for about the same spectral intensity. The
choice of G-III and G-IV is meant to investigate the question of scaling the records. The
average values to S a at 0.95 Hz in each of these groups are much higher (about three and
two times, respectively) than those of G-I and G-II. The stronger records in G-III have
spectral accelerations more than ten times those of the weaker records in G-I and G-II.
The use of the two groups G-III and G-IV is explained subsequently. Table 2-1 also
shows for the four groups of records the median values and dispersions of S a in each
group, at the frequency of 0.95Hz. To be noted is the large record-to-record dispersion
within each group (between 0.50 and 0.74).
Table 2-1 Groups of records used in [Shome et al 1998]
Group Magnitude M Distance S a [g] Sa

R [km]
G-I 5.25-5.75 5-25 0.12 0.74 Moderate and close
G-II 6.5-7 50-70 0.09 0.58 Large and distant
G-III 6.7-7.3 10-30 0.31 0.50 Large and close
G-IV 6. 5-7.0 15-35 0.24 0.61 Large and close
As mentioned above, the study is conducted with reference to a five-storey, four-bay steel
moment-resisting frame with fundamental frequency of 0.95 Hz and modal mass partici-
pation of the first mode equal to 82%, see [Shome et al 1998] for a detailed description of
the structure. Though several damage measures are considered in the original study, in
the following reference is made to maximum interstorey ductility. The conclusions ar-
rived at using this measure can be extended to other peak quantities, and are suitable for
structures that are not too prone to cumulative damage, such as the one chosen in the
study. For other structural types, notably masonry structures, degradation occurs almost
unavoidably under intense ground-motion, so that cumulative, rather than peak, measures
are suitable. These response measures have been found to be more sensitive, not unex-
pectedly, to duration, and hence, indirectly, to magnitude and distance.
By performing non-linear dynamic analyses of the structure for the records contained in
G-I and G-II the following results are obtained for the median values and the dispersions
of the interstorey ductility demand: GI: D = 2.8 and D = 0.62 , GII: D = 1.9 and
D = 0.51 , which indicate that the median response from G-I is larger than that of G-II
( D GI / D GII = 2.8 / 1.9 = 1.47 ), as could expected in qualitative terms, since their respec-
tive average intensities are in the ratio: 0.12/0.09 = 1.33. The difference in the ratios be-
tween intensities and responses, however, has to be judged in more formal statistical
terms. Within the one-sigma confidence band the ratio of the two demand medians can
fall in the interval 2.8/1.9(10.18) = 1.470.26, which is statistically not significantly dif-
ferent from 1, especially if the 1.33 factor is taken into account.
Figure 2-2 Interstorey ductility (D) demand as a function of spectral intensity (Sa).
Figure 2-2 is helpful in getting a fuller understanding of the question. The 20 + 20 values
of D from the records of G-I and G-II are plotted versus S a , together with their regres-
sions lines, plus a regression line based on the combined values. The figure indicates that:
there is a clear trend giving D as an increasing function of S a (the regression

Eq. is of the form: D = aS a b )
the regression lines for G-I, G-II and for the combined records are quite close to each
other, implying that the values of D are essentially dependent on the S a values, and only
marginally on M and R.
From the first observation one draws naturally the suggestion that for what concerns the
estimation of the median value of D it is expedient that all records in a group are first
normalised to the average intensity of the group. From the second observation one is led
to guess that it may be legitimate to perform the same scaling operation within popula-
tions of records belonging to very different MR ranges.
The medians and the dispersions obtained by first scaling the records in each group to
their respective intensity are: GI: D = 2.6 and D = 0.28 , GII: D = 2.0 and
D = 0.25 , from which we note the following:
the medians are practically the same as before scaling, meaning that scaling to a
common S a does not introduce bias in the estimate of the median (note from
Figure 2-2 that the scatter of the S a values in both groups is quite large, hence
the amount of scaling has been substantial).
the ratio of the two medians ( D GI / D GII = 2.6 / 2.0 = 1.3 ) is now even closer to
the ratio of their respective intensities (1.33), confirming that the difference in
the medians is essentially due to the S a values characterising the groups.
the dispersions of the responses are considerably reduced, an expected result of course, as
a consequence of the intentional reduction of the variability of the input.
The first two points above prove the admissibility and the advantage of using the spectral
intensity as scaling factor, even for M and R varying within ample limits. The advantage
lies in the reduction of the demand dispersion, which in turn reduces, as seen above, the
uncertainty in the estimate of the median or, for the same uncertainty, reduces the num-
ber of records and hence analyses necessary. If D is reduced to half, the same standard
error in the estimate is obtained by using one quarter of the records (e.g. 5 instead of 20).
One has to realise, however, that the new D has a meaning different from that of the
previous one: it represents now the variability of the response given M, R and S a , while
the former represented the variability of the response given M and R only (actually, for M
and R constrained within a certain interval). This fact needs not to be a drawback. If the
final objective is the evaluation of risk, the variability of S a is specifically accounted for by
the hazard function H (S a ) .
The second study outlined in this section is the one in [Iervolino and Cornell 2005], the
last effort of on-going research on the subject carried out at Stanford University. This
study investigates to what extent one should care of M and R in record selection by
means of a large number of examples, including both single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
and multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems. It starts by assuming sufficiency and then
analyses under what conditions this cannot be sustained. SDOF systems vary across a
range of periods from 0.1s to 4s, with backbones represented by both simple bi-linear
and tri-linear with degrading strength. The MDOF systems represent quite different
structural configurations; they are moment-resisting frames, of reinforced concrete and of
steel with brittle connections. For the purposes of the study, first, a target group of sets
records is selected to represent a Large-close (high-M, small-R) scenario, scaling for each
structure, all records in the target sets to their overall median first-mode S a . Secondly,
another group of sets of records, referred to as arbitrary sets, is considered. Random M
and R characterise these sets. The arbitrary sets are also scaled to the common median
first-mode period spectral acceleration of the target sets.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis of the selected structures are then carried out for each of the
records. Median structural demands (e.g. maximum interstorey drift) are estimated for all
record sets. The median of each of the arbitrary sets is compared with each of the target
sets. The comparison of medians is statistical and performed by a conventional hypothe-
sis test, the null hypothesis is that the medians are equal, consistently with the assumption
that structural response is insensitive to magnitude and distance given S a . In all investi-
gated cases the study has found no consistent evidence to suggest that it is necessary to
take great care in the selection of records with respect to such factors. Therefore the
study provides further corroboration to the practice of selecting records with relative
freedom within ample ranges of M and R.
The question of the effect of scaling the proposed record sets (such as one of these arbi-
trary sets) to the desired level (e.g., that of the median of the target sets) is also addressed
in the same study. To this aim another group of stronger target sets is constructed (in all
cases, care is taken to avoid records with significant near-sources effects). The same steps
are repeated as above, then the structural responses to sets of records that are originally
strong (new target sets) and records that are arbitrarily selected and then scaled up to
match the intensity of the stronger records are compared. The null hypothesis is, again,
that such scaling does not matter. The study concludes that there is no clear evidence
that such scaling induces bias in the response estimation (limited to firm soil sites and to
sites where directivity-induced phenomena are not important features).
3. PROBABILISTIC MODELLING OF CAPACITY
3.1 CRITERIA FOR THE DEFINITION OF A GLOBAL DAMAGE-STATE

Failure is a most common term in structural reliability studies, used in a general sense to
indicate the exceedance of any predefined state of the structure (limit-state), ranging from
a serviceability limit, to a variable degree of damage, up to the actual collapse. When the
term failure refers to a state which is far from the ultimate, as for example a drift limit
related to damage to non-structural components, its definition is straightforward and un-
ambiguous. This is, however, not the case when states close to ultimate are of interest. In
fact, since structures possess in general a considerable amount of redundancy, there are
many different ways in which they may loose their integrity. An exception to this rule is
represented by piers of simply supported bridges, elevated tanks, etc.: only for these
structural types does a unique correspondence exist between member and structure fail-
ure. For the rest of structures, the definition of failure unavoidably involves a significant
amount of subjectivity.
Identification of the more significant modes of failure is a task preliminary to risk analysis
and it has to be always kept in mind that the computed value of risk depends on the par-
ticular choice of the modes of failure.
For instance, for building structures it is a common practice to relate collapse to the event
that the maximum inter-story drift ratio, denoted by max ,(the absolute maximum story
drift ratio over the time history and the structural height) exceeds some predefined capac-
ity value. This latter can be determined by means of nonlinear static analysis.
The definition of global capacity (e.g. the limit value for max ) by means of a structural
analysis requires that the employed model can reliably trace the structural response up to
collapse. Available finite element models are not capable of describing all interacting as-
pects of nonlinear response in the large displacement regime, hence one cannot rely en-
tirely on numerical analysis to detect structural failure. For example, in the specific case of
RC frame structures, a general-purpose model that describes satisfactorily the three-
dimensional interaction between axial force, bending moments, shear forces and torsion -
while accounting for phenomena such as bond-slip and bar buckling, under cyclic loading
conditions- is not yet available. Therefore, there is still the need to resort to (code-based)
capacity formulas in order to describe the capacity of structural members. These formulas
are mostly of semi-empirical nature, blending mechanical considerations with experimen-
tal results. Since, however, these capacity formulas are defined at the member level, rather
than at the system level, it is the component state that can be determined directly and one
needs a robust general procedure to express the global state of the structure as a function
of its components' states.
A possibility is to resort to a scalar variable referred to as the critical demand to capacity ratio
[Jalayer et al 2007]. This variable, denoted by Y, is defined as the ratio between demand
and capacity for the critical component in the structure, i.e., that component that brings
the system closer to failure:
Dij
Y = max iN=1mech min Nj=i1 (3.1)
C ij
where N mech is the number of considered potential failure mechanisms and N i the num-
ber of components taking part in the i-th mechanism. The system reliability concept of
the cut-sets [Ditlevsen and Madesn 1996] is employed to arrive at such a single system vari-
able. A cut-set is defined as any set of components whose joint failure,
( )
Yi = min Nj=i1 Dij C ij , implies the failure of the system, Y = max iN=1mech Yi . This way of de-
scribing system behaviour in terms of its components has been also used in [1], [13], and
[21].
This variable can offers a concise way of aggregating both demand and capacity informa-
tion, various failure mechanisms, and also code-based semi-empirical component capacity
formulas.
Figure 3-1 shows a qualitative example of a 2-bay, 2-storeys plane frame and the corre-
sponding representation of the failure tree for the ultimate limit state event (global struc-
tural failure is assumed to occur either due to brittle shear failure of any of its columns, or
due to simultaneous yielding of all columns of a storey).
9 10
4 5 6
7 8 ULS
1 2 3
Y=max (0.7;0.5)=0.7
Weak storey Shear failure
max (0.5;0.3)=0.5 max ()=0.7
Floor 1 Floor 2
min()=0.5 min()=0.3
2/Y2 =0.5
4/Y4 =0.4
5/Y5 =0.3
6/Y6 =0.5
1/Y1 =0.6
3/Y3 =0.7
V2/VU2=0.7
V4/VU4=0.1
V1/VU1=0.2
V5/VU5=0.4
V3/VU3=0.3
V6/VU6=0.5
Figure 3-1 Identification of failure modes for a plane frame: cut-set representation of structural fail-
ure event used in the definition of Y.
3.2 MODELS FOR MEMBERS CAPACITY
3.2.1 Nature of the models for assessment and their use in reliability analysis
Capacity models developed and used for assessment purposes bear a conceptual differ-
ence with respect to those used in design. The latter generally tend to be simple of use
and approximated in a conservative way, which makes them unsuitable for a consistent
evaluation of risk. Risk assessment requires, in fact, explicit consideration of all relevant
uncertainties, aleatoric and epistemic, and probabilistic models that are unbiased. A con-
servative model does not comply with this requirement.
Development of capacity models for assessment of existing structures is a more recently

undertaken task, still in progress. These models still rely on simple mechanics as a base,
but the latter is integrated by a considerable amount of empirical knowledge, to account

for all those phenomena that are not amenable to a detailed physical description.
As it will appear more clearly in the following sections, the empirically derived models
consists of an expression deemed to provide the average value of the capacity as a func-
tion of the pertinent mechanical properties, accompanied by a measure of the scatter of
experimental results around this estimate. Both sources of information need to be incor-
porated in the risk analysis.
3.2.2 Deformation capacity of R.C. members

Collapse of a building or a bridge is normally caused by a failure of a major vertical-load-
carrying element, i.e. a column in the case of frame structures. For the quantification of
the deformation capacity of RC columns semi-empirical and empirical approaches have
been usually used. The semi-empirical approach is based on the basic principles and the
mechanics of RC members and employs the concept of plastic hinge [Paulay and Priestley
1992]. Empirical expressions are used for the plastic hinge length. An empirical approach
typically starts from an assumed form of an Eq. and is followed by a regression analysis
using experimental data to determine unknown coefficients such that the Eq. will fit the
data. Such an approach has been used e.g. by Park and Ang [1985] and, more recently, by
Panagiotakos and Fardis [2001], inter alia.
The empirical formulas, developed by Fardis and co-workers have been implemented in
Eurocode 8, Part 3 [2005]. A good overview of the deformation capacity of RC members
is provided in [fib 2003]. Updated proposals for acceptable deformation levels of RC me-
mebrs at different performance levels have been recently introduced in [LessLoss-SP8,
2005]. A brief summary from the latter report is given in the following section 3.2.2.1.
Recently, the merits of different types of artificial neural networks (ANNs) in engineering
research have been widely recognized. Typical applications can be found in the areas
where sufficient experimental data are available, but the investigated phenomena are very
complex and therefore the traditional approach (i.e. multi-dimensional parametric regres-
sion with assumed form of an empirical Eq.) can hardly be used efficiently. In the follow-
ing section 3.2.2.2, which represents a shortened version of a paper by [Peru et al 2006]
(see point f in the following for an explanation of the method), the deformation capacity
of RC columns, expressed in terms of ultimate drift, determined by the CAE (Conditional
Average Estimator) method, is discussed.

conventional regression analysis
Report [LessLoss-SP8, 2005] presents deformation limits (either in terms of member
chord rotation or section curvature) for different performance levels or limit states. This
section draws from that report the results later employed in some of the applications of
probabilistic performance assessments (see Chpater 5)
In terms of chord rotation and with reference to yielding limit state, report [LessLoss-
SP8, 2005] states:
Therotically, the part of y which is due to flexural deformations alone is equal to

y L s / 3 . Any fixed-end rotation due to reinforcement pull-out from its anchorage zone
beyond the yielding end should be added to this part of y . If such pull-out of longitudi-
nal bars from their anchorage zone is possible, the fixed end rotation it casues may be
evaluated as:
y d bL f y
y ,slip = with f y , f c in MPa (3.2)
8 fc
which has been fitted directly to relative rotation measurements in the presence of such
pull-outs. Any inclined cracking and shear deformations along the shear span increase
further the magnitude of y . Diagonal cracking near the yielding end of the member
spreads yielding of the tension reinforcement up to the point where the first diagonal
crack from the end-section meets this reinforcement. In general, diagonal cracking shifts
the value of the tension force in the tension reinforcement from the cross-section to
which this value corresponds on the basis of the bending moment and axial force dia-
grams, to a section where the bending moment is lower (i.e. away from the member end).
This is the basis of the well-known shift rule in the dimensioning of the member ten-
sion reinforcement for the Ultimate Limit State in bending with axial force. Although the
magnitude of this shift depends on the amount of transverse reinforcement and on the
angle of the diagonal compression struts with respect to the member axis at ultimate
shear failure by diagonal tension, normally a default value of the shift equal to the internal
level arm, z, is used. Such a shift increases the part of y which is theoretically due to
flexural deformation, from y L s / 3 to approximately y (L s + z )/ 3 []. Of course such
an increase would not take place unless flexural yielding is preceded by a diagonal crack-
ing. So, the term z is added to L s only when the shear force that causes diagonal crack-
ing ( VRc ) is less than the shear force at the flexural yielding of the end section
V My = M y / L s .
The following expressions were derived from tests in the data-bank with yielding in flex-
ure:
for beams or columns with rectangular section:
L s + aV z h d f
y =y + 0.0013 1 + 1.5 + a sl y bL y (3.3)
3 L s 8 fc
for walls having rectangular, T-shaped, or H-shaped section, or for barbelled

walls:
L s + aV z L y d bL f y
y = y + 0.002 1 0.125 s + a sl (3.4)
3 h 8 fc
In the first term of Eqs.(3.3) and (3.4) the value of y is the theoretical yield
curvature given by y = kf y /(Es d ) (with k equal to 1.56 or 1.34 for
beams/columns or walls, respectively) or y = kf y /(Es h ) (with k equal to 1.77
or 1.45 for beams/columns or walls, respectively), times the correction factors of
1.035 or 1.045, for beams/columns or walls, respectively; aV is a zero-one vari-
able: aV = 0 if VRc > V My , aV = 1 otherwise; the length of the internal lever
arm, z is taken equal to z = d d ' in beams, columns, or walls with barbelled or T
sections, and to z = 0.8h in walls with rectangular section. The value of VRc is
taken according to Eurocode 2: for b w (width of the web) and d in m, f c in MPa,
1 denoting the tensile reinforcement ratio, and the axial load N (positive for
compression, but if N is negative, i.e. tensile VRc = 0 ) in kN, then VRc in kN is
given by:
0.2 1/ 6 0.2 1/ 3
N
VRc = min 180(100 1 )1/ 3 ,35 1 + f c 1 + f c + 0.15
b w d (3.5)
d d A c
The second term in Eqs.(3.3) and (3.4), attributed to shear deformations along the
shear span, is purely empirical and has resulted from the fitting to the data.
In the third of Eqs.(3.3) and (3.4) [] a sl is also a zero-one variable, equal to
a sl = 1 if sliappage of longitudinal steel [] is possible and equal to 0 if it is not
possible.
An alternative form of expressions (3.3) and (3.4) has been fitted to the experimental re-
sults, in which the pull-out of the longitudinal steel from the yielding end section,
0.5 f y l b / Es is translated to fixed-end rotation by dividing not by the depth of the tension
zone at yielding, but by the distance between the tension and compression reinforcement
of the section. These expression differ from the previous ones essentially for the last term
and can be found in report [LessLoss-SP8, 2005].
Figure 3-2 compares the predictions of Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4) and their alternative forms
with the data to which they were fitted. The median and CoV of the ratio of the experi-
mental to the predicted y value for these expressions are (for beams, columns and
walls) 0.995 and 33.3% for Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4), and 0.99 and 33.3% for their alternatives,
respectively. One can see that in terms of fitting the two alternative sets of expressions
are practically equivalent. In probabilistic performance assessment the above formulas
can be used to give the median, with an associated dispersion of 33%.
Figure 3-2 Experimental vs predicted chord rotation at yielding: left, Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4), right, al-
ternatives in terms of distance between the tension and compression reinforcement.
With reference to ultimate limite state, report [LessLoss-SP8, 2005] presents two alterna-
tive models for the chord-rotation capacity, one of more mechanically-based nature, the
other purely empirical.
The first model is based on yield and ultimate curvatures and on the plastic hinge length:
0.5 L pl
u = y + upl = y + (u y )L pl 1 (3.6)
L s
Notwithstanding its mechanical and physical appeal, the criterion for the validity of Eq.
(3.6) is its ability to predict the experimental ultimate chord rotation. It was found that
the best overall fit of Eq. (3.6) to the data of u is obtained by using the value of y as
given by Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4), instead of the simple flexural term y L s / 3 . It should be
noted that any effect of shear, bond-slip, etc should be dealt through L pl , which is not a
physical quantity, but a conventional one, such that Eq. (3.6) is satisfied. Plastic hinge
length expressions are given in report [LessLoss-SP8, 2005]. Figure 3-3 shows the ratio of
predicted to experimental values for the ultimate chord rotation for the confinement
model and plastic hinge length leading to the best fit. The still considerable lack of fit of
the model is mainly due to the inability to properly account for:
Shear and inclined cracking

Type of element (wall, conventional or diagonally reinforced beam or column)
Figure 3-3 Experimental versus predicted ultimate chord rotation.
The coefficient of variation of ratio of the experimental to predicted value is equal to

44.7%. The median of this ratio is equal to 1.005. In probabilistic performance assess-
ment the above formula can hence be used to give the median, with an associated disper-
sion of 44.7%.
The second model, valid for members of rectangular cross-section, consists of two alter-
native, and almost equivalent expressions. The first one, reported here, gives the total
ultimate chord rotation, while the second one gives the plastic part of the ultimate rota-
tion. The expression for the u is:
u = a st (1 0.42a cy )(1 + 0.5a sl ) 1 a wall 0.3

3
8
f (3.7)
max(0.01, 2 )
0.225 0.35 s yw
Ls f c 100 d
fc 25
1.25
max(0.01, 1 ) h
where a st is acoefficients for the type of steel (equal to 0.0185 for ductile hot-rolled or
heat-treated Tempcore steel, and 0.0115 for cold-worked steel), and a cy , a sl and a wall are
zero-one variables for the type of loading (1=cyclic, 0=monotonic), presence of slippage
(1=slippage, 0=no slippage) and element type (1=wall, 0=beam/column). The other pa-
rameters in the above Eq. are: = N /( Ac f c ) , 1 = ( l + v ) f y / f c the mechanical
tension and web longitudinal reinforcement ratio, 2 the mechanical compression rein-
forcement reatio, confinement effectiveness ratio, d diagonal steel reinforcement
percentage in each diagonal direction.
This expression has a median ratio of experimental to predicted value of 1.0 and a corre-
sponding CoV of 37.9%.

means of Conditional Average Estimator method
The Conditional Average Estimator method, which is based on a special type of multi-
dimensional non-parametric regression, and represents a kind of probabilistic neural net-
work, was developed by Grabec and Sachse [1997]. It enables relatively simple empirical
modelling of different physical phenomena. The method has been already used for pre-
dicting the capacity of RC walls in terms of shear strength, ductility, ultimate drift and
failure type [Peru 1994] and for the modelling of the attenuation relationships [Fajfar
and Peru 1997]. For a successful application of the method an appropriate database of
experimental results is needed. More than one decade ago, the databases contained a
small number of test data. Only recently more comprehensive databases for RC members
become available, as the databases compiled at the University of Washington [2005] and
by Panagiotakos and Fardis [2001] updated in [Fardis 2005], which have been used in the
reported study.
Note that the CAE approach can be used for the estimation of any other characteristic of
any type of structural elements, provided that an appropriate database is available.
(a) Databases The PEER Structural Performance Database compiled at the University
of Washington [2005] includes data on about 300 rectangular RC column specimens and
about 170 spiral RC column specimens. A subset of the database was used in the re-
ported study. It will be called the PEER database. The following criteria were considered
in establishing the reduced database:
Only rectangular columns which failed in flexural mode were taken into account.
Only those columns, for which the complete data are known, were used.
Only those columns, for which the drop of ultimate strength exceeded the
threshold value, were taken into account.
Only columns subjected to standard cyclic testing were considered.
Considering the above criteria, 156 test specimens remained in the database, used in the
study. Depending on the original test procedure, in some cases the original data were cor-
rected in order to exclude the P-delta effects.
The database compiled by Panagiotakos and Fardis [2001] includes beams, columns with
rectangular or circular section, walls with rectangular, T- or barbelled section, and hollow
rectangular piers, altogether 1277 test specimens, subjected to monotonic or cyclic load-
ing. In the study the 2005 version of the database was used, which was kindly provided by
the author [Fardis 2005]. Only rectangular test specimens with symmetric longitudinal
reinforcement and cyclic loading, which failed in flexural mode, were taken into account
in establishing the subset of the database, used in our study. It will be called Fardis data-
base. 688 test specimens remained in the database, mainly columns (and a few beams
with symmetric reinforcement), what represents a little bit more than one half of the
original Fardis database.
The Fardis database is much larger than the PEER database and thus in principle more
suitable for statistical analyses. However, there is an important merit of the PEER data-
base. It provides data on the complete hysteretic behaviour in numerical form. These data
allow, inter alia, analysis of the capacity in terms of hysteretic energy dissipation and a
consistent definition of characteristic points (e.g. the definition of failure) according to
the users choice. For these reasons both databases have been used in our study. Note that
there is some overlapping of the two databases.
(b) Definition of the ultimate drift (ratio) The member drift (ratio), which is equal to
the chord rotation, is obtained as the displacement at the top of an equivalent cantilever
divided by the length of the equivalent cantilever (called also shear span). It will be
called drift in this chapter. Note that in a frame structure, the column chord rotation is
equal to the inter-storey drift if the beams are rigid, i.e. if the column is fully fixed at both
ends.
The ultimate displacement can be defined as the displacement at a predefined drop of

maximum strength. The 20% drop of the maximum strength (i.e. when restoring force
reaches 80% of the maximum value) is commonly used although this definition may sig-
nificantly underestimate the true axial-load-carrying capacity of columns [Moehle 2003].
The 20% drop of the maximum strength was consistently used for determining ultimate
drift in the PEER database. In the case of the Fardis database, the values of the ultimate
drift as determined by the authors of the database were considered. They identified failure
with a distinct change in the measured lateral force-deformation response: in monotonic
loading, with a noticeable drop of lateral force after peak (at least 20% of the maximum
resistance); in cyclic loading, with a distinct reduction of the reloading slope, or of the
area of the hysteresis loops, or of the peak force, compared to those of the preceding
cycles(s), typically associated with a drop in resisting force greater than 20% of the maxi-
mum resistance. A comparison made for the test specimens included in both databases
has shown that the ultimate drifts in the Fardis's database are generally larger than those
determined from the PEER database by strictly observing the 20% drop.
(c) Choice and definition of input parameters. In the basic model of the presented
study four input parameters were taken into account, which are the same as those used in
Eurocode 8 (Part 3), with the exception of the ratio between the compressive and tensile
reinforcement. The choice of parameters was influenced by the parameters available in
the database, the size of the effective PEER database and by the Eurocode 8 expression.
Input parameters of the basic CAE (Conditional Average Estimator) model for the ulti-
mate drift are as follows:
confinement effectiveness factor multiplied by confinement index (s* = s

fys/fc'),
axial load index (P*=P/Po),
shear span index (L* = l/d: shear span-to-depth ratio) and
concrete compressive strength (fc')
The axial load index represents the normalized axial load of the column (Po = b d fc', where
b represents width and d depth in the direction of loading, respectively), s is the ratio of
transverse steel parallel to the direction of loading (ratio between the area of transverse
steel and area of confined concrete; distances are measured from the centreline of the
stirrups), fys is the yield stress of transverse steel, fc' is the concrete cylindrical compressive
strength and l is the length of equivalent cantilever. Factor is defined as:
1 i
s s b2
= 1 h 1 h (3.8)
2 bo 2 ho 6 ho bo

It represents confinement effectiveness factor with bo and ho denoting the width and
depth of the confined core (measured between the centrelines), respectively. bi are the
distances of successive longitudinal bars laterally restrained at stirrup corners or by 135
degree hooks and sh is the spacing of stirrups.
In the proposed method normalized (non-dimensional) parameters are used. All the input
parameters were normalized by using the Eq.:
p i p i , min
pi = (3.9)
p i , max p i , min
where pi is i-th normalized input parameter, pi is the i-th input parameter under consid-
eration, and pi,max and pi,min are the selected upper and the lower bound of the same input
parameter, respectively.
Considering the distribution of input parameters in the databases, bounds to be used for
the normalization were set on the input parameters as follows:
s*: 0.00 0.14, P*: 0.0 0.6, L*: 2.0 6.0, fc': 20.0 120.0
Note that the selected bounds are used only for the normalization of parameters. The
column specimens outside the bounds are also considered in the computations.
(d) Selected results for the ultimate drift. The comparison of the test results and the
predictions for both databases is shown in Figure 3-4, together with the values of the er-
ror measure E1 (Eq. 3.24). The basic trends and influences of different input parameters
on the ultimate drift are shown in Figure 3-5.
The results were obtained from both databases by considering only one input parameter,
all other input parameters were not taken into account. Very large scatter can be observed
in all cases. However, a clear trend is observed in the case of axial load (ultimate drift de-
creases with higher axial load) and in the case of confinement (ultimate drift increases
with better confinement). An increase in shear span index results in an increase of the
ultimate drift, but only up to a certain value of the shear span index, depending on the
database (about 3 and about 5 for the PEER and Fardis's database, respectively). For lar-
ger shear span indices the opposite trend can be observed. No correlation between the
concrete strength and ultimate drift can be seen for PEER database and relatively weak,
but positive trend can be observed for Fardis's database. Generally, the ultimate drift de-
termined from the Fardis's database is somewhat larger than that from the PEER data-
base. Local standard deviation as a function of one input parameter, calculated by
Eq. (3.26) is practically constant. Its average value amounts to 2.0 and 2.2 for the PEER
and Fardis database, respectively.
10 10
experimental drift [%]
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
E1 = 0.3539 E1 = 0.3837
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
predicted drift [%]
(a) (b) predicted drift [%]
10 10
experimental drift [%]
8 8
6 6
4
4
2
E1 = 0.5336 2
E2 = 1.0940
0 E1 = 0.4652
0 2 4 6 8 10 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(c) predicted drift [%]
predicted drift [%]
(d)
Figure 3-4 Comparison of predicted and experimental ultimate drift obtained by (a) CAE, using
PEER database, (b) CAE, using Fardis database, (c) Eurocode 8 for PEER database ( el = 1.0 ),
and (d) Eurocode 8 for Fardis database ( el = 1.0 ).
Further results of estimated ultimate drift are presented in terms of isolines representing
constant ultimate drifts. As additional information, isolines of values (Eq. 3.27), which
is related to the reliability of the predictions, are plotted (thinner lines and smaller fonts).
Larger is the value, more reliable are the results and vice versa. Note that the values
are comparable only within the same database.
10
PEER PEER
8
6
[%]
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09
P* s
10
PEER PEER
8
6
[%]
0
2 3 4 5 6 20 40 60 80 100 120
L* f c'
10
6
[%]
2
Fardis Fardis
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09
P* s
10
6
[%]
2
Fardis Fardis
0
2 3 4 5 6 20 40 60 80 100 120
L* f c'
Figure 3-5 Prediction of the ultimate drift as a function of one input parameter. Local standard de-
viation is also shown. In the right side diagrams, the ordinates axis variable is missing
In Figure 3-6 the isolines for the constant ultimate drift, calculated as a function of two
input parameters while constant values were assigned the other two input parameters, are
plotted. Results indicate an important influence of axial load and confinement. As ex-
pected, lower axial load and better confinement increase the ultimate drift. The results
from both databases are similar. Figure 3-7 presents ultimate drift as a function of con-
finement and shear span indices, while the axial load and compressive strength indices are
constants. In this case a qualitative difference of the influence of the shear span index
between the two databases can be observed (compare also Figure 3-5). Ultimate drift first
increases with shear span index and then decreases. In the case of the PEER database,
the turning-point occurs at a much lower shear span index than in the case of the Fardis
database. The turning-point has been noticed also by Panagiotakos and Fardis [2001].
According to them the ultimate drift increases with shear span index up to 6 and then
starts to decrease.
Local standard deviation E (Eq. 3.26 with m = 3) provides an estimate of the dispersion
of results. In Figure 3-8 the predicted values for the ultimate drift are compared with the
predicted values minus E. It can be seen that E amounts to about 1 to 1.5%.
(e) Comparison with EC8. The Eq. A1 for the calculation of the ultimate drift accord-
ing to Eurocode 8, Part 3, [2005], represents a variant of the expression proposed in
[Fardis and Biskins 2003], where slip of the longitudinal reinforcement bars and ductile
hot-rolled or heat-treated steel were taken into account. The variant for secondary ele-
ments (el = 1.0) has been used for comparison, because this variant corresponds to the
best estimate of the ultimate drift.
Comparison of the predictions obtained by the CAE approach and the EC8 predictions
with the ultimate drifts observed in tests are shown in Figure 3-4. The scatter of the EC8
predictions is larger than the scatter of the CAE predictions. Figure 3-6 demonstrates that
EC8 (and similar expressions) predicts a relatively simple inter-relationships between the
input parameters and ultimate drift which are in fair agreement with the CAE results ob-
tained from both databases. The EC8 predictions in Figure 3-7, in which the influence of
the shear span index is clearly visible, are in fair agreement with the CAE results obtained
from the Fardis database. Note, however, that ultimate drift according to EC8 increases
also with the shear span index larger than 5, which is not the case for the CAE predic-
tions.
The CAE approach requires an appropriate database and a numerical analysis for each
estimate. This is certainly a drawback compared to closed form Eq.s derived from a clas-
sical regression analysis. On the other hand, the advantage of the CAE approach is its
flexibility. There are no fixed functional relations between input and output parameters,
any number of input parameters, (which are represented in the database) can be used,
different databases or different subsets of a database can be employed. Whereas the
closed form empirical Eq.s might be more convenient for practical applications, the CAE
approach can be a very powerful tool in research.
3 0. 2 0.4
0.5 3 5 0. 4
3.5 0.4
3.
5
3
0. 6
4
3.5
0.6
4 0. 6
0.4 0.8 4 0. 8 4
4.5
4 .5
1 1
4
1.2
0.3 1.4 5 1. 2
5
4.5
1.6 1.4
*
5 .5
P
1.8 1
5
0.2 5.5
6
1.
0.8
6 1.8 2
2
1.6
0.1 5.5
0.6
2.2
1.4
2.4 6
(a) 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
5 3
0.5 2. 3
5 3 .5
3.
3
4 5
6.5
4.
3 .5
0.4 0.2
4
0.2
5
4
5
4.
0. 4 0.4 0.2
5
5
6
0.3
4.
5.
0. 6 0.6
5
0. 8
0.4
*
1 0.8
5
P
6
5.
1
1.
0.2 5 0. 6
5.
2
1. 6
0.
2. 2
8
1. .6
2.6
1
1
0.1 1.41.2
2
3.2
3.8
2.4
6 3. 1. 8
4. 4
(b) 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.5 3 5 5 3 .5
3.5
4
0.4 3.5 4 4
4
4 .5
0.3 4 3 4.5 5
*
4.5
P
5
0.2 5 .5
5 5.5 6
5.5 6 6 .5
0.1 6 .5 7
6
7 7 .5
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

(c) s s s
fc' = 30MPa, L* = 3 fc' = 30MPa, L* = 4 fc' = 30MPa, L* = 5
Figure 3-6 Ultimate drift as a function of four parameters (L* and fc' = 30MPa are constant) for (a)
CAE, on PEER database, (b) CAE, on Fardis database and (c) EC8. Shown are also the isolines.
5.5 5 0.4
5 5
3.5 3
5
0.6
5 4 5 0.8 5
4.5 3.5
4.5 5 5 4 5
5.5 5
4.
4.5
4 4 4 0.6
3.5
5
3.5 5 5
4
*
1.6
L
5.5
1.4 0.4
3 2 1.2 3
1.8
1.6 1.4
1.2 1 0.2
1
2.5 0.8 5 0.8 5 0.2
0.6
0. 4 0.6
2
(a) 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
5.5 6.5 5
0.4
6.
5 0.2 5
5
0. 8
6
4.5 6 5
5.5
0. 4
1.
4
5.5
4 4
6
1. 8
5
2.6
3.5 5
5
*
5.5
4.
L
4.
3.5
5
5
5
4
3.2
3.5
3
4
0. 6
3. 4
2.5 4 .5 1 5 2. 0.2
5.4 2.2 1.6 5 0.4
3.4 1 0.8 0.6
4.4 1.2
2
(b) 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
5 5 5.
4.
5
5
7
4.5 5 4
6. 5
5
4 4
6
4 .5 3 .5
3.5 5
5. 5
*
L
3 4
5
3
2.5 4.5 5 3.5
2
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

(c) s s s
fc' = 30MPa, P* = 0.1 fc' = 30MPa, P* = 0.3 fc' = 30MPa, P* = 0.5
Figure 3-7 Ultimate drift as a function of four input parameters (P* and fc' = 30 Mpa are constant) for
(a) CAE, using PEER database, (b) CAE, using Fardis database and (c) Eurocode 8. Shown are also
the isolines.
0.5 3 0.5 3.5

3 .5 2
0.4 4 0.4 2 .5
3
4.5
0.3 0.3 3 .5
5
*
P
0.2 5.5 0.2 4
0.1 0.1 4 .5
6
(a) 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

s
2.5
0.5 3 0.5
2
4. 5
5
3.
0.4 0.4
2.
5
4
4.
0.3 0.3
3.5
5
4
*
5.
P
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

(b) s s
Figure 3-8 Drift ( ) and drift minus local standard deviation ( - E) for m=3
(fc'=30MPa, L*=4) for (a) PEER database and (b) Fardis database.
(f) Summary of the CAE method as applied to RC columns. Deformation capacity

(i.e. drift; ) of a RC column is characterised by a sample of observations/experiments on
N test specimens. Mathematical description of the observation/experiment on a single
specimen is called a model vector. Consequently, the whole phenomenon can be de-
scribed by a finite set of model vectors
{X1 ,...., Xn ,..., X N } (3.10)
It is assumed that the observation/experiment on one particular RC column specimen

can be described by a number of variables, which are treated as components of a model
vector
X n = {bn1 , ..., bnl , ..., bnD , cn1 , ...cnk , ..., cnM } (3.11)
In the particular case of determining drift as a function of four input parameters, de-
scription can be written as
X n = { s*,n , Pn* , Ln* , f c',n , n } (3.12)
Vector Xn can be further composed of two truncated vectors B and C
B n = {bn1 , ..., bnl , ..., bnD } and Cn = {cn1 , ..., cnk , ..., cnM } (3.13)
or in the particular case of RC column
B n = { s*, n , Pn* , Ln* , f c', n } and Cn = { n } (3.14)
Vector Bn is complementary to vector Cn and therefore their concatenation yields the

complete data model vector Xn. Prediction vector is also composed of two truncated vec-
tors, i.e. the given truncated vector B and the unknown complementary vector C
= {c , ..., c , ..., c }
B = {b1 , ..., bl , ..., bD } and C (3.15)
1 k M
or in the particular case of RC column
B = { s* , P* , L* , f c' } and C
= {} (3.16)
The problem now is how an unknown complementary vector C can be estimated from a
given truncated vector B and model vectors {X1, , Xn, ..., XN}, i.e. how drift can be
estimated from known four input parameters and available data in the database. By using
the conditional probability density function the optimal estimator for the given problem
can be expressed as
N
ck = An c nk (3.17)
n =1
where ck is the estimation of the k-th output variable, cnk is the same output variable cor-
responding to the n-th model vector in the database, N is the number of model vectors in
the database.
Eq. 3.17 in the case of drift estimation writes:
N
= An n (3.18)
n =1
where is the estimation of the drift, n is the drift corresponding to the n-th column
specimen in the database, and:
an
An = N
(3.19)
ai
i =1
The Gaussian density function with the width w is chosen as a weight function. It is cen-
treed at each n-th model vector to get the influence of n-th model vector at the point of
prediction vector:
D ( bl bnl )2
1
an = exp (3.20)
( 2 ) 2 wD l =1 2w
D 2
where bnl is the l-th input variable of the n-th model vector in the database (e.g. bn1, bn2,
bn3, ..., bnL), bl is the l-th input variable corresponding to the prediction vector. D is the
number of input variables and defines the dimension of the sample space.In case of drift
prediction, taking into account four input variables, Eq. (3.20) can be written as:
an =
1
exp
s (
* *
s ,n ) (P
2 *
Pn* ) (L
2 *
L*n ) (f
2
c
'
f c',n )
2

(3.21)
(2 ) w
2 4

2w 2

where s,n*, Pn*, Ln* and fc,n are the input parameters of the n-th column specimen in the
database, and s*, P*, L* and fc are the input parameters corresponding to the prediction
column specimen. Note that Eq. (3.15) requires the input parameters to be normalized,
generally in the range from 0 to 1 if we want to use the same width w of the Gaussian
function for all the input variables (dimensions).
The Gaussian function is used for smooth interpolation between the points of the col-
umn test specimens. In this context the width w is called the smoothing parameter. It
determines how fast the influence of data in the sample space decreases with increasing
distance from the point whose co-ordinates are determined by the input variables of the
prediction vector. In principle, a proper value of w is related to the distances between data
points in the database. However, in practice, the optimal value of the smoothing parame-
ter has to be determined through a trial and error procedure. If a small value of w is used,
the influence of different test specimens rapidly decreases with increasing difference
between the values of the input parameters of test specimens and those of the prediction
column. In such a case only column specimens with very similar characteristics influence
the prediction. On the other hand, a large value of w causes an averaging effect, because
the prediction is substantially influenced by a larger number of column test specimens,
also those with quite different characteristics from the prediction column. The optimum
w value should yield reasonably smooth results and a reasonably small average error,
which is measured in terms of measure Ek (Eq. (3.23)).
In some applications, a non-constant value of w yields more reasonable results than a

constant value. The width w (a) can vary with input variables (dimensions) or (b) can be
determined for each prediction point or (c) can be determined for each test specimen in
the database. The latter option was selected in the reported study. For this case the for-
mula for an (Eq.3.20) can be rewritten as
1 D ( bl bnl )2
an = exp (3.22)
( 2 ) 2 wnD l =1 2wn
D 2
where different values of wn correspond to each model vector ( X n ) from the database.
In the study summarised here wmin = 0.07 and wmax = 0.20 were selected as the most ap-
propriate values by a trial-and-error procedure. More details are described in [Peru 2005].
A general application of the method does not include any prior information about the
phenomenon. Eqs. (3.17)(3.18) and (3.19) suggest that the estimate of an output variable
is computed as a linear combination of truncated vectors Cn, while coefficients An are
non-linear functions of all input variables (Bn) in the database. Thus, non-linear phenom-
ena can be modeled by this approach. Weights An depend on the similarity between the
input variables of the prediction vector, and the corresponding input variables pertinent
to the model vectors stored in the database. Consequently, the unknown output variable
is determined in such a way that the computed vector composed of given and estimated
data is most consistent with the model vectors in the database.
The average prediction error Ek for k-th output variable can be determined with leave
one out cross validation method, which computes the prediction of every test specimen
while the predicted test specimen is excluded form the database. With averaging of abso-
lute errors of predictions for all N test specimens Ek is calculated as:
N
1 1
( c cnk )
2
Ek = nk (3.23)
ck N n =1
where ck is the average of known kth outputs of all model vectors cnk , and cnk is the
prediction of the measured value cnk of the kth output of the n-th modal vector. In the
case of drift predictions the average prediction error is:
E1 =
1

1 N
(
n n
N n =1
)2
(3.24)
where n and n are the measured and predicted drift of the n-th column specimen, re-
spectively. is the mean value of the measured drifts of the column specimens from the
database, and N is the number of column specimens in the database.
In order to check the dispersion of the predicted k-th output variable ck given by
Eq.(3.11), the so-called local standard deviation E k [Fajfar and Peru 1997] is used:
N mw
1
E k = ( c cnk )
2
nk (3.25)
N mw n =1
or in case of the predicted :
( )
N mw
1 2
E = n n (3.26)
N mw n =1
where Nmw is the number of column specimens inside a subspace within the database.
(The dimension of the subspace is equal to the number of input parameters D) In the
case of four input parameters, this subspace is defined as hypercube, with its centre at a
point determined by the co-ordinate of input parameter l of the column specimen under
consideration, and with half-sides mwl, where m is an arbitrarily chosen constant. Note
that dividing Eq.(3.24) with when Nmw = N (i.e. mw>>1) gives the measure E1 defined
in Eq.(3.24). The parameter m defines the subspace in which the local standard deviation
is calculated. While large values of m (e.g. 10 or more) produce an averaging effect (simi-
larly as large values of smoothing parameter w), and yield a more or less constant value of
E over the whole database, small values of m (e.g. 1 or less) lead to large local fluctua-
tions in E . In the case of databases used for the estimation of ultimate drift, reasonably
stable and smooth E values can be obtained using m = 3.
In the calculation of the prediction the estimation of the probability density function
of known input variables is an intermediate result
N
1
=
N
an (3.27)
n =1
It is a legitimate density function, because it is nonnegative and the area under this
function is always equal to one. This is assured by choosing Gaussian density function as
a weight function (see Eq. 3.20). It is defined for each point of the sample space and is
thus known for each prediction point. It represents the measure of how the influence of
all the test specimens is spreaded over the sample space and is strongly dependant on the
smoothing parameter w. It helps to detect the possible less accurate predictions due to the
data distribution in the database and due to local extrapolation outside the data range.
The higher the value is, more column specimens (relatively to the entire number of
test specimen in database) with input parameters similar to the input parameters of the
prediction column exist in the database.
3.2.2.3 Deformation capacity in biaxial bending

The expressions given in the previous paragraphs were derived for members under sim-
ple bending. Some indications on the bidirectional deformation capacity of RC members
can be found in report [LessLoss-SP8, 2006]. There, based on the few available bi-
directional tests of flexure-controlled specimens, it is suggested that at the ultimate de-
formation, the chord-rotation components parallels to the side of the cross-section, uY
and uZ have an average margin of about 15% beyond the circular interaction diagram:
2 2
uY uZ
+ =1 (3.28)

uY ,unid . uZ ,unid .
Verification of the ultimate limit state in bi-directional loading can thus be carried out by
checking that:
2 2
Y Z
+ 1.15 (3.29)

uY ,unid . uZ ,unid .
3.2.3 Shear strength capacity of RC members and joints

Predictive Eq.s for shear strength of concrete columns have been proposed e.g. in
[Priestley et al 1994], later adopted in [NZNSEE 2002]. The expression is of the form:
V = Vc + Vs + V N (3.30)
where the three additive terms represent the contribution of concrete, of shear rein-
forcement and of normal force, respectively, and are given by:
Vc = 0.8 A g k ( ) f c ( f c in MPa ,Vc in kN) (3.31)

d'
V s = An f y cot 30 (3.32)
s
VN = N tan (3.33)
where A g is the gross concrete section area of the column, An is the total area of trans-
verse reinforcement, d ' is the distance between the peripheral hoops, s is the stirrup
spacing, and is the angle between the column longitudinal axis and a line connecting
the compression centres at the top and bottom sections of the column. The factor
k ( ) takes into account the effect of the member displacement ductility demand in
reducing the shear carried by the concrete. Its value is 0.29 for -values up to 2, then
decreases linearly down to 0.1 for = 4 , and remains constant.
The scatter between experimental values and those predicted by Eq. (3.30) is quite mod-
est, the indicated values of the CoV being about 0.13; however, the number of specimens
used in establishing this CoV was rather limited.
A more recent version of the previous model is presented in [Kowalsky and Priestley
2000] as revised UCSD model, which is of the same form of Eq. (3.30) with revised
concrete contribution equal to:
L
V c = 0.8 A g k ( ) f c min 1.5, max 1.3 s min (1,0.5 + 20 tot ) (3.34)
h
where:
1.07 0.115
k ( ) = 0.05 k ( ) 0.28 (3.35)
3
Damage to RC joints can take one or more of the following forms:
a) slippage of the bars (usually those of the beams) through the joint, due to loss of bond,
b) bi-diagonal fine cracking of the joint panel,
c) large diagonal cracks, and
d) diagonal compressive failure.

Phenomena a) and b) are important, since they do not allow development of the moment
capacities of the beams and columns, and decrease substantially the overall stiffness of
the structure, respectively. These states of damage, however, are not by themselves con-
sidered as ultimate ones, though they may contribute to anticipating the actual collapse.
Phenomena c) and d) occur frequently in unconfined joints, especially exterior ones, ei-
ther L-shaped or T-shaped, when horizontal joint reinforcement is missing or too light,
and/or the transverse dimension of the joint is too small. These failures affect the trans-
mission of moments between the elements framing into the joint, and thus involve a sud-
den drop of resistance of the whole structure, especially when they take place at the lower
floors.
Capacity expressions for mechanisms c) and d) are frequently developed (see for example
Eurocode 8 [CEN 2005] or the New Zealand code for assessment [NZNSEE 2002])
based on principal stress limits, tensile and compressive, respectively.
The expressions for the principal stresses are:
2
N N
ct = + 2 (3.36)
2Ag 2Ag

where N is the axial force in the column consistent with the value of the shear stress .
The maximum shear stress that can be input into the joint depends on whether the beams
moment capacities are larger or lower than those of the columns. The two cases are illus-
trated in Figure 3-9 from which the following expressions are obtained:
V jh = A b 1 f y + C V c = ( A b 1 + A b 2 ) f y V c (3.37)
V jv = A c 1 f y + C V b = ( A c 1 + A c 2 ) f y + N V b (3.38)
with:
h = V jh /(bh c ) (3.39)
v = V jv /(bh b ) (3.40)
The limits to the principal stresses are given in Eurocode 8, Part 3 [CEN 2005] as:
f ck
c 0.6 1 f cd (3.41)
250
t 0.3 f ck2 / 3 (3.42)
The values of Eq. (3.41) and (3.42) are not associated with an estimate of their dispersion.
The limit on the principal compressive stress is likely to be affected by a larger amount of
scatter, due to the fact that in an existing joint, lacking partly or completely in transverse
steel, the core is severely cracked in tension before crushing, and this reduces considera-
bly, though randomly, the ability to resist compressive stresses. A CoV of the order of
0.30 0.35 is probably adequate for this case, while a value of 0.20 0.25 might be used
for the tensile failure mechanism.
Figure 3-9 Shear forces transmitted through the joint: Left: beam yielding, Right: column yielding.
3.2.4 Strength and deformation capacity of structural steel members
3.2.4.1 Introduction
Over the years, ductile steel moment-resisting frames (SMRF) construction has been
widely accepted by the engineering community. This was brought about by the fact that
their behaviour in a number of severe earthquakes around the globe has proven to be
satisfactory. However, two relatively recent and large earthquakes, the 1994 Northridge,
California and a year later the Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) earthquakes, revealed certain prob-
lems thus necessitating a re-examination of their behaviour. Consequently it has been
realized that the reliability of the SMRFs under seismic excitations can be significantly
affected, firstly due to excessive lateral deformations, and secondly due to yielding, buck-
ling and fracturing of columns and beams as well as brittle fracturing of beam-to-column
welded or bolted connections prior to the attainment of the plastic moment by the beams
[FEMA 1995].
3.2.4.2 Performance levels

Eurocode 8 (CEN 2005) uses two limit states to assess the structural performance of new
buildings, namely the serviceability and ultimate limit states. The former is associated with
damage in non structural elements and the latter with the attainment of a severe state of
damage in structural elements and the onset of failure. Along the same lines FEMA-350
[FEMA 2000a] also assumes two performance levels, termed Immediate Occupancy (IO) and
Collapse Prevention (CP). The first one refers to the level where the building experiences
only minor damages. When considering SMRFs, such damages may include some local-
ized yielding and connection fractures, which may go unnoticed by common inspection
post-earthquake practices. The second level refers to a state where significant damage has
taken place in the building, while maintaining its ability to withstand the gravity loads
[Yun et al 2002].
The described limit state concept are introduced in the design philosophy through the
specification of appropriate performance objectives formulated in terms of response
quantities, such as interstorey drifts, ductility ratios and global or local damage indices.
The corresponding capacity is an issue still under investigation though it is increasingly
being discussed during the last few years [Grecea et al 2004].
In the following, first likely damages related to moment resisting frames are briefly ana-
lysed, with particular attention to welded steel moment resisting frames (WSMRFs). Then
member capacity models are dealt with, with reference to different types of structural
members. Finally, the issue of the global capacity is discussed with reference to SMRF.
3.2.4.3 Damage types

Following a number of seismic events, inspections on WSMRFs have revealed different
types of member damage. Most buildings have suffered either member failures due to
yielding, buckling and fracturing, or fractures in the beam to column connections. Addi-
tionally, global damages, associated with permanent lateral drifts, have been observed in
some structures [FEMA 1995].
(a) Column Damages. Several types of damages associated with columns have been
identified during past earthquakes, the most common being located in the column flange
and the base plate. Column flange damage is related either with flange buckling or with
cracking along or across the thickness of the flange. On the other hand, fracture of base
plates and split of concrete in tension, where the anchors are embedded [Smith 1996], are
some of the likely cases of base plate damage.
(b) Beam Damages. The most common damage types associated with beams under
earthquake excitations have to do with yielding and buckling of the web or flanges, web
fractures and lateral torsional buckling [FEMA 1995]. Flange damage and initiation of
lateral torsional buckling have been observed at the bottom unrestrained flanges of the
steel sections.
Unlike columns, plastic hinging in beams corresponds to a desired plastic frame behav-
iour according to the weak beam-strong column concept. In order to achieve this, one
basic requirement is that beam sections should have sufficient ductility, leading to a wide
plateau in the moment-rotation curve (Figure 3-10). This behaviour is associated with the
distance from the column face where the plastic hinge should form. Prior to the North-
ridge earthquake, most design codes stipulated that plastic hinges at beams should de-
velop adjacent to column faces. However, as the Northridge earthquake demonstrated,
this design approach led to a number of brittle fractures being observed in the connec-
tions. For that reason, recent FEMA recommendations [2000a] suggest the shifting of
plastic hinges away from column faces. This can either be achieved by strengthening the
connection area using haunches or welded attachments in beam flanges, or, alternatively,
by reducing the beam section in specific locations to create a locally weak segment in the
beam.
Ductile
Mp
Brittle
Moment
SB1
P P
SB2
Rotation
Figure 3-10 Beam Moment-Rotation curves showing brittle and ductile performance
(c) Connection Damages. Connections are crucial components in steel buildings as

their strength controls the overall resistance of a structure and their stiffness affects the
buildings dynamic characteristics [Roeder 2002]. Fully restrained connections are usually
used in moment resisting frames. Beam-to-column connections should be designed to be
stronger than the beams and under no circumstances should control the formation of the
overall structural mechanism. Existing connections often do not satisfy this requirement.
For instance, prior to the Northridge earthquake, the typical connection used for earth-
quake resistant design in the USA generally consisted of full penetration welds, connect-
ing the beam flanges to the column flange, and a shear plate bolted or welded to the
beam web which was then welded to the column flange (Figure 3-11). The satisfactory
performance of this type of connection was verified experimentally through several cyclic
loading tests [Popov and Pinkney 1969][Popov and Stephen 1972] prior to its introduc-
tion in the construction practice. Some premature fractures observed during these tests
were not fully understood and they were attributed to improper welding [Sabol 2004].
However, subsequent studies have revealed that pre-Northridge connections are typically
characterised by premature fractures at very small plastic rotations (5 mrad) and a high
variability in response [Whittaker et al 1998b]. EC8 recommends values for the plastic
rotation capacity of the connections that range from 25 mrad for structures with medium
ductility to 35 mrad for high ductility structures. The inability of the pre-Northridge con-
nections to develop sufficient plastic rotation has been attributed to a number of factors
including the low toughness of the weld metal, the effect of the backing bars which were
left in place after completion of welding, the effect of residual stresses, the overstress of
the beam flange welds and the poor workmanship [Engelhardt and Sabol 1997].
Shear Plate
Panel
zone
Web cope hole
Backing bar
Figure 3-11 Typical pre-Northridge connection
A common failure mode associated with connections is the fracture of the weld in the
bottom flange. The fractures initiated at the bottom flange tend to propagate along the
heat affected zone of the column base metal. In other cases they may propagate along or
through the thickness of the column flange or girder flange and in some other cases they
might also affect the panel zone [FEMA 1995]. However, fractures of the top flange weld
have been also observed, usually at greater values of plastic rotation than for their bottom
flange counterparts. It has been observed though that, following fracture of the bottom
weld, the connection does not completely fail [SAC 1996]. This residual resistance exists
until the occurrence of the top flange weld fracture which implies the complete loss of
the connection moment carrying capacity
With regard to the hysteretic behaviour of pre-Northridge connections, it has been ob-
served that the pre-fractured behaviour is rigid-plastic with strain hardening. Once frac-
ture occurs, the moment strength of the connection drops to a small portion of its origi-
nal strength. This drop is in the range of 20-40% of the initial strength of the connection.
The reduced moment characterises the connection only in cases where the bending is
such that the crack in the fractured beam flange is opened. Under reversed bending the
resistance is found to be in the range of 70-90% of its initial moment strength [Wang and
Wen 2000a] (Figure 3-12), depicts a typical hysteretic behaviour of a pre-Northridge con-
nection.
In an attempt to model the behaviour shown in Figure 3-12, researchers [Kunnath

1995][Foutch and Shi 1997] [Wang and Wen 2000a] have developed non-linear connec-
tion elements that are able to capture the effects of brittle connection fractures (see
Figure 3-13). Furthermore, uncertainties associated with the hysteretic behaviour have
been addressed by treating parameters such as the fracture rotation and the moment ca-
pacity after fracture, in a probabilistic manner [Song and Ellingwood 1999] [Wang and
Wen 2000b].
Figure 3-12 Hysteretic behaviour of a pre-Northridge connection (Figure 3-11)
(a) (b)
Figure 3-13 Proposed hysteretic models for weld fractures (a) Foutch and Shi [1997], (b) Kunnath
[1995].
(d) Panel Zone Damage. The panel zone is the area contained within the column,
which is formed by extending the beam flange lines in the column web (Figure 3-11).
Panel zones can have a significant influence on the dynamic response of the frames, as
they might undergo large inelastic distortions which can potentially introduce second or-
der effects in the structure [Castro et al 2004].
Weak panel zones may prevent the usage of the full flexural capacity in beams or col-
umns, leading to the formation of a yield mechanism controlled by shear yielding in panel
zones [Gupta and Krawinkler 2000]. The issue of the plastic rotation capacity of the
panel zone has been addressed in the past [Popov et al 1985]. Studies carried out follow-
ing the Northridge earthquake [Whittaker et al 1998b] highlighted a disadvantage associ-
ated with yielding of panel zones, related to column flange kinking, which is observed
during excessive panel zone deformations, and may initiate fractures of the beam to col-
umn connection welds [Plumier 2000].
It should be mentioned that panel zone damages are considered to be among the most
costly to repair, due to the fact that the replacement of damaged sections is particularly
difficult for stability reasons [FEMA 1995].
3.2.4.4 Member capacity models

Local Ductility. Local ductility () is defined as the ratio of the ultimate deformation u
that a member can undergo, to the yield deformation y beyond which the member be-
haves plastically. Therefore,
u
= (3.43)
y
Deformation is a general term which is used to describe deflection, rotation, curvature, or

strain. The factors which affect the ductility of steel members are the section dimensions,
the support conditions, the type of loading (i.e. monotonic or cyclic), the initial imperfec-
tions related with the manufacturing process, the residual stresses in the connections and
the material properties [Chryssanthopoulos et al 1999].
The local ductility of a steel section can be obtained from experimental results. Ductility
is related to inelastic structural response and it is highly dependent on the failure mode, or
modes, at the ultimate deformation. Generally the ultimate deformation should be de-
fined by whatever failure mode or combination of failure modes gives the minimum value
of u [Wiegel 1970].
Most codes require that all elements contributing in the lateral force resisting system
should have adequate ductility in their critical regions. For instance, ductility requirements
for individual structural members are expressed in EC3 [CEN 2005] through categorisa-
tion of steel sections in four classes according to specific limits of width to thickness ra-
tio. The categorisation of sections employed by EC3 is based on plate slenderness limits
derived from monotonic loading tests. Thus the assumed ductility capacity does not take
into account the cyclic nature of the excitation
As was previously mentioned, the ductility capacity depends among other factors on the
support conditions. Thus an accurate estimation of the available ductility should account
for the boundary conditions that a member has as part of a structure [Gioncu 2000].
However such an approach would be very complicated. For this reason the ductility of a
structural member is usually calculated using two standard beams. These are the standard
beam of type 1 (SB1), a beam with a concentrated force at midspan, which is used to
simulate members with variable moment along their length, and the standard beam of
type 2 (SB2), which is a beam with two concentrated forces, which is used for members
with an almost constant moment (Figure 3-10) [Gioncu and Petcu 1997]. A members
ductility is usually calculated experimentally using these standard beams.
A rather simple empirical model for the calculation of monotonic rotation ductility is proposed
by Daali and Korol [1996]. The model is based on a series of experiments [Kuhlmann
1989] aimed at estimating the monotonic rotational ductility of bare steel I-cross sections.
The specimens used were of type 1 with lateral displacement and lateral torsional buck-
ling prevented in the midspan and supports. This model, which is consistent with the
slenderness limits of the Canadian code [CSA 1989] for class 1 sections with a yield stress
of 300MPa, is given as:
m = 1 9.2 + 10.710.293 (3.44)

where,
a f aw al
= (3.45)
30072
b
af = (3.46)
t f
d
aw = (3.47)
t w
L
al = (3.48)
r y
1/ 2
300
= (3.49)
fy

where, b is the half section width, tf is the flange thickness, d is the clear section depth
between the flanges, tw is the web thickness, L is the distance between the lateral support
and the point of the maximum moment, ry is the radius of gyration about the weak axis
and fy is the yield stress in MPa.
Models based on estimating the monotonic ductility, though attractively simple, are con-
sidered to be inadequate under earthquake-type loading as they do not take into account
the deterioration in strength and dissipated energy of steel sections subjected to cyclic
loading. In [Daali and Korol 1996] the concept of adequate ductility based on the Park-Ang
damage index [Park and Ang 1985][Park et al 1985] is introduced as an alternative. This
concept is in line with what is specified as adequate ductility in the New Zealand code
[NZS 1984] according to which a ductile building should be able to withstand eight load
reversals at the same specified ductility with a strength deterioration less than 20%. When
the above requirements are adapted to individual members of the structure, the following
expression for ductility is obtained:
m + 16 2
A = (3.50)
1 + 16 2
where, m is the monotonic ductility previously defined and 2 is the calibration factor
proposed by Daali and Korol based on Park-Ang model, given by:
2.26
a
2 = 0.085 f (3.51)
8.37
The factor is related to the flange slenderness alone. Eq.(3.51) was obtained using the
least squares method and has a coefficient of variation of 0.31. It was suggested by Daali
and Korol that this calibration factor should be further validated with the use of more
experimental data.
Rotation Capacity. For steel frames it may be assumed that local failure occurs when
the rotation capacity of a structural member is exceeded. Daali and Korol [1985] pro-
posed a model for the prediction of rotation capacity of steel cross sections, at maximum
moment, limited by local buckling. The rotation capacity Rm is defined as
m l
Rm = 1 = l (2s 1) + e (3.52)
pl 1 l
where,
e = E / Es (3.53)
s = h / y (3.54)
In Eq.s (3.52)-(3.54), m is the rotation at maximum moment, pl is the plastic rotation, E

is the elastic modulus, Es is the modulus at strain hardening, h is the strain at hardening,
y is the strain at yielding and l is ratio between the yielding length of the flange and the
overall length given as:
a 2f a w2
l = 0.3997 (3.55)
E E

480 5.695
where, f and w were defined in section 3.2.4.4(e) and E is expressed in MPa. Eq. (3.55) is
based on an empirical formula initially proposed by Kato [1989] for H sections.
Fracture moment capacity. Fracture of welded connections can be attributed to a range

of parameters which have to do either with the material properties or with the manufac-
turing practices. Due to the inherent variability of the above parameters, recent studies
attempting to predict the fracture moment capacity recognise their random nature and
have treated the problem in a probabilistic manner.
Matos and Dodds [2001, 2002] proposed two models for estimating the fracture moment
capacity of a connection. The first model, reported here, is expressed in terms of the frac-
ture probability, based on the two parameter Weibull distribution and has the form:
Mf /Mp
a

P f = 1 exp (3.56)

where Mp is the plastic moment of the section, Mf is the fracture moment, and and are
the Weibull parameters of the distribution. This model was found to fit a set of 15 ex-
periments very well for = 7.5 and = 1.
Righiniotis et al [2002] proposed a model for the fracture moment based on linear elastic
fracture mechanics principles. Accordingly, the fracture moment is given as:
M f = 2( K Ic K res )
Q

[( )
I D t f Yt + tYb ]
1
(3.57)
where, KIc is the materials plane strain fracture toughness, Kres is the stress intensity factor
related to the welding residual stresses, Q, Yt and Yb are non dimensional factors associ-
ated with the crack, D is the depth of the beam section, tf is the beam flange thickness,
is the crack depth and I is the moment of inertia of the beam section. Probabilistic mod-
els for the fracture moment based on Eq.(3.57) were derived by Righiniotis and Imam
[2004] by taking into account the randomness in KIc, fy and .
Joh and Chen [1999] carried out linear fracture mechanics finite element analyses of a
beam-to-column connection, for a number of different crack sizes observed in North-
ridge, and were able to derive a probability density function of the fracture moment.
Capacity based on Damage Indices. Assessment of the capacity of structural members

under seismic loading can be made by means of an indicator which accounts for both the
maximum deformation and the repeated cyclic load effects [Daali and Korol 1996].
A range of damage indices have been proposed by many researchers for evaluating cyclic
damage of structural members. One of the most well known damage indices is the one
associated with Miners rule [1945]. This damage index is based on a linear cumulative
rule according to which:
k ni n n n
D= = 1 + 2 + ... + k (3.58)
i =1 Ni N1 N 2 Nk
where, ni is the number of cycles of amplitude i and Ni is the number of cycles of am-
plitude i that causes failure.
The number of cycles to failure can be calculated from:
m
1
N i = mon (3.59)
2 i
where, i is the amplitude of the cyclic plastic rotation, mon is the rotation capacity un-
der monotonic loading and m is the slope of the fatigue curve, usually taken equal to 2
[Grecea 2004].
The accuracy of the above damage rule is questionable because, although it accounts for
the cumulative effect of the number of cycles a structural member undergoes during an
earthquake, due to its linear nature, it does not account for the sequence of loading appli-
cation [Suresh 1991]. This limitation can be particularly important in terms of low-cycle
fatigue which may be encountered during seismic loading. The number of cycles to failure
when considering buildings under earthquake excitation can be in the range of 1-100
[Vayas et al 2003].
Another widely used damage index is the Park-Ang damage model [Park and Ang
1985][Park et al 1985], initially developed to evaluate the damage of reinforced concrete
structures. This index is based on a linear combination of the dissipated energy and the
maximum deformations of the structural members during earthquakes, according to the
following Eq.:
max
F y u
D= + dE (3.60)
u
where u and max are maximum deformations under monotonic and earthquake loading
respectively, Fy is the yield force, is a calibration parameter and dE is the incrementally
dissipated hysteretic energy.
The parameter can be calculated by calibrating experimental results. Unfortunately, po-

tential values for the calibration parameter have not been widely verified experimentally
for steel members and therefore in a probabilistic analysis this should be treated as a ran-
dom variable with a large component of epistemic uncertainty.
3.2.4.5 Global capacity models.

The maximum roof drift ratio, defined as the ratio of the peak lateral roof displacement to
the structure height, can be used as a performance measure for the seismic response of
moment resisting frames. Maximum roof drift demand can be helpful in identifying the
required lateral stiffness of the designed structure. However, it should be used with cau-
tion as it is incapable of capturing possible local drift concentrations [Foutch and Yun
2002], especially where the response of the structure is dominated by higher mode ef-
fects. For this reason, consideration of several deformation measures, such as the individ-
ual storey drift ratios (Figure 3-14), is considered to be an improvement relative to the use of
a single measure, leading to more precise estimation of the structural damage and the
global structural stability of moment resisting frames [Luco et al 2005]. A commonly used
single measure accounting for local drift concentrations is the peak interstorey drift ratio, de-
fined as the maximum interstorey drift ratio over the building height.
Drift Angle
Undeformed
shape
Deformed
shape
Figure 3-14 Interstorey drift of a frame with fully restrained connections.
Although it is widely recognised that more research is needed towards the development
of a robust quantitative relationship between performance levels and drift limits, several
documents have been published proposing various indicative values. A possible mapping
between performance levels and drift limits is that provided by FEMA 356 [FEMA
2000b], a report for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, suggesting for three qualita-
tively defined performance levels, namely Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS)
and Collapse Prevention (CP), deterministic drift limits for the steel MRFs of 0.7%, 2.5%
and 5%, respectively. For new steel MRF designs, these limits may be replaced with less
stringent values, such as those specified in FEMA 350 [FEMA 2000a].
For the purpose of probabilistic seismic assessment several approximate approaches to

the evaluation of capacity in terms of global parameters such as the maximum roof drift
ratio or the peak interstorey drift ratio have been proposed.
The first approach estimates the roof drift capacity by means of a pushover analysis. The
ultimate roof capacity normalised by the yield roof drift coincides with the global dis-
placement ductility that can be defined as the ability of an entire structural system to de-
form inelastically without significant reduction of its strength. This can be derived as:
roof ,u x u / H x u
= = = (3.61)
roof , y x y / H x y
where, xu and xy are the ultimate and yield top displacements, respectively. Figure 3-15
provides a schematic representation of these parameters within the context of a pushover
analysis. It is stressed that estimation of the capacity of a structure undergoing dynamic
excitation by means of a static analysis is only approximate, in particular for what con-
cerns the relationship between member and global ductilities.
Fu
Fy
Base Shear
1st Plastic hinge
xy xu
Displacement
Figure 3-15 Typical pushover curve
An alternative even cruder way to relate global ductility capacity to local ductilities evalu-
ated e.g. according to the methods presented in Section 3.2.4.4(e), has been proposed by
Cosenza and Manfredi [2000], in the case of multi-storey buildings:
2 a
= 1 + 2 u 1 (3.62)
3 a y

where is the global ductility, is the local ductility and au, ay are the multipliers of hori-
zontal forces for ultimate and first yielding limit states respectively.
Capacity based on Damage Indices. Global damage indices, as opposed to their local
counterparts, are related to the entire structure. They are usually obtained from combina-
tions of local indices, in an attempt to obtain a clearer picture of the structural systems
seismic performance. One such method for combining local indices is based on a weight-
ing scheme.
Park et al [1985] proposed a global damage index based on the Park-Ang [1985] damage
index for structural members. According to this model, the overall structural damage can
be expressed as the sum of the local damage indices Di weighted by the energy absorbing
contribution factor i. Therefore the global damage index DT will be given as:
DT = i D i (3.63)
i
where
i = Ei / Ei (3.64)
and Ei is the total absorbed energy of member i.
The calculation of global damage indices through weighted integration of local indices,
although commonly used, can lead to misleading results. This is because crucial parame-
ters, such as the effect of damage concentration and the locations of plastic hinges (in
beams or columns) are ignored [Wong and Wang 2001].
Before the Earthquake

Base Shear/Total Weight
After the Earthquake
Kfinal
Kinitial
Roof Displacement/Building Height
Figure 3-16 Change of stiffness before and after the earthquake
Ghobarah et al [1999] proposed a global damage index based on pushover analysis. This
damage index is evaluated based on two pushover analyses, one for the intact structure,
and one for the damaged structure. The state of damage in the structure is induced by
dynamic analysis with a given ground motion record. The stiffness degradation of the
building due to seismic excitation (Figure 3-16) is directly linked to the global structural
damage as:
(
( DI ) K = 1 K final / K initial ) (3.65)
4. PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Methods to evaluate the mean annual frequency LS of a structure exceeding a limit state
LS when subjected to seismic action essentially depend on the representation of the un-
certainties, and, in particular, on the representation of the ground motion uncertainty,
which is usually the major contributor to total uncertainty. There are two different basic
methods for taking into account ground motion uncertainty. A probabilistic representa-
tion of the entire ground motion time-history can be constructed based on a stochastic
model that depends on ground motion source, path and site parameters (random process
models or seismological models for the generation of synthetic time histories). Alterna-
tively, an ensemble of recorded ground motion time-histories can be employed to de-
scribe this source of variability, together with a probabilistic model for the seismic inten-
sity (hazard).
It is therefore obvious that the direct approach to the probabilistic evaluation of seismic
risk is through nonlinear dynamic analyses. Among the numerous proposals developed in
the last decade, the so-called SAC-FEMA method emerges as the most widely known and
used in practice [Cornell et al 2002]. The approach has the great merit of simplicity and of
arriving at a simple, closed-form expression for LS , with a reduced number of parame-
ters of clear physical significance. Many variants have been developed through the years
to broaden the scope of the method, a recent and advanced one being presented in this
report (see Section 4.3).
Among the variants, it has been deemed of great interest to include in this report also a
version which avoids the need for performing inelastic time-history analyses with multiple
recorded ground motions. This proposal, presented in the following section, is based in-
stead on the now well-established pushover technique in the form originally developed by
Fajfar and co-workers (the N2 method).
4.2 USE OF NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

The SAC-FEMA approach employs IDA (Incremental dynamic analysis) curves which
require a large number of inelastic time-history analyses. Thus, the procedure is very time-
consuming, and the question arises as to whether it is possible to create summarized IDA
curves with less input data, with less effort, but still with acceptable accuracy. One possi-
ble approach is to determine seismic demand for multiple levels of seismic intensity using
the N2 method [Fajfar and Gaperi 1996, Fajfar 2000]. Such an approach is called the
Incremental N2 or IN2 method [Dolek and Fajfar 2004a, 2005], which is briefly de-
scribed herein.
IN2 is a relatively simple nonlinear approach for determination of approximate IDA

curves. IN2 method is, like the IDA analysis, a parametric analysis method. An IDA
curve is determined with nonlinear dynamic analyses, while each point of an IN2 curve
(approximate IDA curve), which corresponds to a given seismic intensity, is predicted
with the N2 method [Fajfar 2000].
N2 is a relatively simple non-linear method for seismic design of new buildings and via-
ducts and for seismic evaluation of existing structures. The basic features of the method
are the use of two separate mathematical models (a MDOF and an equivalent SDOF
model) and the combination of the pushover analysis and the response spectrum ap-
proach. The N2 method is able to provide estimates of local and global damage depend-
ing on the chosen seismic demand for a variety of structures, and is thus well suited for
the implementation in the performance based design concept. The method has been im-
plemented in the final version of Eurocode 8.
In order to determine an IN2 curve, first the ground motion intensity measure and the
demand measure have to be selected. The most appropriate pair of quantities is the spec-
tral acceleration at the period of the equivalent SDOF model and the top (roof) dis-
placement, which allow also the visualization of the procedure (Figure 4-1). Other rele-
vant quantities, like maximum storey drift, rotation at the column and beam end, shear
force in a structural element and in a joint, and storey acceleration, can be employed as
secondary demand measures. They are related to roof displacement and can be uniquely
determined if roof displacement is known. The secondary demand measures can be used,
together with the main demand measure, for performance assessment at different per-
formance levels.
The shape of the IN2 curve depends on the inelastic spectra applied in the N2 method,
which are based on the relation between strength reduction factor, ductility and period
(the R T relation). If a simple R T relation, based on equal displacement
rule in the medium- and long-period range, is used, the IN2 curve is linear for structures
with periods higher than TC and bilinear for structures with periods lower than TC. A
more complex R T relation was proposed for infilled RC frames [Dolek and Fa-
jfar 2004b, 2005]. In this case the IN2 curve is four-linear (Figure 4-1). Considering the
piecewise linearity of the IN2 curve, only a few points have to be determined in order to
obtain the complete IN2 curve.
The schematic construction of the IN2 curve for a SDOF model in the acceleration-
displacement (AD) format is presented in Figure 4-1. The capacity diagram (multi-linear
curve) shown in Figure 4-1 is characteristic for infilled RC frames and represents the ide-
alized pushover curve of an equivalent SDOF model. As an example, two points (P1 and
P2) of the IN2 curve, corresponding to two different ground motion intensities, are
schematically constructed with the N2 method. The radial line from origin and crossing
yield point represents the elastic system with period T . Elastic seismic demand in terms
of elastic spectral acceleration (Sae,1 or Sae,2) and corresponding elastic spectral displace-
ment (Sde,1 or Sde,2) is determined as the intersection of this line with the elastic spectrum
for the appropriate ground motion intensity. The inelastic displacement demand (Sd,1 or
Sd,2) is then determined with the N2 method. It corresponds to the point where the hori-
zontal line, at the acceleration Say, intersects the appropriate inelastic spectrum. A point of
the IN2 curve (e.g. the points P1 and P2) is defined with the pairs: elastic spectral accelera-
tion on the Y-axis and the corresponding inelastic displacement demand on the X-axis
(Figure 4-1). If inelastic displacements are determined for different levels of elastic spec-
tral acceleration, the complete IN2 curve can be obtained.
P2
Sae,2 ES-Elastic spectrum
rv e IS-Inelastic spectrum
cu
T
2 YP-Yield point
IN
Acceleration
P1
Sae,1
ES 2
IS 2
IS 1
ES 1
Capacity diagram
YP
S de,1 S de,2 Sd,1 Sd,2

Displacement
Figure 4-1 Schematic construction of an IN2 curve (for an infilled frame).
Recently, the N2 method was extended to 3D structural models [Fajfar et al. 2005a,
2005b]. Here this extension is summarized. Using this extension, the estimate of seismic
demand in asymmetric building structures can be obtained, i.e. one point of the IN2
curve.
The consideration of the torsional effects in the extended N2 method is based on two
observations obtained in parametric studies:
The torsional amplification of displacements determined by elastic dynamic analysis

can be used as a rough, mostly conservative estimate also in the inelastic range.
Any favourable torsional effect on the stiff side, i.e. any reduction of displacements
compared to the counterpart symmetric building, which may arise from elastic analy-
sis, will probably decrease or may even disappear in the inelastic range.
Parametric studies have shown that inelastic torsion is characterized by large inherent
randomness and uncertainty. Studies are underway aimed at determining dispersion of
seismic demand due to torsion.
In the case of 3D structural models a point of the IN2 curve corresponding to a selected
limit state is determined according to the following steps:
1. Perform a linear modal analysis of the 3D mathematical model, independently for

excitation in two horizontal directions and combine the results according to the SRSS
rule.
2. Perform pushover analyses by using a 3D mathematical model. Loading is applied at
the mass centres, independently in two horizontal directions, in each direction with +
and - sign.
3. For each step of the pushover analysis determine the correction factors to be applied
to the relevant results of pushover analyses. The correction factor is defined as the ra-
tio between the normalized roof displacements obtained by elastic modal analysis and
by pushover analysis. The normalized roof displacement is the roof displacement at
an arbitrary location divided by the roof displacement at the centre of mass (CM). If
the normalized roof displacement obtained by elastic modal analysis is smaller than
1.0, take 1.0. Correction factors are defined for each horizontal direction separately.
Note that the correction factor depends on the location of the plan.
4. For each step of the pushover analysis multiply all relevant quantities obtained by
pushover analyses with appropriate correction factors. For example, in a perimeter
frame parallel to the X-axis, all quantities are multiplied with the correction factor de-
termined with pushover results obtained for loading in the X-direction and for the lo-
cation of this frame. The relevant quantities are, for example, deformations for the
ductile elements which are expected to yield and the stresses for brittle elements
which are expected to remain in the elastic range.
5. Determine the top displacement (displacement demand at CM at roof level) corre-
sponding to the selected limit state for each of two horizontal directions (the critical
value of two values, obtained for + and sign).
6. Determine seismic intensity (spectral acceleration at the period of the equivalent
SDOF system) corresponding to the top displacement determined in step 5.
The results obtained by this procedure are influenced both by nonlinear static (pushover)
and elastic dynamic analysis. Displacement demand (amplitude and the distribution along
the height) at the mass centres is determined by the usual N2 method, which is based on
pushover analysis. The amplification of demand due to torsion is determined by elastic
dynamic analysis, while reduction of demand due to torsion is not taken into account.
Such an approach yields in a majority of cases a conservative estimate of torsional influ-
ences.
Usually the inelastic spectra, used in the N2 method, represent mean spectra and conse-
quently the IN2 curve represents a mean curve. In such a case, the mean IN2 curve has
to be transformed to the median IN2 curve. This can be achieved with different methods
if the dispersion is known. For example, if the method of moments is applied, then the
dispersion measure D , which represents also the standard deviation for natural logs, can
be calculated as
D = ln (CoV 2 + 1) (4.1)
where CoV is the coefficient of variation for randomness in displacement demand, and
the median value of the IN2 curve can be determined as
1
D ( s a ) = D ( s a ) exp D2 (4.2)
2
where D stands for the mean value of displacement determined with the N2 method.
The model for the dispersion measure for randomness in displacement demand D has
not been developed yet. Based on preliminary research [Dolek and Fajfar 2004b, 2005],
an upper limit of CoV=0.7 and a lower limit of CoV=0.4 can be assumed. The first value
is appropriate for short-period structures, while the second value is reasonable for struc-
tures with moderate and long periods. Using Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2), the median IN2 curve
can be estimated. Note that based on Eq. (4.2), the mean IN2 curve is more conservative
(it yields larger displacements for a given spectral acceleration) than the median IN2
curve. For CoV=0.7 and CoV=0.4, the ratio between the median and mean value
amounts to 0.82 and 0.93, respectively.
4.2.1 Determination of fragility and risk

The probability of exceedance of a given limit state PPL and the x confidence level esti-
mate of the annual probability (mean annual frequency) of exceedance of a given limit
state PPL , x can be determined by the analytical expressions [Cornell et al. 2002]:
( )
PPL = H s aC C f

(4.3)
( )
PPL , x = H s aC C H C f C x

(4.4)
1
C H = exp H2
2

k2 2
C f = exp K x 2 DR
b
+ CR
2
( ) (4.5)

k2 2
C f = exp K x 2 DU
b
+ CU
2
( )

( )
where H s aC is the median value of the hazard function at the spectral acceleration s aC .

It provides the median estimate of the annual probability that the spectral acceleration

will be equal to or exceed the level s aC , i.e. the spectral acceleration corresponding to
the median displacement capacity C . k is a parameter of the hazard function (Eq. (4.6)),
whereas b is a parameter of the function relating the displacement to the spectral accelera-
tion, i.e. of the so-called IDA curve. K x is the standardized normal variate associated
with probability x of not being exceeded. For example, K x = 0, 1 and 1.28 are associated
with 50%, 84 % and 90 % confidence levels, respectively. H is the dispersion measure
( )
for hazard. The product H s aC CH represents the mean value of the hazard function

( )

H s aC . Other parameters represent the dispersion of displacement due to ground
motion variability (randomness) and due to variability related to structural modelling and
analysis (uncertainty). DR and CR are the dispersion measures for randomness in dis-
placement demand and capacity, and DU and CU are the dispersion measures for epis-
temic uncertainty in top displacement demand and capacity. The former two dispersions
can be obtained from IDA analysis. Additional analyses have to be made for the determi-
nation of the latter two dispersions or, alternatively, predetermined default values can be
used as in the SAC/FEMA approach [Yun et al, 2002].
The probability of exceedance of a given limit state (Eq. (4.4)) can be interpreted as the
product of the hazard which corresponds to the spectral acceleration at which the limit
state is reached, and the correction factors due to uncertainty in the ground motion haz-
ard curve CH, due to randomness in the demand and capacity Cf , and due to uncertainty
in the demand and capacity Cx.
The expressions for annual probability of exceedance of a given limit state (Eqs. (4.3) and
(4.4)) have been derived based on the assumption that the hazard curve H ( s a ) and the
median IDA curve D ( s a ) can be approximated as
H ( s a ) = ko ( s a )
k
(4.6)
D ( s a ) = a ( s a )
b
(4.7)
where H ( s a ) is the median annual probability that the spectral acceleration sa will be ex-
ceeded, and D ( s a ) is the median displacement as a function of sa. The approximation of
the median IDA curve according to Eq. (4.7) is usually adequate, as long as the structure
is distant from global dynamic instability. In the region of global dynamic instability the
approximation could become quite inaccurate. Furthermore, it has been assumed that
spectral acceleration and displacement are distributed log-normally about the median. All
dispersion measures are quantified as standard deviations of the natural logarithm.
The parameters determining the hazard curve (ko and k) can be determined from any two
points on the actual hazard curve, e.g. from the points which correspond to the limit state
of damage limitation (DL) and to the limit state of near collapse (NC). Parameters deter-
mining the IDA curve (a and b) can be also determined from two points on the IDA
curve. The simplest possibility is the assumption b=1, which corresponds to the equal
displacement rule, i.e. to the assumption that the inelastic displacement is equal to the
elastic displacement of a structure with the same period and with unlimited strength. Ac-
cording to FEMA-350 [FEMA, 2000a] the parameter b is typically taken as having a value
of 1.0.
To implement the results of the IN2 method into the SAC/FEMA probabilistic frame-
work, the IDA curve has to be replaced with the IN2 curve. In general, an IN2 curve is
intended to approximate a summarized IDA curve (e.g. mean or median) and is not cal-
culated for a single ground motion Therefore dispersion measures for randomness in
displacement demand DR and displacement capacity CR can not be directly deter-
mined from the results of the IN2 method. However, the dispersion of randomness in
displacement demand DR can be estimated from the coefficient of variation for dis-
placement of the SDOF system, for which R T relation was determined, while
CR has to be prescribed for typical structural systems in advance. It is also convenient
and practical that dispersion measures for epistemic uncertainty in displacement demand
DU and capacity CU are prescribed in advance. (Note that it is practical that these
measures are prescribed in advance also in the original probabilistic seismic assessment
with the IDA curve). The determination of dispersion measures for typical structural sys-
tems is not within the scope of this publication. Additional studies are needed to deter-
mine the models for dispersions or to prescribe the appropriate values for different struc-
tural systems and materials. The dispersions for steel frames were proposed in the
FEMA-350 Guidelines [FEMA 2000a], which may also serve as rough estimates for some
other structural systems.
In the case of the assessment of a 3D structure, in general, four pushover curves and IN2
curves are obtained. Consequently, four probabilities of exceedance of a given limit state
are determined, which depend on the direction and sense of pushover analysis. The most
critical is the highest probability of exceedance of a given limit state. The differences in
the probability of exceedance of a given limit state for two directions may be substantial,
whereas the differences between the two senses of loading for each direction are typically
small. In practice, the critical case can often be estimated in advance.
In order to determine the probability of exceedance of a given limit state, the median IN2
curve has to be approximated with the function presented in Eq. (4.7). The least square
fit method can be applied to determine parameters a and b from the median IN2 curve.
In the employed probabilistic framework [Cornell at al. 2002] there are no strict guide-
lines for the length of the interval which has to be used in the process of determination
of parameters a and b. It has been observed that a small length of the interval may cause
qualitatively different results if the results for the probability of exceedance and the re-
sults obtained with the practical format for safety checking [Cornell at al. 2002], which
is employed in SAC/FEMA approach, are compared. A reasonable choice is the interval
from the yield spectral acceleration, determined from the idealized SDOF system, to the
spectral acceleration associated with the displacement capacity.
4.3 USE OF NON LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

As anticipated in the introduction, this section presents a recent development along the
lines of the SAC/FEMA approach. The uncertainty in the ground motion is represented
by adopting a parameter (or a vector of parameters), known as the intensity measure (IM),
which represents the dominant features of the ground shaking. The structural perform-
ance assessment is broken down into two stages; namely, the structure-specific stage re-
quiring performance assessment for a given value of the IM, and the site-specific stage
requiring estimation of the likelihood that an earthquake event with a given value of in-
tensity measure takes place [Luco and Cornell 2006, Jalayer and Cornell 2003]. Adopting,
for the sake of simplicity, the widely used spectral acceleration at the small-amplitude
fundamental period T1 of the structure, denoted by S a (T1 ) (or, more briefly, S a ), as the
intensity measure IM, the mean annual frequency of failure can be expressed as:
LS = 0 P (Y > 1 S a ) dSa (S a )

(4.8)
where P (Y > 1 S a ) is the conditional probability of failure given S a which is also known
as the fragility curve and Sa (S a ) is the mean annual frequency that an earthquake with a
spectral acceleration larger than Sa takes place at the site under consideration, also known
as the spectral acceleration hazard curve.
The integral in Eq. (4.8) can be evaluated either numerically or, by making some simplify-
ing assumptions, through an analytical closed-form solution. The two alternatives are il-
lustrated in the following.
4.3.1 Numerical integration of hazard and fragility
4.3.1.1 Dealing with collapse and non-collapse cases

One possibility to evaluate the fragility function P (Y > 1 S a ) is by making the common
assumption that the (conditional) distribution of the critical demand to capacity ratio Y
for a given level of S a is described by a lognormal distribution, namely:
ln 1 ln Y S ln Y S
P (Y > 1 S a ) = 1 a = 1 a (4.9)
Y S
Y Sa a
In the applications, however, a problem often arises with the evaluation of the parameters
Y Sa and Y Sa . Since structural response is evaluated by means of non-linear time-history
analyses, it is not uncommon to encounter numerical instabilities (i.e., cases where diver-
gence results in un-realistically large demand to capacity ratios denoted herein by L)
which erroneously affect these parameters estimation. In these cases, the fragility func-
tion can be calculated as follows [Jalayer and Cornell 2006a]:
P (Y > 1 S a ) = P (Y > 1 S a , NL )(1 P (L S a )) + P (L S a ) (4.10)
where P (L S a ) is the probability of having very large Y values for a given S a and
P (Y > 1 NL , S a ) is the fragility given that no very large Y values are encountered (de-
noted by NL), which can be assumed to be described by a Lognormal distribution:
ln Y Sa , NL
P (Y > 1 S a , NL ) = 1 (4.11)
Y Sa , NL

where Y Sa , NL and Y Sa , NL are the median and log-standard deviation of Y given S a and
NL. Use of Eq. (4.11) allows accounting separately for converged and non-converged values. It
is important to stress, however, that the validity of Eq. (4.11) rests on the assumption that
the failure set includes the numerical non-convergence set, i.e., that all numerical non-
convergence cases can be considered as failures.
4.3.1.2 Fragility as distribution function of the IM value leading to failure

A more effective alternative to evaluate the fragility function makes use of S aY =1 , the spec-
tral acceleration that corresponds to a unit value for Y (i.e. to failure). This approach,
used in [Schotanus and Franchin 2004] and [Jalayer and Cornell 2003], is based on the
following assumption:
(
P (Y > 1 S a ) = P S aY =1 S a ) (4.12)
Assuming that S aY =1 is an uncertain variable described by a Lognormal distribution with

median S Y =1 and log-standard deviation S Y =1 , the structural fragility can be calculated as
a a
the Lognormal cumulative distribution function (CDF):
ln S a ln Y =1
P (S aY =1 S a ) =
Sa
(4.13)
S Y =1
a
This approach has two advantages. The first is that, since S aY =1 results to be almost insen-
sitive to the occurrence of very large values of Y, there is no need to separate converged
from non-converged cases as in Eq. (4.10). The second is that it requires a comparatively
reduced computational effort with respect to Eq. (4.9) or (4.10)-(4.11), since only the re-
gion of the S a Y relationship in the neighbourhood of Y = 1 needs to be determined.
For the above reasons, whenever calculating fragility hereafter in the text, reference is
made to Eq. (4.13).
4.3.2 Closed-form solution for the mean annual frequency of exceeding the LS
A closed-form analytic format for the integral in Eq. (4.8) can be derived based on the
following simplifying assumptions:
the spectral acceleration hazard is described as a power-law function of the spec-

tral acceleration level:
Sa (S a ) = k0 S a k (4.14)
the critical demand to capacity ratio can be expressed as:
Y = Y Sa Y Sa (4.15)
where it is assumed that the median is a power-law function of spectral acceleration level
( Y Sa = a S ab ) and that Y Sa is described by a unit-median Lognormal PDF with log-
standard deviation equal to Y Sa . The closed-form solution for the integral in Eq. (4.8)
is:
1 1 k2 2
LS = Sa b exp 2
Y Sa (4.16)
a 2 b
where 1 b
a is the spectral acceleration that corresponds to a median Y value equal to
unity.
4.3.3 Using alternative non-linear dynamic analysis methods to construct a prob-

abilistic model for the system damage measure Y
Alternative strategies can be followed when using non-linear dynamic analyses to build a
probabilistic model for Y and/or S aY =1 .
One procedure, also known as the Cloud Analysis [Jalayer and Cornell 2006b], is a conven-
ient choice (though not the most accurate) when making assessments using closed-form
format in Eq. (4.16), with a (relatively) small number of structural analyses. An advantage
of this method is that it is based on the ground motions as they are recorded and does
not require scaling. The procedure consists of applying a suite of ground motion records
(in the order of 10-30 records) to the structure and to calculate the critical demand to
capacity ratios Y. Then, by performing a simple linear regression of the logarithm of Y
against the logarithm of S a , one can obtain the parameters a, b and Y Sa .
Sa " cloud" analysis
Figure 4-2 Cloud analysis.
An alternative, also known as Multiple-Stripe Analysis is a non-linear dynamic analysis pro-

cedure in which a suite of ground motion records are scaled to subsequently increasing
spectral acceleration levels and applied to the structure. The critical demand to capacity
ratios Y calculated for the suite of records at each S a level, can then be used to obtain
parameters Y Sa , NL , Y Sa , NL and P (L S a ) .
Sa
Figure 4-3 Multiple stripe analysis.
Finally, variants of the so-called Incremental Dynamic Analysis can be used to determine the
parameters of S aY =1 , S Y =1 and S Y =1 .
a a
Sa Sa
Y
1 Y
Figure 4-4 Incremental dynamic analysis.
Incremental dynamic or Multiple Stripe analyses are suitable choices for calculating
fragilities in Eq. (4.8) when minimizing the number of structural analyses is not a primary
concern.
4.3.4 The Uncertainty in the Component Capacities

Component capacities are usually obtained from code-based empirical or semi-empirical
component capacity models, such as those reviewed in Chapter 3. There is usually a sig-
nificant amount of modelling uncertainty associated with the mean estimates provided by
these models (e.g., coefficients of variation up to 40 %). Thus, this modelling uncertainty
is an important contributor to probability of failure and performance objectives.
Moreover, predicting the mechanical parameters entering the capacity formulas is also
subject to uncertainty, adding to the uncertainty in determining the value of Y. All these
sources of uncertainty in a way of simplification can be dealt with as described in the fol-
lowing.
Fragility Formulation In the presence of structural modelling uncertainty the fragility

function in Eq. (4.13) can be expanded as follows:
( ) ( )
P S aY =1 S a = P S aY =1 S a UC f (UC )dUC (4.17)
where UC is a vector of parameters representing the uncertainty in the component ca-

pacity models. The integral in Eq. (4.17) can not be solved analytically in the general case.
However, one can use simulations in order to solve the integral numerically. This involves
calculation of the structural fragility for a number of realizations of UC .
One more effective alternative is to consider a single scalar variable UC representing the
(global) effect of component modelling uncertainties on S aY =1 . Assuming that the median
and log-standard deviation of S aY =1 for a given value of UC can be expressed as follows:
S Y =1 = S Y =1 UC (4.18)
a UC a UC =1
S Y =1 = S Y =1 (4.19)
a UC a
while UC is assumed to be Lognormal with unit median and log-standard deviation UC ,

the integral in Eq. (4.17) is amenable of a closed-form solution. It can be proved (using a
technique similar to the one described in [Jalayer and Cornell 2003] Appendix A) that this
integral becomes:

ln S a ln S Y =1 =1
P (S aY =1 S a ) =
a UC
(4.20)
S Y =1 + UC
2 2
a

which shows that the presence of modelling uncertainties inflates the dispersion in S aY =1 .
Closed-form Formulation An extension of the closed-form format in the presence of

structural modelling uncertainties can be derived by assuming that the median critical
demand to capacity ratio can be expressed as follows:
Y Sa ,UC = Y Sa ,UC =1 UC (4.21)
where Y Sa ,UC =1 is the median critical demand to capacity ratio for a given S a and under
the assumption that there is no capacity modelling uncertainty. Note that here it is as-
sumed that the uncertain variable UC representing modelling uncertainty is independent
of the S a level. The integral in Eq. (4.16) in the presence of capacity modelling uncer-
tainty becomes [Jalayer and Cornell 2003]:
1
LS = Sa b
1 k2 2
exp
2 b 2
(
Y Sa ,UC =1 + UC
2
) (4.22)
a
The next section illustrates a method for estimating the dispersion of random variable
UC .
4.3.5 Evaluation of Global Capacity Uncertainty Parameter UC

As it can be observed in Eq.s (4.20) and (4.22), the effect of the capacity modelling uncer-
tainty represents itself in terms of the log-standard deviation for the global uncertain pa-
rameter UC . However, the problem of relating the modelling uncertainties at the com-
ponent level to the uncertain parameter UC at the system level remains to be solved.
The procedures for estimating the value of UC normally involve sampling of the com-
ponent capacities. These can be simulated assuming they are Lognormal variables, with
median given by the capacity formulas and coefficient of variation estimated by the stan-
dard error of regression for the corresponding formula. In sampling, one has to account
for the possible correlation between component capacities. This correlation arises from
two main sources.
First, capacity formulas share a number of material properties which are uncertain and
spatially distributed over the structure. Second, even in the case of deterministic and spa-
tially homogeneous material properties, one has to consider that the formulas providing
the member capacities are affected by a model error.
One can think of this error as the sum of two terms, one accounting for factors not in-
cluded in the formulas and affecting groups of elements (e.g. quality of workmanship,
curing of concrete, etc), the other accounting for factors not included in the formulas and
affecting individual elements (e.g. missing variables that might take on different values for
nominally identical members). The actual correlation between the component capacities
depends on the relative importance of these two terms, one leading towards complete
correlation, and the other towards lack of it. However, a full treatment of the problem
along the above lines is not only disproportionately onerous but also difficult to support
with experimental data.
As a way of approximation, one possibility is to assume that the component capacities for
each (e.g., shear failure, yield chord rotations, etc.) are fully correlated, whereas compo-
nent capacities for different mechanisms are assumed to be un-correlated. Based on this
assumption, the value for critical demand to capacity ratio in the presence of component
capacity uncertainty can be calculated as follows:
1 D jl
Y = max lN=1 UC
mech
N
,l min j =1
l
(4.23)
C jl
where UC ,l is the uncertain variable representing component capacity uncertainty for

mechanism l, assumed to be described by a unit-median (bias can be corrected for in the
formula for the median capacity) Lognormal PDF with a fractional standard deviation
equal to UC ,l .
In order to emulate the situation where a set of observed Y values are available, one can
simulate the component capacities based on their probability distributions for a suite of
ground motion records (one capacity sample per record) and calculate the resulting Yi 's
using Eq. (4.23).
These Y values can be treated as observed data in order to obtain a parameter estimate
for UC by following a Bayesian updating approach according to the Eq.:
p (D UC )
p ( UC D ) = p ( UC ) = c 1 p (D UC ) p ( UC ) (4.24)
p (D )
where D denotes the observed data, i.e. the simulated Yi values, p (D UC ) is the probabil-
ity of having the set of Yi 's for a known value of UC (the likelihood function), p ( UC )
is the (prior) probability distribution for UC , p ( UC D ) is the updated (posterior) prob-
ability distribution for UC given the set of Y values and c is a normalizing factor ensur-
ing that the PDF p ( UC D ) sums up to unity. The mode of the resulting probability dis-
tribution can be used as a maximum likelihood estimate (given data D) for UC .
For the purpose of evaluation of UC in the closed-form formulation in Eq. (4.20), the like-
lihood function p (D UC ) can be expressed as the product of lognormal PDF's for the
set of Yi 's:
1 ln Yi ln a S ab,i
p (D UC ) =
n

(4.25)
i =1 Yi T T
where T = Y2 Sa + UC
2
.
For the purpose of evaluation of the UC in the fragility formulation in Eq. (4.22), the
likelihood function p (D UC ) can be expressed as the product of the lognormal PDF's
for the set of S aY,i=1 values:
ln S aY,i=1 ln S Y =1 =1
1
p (D UC ) = Y =1
n
a UC
(4.26)
i =1 S a ,i T T

where T = S2Y =1 + UC
2
.
a
In the case where very little (close to nothing) is known about UC , one has to resort to
choosing a non-informative prior PDF. It can be shown [Box and Tiao, 1992] that --
having a Gaussian PDF inside the likelihood function p (D UC ) -- a non-informative
prior distribution is one that is uniform for the logarithm of the standard deviation of the
Gaussian, i.e. ln T = const . This results in the following prior PDF for UC :
UC
p (UC ) (4.27)
T2
4.3.6 The Uncertainty in structural modelling

If, in addition to the uncertainty in the capacity models, consideration of the usually less
relevant variability of the mechanical parameters can be important for the problem at
handb, its effect can be included directly, with considerable increase in the computational
cost, by performing a Monte Carlo simulation on these parameters, i.e. by repeating the
above described analyses for several samples from the relevant joint distribution. Reduc-
tion of the associated large number of analyses can be achieved by employing various
techniques, e.g. Importance sampling, Latin hypercube, etc.
b Variability in mechanical parameters can have a non-negligible influence on the global uncer-
tainty when the structure is characterised by a significant degrading behaviour, and this is explicitly
included in the structural model employed for the analysis. An example of such a situation can be
found in Chapter 6, with reference to steel frames with brittle (degrading) connections.
The most simple way to proceed, as shown in [Schotanus and Franchin, 2004], is to asso-
ciate to each of the records used a different sample structure (i.e. a realization of the me-
chanical parameters from their distribution). In a number of cases the results of this sim-
ple approach have been found to be sufficiently accurate for non-degrading RC struc-
tures.
5. APPLICATIONS TO RC STRUCTURES
5.1 A 2D REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME
5.1.1 Description of the structure

The structure studied is a four-storey plane reinforced concrete frame with and without
masonry infills. It had been designed to reproduce the design practice in European and
Mediterranean countries about forty to fifty years ago [Carvalho at al. 1999]. However, it
may also be typical of buildings built more recently, but without the application of capac-
ity design principles (especially the strong column - weak beam concept), and without up-
to-date detailing. In such buildings a soft first storey effect may appear even though the
structure is uniformly infilled in its elevation [Dolek and Fajfar 2001].
The infilled frame is presented in Figure 5-1. The bare frame consists of three bays, one
of 2.5 m and two of 5.0 m width between center lines of columns. The storey height
amounts to 2.7 m. The infill width/height measures are 2.3/2.2 m and 4.6/2.2 m. Three
types of openings as shown in Figure 5-1 are used in the infilled frame: the door opening
of 2.0/1.75 m and the two types of window openings (2.0/1.0 m, 1.2/1.0 m). Quite weak
columns had been designed. The only exception is the column in the middle of 5 m span
bays, with cross-section dimensions 0.60/0.25 m in the bottom two storeys and 0.50/0.25
m in the third and fourth storey. All beams in the direction of loading are 0.25 m wide
and 0.50 m deep. The slab is 0.15 m thick.
The reinforcement for columns in the first and second storey is presented in Figure 5-1.
The reinforcement is reduced in the top two stories in column B and C. In column B
only three 12 mm bars are disposed on each side of the long side of the column. Such
configuration results to 612 mm bars in the cross-section of column B. For column C in
the top two storeys only 416 mm bars are used in the corners of cross-section, while the
same reinforcement (212 mm bars) is used in the middle of the long side of the cross-
section. The bottom longitudinal reinforcement in beams consists of 212 mm bars.
Three 12 mm bars are used for the top longitudinal reinforcement at the connection to
the column A. The top reinforcement in the beams connected to the column B and to the
column D amounts to 212+216 mm bars. Beams, connected from both sides of col-
umn C, have the strongest reinforcement at the top of the beam (212+516 mm bars).
Figure 5-1 Elevation and plan of the ICONS frame (top), typical reinforcement of columns (bottom).
The design base shear coefficient amounted to 0.08. In the design, concrete of quality
C16/20 and smooth steel bars of class FeB22k (according to Italian standards) were
adopted [Carvalho at al. 1999]. The mean strength of concrete is 16 MPa and the mean
yield strength of steel is 343.4 MPa. The masonry infills are constituted by ceramic hollow
brick with width of 12 cm and 1.5 cm of plaster at both sides of the infill. The holes are
oriented in the horizontal direction. Diagonal compression tests on wallets of approxi-
mate 1.0/1.0 m dimension have been conducted [Coelho 1999]. The mean strength ob-
tained from these tests amounts to 0.575 MPa and the corresponding shear modulus to
1.171 GPa.
Both the infilled RC frame and the bare frame were pseudo-dynamically tested in full
scale at ELSA Laboratory. The results of the experiments can be found in ECOEST2-
ICONS Report No.2 [Carvalho and Coelho (Eds.) 2001].
5.1.2 Assessment based on nonlinear static analysis
5.1.2.1 Structural modelling

In this section the modelling of the bare frame is only summarized, more details can be
found in [Fajfar at al. 2005, Dolek at al. 2005]. The description of modelling is focused
on the modelling of masonry infills.
The material nonlinear behavior of the bare frame was simulated with concentrated
nonlinear springs (plastic hinges), which were placed at the ends of beams and columns.
The moment-rotation envelope for columns and for beams is bi-linear until the maxi-
mum moment is attained and with degrading slope after the maximum moment. The
moment-rotation envelopes for plastic hinges are symmetric in both directions in col-
umns and asymmetric for in beams. The insufficient anchorage length was not considered
in the determination of moment-rotation envelope.
The characteristic moments were calculated considering the axial forces which result from
vertical loading on the frame. The same vertical loading was assumed for the bare and
the infilled frame. It amounts to 9.1 kN/m2 and 8.0 kN/m2 for the bottom three storeys
and for the top storey, respectively.
The characteristic rotations, which describe the moment-rotation envelope of a plastic hinge,
were determined according to the procedure described by Fajfar and co-authors [2006].
The zero moment point was assumed at the mid-span of columns and beams. A low
value of confinement effectiveness factor =0.1 and the ratio of transverse reinforce-
ment sx=0.02 were adopted. The ultimate rotation u in columns at the NC limit state,
which corresponds to 20% reduction of the maximum moment, was estimated with the
CAE method (see Section 3.2.2.1). For the beams, the EC8-Part 3 [CEN, 2005] formulas
were used, whereas the parameter el was taken equal to 1.0 and, due to the absence of
seismic detailing, the ultimate rotations were multiplied by a factor of 0.85. The calculated
ultimate rotations vary from 31 mrad to 34 mrad for all columns with exception of the
column C for which the ultimate rotation varies from 42 mrad in the first storey to 57
mrad in the top storey. The sign of the moment (tension at the top or tension at the bot-
tom) influences the ultimate rotation in the beams. In general, the ultimate rotation is
lower if the tension is at the bottom of the beam. The calculated ultimate rotations in the
beams vary from 27 mrad to 43 mrad.
The infill panels were modeled by equivalent diagonal struts, which carry loads only in
compression. The diagonals were applied between beam-column joints. Such a modelling
in general underestimates column shear forces, which were not considered in the seismic
assessment. The main problem, which is subject to large uncertainties, is how to deter-
mine the characteristics of these diagonals, i.e. their force-displacement envelopes and
their hysteretic behavior. Additional problems arise because of the openings in the infill.
Many different procedures for the determination of stiffness and strength of infill are
available. In the study presented herein the initial stiffness K i was calculated with the
simplest procedure used in ECOEST-PREC 8 Report [Fardis (ed.) 1996]:
Gw L in t w
Ki = , (5.1)
H in
where Gw is the shear modulus of the wall, determined from diagonal compression test,
L in and H in are the length and height of the infill, respectively, and t w is the thickness of
the wall. For the determination of the maximum strength of infill a simplified form of the
expression proposed by arni and Gosti [1997] was used:
(1 + )
L in t w f tp L in
Fmax = 0.818 C I2 + 1 , C I = 1.925 , (5.2)
CI H in
where f tp is the cracking strength of the infill obtained from a diagonal compression test.
However, very similar result for the case study was obtained with the simple alternative
for determination of infill maximum strength [Fardis (ed.) 1996]:
Fmax = 1.3 f tp L in t w . (5.3)
With Eq.s (5.1) to (5.3) the initial stiffness and maximum strength is calculated for the
horizontal direction. For the diagonal force-displacement envelope these values have to
be transformed in the direction of the diagonal.
The influence of openings, door or window, with the horizontal length of opening L opening ,
was considered with the factor opening introduced by Dawe and Seah [1988] and suggested
also in NZSEE [2005]:
1.5 L opening
opening = 1 ; opening 0 (5.4)
L in
The maximum strength and the initial stiffness of the infill with opening are reduced with
the factor opening . This approach does not distinguish between the window and the door
opening. In our model the strength of the infill with the opening for the door was arbi-
trarily reduced by 50% in order to obtain a better correlation between the calculated and
measured first storey drift time histories, especially in the near collapse range.
The shear modulus and the diagonal cracking strength, as determined from experimental
results on the infill specimens (approximately 1.0/1.0 m) [Coelho 1999], are equal to
1.171 GPa and 0.575 MPa, respectively. The infill wall thickness was 15 cm (12 cm for
the masonry infill + 1.5 cm of plaster on both side of infill). The height of the infill is 2.3
m and the length of the infill wall is 2.3 m for the short infill and 4.6 m for the long one
(Figure 5-1). The openings with length of 2.0 m and 1.2 m were considered in the deter-
mination of force-displacement envelope of diagonals. It was further assumed that the
ratio between the cracking force and the ultimate force was 0.6 and that the maximum
strength was reached at a storey drift of 0.2% for the short infill, 0.15% for the long infill
with windows, and 0.1% for the infill with doors. These values are in a good agreement
with observed behaviour in the pseudo-dynamic test of the studied infilled frame, where
the first storey drift of about 0.15% was observed at maximum strength [Carvalho and
Coelho (Eds.), 2001].
For the softening branch a the ratio between the collapse displacement (zero force) and
the displacement at maximum force was assumed as equal to 5. The force-deformation
envelopes of diagonals measured in the horizontal direction are presented in Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2 The force-displacement relationships for the infill panels measured in the horizontal di-
rection.
The mathematical model was validated by comparing the results of nonlinear dynamic
analysis with experimental results obtained in pseudo-dynamic tests [Carvalho and
Coelho (Eds.), 2001]. Different tests were performed on bare frame and partially infilled
frame, which were then retrofitted and tested again. The input excitations were supposed
to be representative of a moderate-to-high European seismic hazard scenario. Therefore
the first tests of the bare (BF 475) and of the partially infilled frame (IN 475) were
performed for peak ground acceleration of 0.22 g assumed to correspond to a 475 years
return period. After the first test, additional tests were performed for the ground motion
corresponding to the 975 years return period (0.29 g) on the bare (BF 975) and partially
infilled specimens (IN 975). The strongest earthquake with a return period of 2000
years (0.38 g) was finally adopted for the last test on the partially infilled frame (IN
2000). The elastic spectrum and the accelerogram for 475 years return period earthquake
are presented in Figure 5-3. The accelerograms for the 975 and 2000 years return period
were obtained by scaling the accelerogram presented in Figure 5-3.
Figure 5-3 The elastic spectrum and ground acceleration for the 475 years return period earthquake.
The dynamic analyses were performed in a sequence, first for the ground motion with
smaller intensity and then for the larger intensity ground motion. Zero damping was as-
sumed, like in the tests. The comparisons between calculated and experimental time his-
tories for selected quantities (drifts in critical storeys) are presented in Figure 5-4 and
Figure 5-5. A very good correlation between calculated and test results can be observed.
The maximum storey drift in the bare frame, occurred in the third storey due to strength
reduction in the column C in the top two stories, amounted to 0.80 % and 2.41 % for the
BF 475 and BF 975 test, respectively. The corresponding drifts obtained by analysis
amount to 0.76 % and 2.20 %.
The deformation observed in the test of the partially infilled frame was much smaller
than that in the bare frame (Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5). The maximum drift for the 975
years return period earthquake was obtained in the first storey. It is more than 4 times
lower than that measured in the third storey of the bare frame. Even for the 2000 years
return period earthquake the measured and calculated maximum storey drifts amount to
only 1.48 and 1.74 %, respectively. These values are still smaller than the maximum storey
drift obtained in the bare frame for the 975 years return period earthquake.
The hysteretic energy of the structure for the last test is also presented and compared
with the test results of bare and partially infilled frame (Figure 5-6). A good correlation
between calculated and test results can be observed not only for this test but also for
other tests, whose results are not shown here.
Figure 5-4 Calculated and test time-histories for the third storey drift of the bare frame and for the
first storey drift of the partially infilled frame.
Figure 5-5 Calculated and test storey drifts vs. storey shear relationships for the bare frame (third
storey) and the partially infilled frame (first storey).
Figure 5-6 Calculated and test hysteretic energy for the bare frame and partially infilled frame sub-
jected to 975 and 2000 years return period earthquake, respectively.
5.1.2.2 Response analysis of the bare frame

The response analysis of the bare frame was performed with the basic N2 method [Fajfar
2000]. The relation between the engineering demand parameter (top displacement) and
the intensity measure (spectral acceleration at the period of the equivalent SDOF system)
is represented in terms of the IN2 curve [Dolek et al. 2005].
The pushover analysis was performed separately for the positive and negative X direc-
tions. Lateral loads were determined based on the first mode shape for which the effec-
tive mass amounts to 82%. The distribution of lateral forces for the pushover analysis is
as follows: 36, 34, 22 and 8% of the base shear from the top to the bottom storey, respec-
tively. The pushover curves for the positive and negative X direction of loading are pre-
sented in Figure 5-7. The ratio between the maximum strength and the weight of the
structure amounts to about 12%. The maximum strength is reached at a relatively small
top displacement (6.3 cm).
The idealized bilinear relationship used for the determination of the SDOF system is also
presented in the Figure 5-7. The effective mass of the equivalent SDOF system and the
transformation factor are equal to 112.5 t and 1.29, respectively. The effective periods of
the equivalent SDOF system are 0.83 s and 0.86 s for the loading in positive and negative
X directions, respectively.
The same criteria as for the SPEAR building (discussed later in Section 5.2.2.2) were em-
ployed for the determination of the limit states of damage limitation (DL), significant
damage (SD) and of near collapse (NC). The limit states of DL, SD and NC are indicated
in Figure 5-7 for analyses in the positive and negative direction. In Table 5-1 the top dis-
placement capacities for all three limit states and the two directions of pushover analysis
are presented. The smallest global drift ratios were observed for the pushover analysis in
positive direction and amount to 0.3 %, 1.1 % and 1.9 % for the limit states of DL, SD
and NC, respectively. The corresponding drifts for the limit state of significant damage
amount to 0.5, 0.7, 3.1 and 0.2 % from the bottom to the top storey, respectively. A simi-
lar pattern of storey drifts was also observed for the test corresponding to the 975 year
return period (0.29 g).
The damage at the NC limit state based on the pushover analysis in the positive and nega-
tive X direction is shown at the structure level in Figure 5-8. The highest level of damage
can be observed in the third storey, like in the pseudo-dynamic tests.
The effective period Teff of the SDOF system exceeds the period TC in the mean elastic
spectrum (Figure 5-9) of the scenario accelerograms (see [LessLoss-SP9, 2006], and Ap-
pendix A). Therefore, the equal displacement rule was applied for the determination of
seismic demand [Fajfar 2000]. The IN2 curve, which represents the relationship between
the seismic intensity and the engineering demand parameter, is a straight line to the point,
which corresponds to the most severe limit state (e.g. the limit state of NC). The IN2
curve and the capacity diagram for the critical direction (positive X direction) is presented
in Figure 5-10a. The characteristic points representing different limit states are also pre-
sented in Figure 5-10a and listed in Table 5-1. The spectral accelerations, corresponding
to the limit states of DL, SD and NC, are the most critical for the positive X direction of
analysis and amount to 0.16, 0.47 and 0.54 g (Table 5-1), respectively.
Figure 5-7 The pushover curve for analysis in positive and negative X direction and the idealized
base shear versus top displacement relationship.
Table 5-1 Top displacement capacity C and corresponding spectral acceleration SaeC . Parameters are
presented for different limit states (DL damage limitation, SD significant damage, NC near
collapse) and two directions of pushover analysis.
+X -X
C (cm) C
S (g) C (cm) SaeC (g)
ae
DL 3.5 0.16 3.6 0.15

SD 10.4 0.47 15.3 0.65
NC 12.1 0.54 17.0 0.72
Figure 5-8 The damage in hinges at the NC limit state based on the pushover analysis in the positive
and negative X direction and the corresponding inter-storey drifts (ID). The moment-rotation enve-
lope with an indication of damage states is also shown.
Figure 5-9 The mean elastic spectrum for the accelerograms (see [LessLoss-SP9, 2006], and Appen-
dix A) in X direction normalized to the spectral acceleration at the average period of the periods of
the equivalent SDOF systems.
5.1.2.3 Assessment of the bare frame

The first step in the estimation of the probability of exceedance of a given limit state is
the determination of the hazard curve. For example, for the analysis in the negative X
direction, the hazard curve for spectral acceleration at Teff=0.83 s was interpolated be-
tween the available hazard curves for spectral acceleration at periods T= 0.75 s and 1.0 s
(Figure 5-10b). The hazard value corresponding to each considered limit state were ob-
tained directly from the interpolated hazard curve. The same procedure was used for the
determination of hazard curves for analyses in positive X direction. The parameters of
the approximated hazard curve, k and ko (see Eq. (4.6)), were calculated using the points
corresponding to the DL and NC limit states. These values as well as the median and
mean hazard values corresponding to all three limit states and directions of loading are
presented in Table 5-2.
It was assumed that the parameter b (see Eq.(4.7)) is equal to 1, which is an exact value up
to the limit state of NC because the IN2 curve is a straight line in this range (Figure
5-10a). The dispersion measure DR was taken to be equal to 0.4. For the dispersion
measure for randomness in displacement capacity CR and for epistemic uncertainties in
displacement demand and capacity ( DU and CU ) the value of 0.25 was adopted. Some
background for these decisions is described in Section 4.2. Furthermore, the dispersion
measure for the hazard H was arbitrarily assumed to be 0.3. The same values of the dis-
persion parameters were adopted also in the assessment of the SPEAR building (Section
5.2.2.3).
Figure 5-10 The IN2 curve (a) and the hazard curve (b) for analysis in positive X direction.
Table 5-2 Parameters k and ko, median and the mean hazard, at different limit states.
Par.\Dir. +X -X
k 1.59 1.62
ko 0.00141 0.00126
H ( SaDL ) 2.69E-02 2.63E-02
H ( SaSD ) 4.84E-03 2.59E-03
H ( S NC
a ) 3.73E-03 2.14E-03
H ( SaDL ) 2.82E-02 2.75E-02
H ( SaSD ) 5.06E-03 2.71E-03
H ( SaNC ) 3.90E-03 2.24E-03

The probability of exceedance of each limit state was calculated with Eqs. (4.3) and (4.5),
neglecting the epistemic uncertainy dispersion terms ( DU and CU ), and using Eqs.
(4.4) and (4.5), considering the epistemic uncertainties. In the latter case, the probability
of exceedance of a given limit state can be determined with a specified confidence level x.
The probabilities for different limit states (DL limit state of damage limitation, SD
limit state of significant damage, NC limit state of near collapse) are presented in Table
5-3. The probabilities were calculated without considering uncertainties in demand and
capacity. In addition, the probabilities were calculated also with assumed dispersion
measures for uncertainties in demand and capacity considering 50% and 90% confidence
level.
Table 5-3 The probability of exceedance of different limit states ( PPL - without considering uncer-
tainties, PPL - considering epistemic uncertainty on demand, capacity and hazard with 50 % confi-
dence level, PPL ,90% - considering uncertainties with 90 % confidence level).
Par.\Dir. +X -X
C DL
PPL 3.56E-02 3.52E-02
C SD
P PL
6.40E-03 3.48E-03
C NC
P PL
4.93E-03 2.87E-03
PPL
C DL
3.73E-02 3.68E-02
PPL
C SD
6.69E-03 3.64E-03
PPL
C NC
5.16E-03 3.01E-03
C DL
P PL ,90%
7.65E-02 7.68E-02
C SD
P PL ,90%
1.37E-02 7.58E-03
C NC
P PL ,90%
1.06E-02 6.27E-03
Critical is the loading in the positive X direction. The critical values of probabilities of
C
exceedance are presented in bold style (Table 5-3). Quite high probabilities PPL can be
observed for all performance levels. For example, the critical probability of exceedance of
the limit state of NC is 0.00493. In other words, one can say that the limit state of NC is
in average exceeded once per 304 years.
In addition to the probabilities PPL, the probabilities of exceedance of each limit state for
the 50% ( PPL
C C
) and 90% ( PPL ,90% ) confidence level (Eq. (4.5)) are also presented. In these
cases the parameter Kx = 0.5 and 0.9 for the 50 and 90 % confidence levels, respectively.
The median probabilities PPL C
exceed the probabilities PPL C
by the same factor as the
mean hazard exceeds the median hazard.
A comparison of the probabilities PPL C C

,90% and PPL shows that the former are for almost
double than the median probabilities. The most critical probability of exceedance of the
limit state of NC applies to the positive X direction and is equal to 0.0106. This means
that, for the given seismic scenario and with 90% confidence, the limit state of NC will in
average be exceeded once per 95 years. This result means that there is only 10% chance
that the return period of occurrence of the limit state of NC will be smaller than the esti-
mated return period of 95 years.
5.1.2.4 Response analysis of the infilled frame
The extended N2 method was employed for response analysis of the infilled frame
[Dolek and Fajfar, 2005]. Compared to the simple basic variant of the N2 method [Fa-
jfar 2000], two important differences apply. A multi-linear idealization of the pushover
curve, which takes into account the strength degradation which occurs after the infill fails,
has to be made, and specific reduction factors [Dolek and Fajfar, 2004b] have to be used
for the determination of inelastic spectra and, consequently, the displacement demand.
The pushover analysis was performed separately for the positive and negative X. Lateral
loads were determined based on the first mode shape for which the effective mass
amounts to 83%. The distribution of the lateral forces for the pushover analysis is as fol-
lows: 36, 32, 22 and 10% of the base shear from the top to the bottom storey. The push-
over curves for the positive and negative X direction of loading are presented in Figure
5-11. The ratio between the maximum strength and the weight of the structure amounts
to about 43% and is about 3.5 times larger than that for the bare frame (Figure 5-7). The
maximum strength is reached at a relatively small top displacement (about 1.5 cm). After
this displacement the masonry infills start to degrade. A substantial reduction of strength
is observed after the infills completely collapse in the first storey (Figure 5-11). These are
the basic characteristics of the pushover curve of infilled RC frames.
The pushover curve can be idealized with a four-linear force-displacement relationship as

shown in Figure 5-11. Four parameters are needed for the definition of the idealized
pushover curve: yield displacement dy and yield force Fy, ductility at the beginning of sof-
tening of infills s, and the ratio between the force at which infills completely collapse and
yielding force ru. These parameters are needed for the determination of inelastic spectra.
In the case of the test structure, the ductility at the beginning of softening of infills is
about 1.8 and the parameter ru amounts to 0.39, corresponding to a 61% drop of the
maximum strength of the infilled frame.
The same criteria for the determination of three limit states were employed as for the
bare frame (Section 5.1.2.2). The limit states of DL, SD and NC are indicated in Figure
5-11 for the positive and negative direction of loading. In Table 5-4 the top displacement
capacities for all three limit states and both directions of pushover analysis are presented.
The ratios between the top displacement capacity and the height of the structure are prac-
tically the same for the positive and negative direction of loading. For the positive direc-
tion of loading they amount to 0.08%, 0.60% and 0.76% for the limit states of DL, SD
and NC, respectively. A storey plastic mechanism forms in the first storey. The corre-
sponding drifts for both direction of loading are again practically the same for both signs
of loading and amount to 3.05, 0.10, 0.05 and 0.03 % from bottom to top storey. A simi-
lar plastic mechanism had been observed also in the pseudo-dynamic test [Carvalho and
Coelho (Eds.), 2001].
In addition to pushover curves, the damage at the NC limit state based on the pushover
analysis in the positive and negative X directions is shown at the structure level in Figure
5-12. It can be seen that damage is concentrated in the first storey where all infills com-
pletely collapse. Some infills begin to soften in the second storey, while in the top two
stories the infills either remain in elastic range or exceed the cracking point.
The effective period Teff of the SDOF system does not exceed the period TC= 0.4 s in the
mean elastic spectrum (Figure 5-13) of the scenario accelerograms (see [LessLoss-SP9,
2006], and Appendix A). Due to this reason and due to specific inelastic spectra em-
ployed for the infilled frame, the IN2 curve for the infilled frame (Figure 5-14a) is not a
straight line as in the case of the bare frame (Figure 5-10a). The IN2 curve is in general
four-linear [Dolek and Fajfar, 2004]. The first segment represents elastic behavior of the
idealized system. According to our assumption this segment ends with the limit state of
damage limitation, which corresponds in this particular example to a first storey drift of
0.11 %. The second segment of the IN2 curve is defined up to the beginning of the sof-
tening of infills in the idealized system. The third segment is assumed to finish at the NC
limit state. After this point a horizontal IN2 curve is conservatively assumed.
The characteristic points representing different limit states are presented in Figure 5-14a
and listed in Table 5-4. The spectral accelerations, corresponding to the limit states of
DL, SD and NC, are the most critical for the negative X direction of analysis and amount
to 0.51, 1.19 and 1.37 g, respectively.
Figure 5-11 The pushover curves for analysis in positive and negative X direction and the idealized
base shear versus top displacement relationships.
Table 5-4 Top displacement capacity C and spectral acceleration SaeC corresponding to the top dis-
placement capacity. Parameters are presented for different limit states (DL damage limitation, SD
significant damage, NC near collapse) and two directions of pushover analysis.
+X -X
C (cm) C
S (g) C (cm) SaeC (g)
ae
DL 0.81 0.514 0.77 0.513

SD 6.39 1.194 6.31 1.195
NC 8.09 1.374 8.03 1.380
Figure 5-12 The damage in hinges and in diagonals representing infills at the NC limit state based
on the pushover analysis in the positive and negative X direction and the corresponding inter-storey
drifts (ID). The moment-rotation and the force-displacement envelopes with an indication of dam-
age states are also shown.
Figure 5-13 The mean elastic spectrum for the scenario accelerograms (see [LessLoss-SP9, 2006],
and Appendix A) in X direction normalized to the spectral acceleration at the period of the equiva-
lent SDOF system.
5.1.2.5 Assessment of the infilled frame

In order to determine the probabilites of exceedance of each limit state, the hazard curve
for the spectral acceleration at the period of the equivalent SDOF system (0.22 s) has
been interpolated from the hazard curves for spectral accelerations at periods 0.20 and
0.30 s. The hazard values corresponding to each limit state were obtained directly from
the interpolated hazard curve. In Figure 5-14b the hazard curves and the hazard values,
which indicate different limit states, are presented for the loading in positive X direction.
The parameters k and ko of the approximated hazard curve (Eq. (4.6)), were calculated
from the points of the hazard curve which indicate the DL and NC limit states. They are
presented in Table 5-5 together with the median and mean hazard values corresponding
to all three limit states and directions of loading. The k parameter calculated for the in-
filled frame is about 70% higher than the same parameter obtained for the bare frame.
Table 5-5 The hazard parameters k and ko, and the median and the mean hazard at different limit
states for both directions of pushover analysis.
Par.\Dir. +X -X
k 2.73 2.75
ko 0.00251 0.00250
H ( SaDL ) 1.55E-02 1.57E-02
H ( SaSD ) 1.63E-03 1.62E-03
H ( SaNC ) 1.06E-03 1.03E-03
H ( SaDL ) 1.62E-02 1.64E-02
H (S a
SD
) 1.71E-03 1.70E-03
H (S NC
a ) 1.10E-03 1.08E-03
The parameter b was obtained with the least squares fitting technique. The points, con-
sidered in the approximation of IN2 curve with the assumed shape of the relationship
between the top displacement and the spectral acceleration, are within the interval be-
tween zero displacement and the displacement corresponding to the NC limit state. The
approximated IN2 curve is presented in Figure 5-14a. A rather high value of parameter b
applies to this example. It amounts to 2.09 for both the positive and the negative X direc-
tion.
The same dispersion measures as for the bare frame were adopted. The only exception is
the dispersion measure for randomness in demand DR , which was taken to be equal to
0.7. This value was suggested in the study on inelastic spectra for infilled frames with a
short fundamental period [Dolek and Fajfar, 2004].
The probabilities with or without considering epistemic uncertainties in displacement

demand and capacity are calculated similarly as presented for the bare frame (Section
5.1.2.3). The probabilities of exceedance of different limit states are presented in Table
5-6.
The results of the assessment are practically the same for the positive and negative X di-
rection. The critical values (largest of the two directions of loading) of probabilities of
C
exceedance are presented in bold in Table 5-6. The calculated probabilities PPL for the
infilled frame are a bit smaller than the corresponding value evaluated for the bare frame
(Table 5-3). For example, the critical probability of exceedance of the limit state of NC is
0.00169. In other words, it can be said that the limit state of NC is on average exceeded
once per 590 years.
In addition to the probabilities PPL, the probabilities of exceedance of a given limit state
for the 50% ( PPL
C C
) and 90% ( PPL ,90% ) confidence level (Eq. (4.4)) are also presented. In
these cases the parameter Kx = 0.5 and 0.9 for the 50 and 90 % confidence level, respec-
tively. The median probabilities PPL
C C
exceed the probabilities PPL of about 5%, as much
as the mean hazard exceeds the median hazard.
A comparison of the probabilities PPL C C

,90% and PPL shows that the former probabilities are
again about twice the median probabilities. The critical probability of exceedance of the
limit state of NC applies to the positive X direction and is equal to 0.00319. This means
that, for the given seismic scenario and with 90% confidence, the limit state of NC will in
average be exceeded once per 314 years.
Table 5-6 The probability of exceedance of different limit states ( PPL - without considering uncer-
tainties, PPL - considering uncertainties with 50 % confidence level, PPL ,90% - considering uncertain-
ties with 90 % confidence level).
Par.\Dir. +X -X
C DL
PPL 2.48E-02 2.52E-02
C SD
P PL
2.61E-03 2.61E-03
C NC
P PL
1.69E-03 1.66E-03
PPL
C DL
2.59E-02 2.64E-02
PPL
C SD
2.73E-03 2.73E-03
PPL
C NC
1.77E-03 1.74E-03
C DL
P PL ,90%
4.68E-02 4.78E-02
C SD
P PL ,90%
4.93E-03 4.95E-03
C NC
P PL ,90%
3.19E-03 3.15E-03
5.1.3 Assessment based on nonlinear dynamic analysis

The model of the bare frame is set-up in OpenSees [McKenna et al 2007]. Force-based
non-linear frame elements with fibre-sections are employed. Uniaxial laws used for con-
crete and steel are the Scott-Kent-Park and the Giuffr-Menegotto-Pinto models, respec-
tively. The values of the mechanical parameters are the same reported in Section 5.1.2.1.
Rayleigh damping at 2% has been used for the non-linear time-history analyses.
5.1.3.2 System model

A single limit-state is considered, corresponding to a condition of near collapse. The lo-
cal modes entering into the global failure definition of the structure are: brittle failure due
to the attainment of peak shear strength in any one of the columns (shear failure), flexural
failure due to the formation of a soft-storey mechanism (weak-storey failure) and flexural
failure due to the attainment of the ultimate deformation capacity in any one of the col-
umns (flexural failure). These local failure modes interact to produce system failure accord-
ing to the fault tree reported in Figure 5-15. The fault tree shows that global failure oc-
curs when any of the three shear, weak-storey or flexural events occur (series, OR). In turn,
both shear and flexural failure events are serial arrangements of single member failure
events (i.e. it is assumed that the failure of one column causes global failure), while weak-
storey failure event can occur at any floor (series, OR), requiring all the columns of that
floor to be yielded (parallel, AND).
ANDgate ULS
ORgate
Shear Weakstorey Flexural

failure failure failure
Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4
A1 D1 A2 ... D2 A3 ... D3 A3 ... D3
A1 D1 A2 ... D2 A3 ... D3 A4 ... D4
A1 D1 A2 D2 A3 ... D3 A4 ... D4
Figure 5-15. Fault tree of the structure (Xi represents the column X at the i-th floor, with X varying
from A to D as in Figure 5-1)
Demands and capacities for the local failure modes are defined in terms of deformation
response quantities (chord rotation ) and force response quantities (shear force V ) at
all columns. The peak shear strength capacity model for the shear failure mode is the one
reported in Section 3.2.3, Eq.s from (3.22) to (3.27) [Kowalsky and Priestley 2000]. The
ultimate rotation capacity model for the flexural failure mode is that described in Section
3.2.2.1, Eq. (3.6). The yield rotation capacity model for the weak-storey failure mode is also
that described in Section 3.2.2.1, Eq. (3.3). Model correction terms are included to take
into account the scatter around the mean of the adopted models. They are described by
unit median log-normal random variables, with coefficient of variations as reported in
Table 5-7.
Table 5-7. Model error terms
Variable Type Median CoV

y Lognormal 1 0.33
u Lognormal 1 0.38
V Lognormal 1 0.26
5.1.3.3 Ground motion records

Thirty ground motion records have been selected from the European strong motion data
base in three groups of ten records each, matching the uniform-hazard spectra for aver-
age return periods of 100, 500 and 1000 years at the site selected for the project, respec-
tively. Figure 5-16, Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18 show the target and records spectra for
each of the three return periods.
p
12
10
6
Sa
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (sec)
Figure 5-16 Group 1, average return period 100 years: individual, mean and +/- one standard devia-
tion spectra of selected recorded ground motions. Solid blue line is the target uniform-hazard
spectrum.
20
15
Sa
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (sec)
spectrum.
25
20
15
Sa
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (sec)
spectrum.
5.1.3.4 Assessment
The mean annual frequency of limit state exceedance LS = (Y > 1) is evaluated in the
following both with the numerical integration approach, by computing the fragility curve
(Section 4.3.1), and with the closed-form solution presented in Section 4.3.2.
In order to compute the fragility function, the spectral acceleration value leading to Y=1
(i.e. collapse in this case) needs to be determined by an iterative scaling scheme for each
of the selected record. An example of the result of such a scheme is shown in Figure 5-19
for one of the records.
1.5 2
1 1
Sa
0.5 0
0 -1
-1 0 1 0 20 40
10 10 10
Y
0.1
10
0
10
-0.1
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 5-19 Result of the iterative scaling scheme: spectral acceleration versus Y (top left); D/C ratio
for all the 36 component failure modes during the iteration (top right, thick line represent distribu-
tion of D/C ratios at Y=1); Y value versus iteration number (bottom).
The search procedure carried out for all records lead to the results shown in Figure 5-20.
The estimated median and dispersion of S aY =1 are = 0.306 g and = 0.31 , respec-
tively. The corresponding fragility is shown in Figure 5-22 in solid line.
As explained in Section 4.3.4, the effect of the capacity model uncertainty terms on the
fragility curve can be included under the assumption that these inflate the dispersion leav-
ing unaffected the median. The additional dispersion term UC can be evaluated as ex-
plained in Section 4.3.5. The non-informative prior and the posterior distribution ob-
tained for this parameter are shown in Figure 5-21. The chosen estimate for UC is the
value with associated maximum likelihood, i.e. the mode of the posterior distribution
UC = 0.37 . The estimated value is of the same order of the dispersion in Y due to the
records variability, leading to a total dispersion T = 0.312 + 0.37 2 = 0.48 . The fragility
curve accounting for component capacity models uncertainty is also shown in Figure
5-22, in dashed line.
Finally, integration of the computed fragilities with the hazard function for Sa at the fun-
damental period (T=1.1s) is LS = 0.0066 . The mean annual frequency accounting for
capacity-models uncertainty is LS = 0.0077 .
2 2
: 0.321
1.8 1.8 CoV : 0.313
Sa(Y=1) : 0.306
1.6 1.6
Sa(Y=1) : 0.306
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
Sa(Y=1) (g)
Sa (g)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
-1 0 1
10 10 10 0.5 1 1.5
Y Y
Figure 5-20 Spectral acceleration leading to collapse: spectral acceleration versus Y during the itera-
Y =1
tions (left) and estimated lognormal density of the S a values (right).
4.5 fragility: 0.370

UC
4
Probability Density Function
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5 Prior PDF

Posterior PDF fragility
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

UC
Figure 5-21 Numerical evaluation of the mean annual frequency of collapse, fragility analysis: esti-
mation of the dispersion term accounting for uncertainty in the component capacity models.
0.8
< Sa)
0.6
P(SY=1
a
0.4
0.2 prior fragility

posterior fragility
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sa (g)
Figure 5-22 Fragility curves with and without the contribution of capacity models uncertainty.
An alternative, more expedient way of employing dynamic analyses to arrive directly at an

estimate of the mean annual rate of limit state exceedance is the so-called cloud analysis
briefly presented in Section 4.3.3. The result of this type of analysis, a sample of Y values
for the unscaled selected records, is used to establish a power-law relationship between Y
and S a . This is relationship is presented in Figure 5-23. Different markers are used to
distinguish responses to the records of the three groups. It can be seen that, as expected
and intended, the records collectively span a sufficiently wide range of spectral accelera-
tion values inducing responses in the structure ranging from linear elastic to collapse.
Specifically, the records of Group 1 induce the lower responses, while those of Group 2
and 3 the intermediate and the largest ones, respectively. The median spectral acceleration
inducing Y=1 equals 1/ b a = 1/ 1.23 6.30 = 0.223 g .
Figure 5-24 shows the non-informative prior and the posterior density for the additional
dispersion term UC accounting for the effect of uncertainty in the capacity models. The
maximum likelihood estimate for the parameter is UC = 0.39 , again a value of the same
order of Y = 0.51 , leading to a quite large total dispersion of T = 0.64 .
2
T=100years
T=500years
T=1000years
1.5
Sa (g)
= a Sb
Y a
0.5 a : 6.3
b : 1.23
: 0.51
Y
0 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Y
Figure 5-23 Results of cloud analysis for the ICONS frame: results for records belonging to the three
groups are denoted by distinct markers.

UC
cloud: 0.390
2.5
1.5
0.5
Prior PDF
Posterior PDF cloud
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

UC
Figure 5-24 Closed-form evaluation of the mean annual frequency of collapse, cloud analysis: esti-
The mean annual frequency of limit state exceedance is computed using the k and k0 pa-
rameters from the hazard linearization:
k
1 1 k2 2 1 1 k2 2
LS = S b exp 2
Y S = k 0 exp 2
Y S =
2 b 2 b
b
a a
a a a
1.65
(5.5)
1 1 1.65 2
= 0.00086 1.23 exp 2
0.512 = 0.0130
6.3 2 1.23
The mean annual frequency accounting for capacity-models uncertainty is LS = 0.0149 .
It is of interest to examine, for both cloud and fragility analysis, the distribution of the
critical failure mode over the thirty records. It is recalled that the damage measure Y is
defined as the demand to capacity ratio corresponding to the failure mode that leads the
system closer to failure. Quite obviously, for fragility analysis, where scaling is employed
until failure is attained, the critical mode is the one leading to failure. Figure 5-25 shows
the histograms of the critical mode index for both cloud (white bars) and fragility (black
bars) analyses. The considered failure modes are 36, 16 single column shear failures (left),
4 multi-column weak-storey failures (centre) and 16 single column flexural failures (right).
It can be seen that the prevalent failure modes for this structure (fragility analysis) are soft
storey at the upper floors. During cloud analysis, with unscaled records inducing a some-
what lower response level, some shear modes appear amongst the critical ones (those
with higher D/C ratio) but this is before shear demand is capped by member yielding as
it happens at higher response levels.
30
Shear failures Soft storeys Flexural failures
25
Number of failures
20
15
10
cloud (SF=1)
5 fragility (SF 1)
Figure 5-25 Histogram of the critical mode over the 30 records.
5.1.4 Discussion of results

This section aims at explaining the differences between the results from the static and
the dynamic methods, in the light of the several different assumptions/choices made in
carrying out the two applications. Concerning the dynamic method, the version using
cloud analysis and the closed-form solution for the mean annual frequency of limit-state
exceedance is the one closest to the static method and is thus taken as reference herein.
Concerning the static method, this discussion refers to the results: a) of the bare frame b)
not including the epistemic uncertainty terms DU , CU and H , since this uncertainty
has not been considered in the application of the dynamic method.
The main choices characterising the two applications are summarised in Table 5-8. As it
can be observed, the applications differ in terms of structural modelling strategy, capacity
models employed, definition of structural (system) failure, modelling of capacity (median
and variability) as well as demand, and, finally, definition of structural (system) failure. As
it regards the difference in the response analysis type (static pushover vs. time-history), it
should be observed that according to the static method the annual failure frequency must
be computed for each direction/sign of the static forces (in this case just +X/-X) to ac-
count for possible differences in strength (as it is indeed the case for the ICONS frame).
For the sake of the present comparison, the static results are averaged over the plus and
minus signs.
Table 5-8 Different choices made in carrying out the applications of the static and dynamic methods
to the ICONS frame.
Method Static Dynamic

Structural model Lumped-plasticity with bilinear Distributed plasticity with
M- at section level fibre section-discretisation
Analysis Static (+X/-X) Dynamic (multiple records)
Definition of member chord- Yield: about 1% Yield: about 0.8%
rotation capacity (median) Ultimate: about 3% Ultimate: about 5%
Variability in capacity Assumed From comparison of experi-
mental vs predicted values of
employed capacity models
Variability in demand Assumed Evaluated based on (limited
number of) records
Definition of system failure Series, ultimate drift Cut-set, ultimate shear, ulti-
mate chord-rotation,
weak-storey
The difference in structural models (lumped-plasticity vs fiber model) leads to the push-
over curves shown in Figure 5-26. As it can be observed the two models yield the same
total base shear capacity but significantly different initial stiffnesses (the static one being
roughly double the dynamic one). This explains the values of 0.8s and 1.1s found for the
first-mode periods, and the corresponding differences in the hazard values (see Table
5-9).
250
200
BaseShear (kN)
150
100
Dynamic
50 Static (original)
Static (bilinear)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
TopDisplacement (m)
Figure 5-26 Comparison of pushover curves of the models used in the Static and Dynamic methods.
The main difference between the results reported in Table 5-9, however, is that of the
median intensity leading to the limit-state (NC for the static and ULS for the dynamic
method, respectively), evaluated at 0.63g by the static method and at 0.223g by dynamic
one. This large difference is directly related to the definition of the global failure adopted
in the two applications, which for the static method is a series of the flexural failure
( > u ) of the columns, while the dynamic case includes this failure mode but considers
the additional failure modes of weak-storey and shear.
If the results of the dynamic analyses are used to compute the state of the structure ac-
cording to the definition of collapse employed in the application of the static method, the
new parameters obtained are: a = 1.06 , b = 1.42 and = 0.71 . Correspondingly the
linearisation of the hazard at the median intensity inducing Y=1 yields k 0 = 0.00077 and
k = 2.03 . The new value of the mean limit state exceedance frequency is LS = 0.00163 .
This value is now smaller than the value 0.00385 obtained by the static method (Table
5-9), consistently with the last remaining difference in the assumptions, i.e. the higher
deformation capacity employed in the dynamic method (see Table 5-8).
Table 5-9 Differences between results of the static and dynamic

~ methods. The MAF of exceedance
of the median intensity leading to failure is denominated H in the static method, and Sa in the
C
dynamic one, the MAF of limit-state exceedance is denominated PPL in the static method, and
NC
LS in the dynamic one.

Method Static Dynamic
First-mode period 0.8s 1.1s
Median S a inducing limit 0.63g a = 6.3 b = 1.23
state (average of +X and -X) 1 b
a = 0.223 g
Dispersion DR = 0.4 , CR = 0.25 Y = 0.51, UC = 0.39
T = 0.4 2 + 0.25 2 = 0.47 T = 0.512 + 0.39 2 = 0.64
Hazard linearization k0 = 0.00135 k = 1.6 k0 = 0.00086 k = 1.65
coefficients
Mean annual frequency of 0.00373 + 0.00214 0.0102
exceedance of S a inducing = 0.00293
2
limit state
Mean annual frequency of 0.00493 + 0.00287 0.0149
limit-state exceedance = 0.00390
2
5.2 A 3D IRREGULAR REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME

Within the European research project SPEAR (Seismic performance assessment and re-
habilitation of existing buildings), an asymmetric three-storey reinforced concrete (RC)
frame building was tested pseudo-dynamically in full-scale. The structure is referred to in
the following as the SPEAR building.
The elevation and the plan of the SPEAR building are presented in Figure 5-27a. The
storey height, measured from top to top of the slab, is 3.0 m. Most of the columns have
dimensions 25/25 cm. The only exception is column C6 which dimensions are 25/75 cm.
The depth of beams is 25 cm and the height of beams, accounting also the thickness of
the slab (15 cm), is 50 cm.
The structure was designed to gravity loads only. These were the self weight and the load
on slabs due to finishing (0.5 kN/m2) and to live load (2.0 kN/m2) [Fardis 2002]. The
vertical reinforcement in the square columns resulted to four 12 mm smooth bars with 8
mm stirrups at 25 cm distances. The strong column was reinforced with eight 12 mm
bars, four at the edges, two on each long side of the column cross section and one on the
short side (Figure 5-27a). Vertical bars in the columns are lap spliced over 40 cm above
the floor level, including the bottom storey. Spliced bars have 180 hooks. The same stir-
rups as for the square columns were used also for the strong column C6. The stirrups do
not continue in the joints, that are closed with 90 hooks and that the clear cover of stir-
rups is 1.5 cm. The typical longitudinal reinforcement of beam (Figure 5-27b) consists of
two 12 mm bars at the top and at the bottom, with insufficient anchorage length at the
joints. Other longitudinal reinforcement is bent up towards the supports and later in the
joint bent down into the joint core with the 180 hooks at the end. Beam stirrups are
made of 8 mm bars. Additional details regarding reinforcement are given e.g. in Fardis
[2002].
The mean compressive strength of the concrete amounted to 25 MPa, while the mean
strength of steel was rather high and amounted to 459 MPa for the 12 mm bars and 377
MPa for the 20 mm bars, which are used in some beams.
5.2.2 Assessment based on nonlinear static analysis

The model used in this example (post-test model) was built on the basis of the pre-test
model presented by [Stratan and Fajfar 2003] and on the experimental results [Negro et
al. 2004], and is only briefly summarized in the following. Details can be found in [Fajfar
at al. 2005].
The program OpenSees [PEER 1999] was used for mathematical modelling of the test
building. The material nonlinear behavior was simulated with concentrated nonlinear
springs (plastic hinges), which were placed at the ends of beams and columns. The Ze-
roLengthSection element available in OpenSees was used for simulating plastic hinges.
Plastic hinges were connected with ElasticBeamColumn elements. The nonlinear mo-
ment-rotation relationship of beams was modeled only for the major axis (moment-
rotation in the global X or Y axis, depending on the orientation of beam). For the col-
umns, nonlinear moment-rotation relationship was used independently in both, global X
and Y, direction. The Hysteretic material was chosen for the moment-rotation behav-
ior. Other force-displacement or moment-rotation relationships were modeled as elastic
with assumed high stiffness. Only in the case of the torsional moment - rotation relation-
ship the stiffness of plastic hinges in the columns was assumed to be very low. This was
based on the fact that many columns were cracked before the pseudo-dynamic test and
on the results of the displacement-controlled analysis [Fajfar at al. 2005].
Figure 5-27 (a) Elevation and plan of the SPEAR building, (b) typical reinforcement of beams and
columns.
The moment-rotation envelope for columns and for beams is assumed to be bi-linear
until the maximum moment is attained and with degrading slope after the maximum
moment. The moment-rotation envelopes for plastic hinges are symmetric in both direc-
tions for columns and asymmetric for plastic hinges in beams. The insufficient anchorage
length was considered in the model with the procedure used by Stratan and Fajfar [2003]
which was suggested by FEMA 356 [2000b]. Using this procedure the yield strength of
steel due to insufficient anchorage is reduced to 60% of the original value for columns
and to about 30% for some bars in the beams. Reduced values for yield strength of steel
were then used for the determination of the yield and the maximum moment.
The ultimate rotation u at the near collapse limit state, which corresponds to 20% reduc-
tion of maximum moment, was estimated with the CAE method [Peru at al. 2006] for
the columns and according to EC8-Part 3 [CEN 2003] for the beams. For example, the
rotation at the near collapse limit state for column C2 (see Figure 5-27a), amounted be-
tween 35 (first storey) to 47 mrad (top storey) and for column C3 from 27 to 39 mrad for
the first and top storey, respectively. The determination of other characteristic rotations is
explained elsewhere [LESSLOSS-SP9 2005].
In the Hysteretic material, used within OpenSees program [PEER 1999], all parameters
accounting for pinching and damage due to ductility and energy were assumed to be
zero, i.e. no pinching and damage were included in the model. The parameter , which
controls the unloading stiffness, was assumed to be 0.85 for beams and the column C6
(see Figure 5-27a), and 0.75 for the other columns.
A fair correlation between the nonlinear dynamic analysis results and the test results was
observed for the model used in this example [e.g. Fajfar et al. 2006].
5.2.2.2 Response analysis
The N2 method, extended to plan-asymmetric structures, was used for analysis. The de-
tails of the method are presented in Section 4.2 and in [Fajfar et al. 2005b]. The extended
N2 method includes the modal analysis, the pushover analysis, and the correction of all
relevant quantities, obtained by the pushover analysis, using the torsional correction fac-
tors. The results of the response analysis are represented in terms of IN2 curves, which
determine the relation between the top displacement and the spectral acceleration.
The pushover analysis was performed separately for the positive and negative X and Y
directions. Lateral loads were applied at the mass centre at each storey level. The two
shapes of lateral loads were determined from the most relevant mode shape in the X and
Y direction multiplied with the storey masses. Only the pushover curve for the positive X
direction, which proved to be critical, is presented in Figure 5-28. It can be seen that the
maximum strength is reached at a relatively small top displacement. The reason is the P-
effect, which has an important influence in the case of SPEAR building, especially in the
X direction. Although the building was designed for gravity loads only, the maximum
strength versus weight ratio amounts to from 10 % to 14 % for the X and Y direction,
respectively.
The torsional correction factors are used for the correction of the results of pushover
analysis. The results of pushover analysis, and thus the torsional correction factors, vary
with the direction and sign of the loading and with steps of analysis. For each step of
analysis, the torsional correction factors depend on the location of the structural element
in the plan and on the considered direction. Torsional correction factors for the limit
state of NC, explained in the next paragraph, are shown in Figure 5-29. The resulting ro-
tations at the hinges are obtained by multiplying the rotations from the pushover analysis
by the torsional correction factors. For example, the hinge rotations in column C2 (Figure
5-27a) in the X and Y directions (i.e. around the Y and X axes) at the NC limit state are
multiplied by a factor of 1.6 and 1.12, respectively.
Figure 5-28 The pushover curve for analysis in positive X direction and the idealized base shear
versus top displacement relationship.
Figure 5-29 Torsional correction factors at the limit state of near collapse (NC) for positive X and Y
direction. The horizontal axis represents the cross-section of the building. Typical columns (see
Figure 5-27a) are indicated.
In this application, three different limit states according to EC 8-Part 3 [CEN 2005] were
evaluated. For the limit state of DL, the capacity of a moment-rotation hinge is according
to EC 8-Part 3 defined by the yield moment, for the limit state of NC by the ultimate
rotation u, and for the limit state of SD by 75 % of the ultimate rotation. However, it is
not defined how many hinges in the beams or in the columns have to exceed the capacity
of a given limit state to reach the limit state at the structure level. It has been assumed
that the most critical column controls the state of the structure. Consequently, the limit
state of SD and NC are reached when the rotation at one hinge of the first column ex-
ceeds 75 % or 100 % of the ultimate rotation, respectively. A similar definition as for the
limit states of NC or SD is not appropriate for the limit state of DL. It would be too con-
servative if the limit state of DL was defined when the first hinge yields. Therefore it was
assumed that the limit state of DL at the structural level is reached at the yield displace-
ment of the idealized system (Figure 5-28).
In poorly detailed existing RC structures, in addition to the damage due to flexure, shear
damage in joints and members also contribute to global damage and potential failure. In
this application these potential sources of damage were not considered because tests and
analyses indicated that the structural behavior was dominated by flexure in columns.
The limit states of DL, SD and NC are indicated in Figure 5-28 for analysis in positive X
direction. In Table 5-10 the top displacement capacities for all three limit states and all
direction of pushover analysis are presented. The ratio between top displacement capacity
at limit state of DL and the height of the structure amounts from 0.3% to 0.4% consider-
ing all four pushover analyses. The top displacement capacity for the limit state of SD is
about 1.2% for the loading in the X direction, whereas it amounts to 1.5 and 1.9% for +Y
and Y loading, respectively. The top displacement capacity for the limit state of NC in-
creases to 1.6% for the analysis in the X direction and to 1.8 and 2.5 % for loading in +Y
and Y direction.
For all limit states the maximum storey drifts always occurs at the second storey. For the
limit state of DL the maximum storey drift is of about 0.5%, for all pushover analyses.
For the limit state of SD the maximum storey drift obtained for +X and X loading is of
about 1.8 and 1.9%. For the Y direction the maximum storey drifts are a little bit larger
and amount to 2.2 and 2.1% for the positive and negative direction, respectively. For the
limit state of NC the maximum storey drifts determined for positive and negative X and
Y direction are 2.4 and 2.5%, and 2.7 and 2.6%, respectively.
Table 5-10 Top displacement capacity and corresponding spectral acceleration. Parameters are pre-
sented for different limit states (DL damage limitation, SD significant damage, NC near col-
lapse) and all four directions of pushover analysis.
Par.\Dir. X+ X- Y+ Y-
C DL (cm) 3.1 3.1 2.7 3.6
C SD (cm) 10.2 10.3 13.2 16.9
C NC (cm) 13.6 13.7 16.1 21.7
SaeC DL (g) 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.14
SaeC SD (g) 0.39 0.40 0.77 0.65
SaeC NC (g) 0.52 0.53 0.94 0.83
The damage at the NC limit state based on the pushover analysis in the positive X direc-
tion is shown at the structure level in Figure 5-30. It can be seen that damage is, generally,
concentrated in the columns of the first and second storey. The same damage pattern was
observed also in the test.
Equivalent SDOF models were determined separately for each of four pushover curves
(for four directions of loading). The bilinear idealization followed the EC 8 procedure.
The maximum strength (Fy) in the ideal elasto-plastic force deformation relationship
was set equal to the maximum strength of the pushover curve. The yield displacement (dy)
was then determined by assuming equal area under the pushover curve and the bilinear
curve. The effective period Teff and the transformation factor , used for the transforma-
tion of the MDOF system to the equivalent SDOF system and vice versa, were deter-
mined according to EC 8. These quantities are presented in Figure 5-28 only for the
pushover analysis in the positive X direction.
The effective period Teff of the SDOF system exceeds the period TC in the EC 8 elastic
spectrum for all four pushover analyses. Therefore, the equal displacement rule was ap-
plied for the determination of seismic demand. The IN2 curve, which represents the rela-
tionship between the seismic intensity and the engineering demand parameter, is a
straight line to the point which corresponds to the most severe limit state (e.g. the limit
state of NC). For example, the effective period Teff of the equivalent SDOF system due
to pushover analysis in positive X direction is 0.92 s (Figure 5-27) , which is higher than
the period TC = 0.4 s in the EC 8 elastic spectrum for type A ground.
The IN2 curve for the positive X direction with the indication of three limit states is pre-
sented in Figure 5-31a. It is conservatively assumed that the NC limit state represents the
collapse of the structure. Accordingly, the IN2 curve is a horizontal line for the top dis-
placement greater than the top displacement at the limit state of NC (dashed line in
Figure 5-31a).
All points on the IN2 curve, which represent different limit states, are listed in Table
5-10. In addition to the top displacement capacities, which were already discussed in this
Section, the elastic spectral acceleration corresponding to different limit states and direc-
tions of loading are presented. A minor difference can be observed if the spectral accel-
erations determined from the positive and negative pushover analysis results are com-
pared. The spectral accelerations, corresponding to the limit states of DL, SD and NC,
are the most critical for the positive X direction of analysis and amount to 0.12, 0.39 and
0.52 g, respectively.
Figure 5-30 The damage in hinges at the NC limit state based on the pushover analysis in the posi-
tive X direction and the corresponding inter-storey drifts (IDx). The moment-rotation envelope with
an indication of damage states is also shown.
5.2.2.3 Assessment
After the spectral acceleration corresponding to a given limit state is determined, it has to
be linked with the given seismic hazard (see Appendix A). The hazard values were there-
fore calculated for different limit states from the hazard curves depending on spectral
acceleration at different periods. For example, for the analysis in the positive X direction,
the hazard curve for spectral acceleration at Teff=0.92 s (Figure 5-28) was interpolated
from the given hazard curves for spectral acceleration at periods T= 0.75 and 1.0 s
(Figure 5-31b). The hazard values, which correspond to each limit state, were then ob-
tained directly from the interpolated hazard curve. The same procedure was used for the
determination of hazard curves for analyses in other directions. The parameters k and ko
of the approximated hazard curve (Eq. (4.6)), were calculated from the points at the haz-
ard curve which indicate the DL and NC limit states. They are presented in Table 5-11.
The median and mean hazard values corresponding to all three limit states and directions
of loading are also shown. The parameter k varies from 1.54 to 1.68 for the four analyses
considered in comparison.
It was assumed that the parameter b (see e.g. Section 5.1.2.3) is equal to 1, which is an
exact value up to the limit state of NC because the IN2 curve is a straight line (Figure
5-31a). The demand dispersion measure DR was taken to be equal to 0.4. For the dis-
persion measure for randomness in displacement capacity CR and for the epistemic un-
certainties in displacement demand and capacity ( DU and CU ) the value of 0.25 was
adopted. Some background for these decisions is described in Section 4.2. Furthermore,
the dispersion measure for the hazard H was arbitrarily assumed to be 0.3.
Knowing the hazard values, corresponding to each limit state, the dispersion measures,
and the parameters b and k, the corresponding probability of exceedance can be easily
calculated. The simplest approach is that the probability of exceedance of a given limit
state is determined without considering the epistemic uncertainties (Eq. (4.3)) in demand
and capacity ( DU and CU ). If these uncertainties are considered (Eq. (4.4)), the prob-
ability can be determined with a specified confidence level x.
Table 5-11 Hazard parameters k and ko, median and mean hazard at different limit states for all four
directions of pushover analysis.
Par.\Dir. X X Y Y
k 1.54 1.54 1.68 1.63
ko 1.22E-03 1.19E-03 1.40E-03 1.08E-03
H ( SaDL ) 3.42E-02 3.36E-02 3.08E-02 2.79E-02
H ( SaSD ) 5.67E-03 5.46E-03 2.30E-03 2.37E-03
H ( SaNC ) 3.50E-03 3.38E-03 1.57E-03 1.48E-03
H ( SaDL ) 3.58E-02 3.51E-02 3.22E-02 2.91E-02
H ( SaSD ) 5.93E-03 5.72E-03 2.41E-03 2.48E-03
H ( SaNC ) 3.66E-03 3.53E-03 1.64E-03 1.55E-03
The probabilities for different limit states (DL limit state of damage limitation, SD
limit state of significant damage, NC limit state of near collapse) are presented in Table
5-12. The probabilities are calculated with and without considering the epistemic uncer-
tainties in demand and capacity. In the former case they are presented for 50% and 90%
confidence level.
The probability of exceedance of a given limit state is first determined separately for each
pushover analysis. The final result for the probability of exceedance of a given limit state
is then defined as the maximum of probabilities obtained from the analyses for different
directions and signs of loading. For almost all limit states the critical loading is in the
positive X direction. The only exception is the analysis in positive Y direction for the
limit state of damage limitation. The critical values of probabilities of exceedance are pre-
sented in bold style. For example, the critical probability of exceedance of limit state of
NC is 0.00456. In other words, it can be said that the limit state of NC is in average ex-
ceeded once per 219 years.
The median probabilities PPL C

exceed the probabilities PPLC
for the same factor as the
C
mean hazard exceeds the median hazard. A comparison of the probabilities PPL ,90% and
PPL shows that the former probabilities are almost double than the median probabilities.
C
The most critical probability of exceedance of the limit state of NC applies to the positive
X direction and is equal to 0.0096. This means that, for the given seismic scenario and
with 90% confidence, the limit state of NC will in average be exceeded once per 104
years. The estimated return period of the limit state of NC is estimated with a 90% confi-
dence. That means that there is only 10% chance that the return period of the limit state
of NC will be smaller than the estimated return period.
Table 5-12 Probability of exceedance of different limit states ( PPL - without considering uncertain-
ties, PPL - considering uncertainties with 50 % confidence level, PPL ,90% - considering uncertainties
with 90 % confidence level).
Par.\Dir. X+ X- Y+ Y-
P C DL 4.45E-02 4.38E-02 4.21E-02 3.74E-02
PL
P C SD 7.38E-03 7.13E-03 3.15E-03 3.18E-03

PL
P C NC 4.56E-03 4.40E-03 2.14E-03 1.99E-03

PL
PPL
C DL 4.66E-02 4.58E-02 4.40E-02 3.91E-02
PC SD
PL
7.72E-03 7.45E-03 3.29E-03 3.33E-03
PC NC
PL
4.77E-03 4.61E-03 2.24E-03 2.08E-03
C DL
PPL 9.36E-02 9.22E-02 9.41E-02 8.17E-02
,90%
C SD
PPL 1.55E-02 1.50E-02 7.03E-03 6.95E-03
,90%
P C NC 9.60E-03 9.27E-03 4.79E-03 4.35E-03

PL ,90%
5.2.2.4 Remarks on the method

The proposed simplified method for probabilistic seismic assessment based on pushover
analysis has proven to be practical and easy to implement. Additional studies are needed
especially for the determination of dispersion measures, which were in the present exam-
ple arbitrarily assumed, and a further simplification of the procedure. The limitations of
application are basically the same as those which apply to the N2 method and to the
closed form of probability assessment.
5.2.3 Assessment based on nonlinear dynamic analysis

A three-dimensional finite element model of the frame structure is set up and used to
carry out the analyses within structural analysis package OpenSees [McKenna, 1997].
Non-linear flexibility-based beam-column elements with fibre section discretisation are
used for all members. P-delta effect is included.
Concrete behaviour is modelled by a uniaxial Kent-Scott-Park model with degrading, lin-

ear, unloading/reloading stiffness according to the work of Karsan-Jirsa and no tensile
strength. The parameters for the unconfined concrete are: f c = 25 MPa , c 0 = 0.002 ,
f cu = 0 MPa , cu = 0.004 . For the confined concrete the values have been increased ac-
cording to the formulae developed by Mander, as presented in Paulay [1992], yielding a
ratio K = 1.115 of the compression strength of the confined section ( f cc ) to the uncon-
fined strength, an estimate for the strain at maximum strength of cc = 0.00315 and for
the ultimate compression strain of ccu = 0.0098 [Schotanus et al., 2004].
Steel behaviour is represented by an uniaxial bilinear model with kinematic hardening.

Reinforcement consists of smooth bars with yield strength f y = 450 MPa , elastic
modulus ES = 206GPa , and a hardening coefficient b = 0.0033 .
The first mode of vibration of the structure, evaluated considering cracked stiffness
properties after application of gravity loads, is torsional-flexural parallel to the X axis with
period T1 = 0.8s . The second mode is torsional-flexural parallel to the Y axis with period
T2 = 0.72s , while the third is predominantly torsional with period T3 = 0.64 s . The mode
shapes are reported in Figure 5-32.
Figure 5-32 SPEAR building: the first three mode-shapes of the model employed for dynamic
analyses.
Initial-stiffness proportional viscous damping of the Rayleigh type is used for the inelastic
dynamic analyses, with values of the mass and stiffness coefficients and deter-
mined to obtain a constant damping , equal to 5%, at the first two periods.
5.2.3.2 System modelling

As for the ICONS frame application, a single limit-state is considered, corresponding to a
condition of near collapse. Similarly to the plane frame case, the local modes entering
into the global failure definition of the structure are: brittle failure due to the attainment
of peak shear strength in any one of the columns (shear failure), flexural failure due to the
formation of a soft-storey mechanism (weak-storey failure) and flexural failure due to the
attainment of the ultimate deformation capacity in any one of the columns (flexural failure).
These local failure modes interact to produce system failure according to the fault tree
reported in Figure 5-33. The fault tree shows that global failure occurs when any of the
three shear, weak-storey or flexural events occur (series, OR). In turn, both shear and flexural
failure events are serial arrangements of single member failure events (i.e. it is assumed
that the failure of one column causes global failure), while weak-storey failure event can
occur at any floor (series, OR), requiring all the columns of that floor to be yielded (paral-
lel, AND).
ANDgate ULS
ORgate
Shear Weakstorey Flexural

failure failure failure
Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3
C11 C91 C12 ... C92 C13 ... C93
C11 C91 C12 ... C92 C13 ... C93
C11 C91 C12 ... C92 C13 ... C93
Figure 5-33. Fault tree of the SPEAR building structure (CXi represents the column CX at the i-th
floor, with X varying from 1 to 9 according to Figure 5-27)
Demands and capacities for the local failure modes are defined in terms of deformation
response quantities (chord rotation ) and force response quantities (shear force V ) at
all columns. The peak shear strength capacity model for the shear failure mode is the one
reported in Section 3.2.3, Eq.s from (3.22) to (3.27) [Kowalsky and Priestley 2000]. The
ultimate rotation capacity model for the flexural failure mode is that described in Section
3.2.2.1, Eq. (3.6). The yield rotation capacity model for the weak-storey failure mode is also
that described in Section 3.2.2.1, Eq. (3.3). Model correction terms, included to take into
account the scatter around the mean of the adopted models, are described by unit median
log-normal random variables, with the same coefficient of variations already reported in
Table 5-7 for the ICONS frame.
5.2.3.3 Ground motion records

The dynamic characteristics of the structure, which are markedly three-dimensional, im-
pose to analyse the structural response under the simultaneous action of pairs of or-
thogonal components of ground motions. To this end the same set of thirty ground mo-
tion records employed for the ICONS application is used, but including also the Y com-
ponent.
For the purpose of scaling records, the geometric mean of the spectral acceleration of the
two components has been used: S a = S aX S aY .
5.2.3.4 Limit-state formulation for biaxial response

A limit state formulation capable of accounting for the biaxial nature of demand and ca-
pacity, Eq. (5.7), is favoured over a simpler series between planar failure modes in the or-
thogonal X-Z and Y-Z planes, Eq. (5.6). The two formulations are:
(
g ij (t ) = min g ij , X (t ), g ij ,Y (t ) ) (5.6)
g ij (t ) = g ij2, X (t ) + g ij2 ,Y (t ) (5.7)
where g ij , X (t ) = Dij , X (t )/ C ij , X (t ) and g ij ,Y (t ) = Dij ,Y (t )/ C ij ,Y (t ) are the time-varying

planar demand to capacity ratio of the i-th component for the j-th failure mode in planes
XZ and YZ, respectively. Accordingly, the scalar system-level damage measure Y is ex-
pressed as:
t
[
Y = max maxiN=1 min Nj=1 g ij2 , X (t ) + g ij2 ,Y (t )
mod es i
] (5.8)
The difference between the two limit-state formulations is qualitatively shown in Figure
5-34. Partial experimental support for the ellipsoidal interaction rule employed in Eq. (5.7)
can be found in report [LessLoss-SP8, 2006], as decribed in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.3.
Y Y
CY CY
DY
D(t) D(t)
CX CX
DX X X
Figure 5-34. Alternative formulation of limit state Eq. for bi-directional action: simple series system
between failure modes in X-Z and Y-Z planes (left), proposed interaction formulation of the limit-
state (right).
5.2.3.5 Assessment
The mean annual frequency of limit state exceedance LS = (Y > 1) is evaluated in the
following both with the numerical integration approach, by computing the fragility curve
(Section 4.3.1), and with the closed-form solution presented in Section 4.3.2.
In order to compute the fragility function, the spectral acceleration value leading to Y=1
(i.e. collapse in this case) needs to be determined by an iterative scaling scheme for each
of the selected records pair. An example of the result of such a scheme is shown in
Figure 5-35 for one of the records.
The search procedure carried out for all records pair lead to the results shown in Figure
5-36. The estimated median and dispersion of S aY =1 are = 0.33 g and = 0.29 , re-
spectively. The corresponding fragility is shown in Figure 5-22 in solid line.
As explained in Section 4.3.4, the effect of the capacity model uncertainty terms on the
fragility curve can be included under the assumption that these inflate the dispersion leav-
ing unaffected the median. The additional dispersion term UC can be evaluated as ex-
plained in Section 4.3.5. The non-informative prior and the posterior distribution ob-
tained for this parameter are shown in Figure 5-37, left. The chosen estimate for UC is
the value with associated maximum likelihood, i.e. the mode of the posterior distribution
UC = 0.38 , a large value, higher than that induced by record-to-record variability and
equal to = 0.29 . The total dispersion is 2 + UC 2
= 0.48 . The fragility curves, with
and without the contribution of the uncertainty of the component capacity models uncer-
tainty, are shown in Figure 5-37, right. Finally, integration of the computed fragilities with
the hazard function for the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the struc-
tural model (T=0.8 s) leads to the mean annual frequencies LS = 0.0098 , for the base
case, and LS = 0.0117 for the case where uncertainty in capacity is accounted for.
0.8 1.5
0.6
1
0.4
Sa
0.5
0.2
0 0
-1 0 1 0 20 40 60
10 10 10
Y
0.05
10
0
10
-0.05
10
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Figure 5-35 SPEAR building, results of the iterative scaling scheme: spectral acceleration versus Y
(top left); D/C ratio for all the 57 component failure modes during the iteration (top right, thick line
represent distribution of D/C ratios at Y=1); Y value versus iteration number (bottom).
1.5 1.5
: 0.341
CoV : 0.296
: 0.327
Sa(Y=1)
: 0.290
1 1 Sa(Y=1)
Sa(Y=1) (g)
Sa (g)
0.5 0.5
0 -1 0 1 0
10 10 10 0.8 1 1.2
Y Y
Figure 5-36 SPEAR building, spectral acceleration leading to collapse: spectral acceleration versus Y
Y =1
during the iterations (left) and estimated lognormal density of the S a values (right).
6 1
: 0.38
UC,fragility
5 0.8
Prior
4 Posterior
< Sa)
0.6
3
P(SY=1
0.4
a
2
0.2
1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sa (g)
UC
Figure 5-37 SPEAR building, numerical evaluation of the mean annual frequency of collapse, fragil-
ity analysis: left, estimation of the dispersion term accounting for uncertainty in the component ca-
pacity models; right, fragility curves with and without the contribution of capacity models uncer-
tainty.
The results of cloud analysis are presented in Figure 5-38. Different markers are used to
distinguish responses to the records of the three groups. As for the ICONS building, the
records of Group 1 induce the lower responses, while those of Group 2 and 3 the inter-
mediate and the largest ones, respectively. Collectively the records span an intensity range
that covers collapse. The median spectral acceleration inducing Y=1 equals
1/ b a = 1/ 0.92 3.47 = 0.258 g . Figure 5-39 shows the non-informative prior and the pos-
terior density for the additional dispersion term UC accounting for the effect of uncer-
tainty in the capacity models. The maximum likelihood estimate for the parameter is
UC = 0.25 , leading to a total dispersion equal to Y2 + UC
2
= 0.42 2 + 0.25 2 = 0.49 .
The mean annual frequency of limit state exceedance is computed using the k and k0 pa-
rameters from the hazard linearization:
1.54
1 1 1.54 2
LS = 0.00167 0.92 exp 2
0.43 2 = 0.0176 (5.9)
3.47 2 0.92
The mean annual frequency accounting for capacity-models uncertainty is LS = 0.0192 .
The distribution of the critical failure mode over the thirty records pairs, for both cloud
and fragility analysis, is shown in Figure 5-40, white bars for cloud results and black bars
for the fragility results. The considered failure modes are 57, 3 9 = 27 single column
shear failures (left), 3 multi-column weak-storey failures (centre) and 27 single column
flexural failures (right). It can be seen that the prevalent failure modes for this structure
(fragility analysis) are shear failure (column C6, first and second floor), with some first
weak storey contribution.
1.5
T=100years
T=500years
T=1000years
1
Sa (g)
0.5 = a Sb
Y a
median Sa(Y=1) : 0.258g a : 3.47
b : 0.92
: 0.42
Y
0 -1 0 1
10 10 10
Y
Figure 5-38 Results of cloud analysis for the SPEAR building: results for records belonging to the
three groups are denoted by distinct markers.
4
: 0.25
UC,cloud
Probability Density Function 3
Prior
2 Posterior
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

UC
Figure 5-39 Closed-form evaluation of the mean annual frequency of collapse, cloud analysis: esti-
30 Weak
Shear modes Flexural modes
storey
Number of failures
modes
20
10
cloud (SF=1)
fragility (SF 1)
0
Figure 5-40 Histogram of the critical mode over the 30 records.
5.2.4 Discussion of results

The comparison between the results of the static and dynamic approach is in this case
considerably more involved, due to the more numerous factors in play. Actually, in addi-
tion to all the sources of difference identified with reference to the ICONS frame, there
is the fact that the static approach provides separate probabilities for the seismic excita-
tion acting along orthogonal directions. These probabilities cannot obviously be averaged
as done in the 2D case, rather they should be somehow combined to account for the si-
multaneous action of the two orthognonal components. Considering the above, as well as
other not mentioned differences, a drastically simplified way of comparing the results is
to look at the following two figures: LS ,statuc = 0.0046 and LS ,dyn = 0.0192 . In assessing
their four-fold difference one has to account that the latter risk value would be lowered,
similarly as for the ICONS case, by an adjustment in the global failure definition, and that
the former (the maximum values among those in the third row of Table 5-12) should be
taken as a lower bound since it does not account for the contribution from the orthogo-
nal direction.
6. APPLICATIONS TO STEEL STRUCTURES
6.1 2D STEEL MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES

The effect of uncertainty in building response, coupled with gaps in knowledge concern-
ing the behaviour of welded connections under seismic loading, was clearly demonstrated
following the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes in 1994 and 1995: many steel buildings,
designed to the latest, at that time, seismic codes, were found to have suffered excessive
connection damage. In Northridge, in particular, approximately 200 steel Moment Resist-
ing Frames (MRFs) were found to contain a large number of brittle fractures in their
welded beam-to-column connections [Ellingwood, 2001].
This section investigates the seismic performance and fragility definition of regular steel
buildings. First, assessment of a three-storey, four-bay frame is carried out accounting for
randomness in structural properties, as well as in ground motion characteristics. Fragility
curves are generated using the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation technique and performing
inelastic time history analyses on the sample buildings subjected to a suite of ground re-
cords. The records are scaled according to the spectral acceleration at the buildings fun-
damental elastic period. This part of the study aims to shed light on the effect that con-
nection fractures have on the buildings seismic response, and to explore the efficiency
and robustness of the fragility methodology used. The same methodology is then applied
to a mid-rise welded steel MRF designed to EC8; fragility curves determined following
the direct Monte Carlo procedure are also compared with those based on the 2000
SAC/FEMA method which has been proposed and developed by US researchers.
6.2 VALIDATION STRUCTURE

Prior to the Northridge earthquake, the typical connection used for earthquake resistant
design in the United States consisted of full penetration welds, connecting the beam
flanges to the column flange, and a shear plate bolted or welded to the beam web, which
was then welded to the column flange (Figure 6-1). Before its introduction in the con-
struction practice, this connection type was extensively tested (e.g. [Popov and Pinkney,
1969; Popov and Stephen, 1972]), and was found to have a satisfactory behaviour under
cyclic loading. It was one year prior to the Northridge earthquake, that a paper published
by Engelhardt and Husain [1993] raised concerns regarding the adequacy of this type of
connection for satisfying seismic design criteria. Subsequent studies, with realistically
sized and constructed connections, have revealed that pre-Northridge connections are
typically characterised by premature fractures at small plastic rotation values and a high
variability in response [Whittaker et al., 1998].
The structure under consideration is a three-storey steel building designed, as part of the
SAC steel project, by a U.S. consulting company. The building, designed to UBC [1994]
as an office building for the seismic zone of Los Angeles and stiff soil conditions, is con-
sidered being representative of the typical design practices applied in the US prior to the
Northridge earthquake. The building has a rectangular floor plan, consisting of four bays
at 9.14m in the North-South direction and six bays at 9.14m in the East-West direction.
The interstorey height is 3.96m. The system to resist seismic loads comprises four pe-
rimeter welded MRFs, two in each principal direction. The perimeter columns are fixed,
while the internal columns are pinned at their bases. A more detailed description of the
analysed structure can be found in Gupta and Krawinkler [1999].
Shear plate
Panel zone
Web cope
hole
Backing bar
Figure 6-1 Typical pre-Northridge connection
6.2.2 Structural modelling

In this study, for the sake of reducing the computational cost and since the building is
quite regular in plan and elevation, only half of the building is considered for analysis.
The MRF to be analysed, is one of the two in the North-South direction, as the gravity
beams are orientated along this direction, and has three bays, followed by a fourth bay
with its beams connected through pins to the MRF and to the external column. This ex-
ternal column is placed in a weak axis configuration. Two additional columns at the end
of the MRF are here added to account for the contribution to strength and stiffness of
half the buildings internal gravity frames. Further discussion on these fictitious columns
is given at the end of this section. Figure 6-2 depicts the 2-D model idealisation used
here, together with the beam and column section sizes.
The frame was assigned half the seismic mass of the whole structure. The latter was esti-
mated by Gupta and Krawinkler [1999] to be 1473t. Masses were lumped at the nodes,
whereas under the assumptions of a composite slab action, horizontal translation slaving
was used at each floor level. Additionally, a 2% Rayleigh damping [Clough and Penzien,
1975] was enforced at the actual first mode period and a reference period of 0.2s.
W24x68 W24x68 W24x68 W21x44 Rigid beam Rigid beam

W14x257
W14x311
W14x257
W14x311
W14x68
Dummy columns
Fixed dummy column : [ 2W14x68 + 2W14x257+ W14x311 ] weak axis

Pinned dummy column : 4.5W14x68 + 3W14x82
Figure 6-2 MRF and model idealisation for P- effects
Modelling of the 2-D frame is carried out using the computer code DRAIN-2DX [1993].
The distortion of the panel zones is neglected, as well as the shear deformations. Beam
elements are modelled to be elastic, having nonlinear springs at their ends. The contribu-
tion of the floor slab to beam strength and stiffness is neglected. In order to model plastic
behaviour and connection fracture, contrary to the modelling of beams having ductile
connections, which usually involves adding rigid plastic flexural springs at beam ends, a
special zero length fracture element was introduced. This element was developed by
Foutch and Shi [1997] and forms part of the DRAIN-2DX element library. It is essen-
tially a nonlinear spring having a hysteretic behaviour capable of capturing the connection
response prior to and following damage induced by weld fractures (see Figure 6-3). The
fracture spring is assigned a very high elastic stiffness and a strength which is equal to the
plastic moment of the bare steel beam section. The post-yield rotational stiffness of the
fracture element is set to 3% of the elastic flexural stiffness k of the beam (=0.03, see
Figure 5-3) [FEMA 355C, 2000], the latter being given by
6 EI
k= , (6.1)
L
where E is the Youngs modulus for steel, I is the beams moment of inertia and L is the
length of the beam. This assumption leads to approximately 3% strain hardening for
double curvature bending.
Figure 6-3 illustrates the main features of the fracture element. The response of the un-
damaged connection is depicted by a bilinear envelope, having its strength assigned to
beams plastic moment capacity Mp. The elastic stiffness, as discussed previously, is set a
high value, in order for the rotational spring to behave rigidly. The latter approximation
has no effect on the overall stiffness which is calculated based on the actual members of
the structure [Foutch and Yun, 2002]. Following fracture, the strength of the connection
drops to some percentage of Mp denoted as Mres . This drop in strength takes effect only
when the fractured flange is in tension and full strength is assumed when it is in compres-
sion. As seen in the figure, fractures are captured in both positive and negative bending.
The same level of strain hardening is maintained throughout the hysteresis, even after the
fracture event.
Moment
Mf +
Mp+ k
Mres+ k
f-
f+
Plastic Rotation
Mres-
Mp-
Mf -
Figure 6-3 Steel moment connection hysteresis model
Column elements are modelled as linear elements, having nonlinear flexural springs at
their ends (lumped plasticity elements). As in the case of beams having ductile connec-
tions, these nonlinear springs are rigid-plastic zero-length elements having a very high
initial stiffness when compared to the stiffness of the elastic part of the column element,
followed by a strain hardening branch. Additionally, the axial load-bending moment in-
teraction (P-M) is taken into account and modelled using a bilinear interaction diagram.
In accordance with Gupta and Krawinkler [1999], under strong axis bending, the col-
umns moment capacity is set equal to its plastic moment capacity, for axial loads less
than 15% of the axial load capacity of the column. By contrast, under weak axis bending,
the moment capacity is assumed to decrease linearly from its plastic value, for an axial
load larger than 40% of the axial capacity. Once more, 3% strain hardening is assumed.
Although member P- effects are ignored in this study, global P- effects are taken into
account. The latter are associated not only with the gravity loads acting directly on the
MRF, but also to those carried by the internal gravity frames and transferred to the MRF
through the rigid floor slab. Krawinkler and Al-Ali [1996] demonstrated that, in the case
of structures with potential fractured connections, the contribution of the gravity frames
to the building stiffness may become of major importance and should not be neglected.
Thus, in this study, global P- effects as well as the contribution of the internal gravity
frames are taken into account by introducing two dummy columns to the model (see
Figure 6-2). These columns are connected to the main frame at the floor levels through
rigid beams, pinned at their ends. The fictitious columns are assigned the lumped proper-
ties of half the buildings gravity frame columns. Any contribution to the strength and
stiffness due to shear connections is ignored.
6.2.3 Probabilistic modelling
6.2.3.1 Random Variables

Apart from the seismic input (see Section 6.2.4), the parameters that are treated here as
random are the yield strength of the steel sections, the fracture moment of the connec-
tions and the capacity of the structure expressed as interstorey or roof drift angle.
(a) Yield Strength
In accordance with FEMA 355C [2000], the mean yield strength for the A-36 steel beams
(fyb) is set to its expected value of 339MPa, and similarly, for the A-572 columns (fyc) to a
value of 397MPa. The fact that the actual mean value for the beam yield strength is sig-
nificantly higher than its nominal value (248MPa), as opposed to the columns where the
same value is only 15% higher than its nominal value, is expected to undermine, in some
cases, the strong column-weak beam requirement and result in column hinging under
strong earthquake motions [FEMA 355C, 2000]. In line with existing literature [Song and
Ellingwood, 1999; Wang and Wen, 2000], all yield strengths are assumed lognormally dis-
tributed with a CoV of 0.07 [JCSS, 2001]. In terms of spatial variability within the frame,
four independent and identically distributed (iid) random variables represent the four W
sections used in the beam members. The same idealisation has been adopted for the yield
strength variability of the column members.
(b) Fracture moment
The reliability of moment resisting frames under earthquake loading is highly dependent
on the seismic performance of their connections. For this reason, parameters that are
expected to be of considerable importance to a buildings structural response are the frac-
ture (Mf) and plastic (Mp) moments both of which are random. In the current study, the
ratio Mf /Mp is assumed to be described probabilistically through the two-parameter
Weibull distribution as proposed by Matos and Dodds [2001].
The distribution proposed by Matos and Dodds [2001] has been found to describe well
the experimental distribution of fracture moments pertaining to 15 pre-Northridge style
connections. The cumulative distribution function of the two-parameter Weibull distribu-
tion has the form:

M f /Mp
P f = 1 exp
, (6.2)

where is the normalised fracture moment at the 63.2% failure probability and is the
Weibull modulus, for which proposed values are 1 and 7.5, respectively.
By rearranging Eq. (6.2) it can be readily shown that for =1,
[ (
M f = M p ln 1 P f )]
1/
, (6.3)
where Mp = fybWpl, Wpl is the plastic section modulus, and Mp is randomised via the yield
strength fyb of the beams.
Thus, for a given realisation of Mf and considering the monotonic part of Figure 6-3,
there are two possible outcomes: the first corresponds to Mf /Mp >1 (see Figure 6-4, left)
and the second to Mf /Mp 1 (see Figure 6-4, right). These diagrams apply to potential
fractures only in cases of positive bending, i.e. fractures in the lower flange. Note that the
plastic fracture rotation f+ is randomised via Mf and Mp as may be deduced from geomet-
ric considerations. For negative bending, the plastic fracture rotation (f-) in this study is
set equal to a deterministic value of 0.045rad. This value refers to the joint plastic rotation
and has been used by Cornell and Luco [1999] in their so called T.B.F. base-case, where
connection fractures in both positive and negative bending were considered. This value is
sufficiently high to ensure that most connections fracture initially in the bottom flange.
With regard to the residual bending strength Mres, the ratio Mres /Mp is here assigned a de-
terministic value of 0.3 [Cornell and Luco, 1999] for both positive and negative bending,
even in cases of pre-yield fractures. Since Mp is a random variable, this assumption also
renders Mres a dependent random variable. It has to be noted that in the probabilistic
modelling all the connections in any one floor are assumed to be identically distributed
and fully correlated. This assumption, in conjunction with the fact that sections of the
same size are assumed to have the same yield strength, leads to the same plastic rotational
capacity (f+) for all the connections on the same floor. This is deemed to be a reasonable
conjecture given normal construction practice.
Moment Moment
Mf
Mp k
Mf
Mres k Mres k
f+ Plastic Rotation Plastic Rotation
Figure 6-4 Moment-Rotation diagram of a fractured connection (left) Mf /Mp >1 (right) Mf /Mp 1
(c) Drift limits
The definition of performance levels is an essential part in the derivation of fragility

curves. FEMA 356 [2000] specifies three performance levels, these being the Immediate
Occupancy (IO), the Life Safety (LS) and the Collapse Prevention (CP) and associates
with them interstorey drift angle limits of 0.7%, 2.5% and 5%, respectively. The intersto-
rey drift angle is defined as the maximum, over all storeys, interstorey drift normalised by
the storey height. These deterministic limits are believed to be appropriate for the per-
formance evaluation of pre-Northridge steel moment resisting frames [Maison and
Bonowitz, 1999].
The IO level corresponds to a damage state where the building is safe to occupy after the
earthquake, while the LS refers to a state in which significant damage was experienced by
the structure but the risk for life-threatening injuries to the occupants remains low. Fi-
nally, the CP state describes the situation where the structure is on the verge of partial or
total collapse under lateral loads, albeit still maintaining its ability to support gravity loads
[FEMA 356, 2000]. Several researchers (e.g. [Song and Ellingwood, 1999; Kang and Wen,
2000]) have adopted similar performance requirements. For example, Song and Elling-
wood [1999] used 0.5%, 1%, 2% and 5% for defining serviceability, first yielding, im-
paired function and incipient collapse performance levels, which are in broad agreement
with the FEMA levels.
In the current study, the FEMA 356 limits are adopted since the modelling of the con-
nections represents a pre-Northridge connection typology. Furthermore, the same per-
formance levels and drifts are also used when the roof drift angle is considered as the
damage measure. Here, the roof drift angle is defined as the maximum roof displacement
normalised by the building height. Although, both damage measures are used in this
study, it is believed that the interstorey drift angle is more advantageous, mainly due to
the fact that when estimating the roof drift angle the damage is averaged over the build-
ing height [Piluso et al., 2004].
However, the aforementioned limits are treated here probabilistically in order to account
for the epistemic uncertainties associated with the definition of the damage states. Thus,
the performance limits are assumed lognormally distributed, on account that the log-
normal distribution is widely accepted for capacity modelling within reliability analysis
[Wen et al., 2003]. Furthermore, these distributions are assigned mean values equal to the
values specified in FEMA 356 [2000] and a CoV of 10% based on engineering judge-
ment.
Table 6-1 summarises the properties of the basic random variables (mean, coefficient of
variation and type of distribution) used in this study.
Table 6-1 Properties of basic random variables
Random variable Mean CoV Type of distribution

fyb 339 MPa 7% lognormal
fyc 397 MPa 7% lognormal
IO drift angle limit* 0.7% 10% lognormal
LS drift angle limit* 2.5% 10% lognormal
CP drift angle limit* 5% 10% lognormal
Mf / Mp 0.94 16% Weibull
*Roof or interstorey
6.2.3.2 Deterministic parameters

For the purposes of the present study the remaining structural properties are treated de-
terministically. Accordingly, the steel Youngs modulus E is assumed equal to 200GPa
and the member dimensions are assigned their nominal values while the mass of the
structure is also set to its deterministic value. Furthermore, the damping of the structure
is assumed equal to 2% at the fundamental period and at a second reference period of
0.2s; the strain hardening is taken equal to 3%. Although the latter two parameters are
subject to a degree of uncertainty, they have herein been treated deterministically in view
of the limited published data.
6.2.3.3 Monte Carlo (MC) simulation

In this study MC simulation is used to generate the random variables described previ-
ously. Simulation methods have been widely applied in earthquake engineering to evaluate
the probabilistic structural demands. The procedure generally involves performance of a
large number of pushover or time history analyses, followed by a statistical analysis of the
structural responses [Wen et al., 2003]. Here, the inelastic time history analysis is used.
Following a convergence study all analyses are performed using a time step of 0.001s.
To improve the efficiency of the direct or crude MC the Latin Hypercube Sampling
(LHS) [Ayyub and McCuen, 1995] is adopted. For the purposes of investigating the ro-
bustness of the LHS method, a convergence study was carried out on the sample size. It
was found that for a specific ground record, 200 samples at any one of the considered
intensities, and using a Sa increment of 0.1g, provided sufficiently accurate fragility curves
for all three examined performance levels.
6.2.3.4 Reliability formulation

Seismic fragility FR(z) is a function that describes the conditional, on an intensity measure,
probability of exceeding a specified deterministic or random performance level. There-
fore,
FR ( z ) = P [G( X ) < 0 | IM = z ], (6.4)

where G(X) is the limit state function in terms of the random variable vector X and IM is
the intensity measure consistent with the specification of the seismic hazard. As men-
tioned previously, in this study IM=Sa with Sa being the spectral acceleration. In this
study the limit state functions associated to the considered performance levels are formu-
lated in terms of both interstorey and roof drift ratios.
When the response statistics are assessed through interstorey drifts, the building can be
treated as a system having all its components in series. Like all series systems, failure oc-
curring at any one of the components will result in system failure. Accordingly, the prob-
ability of the structural failure may be evaluated as
u
FR (z ) = P max max i DL PL | IM = z , (6.5)
i t h i
where 0 < t td and DLPL is the drift angle limit at a given performance level, td is the
duration of the ground motion, i is storey level, ui is the interstorey drift of the i th storey
and hi is the storey height. By setting
ui
max = max max , (6.6)
i
t
hi
and taking into account that the intensity measure used in this study is Sa, Eq. (6.5) can be
written in a more condensed form as
FR (z ) = P { max DL PL | S a = z }. (6.7)
6.2.4 Seismic input

In order to account for the variability in seismic input, twenty recorded accelerograms
were selected from the European Strong Motion Database at Imperial College [Am-
braseys et al., 2002], all of which form the common seismic scenario for the applications
of the LessLoss Sub-Project 9 [LessLoss-SP9, 2006] (see Apeendix A). All 20 ground mo-
tions pertain to stiff soil conditions and are a combination of large and distant, large and
close, moderate and close and intermediate records, in an attempt to capture a representa-
tive range of magnitudes and distances in the European region.
As it is impractical to select actual records that cover the whole range of the inelastic
structural response of interest, it is common to scale the selected ground motions with
respect to pre-selected intensity measures. The records in this study are scaled so as to
have the same 2% damped spectral acceleration at the fundamental elastic period of the
structure Sa (T1,2%).
Fragility curves are presented here for 11 ground motions. Records that required exces-
sive scaling at the maximum Sa of 2g considered in this study, were excluded. Some re-
cords were also excluded on the basis of the peak ground acceleration being larger than
2g in the high fragility range (FR=95% to 100%). The concomitant consideration of a

limit on peak ground acceleration while scaling to Sa, was found to reduce the record-to-
record dispersion, underlining that care should be taken so as not to violate basic physical
ground motion characteristics, while scaling to a structure-specific intensity measure.
6.2.5 Response analysis

Modal analysis results of the model, without considering stiffness reduction due to the
presence of gravity loads, are presented in Table 6-2. Since the mass is lumped at the
floor levels where horizontal translation slaving applies, and assumed to act only in the
horizontal direction, the number of degrees of freedom for the modal analysis equals the
number of floors of the building.
Table 6-2 Elastic periods of vibration and mass participation factors
Mode 1 2 3
T (s) 0.985 0.297 0.141
Mass participation (%) 81.85 14.58 3.57
Following the modal analysis, a nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is performed in order
to identify general response characteristics of the structural system. Figure 6-5 illustrates
the behaviour of the frame with yield strengths set to their mean value, and fully ductile
(bilinear, 3% strain hardening) connections. The applied lateral forces are invariant and
proportional to the fundamental mode displacement shape weighted by the storey
masses.
0.5
IO LS CP
0.45
0.4
Normalised Base Shear (V/W)
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Roof Drift Angle
Figure 6-5 Pushover curve
The pushover analysis on the building idealisation having fully ductile connections re-
vealed that the FEMA 356 limits are reasonable indicators for the three performance lev-
els considered.
6.2.6 Fragility Assessment

Fragility curves are presented in this section based on a series of nonlinear time history
analyses at different intensities of earthquake excitation. The whole procedure can be
summarised in three basic steps. The first step involves the generation of the 200 sample
buildings through MC simulation using the LHS technique. The second step comprises
the nonlinear analyses of these samples subjected to eleven different records which are
scaled to Sa(T1,2%) within the 0.1g2g range in increments of 0.1g. The final step involves
post-processing and statistical analysis of the results in order to calculate the failure prob-
abilities, at each intensity level, from the structural responses. The results obtained from a
total of 44,000 (11x200x20) analyses are discussed with respect to the three FEMA-
defined performance levels and two damage measures, namely the interstorey and the
roof drift angle. It should be noted that a limited number of analyses failed due to nu-
merical or dynamic instabilities (run-outs), for high levels of spectral acceleration, and are
treated here as failures.
6.2.6.1 Interstorey drift angle limit state

Figure 6-6 shows CP (Collapse prevention) related fragility curves for the selected ground
motions considered in this study. Each curve is conditioned on a particular accelerogram,
and accounts for variability in beam and column yield strength, connection fracture char-
acteristics and modelling uncertainty in capacity drift limits. The median fragility curve is
also shown in the figure. As expected, the effect of record-to-record variability on fragility
estimation is very significant.
Figure 6-7 depicts the fragility curves pertaining to LS (Life Safety) performance level
together with the associated median curve. It can be seen that the record-to-record vari-
ability of the fragility curves becomes less pronounced compared to the variability ob-
served in the CP performance level. Furthermore, as can be inferred by contrasting the
shape of both individual record and median curves at the two performance levels (CP and
LS), the standard deviation of the fragility is smaller at LS than at CP level. This observa-
tion is further supported when considering the IO (Immediate Occupancy) performance
level whose corresponding fragility curve is presented in Figure 6-8. It can be seen that
nearly all fragility curves at this level are characterised by an almost step-response, reveal-
ing a high sensitivity to small changes in seismic demand, which for this building occurs
in the region of 0.1g0.3g. The almost deterministic response to different ground records
shown in Figure 6-8 is due to the fact that, as shown by the pushover curve, at these in-
tensity/response levels the structure is on average practically elastic and most of the con-
sidered uncertain parameters do not enter into play; further, and most importantly, for a
first-mode dominated structure, as the one under consideration, oscillating essentially
within the elastic range, all records scaled to the same Sa(T1) value yield almost identical
responses.
(a) 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
P (max DLCP )
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Sa (T1, 2%) [g]
Figure 6-6 Fragility curves for interstorey drift angle obtained at CP performance level.
(b) 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
P (max DLLS )
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Sa (T1, 2%) [g]
Figure 6-7 Fragility curves for interstorey drift angle obtained at LS performance level.
a ( 1, ) [g]
(c) 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Montenegro - 196
Montenegro - 197
P (max DLIO )
0.6
Montenegro - 202
Valnerina - 244
0.5
Campano Lucano - 291
0.4
Preveza - 336
Erzincan - 536
0.3
South Aegean - 584
Umbria Marche - 595
0.2 South Iceland - 6264
Median
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Sa (T1, 2%) [g]
Figure 6-8 Fragility curves for interstorey drift angle obtained at IO performance level.
6.2.6.2 Roof drift angle limit state

In addition to the results obtained using the interstorey drift angle as a controlling re-
sponse parameter, fragility curves are presented here in terms of the roof drift angle.
Similar trends regarding the fragility dispersion were observed for the IO, LS and CP per-
formance levels. By way of comparison, Figure 6-9 depicts the roof drift angle median
curves together with their interstorey drift angle counterparts.
As evidenced in Figure 6-9, when considering roof drift as a response measure, lower
failure probabilities are obtained, for the same performance levels, compared to the case
where damage is evaluated through the interstorey drift. Such a trend has been also re-
ported elsewhere [Song and Ellingwood, 1999]. The higher failure probabilities when us-
ing interstorey drift angle are related to the generally higher interstorey, as opposed to
roof drift, values. With reference to this, it can be said that even for structures being first
mode dominated in the elastic range, such as the one analysed here, the roof drift under-
estimates the structural damage. This may become more critical in cases where storey
drifts are dominated by higher modes, as for tall and slender structures, or in cases where
the energy content of the ground motion is large at high frequencies.
0.9
0.8
0.7
P (Drift angle DLPL )
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 Median IO (Roof drift)

Median LS (Roof drift)
0.2 Median CP (Roof drift)
Median IO (Interstorey drift)
0.1 Median LS (Interstorey drift)
Median CP (Interstorey drift)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Sa (T1, 2%) [g]
Figure 6-9 Median curves derived for roof and interstorey drift angle damage measures
6.3 MID-RISE MRF DESIGNED TO EC8

As a next step, the methodology presented above is applied to a mid-rise welded steel
MRF, designed to EC8. This application aims to assess the reliability of a population of
EC8-designed mid-rise buildings, modelled with fully ductile connections (the possibility
of connection fracture, assuming European design and construction practice, forms part
of ongoing investigations).

The 2-bay, 5-storey frame considered was designed by Fragiacomo et al. [2004] using the
provisions of EC3 [1993] for steel structures and those of EC8 [2002] for seismic design.
As shown in Figure 6-10, the frame consists of two 6m bays, while the interstorey height
is 3.5m, except for the ground floor where it is 4m. All beams and columns were assumed
to be made of Fe360 (nominal yield stress 235MPa) European steel profiles. The frame
was designed to be of a high ductility class (implying a behaviour factor q, or a force re-
duction factor R, of 6). The total seismic force was evaluated by means of the EC8 design
spectrum for soil type B, whereas the design (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
peak ground acceleration ag was taken equal to 0.35g, resulting in a design base shear of
147.7 kN. Additionally, the serviceability limit state was also checked according to EC8
provisions(for the verification of this limit state the interstorey drift angle limit was taken
equal to 0.006 rad and the value of the reduction factor was taken equal to 0.4).
The width of the tributary area supported by the MRF at each floor level is taken equal to
6m. The storey masses are equal to 30.16t and 37.43t for the roof and the remaining
floors, respectively. The masses are assigned at the beam-column intersections with hori-
zontal translation slaving applied at the nodes of the same floor level and assumed to act
solely in the horizontal direction (vertical and rotational mass is ignored). Gravity loads
are applied as point loads at the nodes, ranging from 61.20kN at the internal nodes and
30.60kN at the external nodes in all but the roof level, where the corresponding forces
are 49.31kN and 24.65kN, respectively.
IPE 360 IPE 360
IPE 360 IPE 360
IPE 400 IPE 400
IPE 400 IPE 400
IPE 400 IPE 400
HEB 260
HEB 260
HEB 320
Figure 6-10 Analytical model for the mid-rise MRF
6.3.2 Structural modelling

For the nonlinear time-history analyses, Rayleigh damping of 5% is assigned at the first
two modes of vibration. The value of 5% damping is a reference value in EC8 and also
complies with the recommendations of Patton [1985] for inelastically responding welded
steel structures.
Shear deformations are taken into account, with the shear area of the cross sections esti-
mated according to the provisions of EC3 [2005]. For the bilinear non-degrading hystere-
sis model used in beams and columns at the location of plastic hinges, a constant strain
hardening of 3% is assumed. Fractures in the beam to column connections are not con-
sidered (fully ductile connections). The axial load-bending moment interaction (P-M), is
accounted for using the EC3 [2005] interaction equations for standard rolled I or H sec-
tions. The columns are assumed fixed at their bases. Additionally, the distortion of the
panel zones as well as the contribution of the floor slab to the beam strength and stiff-
ness are ignored.
Following a convergence study, all structural members, modelled as lumped plasticity

beam-columns, were discretised using three elements per member, hence accounting for
potential plastification at points other than the member ends, mainly encountered within
the beams. For the columns, this refinement results also in the approximate inclusion of
the effect of axial force on the internal forces of the deformed member, the so called P-
effect, even in cases where the computer software (such as the DRAIN-2DX) accounts
exclusively for the P- effect based on the geometric stiffness of a truss bar element (see
e.g. [Filippou and Fenves, 2004]).
6.3.3 Probabilistic modelling
6.3.3.1 Random variables

The parameters that are treated as random variables, apart from the seismic input, are the
yield strength of the steel sections and the structural capacity expressed in terms of in-
terstorey drifts.
(a) Yield Strength
For each of the IPE and HEB sections used in the frame of Figure 6-10, the yield
strength is assumed to be independent and identically distributed. Thus, there are four
random variables to represent yield strength variability in beams and columns. As in the
case of the three-storey building all yield strengths are assumed lognormally distributed
with a CoV of 7% [JCSS, 2001]. The mean yield strength of the Fe360 steel used in all
sections is set to 280MPa [JCSS, 2001; Melcher et al., 2004]. The latter value is based on
standard mill tests, and since the structural system is subjected to dynamic forces it was
not reduced to a quasi-static yield strength. This is quite a conservative approach, since by
simply adopting the yield strength as obtained from the mill tests the increase in the yield
strength due to dynamic load effects is not fully taken into account. However, it has to be
noted that the exact strain rate that a steel member experiences under earthquake loading
is highly uncertain [Wen et al., 2004].
(b) Drift limits
As in the case of the three-storey building, the three performance levels specified in
FEMA 356 [2000] are adopted. For these levels, the corresponding drift limits are ran-
domised assuming them to be lognormally distributed, having their mean values set to the
values specified by FEMA 356 and a CoV of 10%, based on engineering judgement.
6.3.3.2 Deterministic parameters

For the purposes of the present study the remaining structural properties are assigned
deterministic values. Among others, the Youngs modulus E is set to a value of 210GPa,
the Poissons ratio to a value of 0.3, the damping as previously mentioned at 5% for the
first two modes of vibration and the strain hardening at 3%. Moreover, all structural di-
mensions as well as the mass of the structure are assigned deterministic values.
6.3.4 Seismic input

The ground motions used form part of the common seismic scenario for the applications
of the LessLoss Sub-Project 9 [LessLoss-SP9, 2006] and were scaled according to the 5%
damped spectral acceleration at the buildings elastic fundamental period Sa(T1,5%).
6.3.5 Response analysis

The elastic periods of vibration of the frame, as obtained from the eigenvalue analysis,
together with the mass participation factors are presented in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3 Elastic periods of vibration and mass participation factors.
Mode 1 2 3 4 5
T (s) 1.247 0.411 0.228 0.152 0.118
Mass participation (%) 85.33 9.98 3.32 1.11 0.26
Before proceeding with the dynamic analyses, in order to gain some insight regarding the
capacity and the collapse behaviour of the building pushover analyses on the mean
frame are performed. The term mean frame refers to a frame with yield strengths set to
their mean value. These deterministic pushover analyses are performed using an invariant
load pattern based on the fundamental mode displacement vector weighted by the storey
masses.
For these analyses, the strain hardening ratio is taken to vary between 0% and 3% (the
latter being the value used for fragility analysis). The results are shown in Figure 6-11 to-
gether with the three FEMA 356 limits. For each pushover, the strain hardening ratio is
constant across all sections. Figure 6-11 confirms that strain hardening is an important
parameter since it significantly influences the post-yield slope of the pushover curve. For
the 0% and 1% models a negative slope is attained at relatively small drifts as a result of
P- effects counteracting the material strain hardening.
As can be seen from Figure 6-11, FEMA 356 limits for the IO and LS performance levels
compare reasonably well with the simulated response of the building with 3% strain hard-
ening. It is apparent that the pushover curve deviates from linearity at a roof drift angle
which is close to the 0.7% interstorey drift angle limit specified by FEMA 356 for the IO
performance level. In addition, the FEMA 356 LS performance level, associated with a
2.5% drift angle, corresponds at a point on the pushover curve where the post-yield stiff-
ness is low enough to presume that the structure has sustained significant damage, suffi-
cient to undermine the life safety of its occupants. Regarding the CP performance level,
paired with a drift angle of 5%, it is evident that the analysed frame with 3% strain hard-
ening could withstand higher drifts. However, to account for the likely variability in strain
hardening, which is not explicitly considered, it was decided to retain the 5% limit for the
CP performance level. This also provides consistency with the limiting values adopted
earlier for the US low-rise building.
0.4
IO LS CP
0.35
0.3
Normalised Base Shear (V/W)
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
strain hardening 3%
strain hardening 2%
0.05
strain hardening 1%
strain hardening 0%
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Roof Drift Angle
Figure 6-11 Sensitivity of pushover curve to strain hardening
6.3.6 Fragility assessment

The probabilistic methodology used in the derivation of the fragility curves is identical to
the one adopted in the reliability assessment of the low-rise welded steel MRF. As before,
convergence studies revealed that the use of the MC simulation in conjunction with the
LHS technique can yield satisfactory results for a sample size of 200 building idealisations
and a step increment of 0.1g for the Sa(T1,5%).
(a) 1
0.9
0.8
P (max DLCP ) 0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Sa (T1, 5%) [g]
(b) 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
P (max DLLS )
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Sa (T1, 5%) [g]
(c) 1
0.9 Friuli - 120

Friuli - 123
0.8 Montenegro - 196
Montenegro - 197
0.7 Montenegro - 202
Dursunbey - 239
Valnerina - 244
P (max DLIO )
0.6
0.5
Campano Lucano - 295(Y)
Preveza - 336
0.4
Erzincan - 536
Erzincan - 536(Y)
0.3
South Aegean - 584
Umbria Marche - 595
0.2
Umbria Marche - 595(Y)
South Iceland - 6264
0.1 Median
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Sa (T1, 5%) [g]
Figure 6-12 Fragility curves for interstorey drift angle obtained at (a) CP (10 records), (b) LS (13 re-
cords), and (c) IO (17 records) performance levels
The fragility curves presented in Figure 6-12 are obtained using the interstorey drift angle
as a damage measure. A different number of curves are presented at each of the per-
formance level (10 for the CP, 13 for the LS and 17 for the IO), since several records
were excluded from further consideration, on the basis of having scaling factors in excess
of 50 at the Sa range of interest (and not at the maximum Sa of 2g considered in the pre-
vious study) or the resultant peak ground acceleration being greater than 2g in the high
(95-100%) failure probability range. In this study the aforementioned
criteria are being checked separately for each performance level. The earthquake records
in Figure 6-12 indicated with a Y referred to the Y component of the ground motions.
The fragility curve trends are similar to those reported with reference to the SAC three-
storey steel building: as before the effect of record-to-record variability increases with
increasing nonlinearity in the response. Comparison of the curves shown in Figure 6-6 to
6-8 and Figure 6-12 at corresponding performance levels indicates that the absence of
connection fracture modelling in the mid-rise building results in less variable fragility
curves than is the case for the low-rise building.
6.3.7 Closed-form fragility formulation

The fragility formulation described so far is based on a systematic evaluation of failure
probabilities (defined for different performance levels) conditional on intensity, through
nonlinear time-history analyses performed using incrementally scaled ground motion re-
cords. The methodology accounts explicitly for randomness in structural capacity due to
uncertainty in frame material and connection properties (and can readily incorporate dif-
ferent idealisations for spatial variability in capacity characteristics), whereas the uncer-
tainty in seismic demand, at any given level of intensity, is catered through the analysis of
a set of ground motion records from a large database. It is conceptually simple though
computationally demanding, especially if the structural model were to be refined and ex-
tended into 3D analysis.
The problem may be treated by implementing an alternative, computationally less de-

manding, fragility methodology, following the principles of the 2000 SAC/FEMA
method [Cornell et al., 2002]. This methodology is based on the assumption that the
structural fragility can be represented by a lognormal distribution, and that the non-linear
analyses required to estimate the structural demand at any given level of intensity can be
performed on a deterministic structural model, thus neglecting the effect of the uncer-
tainty associated with frame properties. A concise presentation of the main steps of the
method can be found in [Pinto et al., 2004].
As a first step, an approximate relationship is sought between ground motion intensity,

Sa, and the associated demand imposed on the structure, D. Cornell et al. [2002] suggested
that structural demand may be predicted by a simple power function of the form
D = a(S a ) b , (6.8)
where is a lognormal random variable with unit median and a logarithmic standard de-
viation ln. The constants a and b and the standard deviation associated with the scatter,
ln, can be determined from a linear regression analysis (of ln(D) on ln(Sa)) on the re-
sponses obtained from time-history analyses using an ensemble of ground motions, either
natural or synthetic. The ground motions are to be selected in such a way that different
levels of inelasticity are induced in the investigated structural system; furthermore, they
should, where possible, bracket the range of intensities expected to contribute to the fail-
ure probability associated with any given hazard level.
As far as steel structures are concerned, it has been further established that suitable indi-
cators for ground motion intensity and structural demand are, respectively, the spectral
acceleration Sa(T1), and the maximum interstorey drift angle max. Cornell et al. [2002] sug-
gest that for steel frames with moderate periods a value of b close to unity can be consid-
ered as an appropriate default value, this also being consistent with the equal displace-
ment rule. Thus, the cumulative distribution function for the demand, expressed via the
interstorey drift, conditioned on spectral acceleration, can be written as
ln( d ) - ln(max
D
) ln( d ) - ln( aS ab )
FD ( d ) = P ( D d S a = z ) = = , (6.9)

where = ln.
Assuming now that the structural capacity, C, (expressed in terms of interstorey drift) can
also be taken as lognormally distributed, the fragility distribution, conditioned on the cho-
sen intensity measure, may be computed as
ln(max
C
) - ln(max
D
)
P (C D S a = z ) = , (6.10)
T
where,
T = D2 + C2 . (6.11)
In the above expression, the total uncertainty in demand and in capacity is accounted for.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that both aleatoric and epistemic components may be
included by introducing a further term U [Cornell et al., 2002, Kinali and Ellingwood,
2006], in which case the fragility represents a mean fragility in a Bayesian sense [Wen et
al., 2004].
Figure 6-13 illustrates the seismic demands at increasing intensity levels, as obtained from
MC simulations performed on the mid-rise MRF, using 9 earthquake records. These re-
cords are those complying with scaling and pga (< 2g) limitations in the whole Sa range
examined. The data at each intensity level is a result of 1800 (200x9) nonlinear time his-
tory analyses. The observed variability in the structural responses is related partly to the
ground motion characteristics and partly to the randomness attributed to the yield
strengths of the various members.
Figure 6-13 Interstorey drift angle vs Sa
Performing a regression analysis on the data presented in Figure 6-13 the relation be-
tween the interstorey drift angle max and Sa is obtained, of the form described in Eq. (6.8).
Thus, analysis of the response data yields
max = 0.0345( S a )0.96 . (6.12)

The exponent in Eq. (6.12) is close to the unit value suggested by Cornell et al. [2002].
The standard errors ln as determined from the linear regression of ln(max) on ln(Sa) are
summarised in Table 6-4. Estimates of the dispersion ln are provided both for the whole
range of Sa as well as individually for the twenty considered seismic intensities; when con-
sidering the whole range of Sa from 0 to 2g the ln is 0.244. Note that the regression
analysis on the data obtained having the structural system with randomised material
properties subjected on a suite of ground records, yields dispersion estimates which ac-
count for aleatoric uncertainties both due to the seismic variability (as in the 2000
SAC/FEMA method) and due to randomness in the material properties.
Consideration of a single standard error value for the whole Sa range, in conjunction with
a further component reflecting the uncertainties involved in the definition of damage
states (CoV 10%), and using Eq. (6.10) together with the median capacity at any one of
the three considered performance levels, results in the fragility curves of Figure 6-14. For
comparison purposes, the fragility curves obtained using the closed-form fragility formu-
lation are plotted together with the mean curves estimated from the direct fragility meth-
odology, using the same nine earthquake records. As can be seen, the fragilities obtained
from Eq. (6.10) compare well with the mean fragility curves based on the direct MC pro-
cedure.
Table 6-4 ln estimates at various intensity levels.
S a (g ) ln S a (g ) ln S a (g ) ln S a (g ) ln
0.1 0.049 0.6 0.158 1.1 0.310 1.6 0.292
0.2 0.058 0.7 0.201 1.2 0.305 1.7 0.287
0.3 0.060 0.8 0.246 1.3 0.303 1.8 0.285
0.4 0.086 0.9 0.278 1.4 0.301 1.9 0.285
0.5 0.115 1.0 0.300 1.5 0.297 2.0 0.287
These results further support two of the fundamental assumptions involved in the
SAC/FEMA 2000 methodology: (i) the fragility is well represented by a lognormal dis-
tribution and (ii) a single standard error value may be used for the uncertainty in the
seismic demand, at least for a regular mid-rise steel frame with fully ductile connections.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
P (max DLPL )
0.5
0.4
direct mean CP
0.3 Eq.(6.10) CP
direct mean LS
Eq.(6.10) LS
0.2 direct mean IO
Eq.(6.10) IO
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Sa (T1, 5%) [g]
Figure 6-14 Fragility curves at CP, LS and IO obtained from comparative studies
REFERENCES
Baker J.W., Cornell C.A. (2005) Vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of
spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(10),
1193-1217.
Baker J.W., Cornell C.A. (2007) Vector-valued intensity measures incorporating spectral shape for
prediction of structural response. Jnl Earthquake Engineering (in press).
Bertero, V.V., Popov, E.P., Krawinkler, H. (1972), Beam-Column subassemblages under repeated
loading, Journal of Structural Division, 98 (ST5), 1137-1159.
Bommer J.J. (2002), Deterministic vs probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: an exaggerated and
obstructive dichotomy. Jnl Earthq. Eng., 6,Special Issue 1:4374.
Box, G.E.P., Tiao, G.C. (1992) Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis Wiley Classics Library,
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Carvalho E.C., Coelho E. (Editors) (2001). Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of struc-
tures, ECOEST2-ICONS Report No.2, European Commission Training and Mobility of
Researchers Programme.
Carvalho E.C., et al. (1999). Preparation of the Full-scale Tests on Reinforcement Concrete
Frames Definition of the Specimens, Loads and Testing Conditions ICONS Topic 2,
LNEC Report 1999.
Castro, J.M., Elghazouli, A.Y., Izzuddin, B.A. (2004), Modeling of the panel zone in steel and
composite moment frames, Engineering Structures, 27 (1), 129-144.
Chryssanthopoulos, M.K., Manzocchi, G.M.E., Elnashai, A.S. (1999), Probabilistic assessment of

ductility for earthquake resistant design of steel members, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 52 (1), 47-68.
Coelho E. (1999). Full-scale test on RC frame within Topic 2 of ICONS: The materials character-
istics, LNEC, May 1999.
Colombo, A., Negro, P. (2005), A damage index of generalised applicability, Engineering Struc-
tures, 27 (8), 1164-1174.
Cornell C.A. (1968), Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 58:15831606.
Cornell C.A., Jalayar F., Hamburger R.O., Foutch D.A. (2002), Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC
Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering 2002; 128(4): 526-533.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G. (2000), Damage indices and damage measures, Progress in Structural
Engineering and Materials, 2 (1), 50-59.
Canadian Standard Association (CSA) (1989), Steel structures for buildings-limit states design,
CSA S16.1-M89, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Daali, M.L., Korol, R.M. (1995), Prediction of local buckling and rotation capacity at maximum
moment, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 32 (1), 1-13.
Daali, M.L., Korol, R.M. (1996), Adequate ductility in steel beams under earthquake-type loading,
Engineering Structures, 18 (2), 179-189.
Dawe J.L., Seah C.K. (1988). Lateral load resistance of masonry panels in flexible steel frames,
Proceedings of the Eighth International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Trinity Col-
lege, Dublin, Ireland.
Ditlevsen O., Madsen H.O. (1996) Structural Reliability Methods John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Dolek M., Fajfar P. (2001). Soft storey effects in uniformly infilled reinforced concrete frames,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering; 5(1):1-12.
Dolek M., Fajfar P. (2004a), IN2 - a simple alternative for IDA. Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 3353.
Dolek M., Fajfar P. (2004b), Inelastic spectra for infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 33(15), 1395-1416.
Dolek M., Fajfar P. (2005), Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete
frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(1) 49-66.
Engelhardt, M.D., Sabol, T.A. (1997), Seismic-resistant steel moment connections: developments
since the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 1
(1).
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2003), Eurocode 8: Design Provision for
Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings. EN
1998:2004 E.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2003). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance. Part 3: Strengthening and repair of buildings (pre Stage 49). July 2003.
Brussels.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance. Part 3: Strengthening and repair of buildings, March 2005, Brussels.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005b), Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures,
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, EN1993-1-1.
Fajfar P, Dolek M, Marui D, Stratan A (2006). Pre- and post-test mathematical modelling of a
plan-asymmetric reinforced concrete frame building, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2006, 35:1359-1379.
Fajfar P. (2000), A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake
Spectra 16(3), 573-592.
Fajfar P., Gaperi, P. (1996), The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 25, 23-67.
Fajfar P., Marui D., Peru I. (2005a), Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of
buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9(6), 831-854.
Fajfar P., Marui D., Peru I. (2005b), The extension of the N2 method to asymmetric buildings,
Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and com-
plex structures, Thessaloniki, Greece, August 2005.
Fajfar P., Peru, I. (1997), A non-parametric approach to attenuation relations, Journal of Earth-
quake Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 319-340.
Fardis M. N. (ed.) (1996). Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic response of
RC infilled frames and recommendations for code provisions, ECOEST/PREC 8, Rep. No.
6, LNEC, Lisbon.
Fardis M.N. (2002). Design of an Irregular Building for the SPEAR Project Description of the 3
Storey Structure, University of Patras.
Fardis, M. N. (2005), Personal communication.
Fardis M. N., Biskins D. E. (2003). Deformation capacity of RC members, as controlled by flexure

or shear, Performance-based engineering for earthquake resistant reinforced concrete struc-
tures, A volume honoring Shunsuke Otani, T.Kabeyasawa and H.Shiohara, eds., University
of Tokyo, 511-530.
FEMA (1995), Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Welded Steel
Moment Frame Structures, Rep No FEMA-267 SAC 95-02, SAC Joint Venture, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA (1997) NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Rep No FEMA-273,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA (2000a). Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment frame buildings.
Rep. No. FEMA-350, SAC Joint Venture, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wash-
ington, DC.
FEMA (2000b), Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Rep.
No. FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC), 2000.
Fdration internationale du bton fib (2003), Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced
concrete buildings, State-of-the-art report prepared by Task Group 7.1, Bulletin 24.
Filippou, F.C. and Fenves, G.L. (2004) Methods of analysis for earthquake-resistant structures, in
Earthquake Engineeering: from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering,
ed. Bozorgnia, Y., Bertero, V., CRC Press.
Foutch, D.A., Shi, S. (1996), Connection element (type 10) for DRAIN-2DX, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
Foutch, D.A., Yun, S.-Y. (2002), Modeling of steel moment frames for seismic loads, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 58 (5-8), 529-564.
Ghobarah, A., Abou-Elfath, H., Biddah, A. (1999), Response-based damage assessment of

structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28 (1), 79-104.
Gioncu, V. (2000), Framed structures. Ductility and seismic response, General report, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 55 (1-3), 125-154.
Gioncu, V., Mazzolani, F.M. (2002), Ductility of seismic resistant steel structures, Spon Press,
London.
Gioncu, V., Petcu, D. (1997), Availiable rotation capacity of wide-flange beams and beam-
columns, Part 1. Theoretical Approaches, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 43 (1-3),
161-217.
Grabec I., Sachse W. (1997), Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control, Springer-
Verlag.
Grecea, D., Dinu, F., Dubina, D., (2004) Performance criteria for MR steel frames in seismic
zones Journal of Constructional Steel Research ,60 (3-5), 739-749.
Gupta, A., Krawinkler, H. (2000), Behaviour of ductile SMRFs at various seismic hazard levels,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 126 (1), 98-107.
Hamburger, R.O., Nazir, N.A. (2003), Seismic design of steel structures, Earthquake Engineering
Handbook, Edited by W.F. Chen and C. Scawthorn, CRC Press, USA.
Iervolino I., Cornell C.A. (2005) Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures
Earthquake Spectra, 21 (3):685713.
Jalayer F., Cornell C.A. (2003) A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity
factor design (DCFD) seismic formats Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center Report
2003/08.
Jalayer F., Cornell C.A. (2006) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-
based seismic assessments Part I: wide range methods Earthquake Spectra, submitted.
Jalayer F., Cornell C.A. (2006) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-
based seismic assessments Part II: reducing the analysis effort Earthquake Spectra, submit-
ted.
Joh, C., Chen, W.-F. (1999), Fracture strength of welded flange-bolted web connections, Journal
of Structural Engineering, 125 (5), 565-571.
Kato, B. (1989), Rotation capacity of H-section members as determined by local buckling, Jour-
nal of Constructional Steel Research, 13 (2-3), 95-109.
Kim, K.D., Engelhardt, M.D. (2002), Monotonic and cyclic loading models for panel zones in
steel moment frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58 (5-8), 605-635.
Kowalsky, M.J., Priestely, M.J.N. (2000), Improved analytical model for shear strength of circular
reinforced concrete columns in seismic regions ACI Struct. Jnl, 97(3), 388-396
Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V.V., Popov (1975), E.P., Shear behaviour of steel frame joints, Journal
of Structural Division 101 (ST11), 2317-2335.
Kuhlmann, U. (1989), Definition of flange slenderness limits on the basis of rotation capacity
values, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 14 (1), 21-40.
Kunnath, S.K. (1995), Enhancements to program IDARC : Modelling inelastic behaviour of

welded connections in steel moment-resisting frames, NIST GCR 95-673, National Institute
of Standards and Technology.
Leon, R.T., Hajjar, J.F., Gustafson, M.A. (1998), Seismic response of composite moment-resisting
connections. I: Performance, Journal of Structural Engineering, 124 (8), 868-876.
LessLoss-SP8 (2005) Proposals for acceptable deformations of RC members at different perform-

ance levels and for overall partial safety factors of member deformation capacity under uni-
directional loading Technical Report n 58, LessLoss Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and
Landslides. Integrated project GOCE-CT-2003-505488 URL:http://www.lessloss.org
LessLoss-SP8 (2006) Acceptable deformations of RC members at different performance levels

under bi-directional loading Technical Report n 64, LessLoss Risk Mitigation for Earth-
quakes and Landslides. Integrated project GOCE-CT-2003-505488
URL:http://www.lessloss.org
LessLoss-SP9 (2005) Extension of the N2 Method to probabilistic assessment of 3D structures

Technical Report n 76, LessLoss Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides. Inte-
grated project GOCE-CT-2003-505488 URL:http://www.lessloss.org
LessLoss-SP9 (2006) Applications of probabilistic seismic assessment methods to selected case

studies Technical Report n 78, LessLoss Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides.
Integrated project GOCE-CT-2003-505488 URL:http://www.lessloss.org
Luco, N, Cornell, A. (2000), Effects of connection fractures on SMRF seismic drift demands,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 126 (1), 127-136.
Luco, N, Cornell, A. (2006), Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordi-
nary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra, submitted.
Luco, N., Manuel, L., Baldava, S., Bazzuro, P. (2005), Correlation of damage of steel moment-
resisting frames to a vector-valued set of ground motion parameters, Proceedings ICOS-
SAR.
Marino, E.M., Nakashima, M., Mosalam, K.M. (2005), Comparison of European and Japanese
seismic design of steel building structures, Engineering Structures ,27 (6), 827-840.
Matos, C.G., Dodds Jr., R.H. (2001), Probabilistic modeling of weld fracture in steel frame con-
nections, part I: quasi-static loading, Engineering Structures, 23 (8), 1011-1030.
Matos, C.G., Dodds Jr., R.H. (2002), Probabilistic modeling of weld fracture in steel frame con-
nections, part II: seismic loading, Engineering Structures, 24 (6), 687-705.
Mazzolani, F.M., Piluso, V. (1997), Plastic design of seismic resistant steel frames Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26 (2), 167-191.
Miner, M.A. (1945), Cumulative damage in fatigue, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 12 (3), 159-
164.
Moehle J. (2003), Collapse assessment of reinforced concrete structures, Performance-based engi-

neering for earthquake resistant reinforced concrete structures, A volume honoring Shunsuke
Otani, T.Kabeyasawa and H.Shiohara, eds., University of Tokyo, 483-498.
Negro P., Mola E., Molina F.J., Magonette G.E. (2004). Full-scale testing of a torsionally unbal-
anced three-storey non-seismic RC frame. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper 968.
NZS (1984) New Zealand Standards NZS 4203, Standards Association of New Zealand, New
Zealand.
NZSEE (2005). Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in

Earthquakes, Study Group Draft, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, New
Zealand.
Panagiotakos, T., Fardis, M.N. (2001). Deformation of R.C. members at yielding and ultimate. ACI
Struct. Jnl, 98(2):135-148.
Park, Y.J., Ang, A.M.S. (1985), Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model of Reinforced Concrete, J. of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 111( 4), 722-739.
Park, Y.J., Ang, A.H.S., Wen, Y.K. (1985), Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete build-
ings, Journal of Structural Engineering, 111 (4), 740-757.
Paulay T., Priestley M.J.N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
J.Wiley, New York, N.Y.
PEER (1999). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), Pacific Earth-
quake Eng. Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/
Peru I., Fajfar P., Grabec I. (1994), Prediction of the seismic capacity of RC structural walls by
non-parametric multidimensional regression, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 23, 1139-1155.
Peru I., Poljanek K., Fajfar P. (2006). Flexural deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns
determined by the CAE method, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 35(12),
1453-1470.
Plumier, A. (2000), General report on local ductility, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 55
(1-3), 91-107.
Popov, E.P., Amin, N.R., Louie, J.J.C., Stephen, R.M. (1985), Cyclic behaviour of large beam-
column assemblies, Earthquake Spectra, 1 (2), 203-238.
Popov, E.P., Pinkney, R.B. (1969), Cyclic yield reversal in steel building connections, Journal of
Structural Division, 95 (ST3), 327-359.
Popov, E.P., Stephen, R.M. (1972), Cyclic loading of full-size steel connections, Technical Re-
port: Steel results for construction, Bulletin No:21, American Iron and Steel Institute.
Priestley, M.J.N., Verma, R. Xiao, Y. (1994), Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete build-
ings ASCE Jnl Struct. Eng., 120(8), 2310-2329.
Righiniotis, T.D., Imam, B. (2004), Fracture reliability of a typical Northridge steel moment resist-
ing connection, Engineering Structures, 26 (3), 381-390.
Righiniotis, T.D., Omer, E., Elghazouli, A.Y. (2002), A simplified crack model for weld fracture in
steel moment connections, Engineering Structures, 24 (9), 1133-1140.
Roeder, C.W. (2002), Connection performance for seismic design of steel moment frames, Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, 128 (8), 517-525.
Sabol, T.A. (2004), An assessment of seismic design practice of steel structures in the United
States since the Northridge earthquake The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,
13 (5), 409-423.
SAC Steel Project (1996), Technical report: Experimental investigations of beam-column sub-
assemblages Rep.No. SAC-96-01, Parts 1 and 2, SAC Joint Venture, California.
Schotanus M.IJ., Franchin P. (2004), Seismic reliability analysis using response surface: a simpli-
fied approach. Proc. 2nd ASRANet Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain.
Shome N., Cornell C.A., Bazzurro P. and Carbalho I.E. (1998), Earthquakes, records and non-
linear responses. Earthquake Spectra, 14(3):469500.
Smith, D.G.E. (1996), An analysis of the performance of steel structures in earthquakes since
1957, Joint Report: The Institution of Structural Engineers and the Society of Earthquake
and Civil Engineering Dynamics: Seismic design of steel buildings after Kobe and North-
ridge.
Stratan A., Fajfar P. (2003). Seismic assessment of the SPEAR test structure, University of Ljubl-
jana.
Suresh, S. (1991), Fatigue of Materials, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
University of Washington (2005), The UW-PEER Reinforced Concrete Column Test Database,
http//www.ce.washington.edu/~peera1/datarect.htm.
Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell, C.A. (2002), Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 31 (3), 491-514.
Vayas, I., Sophocleous, A., Dinu, F. (2003), Fatigue analysis of moment resisting frames, Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, 7 (4), 635-654.
Wang, C.H., Wen, Y.K. (2000a), Evaluation of pre-Northridge low-rise steel buildings.
I:Modeling, Journal of Structural Engineering, 126 (10), 1160-1168.
Wang, C.H., Wen, Y.K. (2000b), Evaluation of pre-Northridge low-rise steel buildings.
II:Reliability, Journal of Structural Engineering, 126 (10), 1169-1176.
Whittaker, A., Constantinou, M., Tsopelas, P. (1998a), Displacement estimates for performance-
based seismic design, Journal of Structural Engineering, 124 (8), 905-912.
Whittaker, A., Gilani, A., Bertero, V. (1998b), Evaluation of pre-Northridge steel-moment-

resisting frame joints, The Structural Design of Tall Buildings and Special Buildings, 7 (4),
263-283.
Wiegel, R. L. (1970), Earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Wong, K.K.F., Wang, Y. (2001), Probabilistic structural damage assessment and control based on
energy approach, The Structural Design of Tall Buildings and Special Buildings, 10 (4), 283-
308.
Yun S-Y, Hamburger RO, Cornell CA, Foutch DA. (2002). Seismic performance evaluation for
steel moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 128(4), 534-545
arni R., Gosti S. (1997). Masonry infilled frames as an effective structural sub-assemblage,
Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar & Krawinkler (eds),
Balkema, Rotterdam, 335-346.
APPENDIX A. SEISMIC SCENARIO
SEISMIC HAZARD SURFACE

A common seismic scenario is used for all applications in report [LessLoss-SP9, 2006].
The scenario, reported here, is described in terms of a set of hazard curves at different
(15) periods, between T = 0s and T = 4 s . The hypothetical site was chosen in one of
the more active areas of Italy, Calabria, in order to assure a significant level of ground
shaking for the design intensity. The location chosen corresponds to the city of Reggio
Calabria, with stiff local site conditions as characterised by an average shear-wave ve-
locity greater than 800 m / s .
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) has been carried out using the programme
MATHazard [Giannini, 2000]. It calculates the seismic hazard at a specific site based on
the assumptions regarding the description of seismic activity as given in [Cornell, 1968],
following the well-established procedure first implemented in EQrisk [McGuire, 1976],
that performs the integration over magnitude analytically, choosing a priori the format of
the attenuation function. The integration over the source zones is then carried out nu-
merically, providing as output the mean annual rate of exceedance for a number of re-
quested intensity levels.
The description of the seismic activity is here customised for the Italian territory, in terms
of the seismic source zones, their activity parameters and the attenuation relationships
used. In Figure A-1 the seismogenetic areas proposed by the national geophysical insti-
tute [Meletti et al., 2000] for Southern Italy are shown (zonation ZS4, zones 56 to 80, re-
cently superseded by ZS9). Based on the national catalogue of seismic events compiled by
[Camassi and Stucchi, 1997] ad hoc zone-specific parameters have been derived for the
magnitude distribution as described by the truncated Gutenberg-Richter law: lower and
upper bound magntudes m 0 and m1 , slope parameter and the annual rate of occur-
rence of any event greater than the lower threshold magnitude 0 .
Zona60
Zona61
400
Zona59
Zona58
Zona62
Zona57
300 Zona56
Zona63
200 Zona64
Zona80
Zona65
km
Zona67
Zona66
100
Zona68
Zona69
Zona70
Zona74
Zona76
0
Zona72
Zona75 Zona71
Zona77 Zona73
Reggio Calabria
-100 Zona78
Zona79
-200 -100 0 100 200 300

km
Figure A-1 Seismogentic source zones for Italy according to zonation ZS4.
The attenuation of intensity with distance is described by the relationships given in

[Sabetta and Pugliese, 1996], which provides coefficients for 5% damped response spec-
tral ordinates at 15 periods, ranging from 0 to 4 seconds. The relationship is derived for
the larger of the two horizontal components, with the distance expressed in terms of the
fault distance, the shortest distance between the recording station and the surface pro-
jection of the fault rupture.
Values of the exceedance probability with reference to 1 year have been calculated, giving
hazard curves such as those shown in Figure A-2. From the complete hazard surface iso-
probale spectra can be derived. As an example, Figure A-3 shows the 5%-damped spec-
tral ordinates at all the 15 periods for three different exceedance probabilities (those
commonly used in deterministic design practice of 2%, 5% and 10% in 50 years).
0
H(x)=P(Sa>= x)=exp(- S (x)) 10
a
-1
10
-2
10
T = 0.0s (PGA)
T = 0.5s
-3
T = 1.0s
10 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Sa (g)
Figure A-2 Seismic hazard surface for Reggio Calabria.

p p
2.5
2%in50years
2 5%in50years
10%in50years
1.5
Sa[g]
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
T[s]
Figure A-3 Isoprobable acceleration response spectra for Reggio Calabria.

SUITE OF GROUND MOTION RECORDS

In order to perform time-history analyses, a suite of 20 recorded ground motions (three
orthogonal components) has been selected from the European Strong Motion Data Base
(ESD) maintained at Imperial College [Ambraseys, 2002].
The records have been selected from firm-soil sites (consistent with the hazard scenario),
free-field, including large and distant, large and close, moderate and close as well as in-
termediate earthquake records, in an attempt to cover a sufficiently representative range
of distances and the expected range of magnitude in Europe. Table A-1 shows the earth-
quake records selected, with their specific properties.
Table A-1 Characteristic properties of selected records.

Figure A-4 shows the distribution of the 5%-damped acceleration spectra (40 values, i.e.
all horizontal components) at three different periods (left), the distribution of magnitude
(centre) and that of distance (right).
1 1 1
median = 5.8 = 0.11 median = 25 = 0.7
0.8 T = 0.1 s 0.8 0.8
T = 0.5 s
0.6 T = 1.0 s 0.6 0.6
F(Sa)
F(M)
F(d)
0.4 0.4 0.4
median = 0.1 = 0.83
median = 0.084 = 0.99
0.2 0.2 0.2
median = 0.041 = 1.2
0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 0 20 40 60 80
Sa M d
Figure A-4 Records selected from the ESD: distribution of spectral acceleration at three different
periods (left), of magnitude (middle), and of distance (right).
In Figure A-5 the 20 horizontal acceleration spectra are plotted, together with the respec-
tive mean spectra.
Component x Component y Component z

20 15 20
15 15
10
Sa [m/s2]
Sa [m/s2]
Sa [m/s2]
10 10
5
5 5
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period T [s] Period T [s] Period T [s]
Figure A-5 Records selected from the ESD: acceleration spectra for each of the three recorded com-
ponents, and mean acceleration response spectra (in red).
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Ag = Gross section area
C,D = Capacity and Demand
H = Hazard
IM = Intensity measure
Lp = Plastic hinge length
Ls = Shear span
M = Magnitudo
Mf = Fracture moment
N,M,V = Internal forces: axial force, bending moment, shear force

Pf = Probability of failure
R = Source-to-site distance
= Period of Vibration
TR = Average return period
Y = Critical demand-to-capacity ratio
f(x),F(x) = Probability density and cumulative distribution of x
fc , fc ' = Cylinder concrete stength
f ck , f cd = Characteristic and design values of concrete strength

fy = Steel yield stress
d,h = Clear section height
k = Stiffness
m = Mass
z = Internal lever arm
, = Parameters of the Gutemberg-Richter law
x , ln x = Dispersion or logartithmic standard deviation of x
= Error term
x = Median of x
= Mean annual frequency

= Ductility
x , x = Mean and standard deviation of x
= Chord-rotation
= Normalised axial force

= Geometric reinforcement ratio
, = Normal and shear stress
= Curvature
= Circular frequency, mechanical reinforcement ratio

Report 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

cyan_magenta_giallo_nero

Assessment of Existing Structures

LESSLOSS Report - 2007/06

LESSLOSS Report - 2007/06

LESSLOSS Report No. 2007/06

Probabilistic Methods for

prodotto e distribuito da:

Lessloss-2007/01: Landslides: Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilization

Paolo Emilio Pinto Sapienza University of Rome

Peter Fajfar University of Ljubljana

Marios Chryssanthopoulos University of Surrey

Paolo Franchin Sapienza University of Rome

Matjaz Dolsek University of Ljubljana

Athanasia Kazantzi University of Surrey

This self-contained document provides a presentation and illustration of two methods

A detailed presentation of several case-studies illustrating the two approaches completes

LIST OF LESSLOSS-2007/06 CONTRIBUTORS ...............................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................................................vii

2. PROBABILISTIC MODELS OF THE SEISMIC ACTION ...........................................................3

2.1 HAZARD, FRAGILITY AND RISK ........................................................................................................3

2.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS ...................................................................................5

2.3 USE OF RECORDED GROUND MOTIONS ..........................................................................................9

2.3.1 Intensity measures for seismic assessment of structures..................................................9

2.3.2 Sufficient and Efficient attributions ..............................................................................10

3. PROBABILISTIC MODELLING OF CAPACITY ........................................................................17

3.1 CRITERIA FOR THE DEFINITION OF A GLOBAL DAMAGE-STATE ...............................................17

3.2 MODELS FOR MEMBERS CAPACITY ...............................................................................................19

3.2.2 Deformation capacity of R.C. members ...........................................................................20

3.2.2.1 Deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns in single bending by

3.2.2.2 Deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns in single bending by

3.2.2.3 Deformation capacity in biaxial bending........................................................... 39

3.2.3 Shear strength capacity of RC members and joints........................................................ 39

3.2.4 Strength and deformation capacity of structural steel members................................... 42

3.2.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 42

3.2.4.2 Performance levels ............................................................................................... 43

3.2.4.3 Damage types........................................................................................................ 43

3.2.4.4 Member capacity models..................................................................................... 48

3.2.4.5 Global capacity models........................................................................................ 53

4. PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 57

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 57

4.2 USE OF NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 57

4.2.1 Determination of fragility and risk.................................................................................... 61

4.3 USE OF NON LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 64

4.3.1 Numerical integration of hazard and fragility.................................................................. 65

4.3.1.1 Dealing with collapse and non-collapse cases .................................................. 65

4.3.1.2 Fragility as distribution function of the IM value leading to failure .............. 65

4.3.3 Using alternative non-linear dynamic analysis methods to construct a probabilistic

4.3.4 The Uncertainty in the Component Capacities............................................................... 68

4.3.5 Evaluation of Global Capacity Uncertainty Parameter UC ......................................... 70

4.3.6 The Uncertainty in structural modelling .......................................................................... 72

5. APPLICATIONS TO RC STRUCTURES ........................................................................................75

5.1 A 2D REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME .........................................................................................75

5.1.1 Description of the structure ...............................................................................................75

5.1.2 Assessment based on nonlinear static analysis.................................................................77

5.1.2.1 Structural modelling..............................................................................................77

5.1.2.2 Response analysis of the bare frame...................................................................82

5.1.2.3 Assessment of the bare frame .............................................................................86

5.1.2.4 Response analysis of the infilled frame ..............................................................89

5.1.2.5 Assessment of the infilled frame.........................................................................93

5.1.3 Assessment based on nonlinear dynamic analysis...........................................................95

5.1.3.1 Structural modelling..............................................................................................95

5.1.3.2 System model.........................................................................................................96

5.1.3.3 Ground motion records .......................................................................................97

5.1.4 Discussion of results .........................................................................................................105