Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A simplified method for collapse capacity assessment of moment-resisting frame

and shear wall structural systems
Behrouz Shafei a,∗ , Farzin Zareian a , Dimitrios G. Lignos b
a
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California - Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, United States
b
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 2K6

article info abstract

Article history: A simplified methodology for predicting the median and dispersion of collapse capacity of moment-
Received 8 October 2009 resisting frame and shear wall structural systems subjected to seismic excitations is proposed. The
Received in revised form method is based on nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. Simple mathematical models denoted as ‘‘generic
12 December 2010
structures’’ are utilized to model moment-resisting frames and shear walls. After examining a wide range
Accepted 13 December 2010
Available online 11 February 2011
of structural parameters of the generic structures, a comprehensive database of collapse fragilities and
pushover curves (using ASCE 7-05 lateral load pattern) are generated. Based on the obtained pushover
Keywords:
curves, closed-form equations for estimation of median and dispersion of building collapse fragility curves
Collapse assessment are developed using multivariate regression analysis. Comparing the estimates of the median collapse
Structural analysis capacity calculated from the closed-form equations with the actual collapse capacities determined
Capacity prediction from nonlinear response-history analysis indicates that the simplified methodology is reliable. The
Earthquake excitation effectiveness of this methodology for predicting the median collapse capacity of frame and wall structures
Structural system is further demonstrated with two case studies of structural systems designed based on current seismic
provisions.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Prediction of collapse potential of structures under earth-
quake loads has always been a crucial aspect of earthquake en-
gineering. Collapse potential can be employed as a key deci-
sion parameter for engineers to design new structures and also
to evaluate seismic performance of existing ones when sub-
jected to earthquakes. Accurate collapse prediction is impor-
tant since collapse of structural systems is the primary source
of life and monetary losses during and after an earthquake [1].
There are several analytical methods currently available to as-
sess the collapse capacity of structures under earthquake ground
motions [2–4]. These methods are representative of various an-
alytical approaches such as simplification of the whole struc-
ture to an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system [5–9], use
of a step-by-step finite-element analysis of the whole structure
for detection of abrupt structural response increase [10–12] and
recently emerged incremental dynamic analysis [13–17]. The work
presented in this paper is particularly analogous to the approach
used to develop ‘‘SPO2IDA’’ [18] based on SDOF systems to approx-
imate MDOF system response and the research by Chou [19] that
uses a closed-form equation to estimate median collapse capacity
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 949 394 3393.
E-mail address: behrouz.shafei@uci.edu (B. Shafei).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.028
from maximum roof deformation. However, the approach and re-
sults presented in this paper use generic MDOF system to estimate
the collapse capacity of buildings that is different from the afore-
mentioned studies in which an equivalent SDOF system is utilized
to estimate the collapse capacity.
Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) has been introduced as a
procedure developed for accurate estimation of seismic behavior
of structures through collapse, provided that deterioration of
structural components is accurately captured in the mathematical
model of the structure. An incremental dynamic analysis requires
performing a series of nonlinear time-history analyses in which the
scale factors of selected ground motions are gradually increased
until the collapse capacity of the structure is reached. In the
context of this paper collapse is associated with a sidesway mode
in which a story or a number of stories of a structure displace
sufficiently laterally and P–Delta effects accelerated by component
deterioration fully offset the first story shear resistance. As a result,
dynamic instability occurs and the structural system loses its
gravity load resistance.
Although IDA has become a common analysis method for re-
searchers who are interested in determining the seismic vulner-
ability and collapse capacity of structures under extreme loads,
this method has not been so popular among structural engineers
for actual buildings. The reason is that the IDA method requires a
large number of nonlinear response-history analyses of the struc-
ture using a set of representative ground motions, each scaled
1108 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116
a b
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of 4-story generic moment-resisting frames (Left) and generic shear walls (Right) based on [1].
to many intensity levels covering the entire range of structural
response [20]. Recognizing the technical difficulties of the IDA
method including (1) selection of appropriate ground motions for
different seismic zones and hazard levels, (2) realistic interpreta-
tion of dynamic response of a structure and (3) time consuming
computational efforts required to conduct IDA, this paper proposes
approximate relationships for collapse capacity prediction of reg-
ular buildings by utilizing simple nonlinear static (pushover) anal-
ysis method and by considering the number of stories and natural
period of the structural system.
In this study, two types of structural systems are considered.
The first one is moment-resisting frames and the second one is
shear walls. Both structural systems are subjected to IDA using a set
of 40 large-magnitude–small-distance ground motions in order to
determine their dynamic collapse capacity [15]. On the other hand,
both types of structural systems are analyzed using the pushover
analysis method to identify their nonlinear static response in terms
of yielding, plastic, and ultimate drift ratios. Based on statistical
evaluation of obtained results from dynamic and static analyses,
the best-fitted first-order regression models are proposed for
relating both structural characteristics and pushover parameters to
the expected median collapse capacity of the structural systems. By
employing the generated relationships, dynamic collapse capacity
can be simply estimated based on information obtained from a
pushover analysis of the structure.
For accurate collapse prediction, it is also important to consider
characteristics of ground motions that may affect the dynamic
structural response. A value that quantifies the effect of a ground
motion on a structure is called an intensity measure (IM). The
spectral acceleration at the first mode period of a structure, Sa (T1 ),
has been proven as a widely acceptable IM. Recent studies by
Baker and Cornell [21] have shown that a significant difference
can be observed among the dynamic responses of a structure
analyzed using a set of ground motions all with the same Sa (T1 ).
Baker and Cornell [21] have demonstrated that the vector-valued
IM of Sa (T1 ) and ε is a more precise representation for ground
motion intensity compared to the scalar value of Sa (T1 ). As a result,
the effect of the ε parameter of ground motions is considered in
this paper in order to improve collapse estimation relationships.
Two case study buildings are used to validate the proposed
relationships for simplified collapse estimation. It is demonstrated
that the developed relationships can predict the collapse capacity
of structures well with an acceptable level of error in prediction.
2. Generic structural systems
In order to predict the collapse capacity of regular structures,
simple mathematical models of structural systems denoted as
‘‘generic structures’’ are used in this study. The generic structures
have been categorized as: generic moment-resisting frames (de-
noted as MRF) and generic shear walls (denoted as SW). Based on
the number of stories, N, equal to 4, 8, and 12, the generic struc-
tures are representative of low-, medium-, and high-rise buildings,
respectively. The generic structures are two-dimensional and their
components consist of elastic elements with rotational springs at
their ends. It is assumed that flexural nonlinear behavior is concen-
trated at the ends of beams and columns, and also none of struc-
tural components are shear critical, i.e., shear failure is not modeled
in generic structures. Ranges of variation of different structural
parameters have been determined based on experimental studies
that are comprehensively described and referenced in [22]. Fig. 1
shows a schematic representation of 4-story generic moment-
resisting frames and generic shear walls.
As it can be seen in Fig. 1(a), the generic moment-resisting
frames are 3-bay frames with story heights h = 12 ft and each
bay width equal to 36 ft. Three different values for the first mode
period, T1 , are defined for the generic frames as a function of
number of stories. These values are 0.10N , 0.15N, and 0.20N,
representing different lateral stiffness values of a moment frame
with a given number of stories, N. For each fundamental period,
three values for yield base shear coefficient, γ , are considered in
this study. The values of γ are obtained by dividing a typical design
response spectrum at the 10/50 hazard level for the Los Angeles
area on soil type D by three values of Rµ . Designed Rµ values are
equal to 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0, and as a result, the reduced design spectra
represent the yield base shear coefficient, γ = Vy /W , for each of
selected Rµ values (Fig. 2).
In generic frames, the floor mass is the same at all floor levels,
and the story stiffness varies along the height of each generic
frame such that a straight line deflected shape is obtained when
the ASCE 7-05 lateral load pattern is applied to the frames. To
incorporate the effect of foundation flexibility and the fact that
many buildings have a taller first story compared to other stories,
springs with finite stiffness and strength are assigned at the bases
of the columns. The stiffness properties of these springs are tuned
such that the inflection point in the first story columns is at the
mid-height of the story. It is assumed that stiffness and strength of
all structural elements are proportional, and the variation of beam
and column strength along the height of generic frame is identical
to the variation of stiffness, which has been tuned to the design
lateral load pattern [17].
The strong-column weak-beam design philosophy is consid-
ered in design of generic structures. The column to beam strength
factor is assumed equal to 2.4 for exterior columns and 1.2 for inte-
rior columns. This factor affects the sequence of plastic hinging of
the structural system, therefore, the simplified method presented
in this work for estimation of collapse capacity of buildings is not
suited for building that do not comply by the strong-column weak-
beam philosophy.
The analytical models used for plastic hinge locations in
structural components of generic frames include both monotonic
and cyclic strength and stiffness deterioration. The backbone curve
for stiffness and strength of generic frames is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Cyclic deterioration of strength and stiffness is based on a reference
hysteretic energy dissipation capacity, Et = λMy θp , where λ is a
parameter that is estimated using experimental results [3,22]. For
base case generic frames plastic hinge rotation capacity, θp , post-
capping rotation capacity ratio, θpc /θp , and cyclic deterioration
parameter, λ, of beams and columns are set to 0.03, 5.0, and 20,
respectively. For moment-resisting frames the three component
deterioration parameters θp , θpc /θp , and λ are varied individually
as θp = 1%, 3%, and 6%, θpc /θp = 1.0, 5.0, and 15.0, and λ = 10,
20, and 50. The range of deterioration parameters used in
this research is obtained based on two databases of structural
components. The first one is on reinforced concrete components
developed by Berry et al. [23] and calibrated by Haselton et al. [24]
 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116
1.2
1.0
0.8
Sa(T)/g
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
Fig. 2. Design response spectrum for Rµ values equal to 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 in order to calculate the yield base shear coefficient, γ , based on the fundamental period of generic
structures.
Fig. 3. Backbone curve definition (after [1]) where Ke is the initial stiffness, My is the
yield moment, Mc /My is the capping moment ratio, θp is the plastic hinge rotation
capacity, and θpc /θp is the post-capping rotation capacity ratio.
using the deterioration model discussed in this paper; the second
database of structural steel components developed and calibrated
by Lignos and Krawinkler [3]. Only the flexural behavior is modeled
with the existing deterioration model. However, in order to
account for axial load and bending (P–M) interaction and its effect
on the deterioration model parameters used in this study, the
maximum dynamic axial load was estimated by (1) calculating
the overturning moment at the base from yield base shear times
2/3rd of structure height, (2) estimating the force in the first story
exterior column from maximum overturning moment over width
of the frame and (3) reducing this force appropriately for columns
above the first story. The dynamic axial force is superimposed
on the gravity force in the columns. Bertero et al. [25] showed
that this is a reasonable approximation to consider the effect
of dynamic axial load on the seismic behavior of columns. Five
percent Rayleigh damping ratio is assigned to the first and third
mode of elastic response of generic frames.
Generic shear walls are representatives of cantilever reinforced
concrete shear walls with story heights equal to 12 ft (see Fig. 1(b)).
Variations of the first mode period for generic shear walls are
0.05N , 0.075N, and 0.10N, and the damping ratio is the same
as generic moment-resisting frames. The same mass and wall
1109
Response Spectrum
Design Response
R = 1.5
R = 3.0
R = 6.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period (sec)
moment of inertia is assigned at all floor levels. Similar to generic
frames, for each value of fundamental period, three values for yield
base shear coefficient, γ , are considered in this study using selected
Rµ values that are equal to 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0. The variation of wall
bending stiffness and strength along the height of generic shear
wall is assumed to be uniform. Furthermore, three component
deterioration parameters θp , θpc /θp , and λ are varied individually
as θp = 1%, 2%, and 3%, θpc /θp = 0.5, 1.0, and 3.0, and λ = 10, 20,
and 50.
In order to validate the numerical stability of the deterioration
models used in this research several sensitivity analyses have been
considered [13,3,22,26]. In particular, the numerical stability of the
deterioration models used in this research have been validated
with two physical experiments through collapse of two scale
models of the 4-story office building included in this paper [3] and
a full scale test collapse test of a 4-story steel structure tested at
the world’s largest earthquake simulator E-Defense facility [3,27].
3. Incremental dynamic analysis
Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is a powerful means to
evaluate the seismic behavior of structures. IDA involves perform-
ing a series of nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses for each
ground motion record by scaling it to the several levels of inten-
sity measure (IM) to encompass the full range of structural be-
havior starting from elastic to nonlinear inelastic, and finally until
global dynamic instability [16]. The results of these time-history
analyses for one ground motion create one IDA curve. The IDA
curve is a plot of the ground motion intensity measure (IM) against
an engineering demand parameter (EDP). The spectral accelera-
tion corresponding to the first mode elastic vibration period of the
structure, Sa (T1 ), is chosen as a widely acceptable parameter for
ground motion intensity measure. The engineering demand pa-
rameter (EDP) is defined here as the roof drift ratio (RDR) that is
equal to the roof displacement divided by building height. In this
study, the collapse capacity of structural systems is defined as the
spectral acceleration value at which the structure becomes dynam-
ically unstable due to component strength and stiffness deteriora-
tion and/or P–Delta effects. When dynamic instability happens in
the structure, any structural response parameter such as roof drift
ratio is very sensitive to the mathematical model of the structure
used in nonlinear response-history analysis. Hence, the traditional
approach of employing a structural response parameter to deter-
mine the collapse capacity is not precise enough [13]. As a result,
1110 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)
6.0
5.0
4.0
Sa(T)/g
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Maximum Roof Drift Ratio (RDR)
Fig. 4. Incremental dynamic analysis of a 4-story moment-resisting frame
subjected to the set of 40 ground motions in order to get the dynamic collapse
capacity.
collapse capacity for a distinct building and ground motion record
is obtained by taking the first spectral acceleration value at which
the structure becomes dynamically unstable.
In order to determine the collapse capacity of generic moment-
resisting frames and generic shear walls incremental dynamic
time-history analyses have been utilized using a set of 40
selected ground motions. These ground motions are all recorded
in the stiff soil, i.e. NEHRP site class D, and can be classified as
large-magnitude–small-distance (LMSR) ground motion records.
Moment magnitudes of these ground motions vary from 6.5 to
6.9, and the closest distances to the fault rupture area are in
the range of 13–30 km [28]. Dynamic time-history analyses of
generic structures have been performed by a modified version of
DRAIN-2DX that incorporates analytical models that can capture
monotonic and cyclic deterioration of structural components [14].
The results obtained from incremental dynamic analyses of a 4-
story moment-resisting frame subjected to the set of 40 ground
motions are illustrated in Fig. 4. When the IM–EDP curve becomes
flat, the corresponding spectral acceleration can be taken as the
collapse capacity of the structure. It is assumed that the collapse
capacity of the structure is a log-normally distributed variable.
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of collapse capacities
defines the collapse fragility curve. In mathematical format, the
collapse fragility curve is denoted as N (Ln(ηC ), βRC ) where ηC is
the median value of the collapse capacity, and βRC is the dispersion
due to record-to-record variability [1]. Fig. 5 shows the collapse
fragility curve of aforementioned 4-story moment-resisting frame.
It is worth to mention that using the comprehensive database
of collapse fragility curves; closed-form equations have been
derived [17] in order to estimate the median of the collapse
capacity, ηC , and the associated aleatory dispersion, βRC . In the
earlier study by Zareian and Krawinkler [22] it is concluded
that βRC = 0.40 for generic moment-resisting frames and βRC
= 0.50 for generic shear walls are appropriate estimates for
aleatory uncertainty in the collapse capacity of generic structural
systems. Details of multivariate regression analysis and criteria for
statistical reductions have been presented thoroughly in [22].
4. Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis
The nonlinear static (pushover) analysis method has become a
popular method for predicting seismic deformation demands as
well as local/global capacity of structures. This analysis method is
widely used among practicing engineers for seismic performance
evaluation of structures against probable collapse during an
earthquake [4]. According to ASCE/SEI 41-06, if the nonlinear
Collapse Fragility Curve
1.0
Probability of Collapse
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.07 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Sa(T)/g
Fig. 5. Collapse fragility curve of the 4-story moment-resisting frame obtained
from the IDA results shown in Fig. 4.
static procedure is selected for seismic evaluation, a mathematical
model of the structure should be subjected to monotonically
increasing lateral loads representing the forces applied by probable
earthquakes. In this process it is essential to incorporate the
nonlinear behavior and deterioration characteristics of structural
components in the mathematical model thoroughly. Lateral loads
should be increased until the displacement of a control node
exceeds a target displacement or the structure collapses. The
target displacement is employed to represent the maximum
displacement demand that the structure may experience under a
selected seismic hazard level. Obtained maximum demand can be
compared with the acceptability criteria for seismic performance
evaluation. On the other hand, structural collapse occurs after the
slope of force–deformation (pushover) curve becomes negative
because of component strength and stiffness deterioration and/or
P–Delta effects. When the pushover curve finally reaches the
point of zero base shear there is no more resistance against
lateral loads, i.e. collapse occurs. This has also been confirmed by
two physical experiments of 4-story structures that were tested
through collapse [3,27].
Assuming that generic structural systems used in this study are
representatives of regular buildings, dynamic analysis has shown
that the contribution of higher modes to dynamic response of
the frames is negligible. Hence all structural systems including
generic moment-resisting frames and generic shear walls can
be subjected to nonlinear static analysis [29]. In the current
study, the lateral load pattern is determined according to the
formula recommended by ASCE 7-05 [30], and is applied to
generic structures monotonically increasing by employing a load
factor that is defined as the ratio of each step load value to
the load value suggested by the code, here ASCE 7-05 [30],
for the design hazard level. Given the lateral load distribution,
pushover analysis provides the load factor versus deformation
curve that demonstrates the nonlinear static response of the
structure including P–Delta effects. In this study, the deformation
is recorded at the roof level as the control deformation. Considering
that this curve illustrates the nonlinear behavior of the structure
in plastic range until the collapse occurs, the same curve can be
employed to predict the collapse capacity of regular structural
systems taking into account the structural response characteristics.
These results should be considered with caution since recently
conducted earthquake simulator collapse tests of a scale model
of a 4-story moment-resisting frame [31] show that pushover
analysis cannot capture the dynamic amplification of base shear
near collapse.
For the purpose of this paper, after obtaining the dynamic
collapse capacity using the IDA method, the nonlinear static
 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116
Fig. 6. Desired parameters extracted from pushover curves of generic structural
systems analyzed using nonlinear static analysis.
Pushover Curves
0.40
0.35
0.30
Load Factor
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Roof Displacement (in)
Fig. 7. Pushover curves for a group of 4-story moment-resisting frames all with
the same natural period and yield base shear coefficient but different nonlinear
structural characteristics.
analysis has been conducted on all generic frames and shear walls
in order to get their pushover curves. From generated curves,
parameters such as roof drift ratio in the post-elastic–pre-capping
region, Θp , and roof drift ratio in the post-capping region, Θpc ,
and ultimate roof drift ratio, Θult are extracted. These parameters
are similar to parameters used for the structural components’
backbone curve. The only difference is that these parameters
define the global nonlinear behavior of a structure instead of the
component level. Fig. 6 illustrates desired parameters extracted
from pushover curves schematically. Furthermore, the pushover
curves for a group of 4-story moment-resisting frames all with
the same natural period and yield base shear coefficient but with
different nonlinear structural characteristics are shown in Fig. 7.
This figure demonstrates the effect of nonlinear characteristics of
individual components in global response of the structural system.
5. Statistical data reduction and regression
Based on the incremental dynamic analysis and nonlinear
static analysis methods, a comprehensive structural response
database has been developed for a wide range of combinations
in structural parameters. Due to large amount of information in
both generic type structures used in this study a data reduction
approach is important. Despite variations in the natural period
1111
of structural systems and their yield base shear coefficient,
different realizations for each of three previously defined nonlinear
structural characteristics, e.g. θp , θpc /θp , and λ, are considered.
As a result, an exponential form is employed in order to predict
the total number of combinations. Since all structural systems
are subjected to the set of 40 ground motions used in this study
the effect of record-to-record variability is also considered as a
separate variable.
In order to provide a practical tool for collapse capacity estima-
tion, closed-form equations are derived to estimate the median of
the collapse capacity, ηc , and the associated aleatory dispersion,
βRC , as a function of parameters extracted from pushover curves
as well as nonlinear structural characteristics. Eq. (1) has been de-
veloped by utilizing a first-order regression model for the median
collapse capacities of generic moment-resisting frames and generic
shear walls. These models have been obtained by multivariate
regression analysis starting from models with several predictor
variables to simpler models with fewer predictor variables. A
comprehensive comparison performed among different prediction
models showed that structural parameters such as fundamental
period, T = αT N, and yield base shear coefficient, γ , as well as pa-
rameters extracted from the pushover curve such as Θp , Θpc , Θult ,
are the most important ones for estimating the dynamic collapse
capacity of a structural system.
Relationships suggested in this paper are all capable of
predicting the collapse capacity with an acceptable approximation.
Considering the fact that obtaining the complete pushover curve,
e.g. starting from zero and ending to zero load factor, may not be
possible in some real cases due to numerical instabilities because
of steep post-capping slope of the global pushover curve, it is
preferable to propose a relationship employing two pushover
parameters, which can be extracted in most nonlinear static
analysis cases. Eq. (1) can provide an acceptable approximation,
and is useful to predict the collapse capacity in case of incomplete
pushover curves.
Θpc
 
ln(η̂c ) = z0 + z1 (αT ) + z2 (γ ) + z3 ln(Θpl ) + z4 ln . (1)
Θpl
Coefficients zi , i = 1–4 have been determined by using mul-
tivariate regression analysis and are summarized in Tables 1 and
2 for different generic structural systems. The coefficients have
been first extracted for structural systems categorized to moment-
resisting frame and shear wall systems. Then more precise coef-
ficients have been obtained by dividing each category into three
subcategories named as low-, medium-, and high-rise structures.
This can help engineers to get a better approximation of median
collapse capacity by using the most appropriate coefficients. For
structures with the number of stories other than the studied ones,
interpolation techniques can be employed to get the appropriate
coefficients for Eq. (1). The residual value in the developed equa-
tion is normally distributed with zero mean and small dispersion
(see R2 values at the last row of Tables 1 and 2). There are two
sources of variability in estimation of collapse capacity of a struc-
tural system. The first source of variability reflects the random-
ness in collapse capacity due to record-to-record variability, βRC .
As mentioned earlier, Zareian and Krawinkler [22] showed that
βRC = 0.40 for generic moment-resisting frames and βRC = 0.50
for generic shear walls are appropriate estimates for aleatory un-
certainty in the collapse capacity of generic structural systems. The
other source of variability is referred to as the epistemic uncer-
tainty and is due to lack of knowledge about the real structural
model and element properties as well as other approximations.
Accurate estimation of such uncertainty involves Monte Carlo
simulation with appropriate distribution function for struc-
tural member properties or simply using first-order second-
moment method. It is suggested by [13] that a value in the
1112 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116

Table 1 Table 3
Coefficients of collapse prediction relationships (Eq. (1)) obtained from multivariate Coefficients of the collapse prediction relationships considering the effect of epsilon
regression analysis for generic moment-resisting frames. parameter obtained from multivariate regression analysis for generic moment-
resisting frames.
4-story 8-story 12-story All
4-story 8-story 12-story
z0 1.80 2.27 2.49 2.73
z1 −2.30 −4.54 −5.61 −3.65 c0 2.92 3.77 3.84
z2 1.76 2.75 3.56 2.26 c1 −1.60 −4.77 −6.01
z3 0.35 0.48 0.56 0.61 c2 0.67 0.59 0.56
z4 0.27 0.16 0.13 0.27 c3 0.29 0.44 0.47
R2 0.87 0.94 0.95 0.93 c4 0.19 0.15 0.10
R2 0.90 0.97 0.97

Table 2
Coefficients of collapse prediction relationships (Eq. (1)) obtained from multivariate distance, R. Reviewing the variation of collapse capacity with
regression analysis for generic shear walls. respect to epsilon parameter, it is concluded that the epsilon
4-story 8-story 12-story All parameter should be considered as one of the ground motion
z0 4.25 5.40 5.57 5.02 characteristics that affect the predicted collapse capacity of
z1 −7.28 −14.59 −22.27 −14.55 structural systems used in this study.
z2 0.81 0.59 0.94 0.89 In order to consider the effect of ground motion characteris-
z3 0.66 0.77 0.72 0.72 tics on collapse capacity estimation of structural systems, the re-
z4 0.21 0.22 0.18 0.22
R2 0.91 0.96 0.95 0.86
gression models proposed in the previous section for simplified
collapse prediction are updated such that the models incorporate
the epsilon parameter as one of input independent variables. This
order of 0.4–0.5 is assigned to the later uncertainty. It is improvement helps structural engineers to come up with more ac-
evident that the dispersion in the regression parameter, r, is of curate collapse estimation considering the epsilon parameter in
epistemic nature. Assuming a total of M sources of epistemic un- addition to the pushover parameters and structural characteristics.
certainty with dispersions equal to (βUC )i , the total variability in The value of epsilon for a specific site can be determined by disag-
estimation of collapse capacity of a structural system, βTOT , can be gregation of the ground motion hazard and Eq. (3) can be employed
calculated using Eq. (2) [1]. to estimate the collapse capacity of a structural system,
ln(η̂c ) = c0 + c1 (αT ) + c2 (γ ) + c3 ln(Θpl )

M

 −
βTOT = βRC
2
+ (βUC )2i . (2) Θpc
 
i=1 + c4 ln − m × ε. (3)
Θpl
Based on the scatter plot of epsilon value versus collapse
6. Effect of ground motion characteristics capacity for different structural systems using the set of 40 ground
motions (see Fig. 8), it is found that a straight line with the slope
According to recent findings on effects of different ground mo- of m can be fitted to all the points. This line has almost similar
tion characteristics on structural response [21,32,33], it is impor- slope values in different cases, and as a result, the median of m
tant to consider other properties of a ground motion for seismic values (Fig. 9) can be employed to predict collapse capacity with
response evaluation of the structural systems. Spectral accelera- an acceptable accuracy. Coefficients ci from Eq. (3) are summarized
tion at the predominant period of the structure is now commonly in Tables 3 and 4 for generic moment-resisting frames and shear
used as an effective and practical parameter for intensity mea- walls, respectively. In summary, the probability of collapse for a
sure, but it should be noted that considerable difference still ex- given level of intensity (i.e. given level of spectral acceleration at
ists among the seismic responses of a given structure to a set of first mode period that corresponds to a probability of exceedance
ground motions all scaled to a fixed spectral acceleration, Sa (T1 ). in certain years) can be predicted approximately by using the
This fact shows that complementary parameters should be taken median collapse capacity as computed from the pushover analysis
into account in order to decrease record-to-record variability. For assuming standard deviation of 0.40. Historically the record-to-
this purpose, a vector-valued intensity measure has been proposed record variability was quantified to be relatively constant and
by Baker and Cornell [21] that consists of two parameters instead of equal to 0.40 [36,24,13,3,16,1,17] and a lognormal distribution
traditional single-valued intensity measures. The new parameter is assumed to be a representative distribution to the spectral
which is called epsilon, ε , can be used as an indicator of the shape of acceleration intensities that cause collapse. The latter has been
the response spectrum. The epsilon value can be calculated by sub- also verified with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) goodness-of-fit
tracting the mean predicted value of ln Sa (T1 ), computed using a test. However, the modeling uncertainties cannot be incorporated
ground motion prediction (attenuation) equation, from the ground directly to quantify the probability of collapse but the approximate
motion record’s ln Sa (T1 ) and dividing by logarithmic standard de- method for estimating the median collapse capacity of moment-
viation as estimated by the selected prediction equation [34]. resisting frames and shear walls can be combined with the method
For evaluation of sensitivity of collapse capacity, ηC , of moment- suggested in FEMA P695 [36] that quantifies the record-to-record
resisting frames and shear walls to the epsilon parameter, the variability and modeling uncertainties.
values of ε for the LMSR ground motions have been computed
using the spectral acceleration prediction equations proposed by 7. Application and case study
Boore et al. [35] (denoted here as BJF-97). The effect of ε on
the median collapse capacity obtained from BJF-97 equations In order to evaluate the accuracy of proposed collapse capacity
is illustrated in Fig. 8 for selected structural systems under estimation relationships, two case study buildings have been
consideration. In this figure, each point represents the Sa (T1 ) selected and studied. Both case studies comprise steel moment-
associated with the collapse spectral acceleration for a certain resisting frames whose behavior under heavy seismic excitation
ground motion, and the corresponding ε value obtained for that (i.e., near collapse) was tested in laboratory environment. Due
ground motion using BJF-97 equation given magnitude, M, and to lack of similar tests for shear walls, especially those with
 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116 1113

Table 4 0.400 Shear Walls

Coefficients of the collapse prediction relationships considering the effect of epsilon
parameter obtained from multivariate regression analysis for generic shear walls. Moment-Resisting Frames
4-story 8-story 12-story 0.350

Median of m
c0 5.12 5.64 5.79
c1 −8.29 −13.61 −16.11
c2 0.26 0.29 0.50 0.300
c3 0.71 0.71 0.62
c4 0.23 0.19 0.23
R2 0.93 0.97 0.81
0.250

0.200
0 4 8 12 16
Number of Stories

0.080 Shear Walls

Moment-Resisting Frames
0.075

Standard Deviation of m
0.070

0.065

0.060
0 4 8 12 16
Fig. 8. Effects of ε parameter on the median collapse capacity obtained from BJF-97
Number of Stories
equations for a 4-story generic frame with T = 0.40 s.

Fig. 9. Median and standard deviation of m for different structural systems.

flexural dominant failure, case studies for such lateral load-
resisting system were not included as case studies.
The first case is an office 4-story building designed based on
current US design specifications for vertical and lateral loads in
accordance with LRFD specifications IBC-2003 [2], SEI/ASCE 7-
02 [37], and AISC-2005 [38]. The building is assumed to be located
in Los Angeles in soil type D and the structure is classified as
Category II. The structural system of the building is a special
moment-resisting frame (SMRF) with fully restrained reduced
beam sections (RBS) designed based on FEMA-350 [39] criteria.
The first story of the building is 15 ft and the others are 12 ft. The
focus of this study is on the east west (EW) loading direction. The
EW moment-resisting frame is shown in Fig. 10. The first three
modal periods of the moment-resisting frame in the EW direction
are 1.32, 0.39 and 0.19 s.
From the pushover curve of this building, which is illustrated in
Fig. 11, the pushover parameters required to use in the simplified
collapse capacity prediction relationship (see Eq. (1)) have been
extracted from the idealized trilinear pushover curve shown
in Fig. 11. This idealized pushover curve is created such that
it captures the global behavior of the detailed pushover. The
idealized trilinear pushover curve is created based on the standard
Fig. 10. Prototype EW 4-story moment-resisting frame.
procedure discussed in ASCE 41 guidelines [29]. Eqs. (4) through (7)
show the steps taken to estimate the collapse capacity. The applied
coefficients z0 –z4 have been taken from Table 1 as previously ln(η̂ˆ c ) = 0.29 (6)
described.
η̂ˆ c = 1.33g . (7)
1.32
 
ln(η̂ˆ c ) = z0 + z1 + z2 (0.20) Comparison of estimated median collapse capacity with the
4 actual value shows that the developed relationship can predict
0.055
 
the collapse capacity fairly well. The actual value obtained as
+ z3 ln(0.018) + z4 ln (4)
0.018 median collapse capacity from the collapse fragility function of this
building (see Fig. 12) based on dynamic time-history analysis of
1.32
 
ln(η̂ˆ c ) = 1.80 − 2.30 + 1.76(0.20) 40 ground motions is equal to 1.38g, i.e., the estimation error is
4 less than 4% for this case. Using βRC = 0.4 to describe the record-
0.055
 
to-record variability for the collapse capacity of moment-resisting
+ 0.35 ln(0.018) + 0.27 ln (5) frames and assuming βUC = 0.5 (to account for all epistemic
0.018
1114 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116

Pushover Curve of Prototype EW Frame

0.25

0.20
Base Shear/Weight

0.15

0.10

Θpl =0.018 Θpc =0.055

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Normalized Roof Drift Ratio (Δroof/H)

Fig. 11. Pushover curve of the prototype EW 4-story moment-resisting frame.

Collapse Fragility Curve for Prototype EW Frame

1.00
Probability of Exceedance

0.80

0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Spectral Acceleration, Sa(T1)/g
Fig. 12. Empirical fragility curve of the prototype EW 4-story moment-resisting
frame.
uncertainties, [1]), one can find βTOT as follows:

βTOT = 0.42 + 0.52 = 0.64.
The probability of collapse at a given level of ground motion hazard
can be computed using a lognormal distribution with a median
of 1.33g and a dispersion of 0.64. For example, the probability
of collapse for Sa /g = 0.67 that corresponds to the spectral
acceleration at 1.32 s for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years
using a uniform hazard spectrum, is equal to 13.5%. Using the FEMA
P695 [36] methodology to obtain the total uncertainty, the same
probability can be computed. Based on [36] the total uncertainty is
given by,
 dynamic analysis described later 2% Rayleigh damping is assumed
βTOT = βRTR
2
+ βDR
2
+ βTD
2
+ βMDL
2
in which, βRTR = 0.39 (record-to-record variability for systems
with ductility less than 3.0), βDR = 0.1 (variability due to supe-
rior design requirements), βTD = 0.2 (variability due to quality of
test data) and βMDL = 0.2 (variability due to quality of modeling).
Eq. (9) gives, βTOT = 0.49. It should be noted that for the quality
of experimental data ‘‘superior’’ category rating has been assumed
for illustration purposes of the FEMA P695 [36] methodology. This
quality rating would be warranted if more test data were available.
For single test data a lower rating is suggested. Assuming a log-
normal distribution with median 1.33g and a standard deviation
of 0.49 we can estimate the probability of collapse given a hazard
level. In this case the probability of collapse is 8%, which is in line
with what is recommended by FEMA P695 as the acceptable prob-
ability of collapse with 20% and 10% probability of exceedance at
the MCE event.
SPO2IDA [18] has also been utilized to directly connect
the static pushover (SPO) curve and the results of IDA using
Fig. 13. Basic dimensions of Kajima building model; the Japanese 15-story frame.
an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system (Eq.SDOF). This
system has been determined based on ASCE 41 [29] guidelines
using the pushover shown in Fig. 11. The median collapse capacity
of the 4-story structure that is obtained using the SPO2IDA
3.00 3.50 4.00 approach is 1.17g; hence the proposed method suggested in this
paper can predict the median collapse capacity of the steel moment
frame with smaller error. According to FEMA P440A [40], the
maximum strength of a frame structure prior to its lateral dynamic
instability can be quantified by a median targeted strength ratio
(Rdi ) based on the pushover curve of the frame (see [40]). For the
4-story steel moment frame discussed in this section, Rdi = 5.47.
This corresponds to a median collapse capacity of 1.09g, which is
(8)
close to SPO2IDA discussed earlier in this paper. This is attributed
to the fact that both SPO2IDA and FEMA P440A approaches have
been developed from SDOF systems.
The second case study building used in this paper is a 15-
story moment-resisting steel frame part of the structural system
of a 15-story office building designed from Kajima Corporation
based on recent Japanese seismic provisions. The story heights
and bay widths of the frame are shown in Fig. 13. The 15-story
steel moment-resisting frame is constructed using tubular cross
sections, which is typical for Japanese design practice. For the
(9) at the first and third mode period of the structure (T1 = 1.99 s and
T3 = 0.39 s). Details about the design of this building can be found
in [3].
The nonlinear pushover curve based on the first mode load
pattern of the 15-story frame structure is illustrated in Fig. 14.
As seen from the same figure, the structure attains zero lateral
resistance at about 4.5% roof drift based on static pushover analysis.
Other related values are obtained from the idealized trilinear
pushover curve shown in Fig. 14. For dynamic analysis, the set of
40 ground motions described earlier in this paper are utilized to
conduct IDA through collapse. Based on IDA curves the collapse
fragility curve of the Japanese 15-story structure is developed and
shown in Fig. 15. Based on this curve the median collapse capacity
of the frame structure is 1.30g.
A procedure similar to the first case study building described
earlier is followed in order to obtain the median collapse capacity
of the 15-story Japanese frame based on the simplified collapse
capacity methodology. Fig. 14 is used to extract the parameters
needed for Eq. (1). Eqs. (10) through (13) are used to illustrate the
 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116 1115

Pushover Curve of Japanese 15-Story Frame Similar to the 4-story steel moment frame discussed in the
0.30
previous section of the paper, the SPO2IDA [18] and FEMA
0.25 P440A [40] approaches have been applied to the 15-story steel
moment frame. Using SPO2IDA the median collapse capacity of
Base Shear/Weight

0.20 the 15-story steel moment frame is 1.88g. Similarly, the target
0.15 strength ratio Rdi = 7.38, which corresponds to a median collapse
capacity of 1.76g. Again in this case the simplified methodology for
0.10 predicting the median collapse capacity of steel moment-resisting
Θpl = 0.015 Θpc = 0.055 frames gives improved estimates compared to [40,18].
0.05

0.00 8. Conclusions
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Normalized Roof Drift Ratio (Δroof/H) This paper presents a methodology for estimation of collapse
capacity of structural systems using nonlinear static (pushover)
Fig. 14. Pushover curve of the Japanese 15-story frame. analysis. The authors understand the approximations involved in
estimating the collapse potential of structural systems. Further-
Collapse Fragility Curve for Japanese 15-Story Frame more, it is known that nonlinear static analysis has limited ca-
1.00 pability in demonstrating the dynamic behavior of a structure as
Probability of Exceedance

it cannot capture the effect of higher modes of vibration and the

0.80 cyclic deterioration in structural components. However, this study
is aimed towards providing a simple and applied tool for rapid esti-
0.60 mation of collapse capacity of structural systems that are relatively
regular and their collapse mechanism is well correlated with the
0.40 fundamental mode of vibration.
The proposed approach estimates the collapse capacity in
0.20 the form of closed-form equations that correlate median and
dispersion of collapse fragility curves to derived parameters of
0.00 structural system given that the pushover curve is provided.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Furthermore, a separate set of equations for estimation of median
Spectral Acceleration, Sa(T1)/g collapse capacity using a vector-valued IM (i.e., Sa (T1 ) and ε )
is presented. It is observed that the median collapse capacity
Fig. 15. Collapse fragility curve of the Japanese 15-story frame developed based on is underestimated if only a scalar IM is used for estimation of
the set of 40 ground motions.
the median collapse capacity. Finally, the applied nature of the
methodology presented here is tested on two steel moment-
process in order to estimate the median collapse capacity based on
resisting frame structures and results are compared with already
Eq. (1),
established methods that estimate the median collapse capacity

1.99
 of frame structures based on single-degree-of-freedom oscillator
ln(η̂ˆ c ) = z0 + z1 + z2 (0.24) results. It is found that the error in predictions is reduced by using
15
the new simplified methodology for the case-study structures.
0.028
 
+ z3 ln(0.015) + z4 ln (10) Due to lack of experimental data near collapse for shear wall
0.015 structural systems under earthquakes, caution is needed regarding

1.99
 the simplification of prediction of shear wall collapse associated
ln(η̂ˆ c ) = 2.49 − 5.61 + 3.56(0.24) with sidesway instability.
15
0.028
 
+ 0.56 ln(0.015) + 0.13 ln (11) Acknowledgements
0.015
This work was supported in part by the National Science
ln(η̂ˆ c ) = 0.33 (12)
Foundation award CMMI-0654409. Their support is gratefully
η̂ˆ c = 1.39g . (13) acknowledged. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recom-
mendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and
The coefficients of z0 –z4 used in Eq. (10) are obtained from 12- do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
story generic frame structures. It was expected that the accuracy
of estimation of median collapse capacity of the 15-story frame
References
decreases, but the percentage of error is still less than 7%, which
indicates a good match between the dynamic median collapse [1] Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Assessment of probability of collapse and design for
capacity and the one obtained based on the simplified approach. collapse safety. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36(13):1901–14.
A value similar to the total variability in estimation of collapse [2] International Code Council. International building code. Birmingham (AL): IBC
2003; 2003.
capacity of the 4-story moment-resisting frame shown in Eq. (8) [3] Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural
can be used for the total variability in estimation of collapse systems under seismic excitations. Report no. TB 172. Stanford (CA): John
capacity of the 15-story structural system. Assuming a lognormal A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Stanford University; 2009.
distribution with a median of 1.39g and a dispersion of 0.64, the [4] Villaverde R. Methods to assess the seismic collapse capacity of building
probability of collapse for Sa /g = 0.45 that corresponds to the structures: state of the art. J Struct Eng 2007;133(1):57–66.
spectral acceleration at 1.99 s for 2% probability of exceedance in [5] Adam C, Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H. Evaluation of P–delta effects in non-
deteriorating MDOF structures from equivalent SDOF systems. In: Proceedings
50 years is equal to 3.8%. Using the FEMA P695 methodology, the of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. Paper no. 3407. 2004.
probability of collapse for the same ground motion hazard is 1.25% [6] Bernal D. Amplification factors for inelastic P–delta effects in earthquake
assuming that the total uncertainty is 0.49 based on Eq. (9). analysis. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1987;15(5):635–51.
1116 B. Shafei et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1107–1116
[7] Miranda E, Akkar D. Dynamic instability of simple structural systems. J Struct
Eng 2003;129(12):1722–6.
[8] Takizawa H, Jennings PC. Collapse of a model for ductile reinforced concrete
frames under extreme earthquake motions. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1980;8:
117–44.
[9] Williamson EB. Evaluation of damage and P–delta effects for systems under
earthquake excitation. J Struct Eng 2003;129(8):1036–46.
[10] Martin SC, Villaverde R. Seismic collapse of steel frame structures. In:
Proceedings of the 11th world conf. on earthquake engineering. Paper no. 475.
1996.
[11] Mehanny SSF, Deierlein GG. Seismic damage and collapse assessment of
composite moment frames. J Struct Eng 2001;127(9):1045–53.
[12] Talaat M, Mosalam KM. Towards modeling progressive collapse in reinforced
concrete buildings. In: Proceedings of the SEI-ASCE 2007 structures congress.
2007.
[13] Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H. Global collapse of frame structures under seismic
excitations. PEER report no. 2005/06. Berkeley (CA): Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California; 2005.
[14] Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate
strength and stiffness deterioration. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34(12):
1489–511.
[15] Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for non-deteriorating frame
structures and their dependence on ground motions. Report no. 144. Stanford
(CA): John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. Department of Civil
Engineering, Stanford University; 2003.
[16] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2002;31(3):491–514.
[17] Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Sensitivity of collapse potential of buildings to
variations in structural systems and structural parameters. In: Proceedings of
the ASCE-SEI structures congress. 2007.
[18] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity
of multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis
of single degree of freedom approximation. ASCE J Struct Eng 2002;131(4):
589–99.
[19] Chou JH. Simplified methods to predict earthquake induced sidesway collapse
in modern reinforced concrete special moment frames. M.Sc. thesis. Davis:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California;
2006.
[20] Han SW, Chopra AK. Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the
modal pushover analysis procedure. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35(15):
1853–73.
[21] Baker JW, Cornell CA. A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure
consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;
34(10):1193–217.
[22] Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Simplified performance-based earthquake engineer-
ing. Report no. TB 169. Stanford (CA): John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Research Center. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stan-
ford University; 2009.
[23] Berry M, Parrish M, Eberhard M. PEER structural performance database user’s
manual. Berkeley (CA): Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of
California; 2004. p. 38.
[24] Haselton CB, Liel AB, Taylor Lange S, Deierlein GG. Beam–column element
model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse
of RC frame buildings. PEER report 2006. Berkeley (CA): Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley; 2006.
[25] Bertero V, Aktan AE, Charney F, Sause R. Earthquake simulator tests and
associated studies of a 1/5th-scale model of a 7-story R/C frame wall test
structure. EERC-84/05. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California; 1984. p. 180.
[26] Zareian F, Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Evaluation of seismic collapse performance
of steel special moment resisting frames using ATC-63 methodology. In:
Proceedings of the ASCE-SEI structures congress. 2010.
[27] Suita K, Yamada S, Tada M, Kasai K, Matsuoka Y, Sato E. Results of recent
E-defense tests on full-scale steel buildings: part 1—collapse experiment on
4-story moment frame. In: Proceedings of the ASCE-SEI structures congress.
2008.
[28] Medina RA, Sankaranarayanan R, Kingston KM. Floor response spectra for light
components mounted on regular moment-resisting frame structures. J Eng
Struct 2006;28(14):1927–40.
[29] American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic rehabilitation of existing
buildings. ASCE standard no. ASCE/SEI 41-06. 2007.
[30] American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and
other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-05. 2005.
[31] Lignos DG, Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Reliability of a 4-story steel moment
resisting frame against collapse due to seismic excitations. In: Proceedings of
the ASCE-SEI structures congress. 2008.
[32] Baker JW, Cornell CA. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. J Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 2006;35(9):1077–95.
[33] Baker JW, Cornell CA. Vector-valued intensity measures incorporating spectral
shape for prediction of structural response. J Earthq Eng 2008;12(4):534–54.
[34] McGuire RK. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes:
closing the loop. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 1995;85(1):1275–84.
[35] Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE. Equations for estimating horizontal response
spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a
summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 1997;68(1):128–53.
[36] FEMA P695. Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Washing-
ton (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2009.
[37] American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and
other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-02. 2002.
[38] American Institute of Steel Construction. Seismic provisions for structural steel
buildings. Chicago (IL): AISC 2005; 2005.
[39] FEMA 350. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame
buildings. Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[40] FEMA P440A. Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on seismic response.
Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2009.