Vol. 18, No.

3 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION July, 2019

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2019) 18: 649-661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-019-0527-4

Seismic hazard level reduction for existing buildings considering

remaining building lifespans
Ji-Hun Park†

Division of Architecture and Urban Design, Incheon National University, Republic of Korea

Abstract: Seismic hazard levels lower than those for design of new buildings have been permitted for seismic evaluation
and retrofit of existing buildings due to the relatively short remaining lifespans. The seismic hazard reduction enables cost-
effective seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings with limited structural capacity. The current study proposes
seismic hazard reduction factors for Korea, one of low to moderate seismicity regions. The seismic hazard reduction factors
are based on equal probabilities of non-exceedance within different remaining building lifespans. A validation procedure is
proposed to investigate equality of seismic risk in terms of ductility-based limit states using seismic fragility assessment of
nonlinear SDOF systems, of which retrofit demands are determined by the displacement coefficient method of ASCE 41-13
for different target remaining building lifespans and corresponding reduced design earthquakes. Validation result shows that
the use of seismic hazard reduction factors can be permitted in conjunction with appropriate lower bounds of the remaining
building lifespans.

Keywords: seismic hazard level; existing building; remaining building lifespan; probability of limit state

1 Introduction have applied 75% of seismic hazards for new buildings

In many building codes or design guidelines, seismic
hazards are reduced when applied to performance
evaluation or retrofit of existing buildings compared
with new buildings. There are a couple of reasons for
such reduction of seismic hazard. First of all, the short
remaining lifespan of an existing building results in
relatively low probability of seismic events. In addition,
existing parts of a building that are not designed
seismically increase retrofit cost necessary to obtain a
performance level equivalent to a new building. Even
seismically-designed buildings might not meet the
performance objective intended in the seismic design
after building materials are deteriorated.
In ASCE 31-03, 75% of seismic hazards for new
buildings are applied to seismic performance evaluation
of existing buildings, while ASCE 41-06 for retrofit design
does not reduce the seismic hazard even for existing
buildings (ASCE, 2003; ASCE, 2006). Considering such
conservatism of ASCE 41-06, local building codes used
in strong seismicity regions such as Long Beach, Los
Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco in the United States
Correspondence to: Ji-Hun Park, Division of Architecture and
Urban Design, Incheon National University, 119, Academy-ro,
Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, Republic of Korea
Tel: +82 32 835 8474; Fax: +82 32 835 0776
E-mail: jhpark606@inu.ac.kr
†
Professor
Received February 25, 2018; Accepted September 26, 2018
to retrofitting existing buildings (ASCE, 2014). In
California Building Code (1998~), seismic hazards with
probability of exceedance equal to 20% per 50 years are
permitted to be applied to retrofitting public buildings
rather than those with 10% per 50 years adopted for new
buildings. Taking such practice into account, ASCE 41-
13 that integrates ASCE 31-03 and ASCE 41-06 defines
unified seismic hazard for existing buildings with higher
probability of exceedance than ASCE 41-06 (ASCE,
2014). The probabilities of exceedance for two basic
safety earthquakes for existing buildings in ASCE 41-
13 are 20% and 5% per 50 years, respectively. NZSEE
Guideline recommends that existing buildings have 67%
of the seismic capacity of corresponding new buildings
(NZSEE, 2006). However, both ASCE 41-13 and
NZSEE define seismic hazards regardless of remaining
building lifespans.
On the other hand, Pre-Standard SIA 2018 (SSEA,
2004) of Switzerland considers both life-safety and
cost-effectiveness in making a decision of seismic
retrofitting (Wenk and Beyer, 2014). This is done by
using 'compliance factor', the ratio of seismic demand
over capacity. SIA 2018 sets the minimum compliance
factor as a threshold of the mandatory seismic retrofit,
and suggests the range of compliance factors for which
cost-effective seismic retrofitting is possible. The range
of the compliance factor for cost-effective seismic retrofit
suggested by SIA 2018 depends on the remaining useful
life of buildings due to the discount rate of building
safety cost (Wenk, 2014). Michel et al. (2010) and
650 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Jamali et al. (2012) performed seismic risk analysis of
typical Swiss buildings using a probabilistic framework
complying with SIA 2018. Berset et al. (2012) conducted
a case study of old buildings retrofitted in accordance
with SIA 2018, but their works did not include influence
of remaining building lifespans to the seismic risk itself.
Usually, remaining building lifespans has been taken
into account in life cycle cost analysis of seismically
retrofitted buildings. Park et al. (2009) proposed seismic
loss estimation frameworks and identified optimal levels
of rehabilitation for example buildings. Deierlein and
Liel (2010) and Mitropoulou et al. (2011) calculated
life cycle costs of buildings for given lifespans on the
basis of simple seismic fragility functions or more
rigorous fragility assessment of multi-degree-of-
freedom building models, respectively. Gencturk (2013)
proposed an optimal design method of buildings on the
basis of life cycle cost considering both aleatory and
epistemic uncertainties. Tafakori et al. (2017) proposed a
more efficient method compared to incremental dynamic
analysis for probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Aval
et al. (2017) investigated efficiency of different seismic
retrofit method in terms of life safety and financial loss.
However, existing research works have not addressed
seismic risk change of existing buildings when they are
retrofitted against reduced seismic hazards corresponding
to remaining building lifespans.
The current study proposes seismic hazard reduction
factors for Korea, one of low to moderate seismicity
regions, on the basis of equivalence in the probability
of non-exceedance using seismic hazard curves for
the whole country and specific locations of Korea
considering remaining building lifespans. The proposed
methodology is intended to provide different existing
buildings with the same starting point of seismic risk
mitigation in terms of the probability of non-exceedance.
In addition, a validation procedure is proposed to
investigate the equivalence of seismic risks in terms of
ductility limit states using seismic fragility assessment
of nonlinear SDOF systems retrofitted with different
target remaining building lifespans and corresponding
design earthquakes.
2 Seismic hazard reduction based on building
lifespans
2.1 Se sm c hazards w th probab l st c equ valence
In many seismic design codes, seismic hazards
are defined using the probability of exceedance. The
probability of exceedance is a probability that a building
structure experience a seismic event, of which intensity
measure (IM) at the building site exceeds a specific
level during the building lifespan. The probability of
exceedance can be related to the annual rate of exceedance
using the following equation, assuming that the annual
occurrences of seismic events are probabilistically
Vol. 18
independent (McGuire, 2004).
PE  1  (1   ) L (1)
where λ is the annual rate of exceedance, L is the time
span in year, and PE is the probability of exceedance.
For seismic design of a building, λ is the annual rate of
exceedance of seismic hazards, L is the building lifespan,
PE is the probability that seismic hazards at the building
site exceed a prescribed design level during L. Thus,
Eq. (1) represents the probability of exceedance that the
building will experience seismic events stronger than a
prescribed design level. It is noted that the probability of
exceedance increases as the building lifespan increases
because the value in the parenthesis on the right-hand
side of Eq. (1) is smaller than 1.0. Therefore, seismic
hazard level applied to the design of a building is closely
related to the building lifespan probabilistically.
Usually, existing buildings have remaining building
lifespan shorter than the same new buildings would have.
As a result, existing buildings have a lower probability
of exceedance for a specific seismic hazard level
compared to new buildings. Therefore, seismic hazards
for the evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings can
be reduced on the basis of equivalence in the probability
of exceedance between existing and new buildings as
given in the following.
1  (1  new ) Lnew  1  (1  exist ) Lexist (2)
where Lexist are the expected remaining building lifespan
for an existing building and Lnew is the expected whole
building lifespan for a corresponding new building
which is built with the same structure and at the same site
hypothetically. Also, λexist is the annual rate of exceedance
of the seismic hazard level applied to the evaluation and
retrofit of the existing building, and λnew is the annual rate
of exceedance applied to design of the corresponding
new building. The annual rate of exceedance λexist can be
expressed based on Eq. (2) as follows.
exist  1  (1  new ) L new / Lexist
(3)
It is noted that λexist is dependent on the building
lifespan ratio between the new and existing buildings
in Eq. (3). The return period of a seismic hazard for
existing buildings can be converted from λexist. Using Eq.
(3), the seismic hazard parameters applied to evaluation
and retrofit of the existing building can be converted
from those for design of the corresponding new building
defined in an applicable design code.
2.2 Se sm c hazard of Korea
Korean National Seismic Hazard Map was announced
by National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)
No. 3 Ji-Hun Park: Seismic hazard level reduction for existing buildings considering remaining building lifespans 651

of Korea in 2013. The document provides effective peak
ground acceleration (EPA) maps for return periods of 48,
95, 190, 475, 950, 2373 and 4746 years. These return
periods correspond to 10% probability of exceedance
in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 250, and 500 years, respectively.
In addition, the document provides seismic hazard
coefficients that represent EPAs for those seven return
periods normalized by the EPA for 475-year return
period based on the preceding research of EESK and
KICT (1997). The seismic hazard coefficients of Korea
are listed up in Table 1, where ‘Nationwide’ coefficients
are those specified in Korean National Seismic Hazard
Map (NEMA, 2013) but coefficients for Seoul, Daejeon,
Gwangju and Busan were calculated using EPAs read
from the hazard maps in the document. The nationwide
seismic hazard coefficients for 950-year and 2,373-year
return periods are 1.4 and 2.0 in Table 1, respectively.
plotted n F g. 2, where ‘Se sm c Reg on 1’ s a w de
reg on nclud ng all the three c t es and ts hazard curve
was constructed by mult ply ng representat ve EPA =
0.11 g for the reg on (NEMA, 2013) w th ‘Nat onw de’
hazard curve n F g. 1. It s noted that ‘Se sm c ty Reg on
1’ envelopes EPAs for nd v dual c t es n F g. 2 except
that se sm c hazard coeff c ents of Gwangju for the
lowest two annual rates are h gher than correspond ng
nat onw de ones n F g. 1.
The se sm c hazrd reduct on factor s expressed
us ng se sm c hazard curves n F g. 1 or F g. 2 n the
follow ng equat on.
10-1
Nationwide
Seoul
Daejeon
Gwangju

Annual rate of exceedance

The latter corresponds to the maximum considered
earthquake in 2016 Korean Building Code (AIK, 2016), 10-2
and the former is close to the design earthquake for new
buildings.

2.3 Se sm c hazard reduct on factors 10-3

Seismic hazard reduction factors are defined as the

ratio of the two probabilistically equivalent seismic
hazard levels, of which one is for an existing building 10-4 100
and the other is for a corresponding new building. It Seismic hazard coefficient
is necessary to prescribe the remaining lifespan of the Fig. 1 Hazard curves for seismic hazard coefficients
existing building and the whole building lifespan of
the corresponding new building in order to use Eq.
(3). However, this study develops the seismic hazard 10-1
Seismicity Region 1
reduction factors for the prescribed building lifespan Seoul
Daejeon
ratio Lnew/ Lexist rather than specific building lifespans. Gwangju
Annual rate of exceedance

In order to determine the seismic hazard level

10-2
for λexist calculated using Eq. (3), the seismic hazard
needs to be defined with respect to the annual rate of
exceedance or corresponding return period. For th s
purpose, se sm c hazard coeff c ents g ven n Table 10-3
1 are l nearly nterpolated us ng seven pa rs of the
probab l ty of exceedance and se sm c hazard coeff c ent
n the log-space as shown n F g. 1, where four hazard
curves are plotted for natonw de appl cat on and three 10-4 -2
10 10-1 100
representat ve c t es, respect vely. EPAs converted by
EPA (g)
multiplying the seismic hazard coefficients to the basis
Fig. 2 Seismic hazard curves for EPA
hazard corresponding to 475-year return period are

Table 1 Korean seismic hazard coefficients

Probability of exceedance Po (%/a) 10/5 10/10 10/20 10/50 10/100 10/250 10/500
Return period (a) 48 95 190 475 950 2,373 4,746
Seismic Hazard Nationwide *
0.4 0.57 0.73 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.6
coefficient Seoul 0.33 0.46 0.62 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.2
Co
Daejeon 0.36 0.45 0.64 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1
Gwangju 0.25 0.53 0.70 1.0 1.4 2.1 2.9
Busan 0.35 0.53 0.71 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.7
*
Korean National Seismic Hazard Map (NEMA, 2013)
652 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 18

Co,exist EPAexist In add t on, the se sm c hazard reduct on factors are

rH   (4)
Co,new EPAnew
where Co,ex st and Co,new are the se sm c hazard coeff c ents
for an ex st ng bu ld ng and ts correspond ng new
bu ld ng, respect vely, and both can be read from F g.
1 when the annual rates of exceedance are g ven. Also,
Eq. (4) s expressed us ng EPAex st and EPAnew, wh ch are
EPAs for the ex st ng bu ld ng and the correspond ng
new bu ld ng, respect vely.
Se sm c hazard reduct on factors are plotted w th
respect to the bu ld ng l fespan rat o for nat onw de
hazard and Seoul c ty n F g. 3, where three return
periods for the new building are taken into account. The
seismic hazard reduction factors are different among the
return periods and the difference tends to increase as the
building lifespan ratio decreases for both nationwide
hazard and Seoul. The seismic hazard reduction factor
is 0.75 at building lifespan ratio 0.55 for 950-year
return period in Fig. 3(a), which means that an existing
building with 28-year expected remaining lifespan can
be retrofitted against 75% of the design earthquake for
new buildings with 50-year remaining building lifespan.
1.0
0.9
EPA reduction factor
l sted up for 2,373-year return per od n Table 2, where
d fference between locat ons ncrease as the bu ld ng
l fespan rat o decreases. Based on these observat ons,
t s noted that more accurate def n t on of se sm c ty
spec f c to each reg on s mportant to allow appl cat on
of lower sesm c hazard reduc ton factors. Nationwide
seismic hazard reduction factors are listed up in Table
3 for five return periods and five building lifespan
ratios from 0.2 to 1.0. Maximum reduction factors for
each target building lifespan ratio can be adopted for
simplicity and conservativeness. It is noted that the
seismic hazard reduction factor of 0.75 used in ASCE
31 corresponds to target building lifespan ratios between
0.4 and 0.6 for any return period.
3 Procedure of limit state probability
assessment
The equivalence of the two probabilities of non-
exceedance represented by Eq. (2) assures that an
existing building retrofitted against reduced design
earthquakes corresponding to a target remaining lifespan
has the same seismic hazard as a corresponding new
building has in terms of probability. However, it does
not guarantee the equivalence of seismic performance
for those two buildings, because seismic response
of inelastic structures is not linearly proportional to
ground motion intensity. Therefore, it is necessary to
validate equivalence in seismic performance for the

0.8 existing and corresponding new buildings, which have

different remaining building lifespans and different
design earthquakes. In the current study, the equivalence
0.7
in seismic performance for the two different buildings
is investigated in terms of a limit state probability, of
0.6 TR, new = 475 a which definition and evaluation procedure are proposed
TR, new = 950 a in the following.
TR, new = 2373 a
0.5
The limit state probability is a probability that a
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 specific limit state occurs during the building lifespan.
Building lifespan ratio
Seismic fragility function for the limit state is utilized
(a) Nationwide hazard
to assess the limit state probability, since it represents a
1.0
conditional probability that a seismic demand exceeds a
specific limit state threshold given an IM. However, the
0.9
seismic fragility function does not provide information
regarding how frequently the building experience the
EPA reduction factor

0.8
limit state during its lifespan. Therefore, the probability
density function (PDF) of the maximum IM that occurs
0.7
during a limited building lifespan is evaluated and
combined with the seismic fragility function to obtain
0.6
the limit state probability. The probability of non-
exceedance can be expressed as a function of the seismic
0.5
TR, new = 475 a hazard coefficient and remaining building lifespan on
TR, new = 950 a the basis of Eq. (1) as follows.
TR, new = 2373 a
0.4
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Building lifespan ratio PNE  [1  f (Co )]Lexist (5)
(b) Seoul
Fig. 3 Seismic hazard reduction factors for EPA where PNE is the probability of non-exceedance and f(.)
No. 3 Ji-Hun Park: Seismic hazard level reduction for existing buildings considering remaining building lifespans 653

Table 2 Seismic hazard reduction factor for 2,473-year return period

Target building lifespan ratio 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20
Hazard Nationwide 0.96 0.92 0.87 0.82 0.76 0.70 0.61 0.50
reduction Seoul 0.97 0.93 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.73 0.65 0.55
factor
Daejeon 0.97 0.93 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.74 0.67 0.58
Gwangju 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.79 0.73 0.66 0.57 0.47
Busan 0.95 0.89 0.84 0.77 0.71 0.63 0.57 0.49
Min 0.95 0.89 0.84 0.77 0.71 0.63 0.57 0.47
Max 0.97 0.93 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.74 0.67 0.58

Table 3 Seismic hazard reduction factors for nationwide seismic hazard coefficients in Korea
Return Hazard Target building lifespan ratio
Period (a) Coefficient 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
475 1 1 0.93 0.84 0.73 0.57
694 1.2 1 0.90 0.80 0.69 0.54
950 1.4 1 0.90 0.78 0.66 0.52
1,466 1.68 (= 1.4×1.2) 1 0.92 0.82 0.67 0.51
2,373 2 1 0.92 0.82 0.70 0.50
Min 1 0.90 0.78 0.66 0.50
Max 1 0.93 0.84 0.73 0.57

is the inverse seismic hazard function, which yields the as follows:

annual rate of exceedance of the seismic hazard level
corresponding to a given seismic hazard coefficient as
plotted in Fig. 1. PNE in Eq. (5) can be rewritten using
IMs that are proportional to Co. EPA is not only such
an IM but also spectral acceleration at short period or
1-second period can be one of candidates. In case of
2016 Korean Building Code, spectral accelerations
are determined by multiplying constant coefficients
including site amplification factors to EPA. Therefore,
the probability of non-exceedance can be expressed as
a function of IM given a remaining building lifespan as
follows.
Lexist
  IM  
PNE  1  f 
  IM C 1  
  o 
The probability of non-exceedance converges to
zero and 1.0 as IM goes to zero and infinity, respectively.
Thus, the probability of non-exceedance can be deemed
a cumulative distribution function of which derivative
is a PDF. The PDF of the maximum IM within the
remaining building lifespan of an existing building
is calculated by differentiating the probability of non-
exceedance numerically in the current study. As a
result, the unconditional limit state probability given the
building lifespan is calculated by integrating probability
of non-exceedance times the seismic fragility function,
  dP ( x, L 
exist )
PLS ( Lexist )    NE  P( D  C IM  x)  dx (7)
0
 d x 
where PLS ( Lexist ) the limit state probability for a given
building lifespan Lexist and P is the fragility function
of the limit state. The seismic fragility function can be
obtained by structural analysis or other methodologies.
Equation (7) has a form similar to the annual failure
probability, which is well-known in the field of seismic
risk analysis (Cornell, 1996; Cornell et al., 2002).
However, Eq. (7) is different from the equation found
in common literature in that the PDF included in the
integrand does not regard an annual probability but
(6) a probability during the building lifespan Lexist . The
overall procedure to evaluate the limit state probability
described above is illustrated in Fig. 4.
4 Description of simplified models
The seismic hazard reduction factors proposed in
this study are validated by comparing the limit state
probabilities of existing buildings that are retrofitted for
unreduced and reduced design earthquakes, respectively.
Simplified inelastic SDOF models are adopted for
the validation as described below. For simplicity,
only nationwide seismic hazard reduction factors are
validated.
654 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 18

1.0 8
6

PDF of PNE
0.5 4
PNE

2
0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
IM in Sds (g) IM in Sds (g)

2 1.0

P (D>C|IM)
1
Force (N)

0.5
0
-1
0
-2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
IM in Sds (g)
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01
Displacement (m)
Nonlinear time history analysis
0.06
state probability 0.04
PDF of limit

Integration
Limit state probability 0.02
PLS (Lexist)
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
IM in Sds (g)

Fig. 4 Limit state probability evaluation procedure

4.1 SDOF models for ex st ng bu ld ngs
Seismic risk assessment of buildings or bridges can
be performed approximately using simplified SDOF
models in order to reduce computational effort and time
required for extensive nonlinear time history analysis
(Jeong and Elnashai, 2007; Akiyama et al., 2011; Lin et
al., 2010; Dol ek, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2014). This study
adopted that kind of approach, and structural behavior
of existing buildings subjected to ground motion is
idealized with inelastic SDOF systems as described in
the following.
Basically, two basis SDOF systems before retrofit are
taken into account. The natural periods of basis SDOF
systems before retrofit denoted by Tno are assumed to be
0.3 and 1.0 s that belong to the acceleration sensitive
region and velocity sensitive region in usual design
spectrum, respectively. Tri-linear envelope curves are
adopted to represent the force-displacement relationship
of the SDOF systems as illustrated in Fig. 5. The SDOF
systems have a post-yield stiffness equal to zero and
degrade with a slope corresponding to a quarter of
their initial stiffness. The envelope of SDOF systems
before retrofit begins to degrade at the displacement
corresponding to 1.01 times the yield displacement so
that those systems seem to consist of two linear parts
as shown in Fig. 5. This means that plastic region of
the envelope is negligibly small. For conservative
validation of the seismic hazard reduction factors, the
most disadvantageous constraints are imposed to the
basis SDOF systems. This type of behavior can be
observed when shear failure of primary seismic force
resisting components precede flexural failure. A negative
post-capping stiffness region is added right after the
peak of the envelope considering successive failure of
different components. Small Takeda model is adopted
for modeling hysteretic behavior of the SDOF systems
(Otani and Sozen, 1972).
The basis SDOF systems are assumed to be retrofitted
by two strategies. One is to improve only the ductility
capacity of the systems. The other is to increase the
strength of the systems without increasing the ductility
capacity. Both retrofit strategies are illustrated in Fig. 5.
Retrofit strategies improving both ductility capacity and
strength are omitted in the current study for simplicity.
The extreme shape of the envelope is changed to have
more realistic plastic region by applying the ductility
improvement strategy, but maintained for the SDOF
systems retrofitted with the strengthening strategy. The
strengthening strategy may accompany improvement
of deformation capacity since added strong component
attract more seismic forces and reduce force demand
on other component, or retrofitting individual members
may accompany improvement of ductility capacity due
to seismic details of the adopted measure. Therefore,
performance of strengthening strategy may be
underestimated in the validation example. However, the
influence of the nearly zero plastic region on the limit
state probability is supposed to be limited since the same
shape is applied to both reduced and unreduced seismic
hazards of which effects on retrofit performance are to
be compared.
No. 3 Ji-Hun Park: Seismic hazard level reduction for existing buildings considering remaining building lifespans 655

Added ductility or added strength was determined
using the coefficient method of displacement
modification, which is adopted to determine the inelastic
displacement demand from elastic response spectrum
in ASCE 41-13. Target displacements of the SDOF
systems are calculated with the following equation as in
ASCE 41-13.
Te2
 t  C1C2 Sa g (8)
4 2
where Te is the effective fundamental period, g is the
acceleration of gravity, Sa is the spectral acceleration
at Te. In addition, C1 is the modification factor to
relate an expected maximum inelastic displacement
to a corresponding linear elastic displacement, and
C2 is the modification factor to represent the effect of
pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness degradation,
and strength deterioration at the maximum displacement
response. Both coefficients are calculated based on Te
and elastic response of the corresponding linear systems.
Another coefficient to relate spectral displacement of an
equivalent SDOF system to the roof displacement of
the multi-degree-of-freedom system is omitted since
only SDOF systems are addressed in the current study.
Overall procedure to determine the characteristics of the
retrofitted SDOF systems are summarized as follows.
1) The seismic hazard level for new buildings is
assumed: 2,373-year return period earthquake was
adopted in the current study.
2) The strength of existing buildings before retrofit
is assumed: elastic response to 190-year return period
earthquake was used to determine the strength of existing
buildings before retrofit. The strength is 37% of the
elastic strength demand for MCEs of the corresponding
new buildings as can be derived from Table 1.
3) Target remaining lifespans for existing and
new buildings are chosen: 10, 30, and 50 years were
adopted for existing buildings while 50 years were
adopted for new buildings. Although 10-year target
remaining lifespan is unrealistic, this is included for the
completeness of validation.
4) rHʹs are determined using Eq. (4) and Table 3 for
assumed target remaining lifespans: three rHʹs of 0.5,
0.82 and 1.0 are specified in Table 3 for the three existing
building lifespans adopted in step 3, respectively.
5) For ductility improvement strategy, the ultimate
displacement δu, where the force-displacement envelope
begins to degrade, is extended to δt predicted by Eq. (8)
without added strength, as shown in Fig. 5(a).
6) For strengthening strategy, the added strength Fd,
which reduces δt of the retrofitted system to δy(≈ δu) of the
initial system, is interpolated from numerous incremental
added strengths, for which δt is calculated using Eq. (8),
as illustrated in Fig. 5(b).
In spite of inherent uncertainty and errors, Eq. (8) was
adopted to predict displacement response of the SDOF
systems before and after retrofit, since ASCE 41-13 is
one of widely used documents for seismic performance
evaluation of existing buildings. The characteristics of
the retrofitted SDOF systems are listed up in Table 4.
By applying only 10-year remaining building lifespan
to the SDOF system with Te = 0.3 s, ductility demand
is reduced from 3.77 to 1.47 and added strength ratio
is reduced from 1.7 to 0.35. Usually existing buildings
experience deterioration of materials and structural
capacities. In the SDOF systems for validation of seismic
hazard reduction factors, it is assumed that deterioration
of existing building is taken into account already in the
performance of the SDOF systems e.g. low strengths and
negligible plastic region. It can be accomplished through
careful condition assessment of existing buildings. More
careful condition assessment, including material strength
test, is required in seismic performance evaluation
practice by relevant codes or guidelines (ASCE, 2014;
KISTEC, 2011).
Three limit states investigated for each SDOF system
are designated as LS1, LS2 and LS3, which correspond

8 8
Basis Basis
7 DUC10 7 STR10
DUC30 STR30
6 DUC50 6 STR50
δu Fd
5 5
Force (N)

Force (N)

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1 δy ≈ δu

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(a) Improvement of ductility capacity (b) Improvement of strength
Fig. 5 Force-displacement relationship for basis SDOF systems without and with retrofitting (Tno = 0.3 s)
656 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Table 4 Characteristics of the retrofitted SDOF systems
Retrofitting
Enhancing ductility
strategies
Natural period
Parameter Designation DUC10
(s)
Target remaining
10
lifespan (a)
Increased 0.3 1.47
ductility 1.0 1.38
capacity
Added Strength 0.3 0 0
ratio1)
1.0 0 0
(Fd/Fu)
1)
Fu is the initial strength of existing buildings before retrofit
to ductility ratios μ1, μ2 and μ3 as illustrated in Fig. 6,
respectively. LS1 is a limit state related to elastic limit
and immediate occupancy in a qualitative view. LS3
is a limit state related to collapse prevention, which is
defined as strength degradation by 20% without rigorous
assessment of collapse margin ratios. LS2 can be deemed
life safety approximately. The retrofitted SDOF systems
of which envelopes are determined by the above six-
step procedure can be considered to have performance
objective LS2, since they have a target displacement
corresponding to ductility ratio μ2.
Buildings subjected to seismic performance
evaluation and retrofit are usually non-seismically-
designed ones. That kind of existing buildings usually
have lower strength and ductility capacity compared to
seismically-designed ones due to smaller size of lateral
force resisting components and lack of seismic details
e.g. 135 degree hook in hoops or stirrups of RC frames.
So, failure modes or limit states of such existing buildings
are expected to be brittle or have limited ductility like
shear failure of columns and shear walls. On the other
hand, seismically-designed new buildings exhibit
relatively ductile behavior and avoid brittle failure with
appropriate proportioning of structural components
and use of seismic details. In this study, it is assumed
that the SDOF systems representing existing buildings
have extremely brittle and their strength or ductility is
increased by seismic retrofit. However, it is noted that
improvement of strength and ductility may be limited
due to vulnerability of existing structural components in
actual buildings.
For fragility assessment of the retrofitted SDOF
systems, only the strength of the SDOF systems is
set as an uncertainty parameter, for which log-normal
distribution with the logarithmic standard deviation is
assumed to be 0.3. The stiffness of the SDOF systems
varies in proportion to the strength change. Total ten
random samples are generated per each nominal model.
Figure 7 illustrates random samples for the nominal
model DUC30 in Fig. 5(a). Deformation capacity
such as ultimate displacement is an important source
of uncertainty apart from the strength and stiffness.
Vol. 18
Strengthening
DUC30 DUC50 STR10 STR30 STR50
30 50 10 30 50
2.88 3.77 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.33 2.83 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0.35 1.25 1.70
0 0.80 2.90 3.70
However, the uncertainty of the ultimate displacement is
not considered since the plastic deformation of the basis
SDOF systems is constrained to nearly zero.
4.2 Reference ground mot on su te
Total 44 accelerograms corresponding to 22 pairs
of ground motion selected from far-field ground motion
set in FEMA P695 (FEMA, 2009) were applied to the
fragility assessment of the SDOF systems. The ground
motions are scaled to the design spectra corresponding
to the 2,327-year return period and site class SD. Least
square fitting is conducted over 0.2, 1, 2 and 4 times Tno=
0.3 or 1.0 s. Those scaled ground motions consist of the
reference ground motion suite, of which response spectra
are plotted in Fig. 8. Nonlinear time history analysis is
performed using RUAUMOKO (Carr, 2007). Damping
is assumed to be 5% of the critical.
5 Validation of the proposed hazard reduction
factors
5.1 Frag l ty curves
The reference ground motion suite is scaled down
or up using total 18 scale factors from 0.05 to 4.46 for
fragility assessment of SDOF systems without or with
retrofit. The spectral acceleration at the nominal natural
period of the SDOF systems is adopted as the IM of
seismic hazard for Tno = 0.3 or 1.0 s. As mentioned
earlier, those spectral accelerations can be calculated
by multiplying constant coefficients to the EPA and the
seismic hazard coefficient Co and thus can be used to
calculate the limit state probability using Eq. (7).
For a single pair of the IM and SDOF system, total
440 (= 44 ×10) nonlinear time history analyses are
performed. The peak displacements from the analyses
are converted to ductility ratios and are compared with
limit state thresholds μ1, μ2 and μ3 in Fig. 6. Fragility
curves are constructed by counting the number of
analysis cases for which the ductility demand is greater
than those limit state thresholds, respectively. The
No. 3 Ji-Hun Park: Seismic hazard level reduction for existing buildings considering remaining building lifespans 657

fragility curves without and with retrofitting are plotted STR10 are designed against 50% of the seismic demand
in Figs. 9 and 10 for Tno = 0.3 or 1.0 s, respectively. For for DUC50 and STR50, respectively, as confirmed by
all the three limit states, the limit state probabilities of Table 3 for 2,373-year return period. Enhancement
DUC50 and STR50 models are much smaller than those of ductility capacity is slightly more effective than
of DUC10 and STR10, respectively, since DUC10 and strengthening for a part or the whole of IMs, as far
as LS2 is concerned in Figs. 9 and 10. However,
strengthening is apparently more effective than ductility
μ3 improvement for LS1 and LS3 in both Figs. 9 and 10.
The SDOF systems with enhanced capacities can be
μ2 deemed retrofitted against LS2 limit state based on the
μ1
procedure to determine the amount of added deformation
capacity or added strength as described previously. This
Force

Fy seems to be one reason for relatively small difference

0.8Fy
of fragility curves between the two retrofit strategies for
LS2 limit state when compared to LS1 and LS3 limit
states that are not considered explicitly in retrofitting.
Regarding LS1, ductility capacity enhancement does not
change the envelope of the SDOF system within elastic
limit, which is the threshold of LS1. In a similar way,
ductility capacity enhancement does not increase the
Displacement
strength of the descending part of the envelope, where
Fig. 6 Random samples for nominal SDOF system DUC30 the threshold of LS3 is located. However, strengthening
(Tno = 0.3 s) strategy influences both elastic and descending parts of
the envelope so that achieve better performance for both
LS1 and LS3 than enhancement of ductility capacity.
It is noted that ductility capacity enhancement and
4
strengthening are not achieved separately in retrofitting
of actual buildings.
3
5.2 L m t state probab l ty
Force (N)

2 The PDF of exceeding a limit state is built by

multiplying the PDF of the maximum IM within the
1 remaining building lifespan with the fragility functions
of the limit state represented in Figs. 9 and 10. The PDFs
of the maximum EPA within the remaining building
0 lifespan are presented for three different remaining
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (m) lifespans in Fig. 11 for the nationwide seismic hazard
curve of Korea. It is observed that the peaks of PDF form
Fig. 7 Random samples for nominal SDOF system DUC30
at much lower EPAs compared to 0.22 g corresponding
(Tno = 0.3 s)

2
Mean Mean
Target Target
2
Pseudo-acceleration

Pseudo-acceleration

1
1

0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
Period (s) Period (s)
(a) Tno = 0.3 s (b) Tno = 1.0 s
Fig. 8 Response spectra of the reference ground motion suite
658 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 18

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 Initial

DUC10
DUC30
0.2 0.2 0.2 DUC50
STR10
STR30
STR50
0 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
Sds (g) Sds (g) Sds(g)
(a) LS1 (b) LS2 (c) LS3
Fig. 9 Seismic fragility curves for Tno = 0.3 s

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 Initial

DUC10
DUC30
0.2 0.2 0.2 DUC50
STR10
STR30
STR50
0 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
Sd1 (g) Sd1 (g) Sd1 (g)
(a) LS1 (b) LS2 (c) LS3
Fig. 10 Seismic fragility curves for Tno = 1.0 s

to the 2,373-year return period of the seismic hazard
level for new buildings. This is because the lifespans
are relatively short compared to the return period so that
there is more likelihood of weak earthquakes than strong
ones. In addition, the peaks of PDF move to higher IMs
as the remaining lifespan increases. The PDFs of the
maximum EPA within the remaining building lifespan in
Fig. 11 were converted to those of the maximum spectral
acceleration at 0.3 and 1.0 s in this example to calculate
the limit state probability.
initial period but for the reduced seismic hazard on the
basis of reduction factor 0.5 given in Table 3 for target
building lifespan ratio 0.2. The PDFs for the ductility
enhancement strategy is similar to the PDFs for the
strengthening strategy at higher IMs but remarkably
lower than that at lower IMs. This means that the
ductility enhancement strategy is a more effective and
60
Lexist = 10 years
PDF of EPA

The PDFs of the limit state probability for LS2 are 40 Lexist = 20 years
plotted in Fig. 12. In Fig. 12(a), the peaks of the PDF of Lexist = 50 years
the limit state probability for DUC50 and STR50 form 20
slightly below 0.784 g, which is the spectral acceleration
at the elastic period 0.3 s of the initial system for the 00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
2,373-year return period without seismic hazard EPA (g)
reduction. Also, the peaks of the PDFs of the limit state Fig. 11 PDFs of the maximum EPA within the remaining
probability for DUC10 and STR10 form slightly below building lifespan for the nationwide seismic hazard
0.374 g, which is the spectral acceleration at the same curve of Korea
No. 3 Ji-Hun Park: Seismic hazard level reduction for existing buildings considering remaining building lifespans 659

robust retrofit measure compared to the strengthening
strategy. Similar tendency can be observed in Fig. 12(b)
for the systems with Tno = 1.0 s. Spectral acceleration Sd1
corresponding to the return period 2,373-year or 50-year
remaining lifespan is 0.431 g, and Sd1 reduced considering
10-year remaining lifespan is 0.216 g in Fig. 12(b). Peaks
corresponding to 50-year and 10-year remaining lifespan
form around those spectral accelerations, respectively.
Differently from other retrofit cases in Fig. 12(b),
STR50 has two peaks, of which higher one is located
far below 0431 g. One of reasons for this result may be
that the strengthening strategy does not improve brittle
characteristics of retrofitted SDOF systems as observed
in Fig. 5(b), and does not resist to earthquakes slightly
stronger than the design earthquake robustly.
Limit state probabilities obtained by integrating the
PDFs of the limit state probability are given in Table
5. For LS2 limit state of 0.3-second natural period,
strengthening against seismic hazard corresponding
to 30-year remaining building lifespan designated by
STR30 achieves 4.21 % limit state probability, which is
lower than 4.42 % obtained by strengthening against 50-
0.2
PDF of limit state
year remaining building lifespan designated by STR50.
This means that the decrease of limit state probability
due to remaining building lifespan reduction exceeds the
increase of limit state probability due to the reduction of
added strength. However, for the same period and limit
state, the limit state probability increase to 4.74 % by
reducing the remaining building lifespan to 10 years,
because the reduction of added strength has stronger
impact on the limit state probability than the remaining
building lifespan. The shaded cells in Table 5 indicate
such cases in which reduced retrofit aggravates the
seismic performance in light of limit state probability.
It is noted that reduction of target remaining building
lifespan from 50 years (DUC50 and STR50) to 30 years
(DUC30 and STR30) leads to the decrease of limit
state probabilities except for LS3 of 1.0-second natural
period. The limit state probabilities for LS3 of DUC50
and STR50 increase from 0.52 and 0.47 to 1.16 and
0.97, respectively. However, the performance objective
of the retrofit design is not LS3 but LS2 as described in
section 4.1. Therefore, the target remaining lifespan of
30 years is acceptable in order to achieve the intended
performance objective of retrofitting design, considering
that added ductility or added strength of the nominal
SDOF systems are determined to reduce the displacement

DUC10
DUC30 response to the threshold of LS2. However, the target
DUC50
0.1 STR10
remaining lifespan of 10 years is not desirable because
STR30 the limit state probability for LS2, which is the target of
STR50 retrofitting design, increases when the target remaining
0 lifespan is reduced from 50 years to 10 years.
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
IM in Sds (g) To sum up the simulation result, in spite of the
(a) Tno = 0.3 s same probability of exceedance of seismic hazards
0.2 within remaining building lifespans, the seismic hazard
reduction factors corresponding to the low lifespan ratio
PDF of limit state

DUC10
DUC30 of 0.2 was not acceptable due to increased limit state
DUC50
0.1
STR10 probability. In addition, 10 years is too short lifespan
STR30 to spend retrofitting cost on. On the other hand, the
STR50 seismic hazard reduction factors based on the moderate
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 lifespan ratio of 0.6 was acceptable since it can achieve
IM in Sd1 (g) a limit state lower than the new buildings have. Finally,
(b) Tno = 1.0 s it is noted that many assumptions are applied to the
Fig. 12 Probability density of exceeding LS2 limit state SDOF modeling and only two kinds of uncertainty, i.e.

Table 5 Limit state probability

Limit State Probability (%)1)
Tno Limit
(s) State Without
DUC10 DUC30 DUC50 STR10 STR30 STR50
retrofit2)
0.3 LS1 33.74 8.74 22.9 33.74 4.85 4.31 4.57
LS2 33.54 3.56 3.36 3.7 4.74 4.21 4.42
LS3 11.66 1.83 2.42 2.93 1.26 1.24 1.37
1.0 LS1 24.27 6.07 16.19 24.27 3.44 4.53 5.43
LS2 23.76 2.77 2.11 2.27 3.31 4.36 5.29
LS3 6.53 0.87 1.16 0.52 0.68 0.91 0.47
1)
Limit state probabilities are calculated for the whole remaining lifespan assumed in retrofit design
2)
Applied remaining life span is 50 years
660 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
seismic input and structural strength, are considered
in the fragility analysis. Therefore, the fragility curves
and corresponding limit state probabilities are only
illustrative examples of them, and more extensive
analysis is required to generalize the result of the
validation example.
6 Summary and conclusions
Seismic hazard reduction factors applicable to
seismic retrofit of existing buildings in Korea were
proposed on the basis of equal probabilities of non-
exceedance within target remaining building lifespans.
The values of seismic hazard reduction factors were
proposed for the overall region and representative
cities of Korea for different target building lifespan
ratios. For validation of the seismic hazard reduction
factors, a limit state probability evaluation procedure
was proposed and applied to different SDOF systems.
In the verification example, the SDOF systems with
insufficient seismic capacity are upgraded by increasing
ductility capacity or strength, which is determined to
resist displacement demand of the reduced or unreduced
seismic hazards. The seismic response of the SDOF
systems was simulated to obtain seismic fragility curves.
By combining the fragility curves and the PDFs of the
maximum IM within the remaining building lifespan,
limit state probabilities of the simulated SDOF systems
were evaluated and compared in order to validate the
conservatism of the proposed seismic hazard reduction
factors. The reduced design earthquake corresponding
to the 60 % target remaining building lifespan of new
buildings did not result in the increase of limit state
probabilities for the dominant limit state considered in
the retrofit design. However, such conservatism was not
achieved when the target remaining building lifespan
was reduced to the 20% lifespan of new buildings. On the
basis of the limited simulation result, appropriate lower
bounds of the building lifespan ratio need to be set if the
seismic hazard reduction factors are adopted in a seismic
evaluation or retrofit guideline for existing buildings. In
addition, it is desirable to exclude higher risk category
of buildings e.g. essential facilities for emergency
response and facilities containing hazardous materials
from application range of the seismic hazard reduction
factors because more stringent design criteria, including
increased design loads, are applied to such buildings to
keep them operational after design earthquake.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Incheon National
University Research Grant in 2015.
References
Akiyama M, Frangopol DM, Matsuzaki H (2011), “Life-
Vol. 18
Cycle Reliability of RC Bridge Piers under Seismic and
Airborne Chloride Hazards,” Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics, 40(15): 1671–1687.
ASCE (2003), Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,
ASCE/SEI 31-03, American Society of Civil Engineers.
ASCE (2006), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06, American Society of Civil
Engineers.
ASCE (2014), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society of Civil
Engineers.
AIK (2016), 2016 Korean Building Code - Chapter 3
Design Loads, Architectural Institute of Korea, Seoul,
Korea.
Aval SBB, Kouhestani HS, Mottaghi L (2017),
“Effectiveness of Two Conventional Methods for
Seismic Retrofit of Steel and RC Moment Resisting
Frames Based on Damage Control Criteria,” Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 16(3): 537–555.
Berset T, Abächerli L, Schwegler G, Stempfle H,
Herter R (2012), “Seismic Resistance Analysis and
innovative Earthquake Refit of a 37 year old Office
Building,” Proceedings of the 15th. World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering.
Carr AJ (2007), RUAUMOKO Manual, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New
Zealand.
Cornell CA (1996), “Calculating Building Seismic
Performance Reliability: A Basis for Multi-level Design
Norms,” Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering.
Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA
(2002), “Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal
Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame
Guidelines,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4):
526–533.
Deierlein G and Liel A (2010), “Benefit–Cost Evaluation
of Seismic Risk Mitigation in Existing Non-ductile
Concrete Buildings,” Advances in Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering, Springer, Netherlands, 341–
348.
Dolšek M (2012), “Simplified Method for Seismic Risk
Assessment of Buildings with Consideration of Aleatory
and Epistemic Uncertainty,” Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 8(10): 939–953.
Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea and Korea
Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology
(1997), Seismic Design Code Research, Ministry of
Construction and Transportation, Korea.
FEMA (2009), Quantification of Building Seismic
Performance Factors, FEMA P695 (ATC-63), Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Gencturk B (2013), “Life-Cycle Cost Assessment of
RC and ECC Frames Using Structural Optimization,”
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(1):
No. 3 Ji-Hun Park: Seismic hazard level reduction for existing buildings considering remaining building lifespans
61–79.
Jamali N, Kölz E and Duvernay B (2012), “Seismic
Risk Assessment for Typical Swiss Buildings Based on
Mechanical and Empirical Approaches,” Proceedings of
the 15th. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Jeong SH and Elnashai AS (2007), “Probabilistic
Fragility Analysis Parameterized by Fundamental
Response Quantities,” Engineering Structures, 29(6):
1238–1251.
KISTEC (2011), Guideline for the Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, Korean Infrastructure
Safety & Technology Corporation, Goyang, Korea. (in
Korean)
Lin Shibin, Xie Lili, Gong Maosheng and Li Ming
(2010), “Performance-Based Methodology for Assessing
Seismic Vulnerability and Capacity of Buildings,”
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
9(2): 157–165.
McGuire RK (2004), Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Michel C, Oropeza M, Lestuzzi P, Kӧlz E and Duvernay B
(2010), “Probabilistic Seismic Risk Analysis of Existing
Buildings in Regions with Moderate Seismicity,”
Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Ohrid, Macedonia, Paper 690.
Mitropoulou CC, Lagaros ND and Papadrakakis M
(2011), “Life-Cycle Cost Assessment of Optimally
Designed Reinforced Concrete Buildings under Seismic
Actions,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
96(10): 1311–1331.
NEMA (2013), National Seismic Hazard Maps,
Announcement No. 2013–179, National Emergency
661
Management Agency, Seoul, Korea. (in Korean)
NZSEE (2006), Assessment and Improvement of the
Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes,
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, New
Zealand.
Otani S and Sozen MA (1972), Behavior of Multistory
Reinforced Concrete Frames During Earthquake,
University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Park J, Lee DH and Choi E (2009), “Risk-Based Decision
Support for Seismic Rehabilitation of Structures,”
International Journal of Steel Structures, 9(2): 107–114.
SSEA (2004), Pre-Standard SIA 2018: Examination
of Existing Buildings with Regards to Earthquakes,
Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, Zurich,
Switzerland.
Sullivan TJ, Welch DP and Calvi GM (2014), “Simplified
Seismic Performance Assessment and Implications
for Seismic Design,” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 13(1): 95–122.
Tafakori E, Pourzeynali S and Estekanch HE (2017),
“Probabilistic Seismic Loss Estimation via Endurance
Time Method,” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 16(1): 233–245.
Wenk T (2014), “Seismic Assessment Based on Cost-
Benefit Considerations,” Proceedings of the Second
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey.
Wenk T, Beyer K (2014), “Seismic Conservation
Strategies for Cultural Heritage Buildings in
Switzerland,” Proceedings of the Second European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Istanbul, Turkey.