Glaister 2003

May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
Journal of Earthquake Engineering,

Vol. 7, Special Issue 1 (2003) 107–140
c Imperial College Press
DEVELOPMENT OF A SIMPLIFIED DEFORMATION-BASED

METHOD FOR SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
S. GLAISTER and R. PINHO

by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA @ SAN DIEGO on 06/05/15. For personal use only.
European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE School),
University of Pavia, Via Ferrata, 27100 Pavia, Italy
J. Earth. Eng. 2003.07:107-140. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
The state-of-the-art earthquake loss estimation techniques make use of pushover analy-
sis to define the performance of structures under earthquake loading, represented by a
demand spectrum whose ordinates reflect the inelastic response. The performance point
defined in this way is then used as input to the fragility or loss curves. This rigorous
approach represents the earthquake actions by a parameter that is known to have a
good correlation with damage and also takes into account the dynamic characteristics
of different buildings. However, for many applications, the available data on key input
parameters, such as soil conditions and the type and distribution of the exposed buil-
ding stock, are limited to the extent that the rigorous capacity spectrum approach can
become either impractical or unjustified. It is for such case scenarios that a much sim-
pler deformation-based assessment methodology, presented herein, has been developed.
The proposed method possesses all the inherent advantages of a displacement-based
approach, whilst reducing the required calculations by one or more orders of magnitude
when compared to conventional vulnerability assessment procedures.
Keywords: Displacement; deformation-based; vulnerability assessment.
1. Introduction
1.1. Preamble
Recent developments across the world relating to the devastating impacts of earth-
quakes in both the social and economic arenas have resulted in an increased aware-
ness amongst populations, industry, commerce and governments, of seismic hazard
and the vulnerability of the built environment. Greater interest has thus been placed
on the research of methods with which the potential risk from earthquakes can be
assessed and, eventually, mitigated.
More recently, this interest has taken the form of investments of both time and
knowledge by private companies and government institutions, especially within the
reinsurance industry. The result of such efforts has been commendable. Programmes
such as HAZUS [FEMA, 1999; Whitman et al., 1997] have not only provided a re-
liable and detailed method for the prediction of the effects of potential earthquakes
within urban areas or across large regions (including both the nature and the distri-
bution of physical damage, and estimations of the total direct and indirect economic
107
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
108 S. Glaister & R. Pinho
loss), but have also led to a far greater understanding of the problem, highlighting
the most efficient ways in which this risk can be mitigated.
The downside is that such comprehensive vulnerability assessment methodolo-
gies often require considerable amounts of time and research to collect and com-
pile the detailed data necessary to perform a complete study, and then significant
amounts of computing power to run (the size of which being usually out of reach
to all but governments and large institutions).
At the core of any loss estimation methodology is a process that takes a given
building inventory with known properties and geographical distribution and con-
volutes it with a representation of the seismic demand calculated across the same
geographical region using ground-motion prediction equations. This representation
of seismic demand has previously taken the form of PGA, PGV or Intensity. How-
ever, new developments in the area of displacement-based design [Moehle, 1992;
Calvi and Pavese, 1995; Kowalsky et al., 1995] and its increasing popularity as the
most logical and rational means of structural design have naturally led to displace-
ments becoming also the major parameter in building assessment [e.g. Priestley,
1997; Calvi, 1999].
In the realm of vulnerability assessment, this trend has seen the introduction
of the Capacity Spectrum method [Freeman, 1975; Freeman, 1998; Fajfar, 1999],
in which a curve of spectral acceleration versus spectral displacement is used to
represent earthquake demand and pushover curves characterise structural capacity.
This method, when used in vulnerability assessment programs such as HAZUS,
allows the inclusion of the effective period of structural vibration and the effect of
variable amounts of inelastic deformation (ductility) in the estimation of damage
states. It is this most crucial part of the procedure, involving the derivation of these
demand and capacity curves and the identification of their intersection (known
as the performance point, SD ), that is especially demanding in terms of time,
computing power, and required input data.
The rationale underlying this study is that an earthquake loss estimation model
should be consistent in the level of refinement in all its elements and in its method of
calculation. There will no doubt be many situations in which the available data on
the soil conditions and building stock will be limited, and in which constraints of
time and cost will not permit the investment required to gather more complete
information; it has been estimated that as much as two years is required to com-
pile a detailed loss estimation inventory for a new study area using the HAZUS
methodology (FEMA, 1999). This may be particularly true for studies developed
at regional or national levels [e.g. Bommer et al., 2002; Spence et al., 2002]. In such
cases, the computational complexity of the capacity spectrum approach may not
be justified, but this should not necessarily result in a reversion to the use of PGA
or intensity to represent the ground motion hazard. A simplified approach, initially
proposed by Pinho et al. [2002], which retains the elements of the effective period of
vibration of structures and structural displacements as the most suitable indicator
of damage, is therefore presented and discussed in this paper.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 109
1.2. Current methods for seismic vulnerability assessment of

classes of buildings
The features of an earthquake loss estimation model depend on its purpose: for
emergency planning a single scenario, possibly the repetition of an historical event,
is usually used, whereas for the calculation of annual losses it is necessary to consider
all feasible earthquake scenarios and to rank the resultant losses according to their
probability of occurrence [McGuire, 2001]. A complete earthquake loss model must
include all the elements of hazard, including fault rupture, tsunami, liquefaction
and landslides. The current work, however, focuses only on the assessment of the
vulnerability of building inventory to the effects of strong ground shaking, the

predominant cause of earthquake damage worldwide, and the primary contributor
to direct economic loss.

Traditionally, vulnerability assessment studies have employed macroseismic in-
tensity scales, such as the Modified Mercalli (MM), MSK or MCS scales, to represent
the ground shaking. Intensity is an obvious choice because of its direct relation with
damage in different classes of building [Musson, 2000] but its utility is diminished
because prediction of intensity values for future earthquakes, especially when taking
account of soil amplification effects, requires the treatment of these discrete index
values as continuous variables.
This limitation is overcome by the use of instrumental parameters of the ground
motion, such as peak ground acceleration (PGA), which has been widely used as
the basis for loss estimation studies [e.g. King et al., 1997]. Nonetheless, it is widely
recognised that PGA has a very poor correlation with structural damage during
earthquakes. Peak ground velocity (PGV), which is related to the energy in the
ground motion, provides a better indicator of the damage potential than PGA
and has been used as the basis for some more recent earthquake loss functions
[e.g. Miyakoshi et al., 1997; Yamazaki and Murao, 2000].
However, single parameters such as PGA and PGV, and indeed macroseismic
intensity, do not reflect the frequency content of the ground motion and hence
their use does not take account of the influence of the natural and effective period
of vibration of buildings in determining the level of loading they will experience
during an earthquake. This can only be represented by more complete descriptions
of the ground motion such as response spectra, for which reason some loss esti-
mation methodologies have in the past made use of acceleration response spectra
[e.g. Scawthorn et al., 1981; Shinozuka et al., 1997]. More recently, however, the
influence of current trends in seismic design towards a deformation-based philoso-
phy has lead to displacements becoming the favoured parameter also in structural
assessment, the state-of-the-art now being to use in some way the displacement
response spectrum (or acceleration-displacement response spectrum) to represent
the destructive capacity of the ground motion [e.g. Calvi, 1999; Faccioli et al., 1999;
HAZUS, 1999].
In the HAZUS methodology [Kircher et al., 1997; Whitman et al., 1997; FEMA,
1999], the performance point (SD ) of each building type under a particular ground
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
shaking scenario is found from the intersection of the demand spectrum (spectral
acceleration versus displacement), representing the ground motion, and the capacity
spectrum (pushover curve), representing the horizontal displacement of the struc-
ture under increasing lateral load. This displacement then provides the input for
the fragility curves of the same building type from which it is possible to read the
expected proportions (PI , PII , PIII ) that will be in each damage state (I, II, III).
This procedure is illustrated schematically in Fig. 1.
This method allows the inclusion of the effective period of structural vibration
and the effect of variable amounts of inelastic deformation (ductility) in the esti-
mation of damage states. Further, and in contrast to methods based exclusively on

empirical damage functions (calibrated through field data), it is able to adapt to
evolution in construction practice and, in particular, to model the effects of retrofit

and hence assess the resulting reduction of seismic vulnerability. However, the thor-
oughness and completeness of the method makes it also especially demanding in
terms of time, computing power, and required input data.
For those common situations where the available data on the soil conditions
and building stock is limited, and in which constraints of time and cost will not
permit the investment required to gather more complete information, a simplified
approach should be adopted instead. However, this should retain the elements of
the effective period of vibration of structures and structural displacements as the
most suitable means of assessing seismic capacity of structures.
To the authors’ knowledge, the only attempt made thus far to produce such an
alternative simplified seismic vulnerability approach, which still retains displace-
ments as the fundamental indicator for damage and a spectral representation of
the earthquake demand, has been proposed by Calvi [1999]. Calvi presented a
displacement-based method for deriving the capacity of column-sway reinforced
concrete frames, starting from basic principles of structural mechanics and seismic
response to arrive at an estimation of seismic vulnerability of classes of buildings.
In order to deal with the inherent variability of the building stock, Calvi chose to
acceleration
Demand Spectrum 100%

I
II
Proportion of buildings
III
Capacity Curve
PI
PII
PIII
SD displacement SD Demand
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. HAZUS methodology: (a) demand/capacity and (b) fragility curves.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098

Fig. 2. Intersection of capacity areas with demand curves [Calvi, 1999].
establish upper and lower bound estimates of the material and geometric variables
of the building stock. These minima and maxima values then led to the development
of ranges of possible capacities and corresponding periods.
These capacity ranges define areas that can then be in some way intersected by
a given response spectrum chosen to represent the demand, as shown in Fig. 2. The
probability of attaining the associated limit state is then computed by integrating
the volume of a Joint Probability Density Function (JP DF ) between capacity
and period above and below the spectral line and within the defined ranges. This
JP DF was assumed as constant in the aforementioned publication, most likely
due to the significant complexity of deriving a more realistic and statistically valid
distribution, noting the compounding effect of the multiple pairs of maximum and
minimum assumptions made in the formulation of the possible ranges.
However, this pioneering work of Calvi [1999], whereby the concept of using
a fully displacement-based philosophy in the assessment of seismic vulnerability of
classes of buildings was for the first time proposed and used, possesses an important
shortcoming. The variation of effective height with ductility was neglected and,
more fundamentally, the existence of a derivable relationship between displacement
capacity, material properties, building height and, through that, period, was over-
looked. In the methodology proposed within the current work, described in the
following section, such ductility-height relationship is explicitly treated, leading to
a more complete, transparent and theoretically robust deformation-based method
for seismic vulnerability assessment of classes of buildings.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
1.3. Proposed deformation-based seismic vulnerability

assessment methodology
The procedure introduced herein is conceptually described in Fig. 3. Fundamental
in concept to this simplified procedure is the relationship between the different
qualitative damage states usually defined in loss estimation studies and interstorey
or global drifts (displacements as a proportion of storey or total height) in build-
ings. Using analytical relationships between displacement capacity and height, and
empirical relationships between height and elastic period, it is possible to plot
capacity curves for different limit states in terms of period and displacement as
shown conceptually in Fig. 3(a).

The intersections between any given displacement spectrum, scaled by a damp-
ing factor (ηLSi ) in correspondence to the ductility demand (µLSi ), and its corre-
sponding drift capacity curves, indicate the periods (TLSi ) that mark the boundaries
of the various limit states (LSi). That is, the intersection of the demand and ca-
pacity curves indicate periods at which capacity (defined by a given limit state)
exactly matches the demand. Thus, all periods to the left of this intersection rep-
resent buildings for which the demand exceeds the capacity, and all periods to its
right stand for buildings where capacity exceeds demand (in this particular case).
These periods are then transformed into their equivalent heights (HLSi ), using the
previously mentioned period-height relationships, and plotted across a cumulative
distribution function (CDF) of buildings with height to find the proportions of the
exposed building stock failing each limit state [Fig. 3(b)]. It is noteworthy that this
procedure neglects the inherent dispersion in the vulnerability of any individual
class of building; this issue is addressed in Sec. 4.3.
Thus, by identifying these relationships between natural period, height and dis-
placement capacity it is possible to use this alternative approach to the capacity
cumulative
displacement
LS3 LS2 LS1 frequency

ηLS1
PLS1
ηLS2 PLSi – percentage of
buildings failing LSi
ηLS3
PLS2
Demand
Spectra
PLS3
0
TLS3 TLS2 TLS1 effective HLS3 HLS2 HLS1 Height
period
HLSi = f (TLsi , LSi)
(a) (b)
Fig. Fig.
3. 3. Proposedmethodology:
Proposed methodology: (a)
(a)Displacement
displacementcapacity/demand curves
capacity/demand (b) CDF
curves (b)ofCDF
building stock
of building
stock.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
spectrum method to estimate directly the distribution of damage states across a

particular class of buildings at a specific location and for any given earthquake
ground motion. In this manner, the computationally intense procedure of finding
the performance point of each building using analytical procedures (such as the ca-
pacity method, mentioned above), and its relative intersection with fragility curves,
also a result of intense numerical analysis, is bypassed.
2. Derivation of the Capacity Curves

The first step in the process of determining the capacity curves is the separation
of the exposed building stock into its various classes, defined as a function of the
building’s constituent material (steel, concrete, masonry, etc.) and structural system
(i.e. frame, wall or dual systems). In the current presentation, only the case of
reinforced concrete moment resisting frames (M RF ) is considered. Nonetheless,
the methodology described in the following sections can be extended, with varying
degrees of difficulty, to any other building class. It is also noteworthy that other
sub-divisions usually adopted in vulnerability assessment type of work, such as
height, age, level of seismic design and degree of maintenance, are already explicitly
or implicitly incorporated within the formulation proposed below.
2.1. Failure modes and displacement profiles

A typical concrete MRF will adopt either a beam-sway or column-sway failure
mechanism, usually depending on the building age. Older buildings, constructed
before the advent of modern earthquake resistant design philosophy, will generally
adopt a soft-storey (or column-sway) mechanism of post-yield deformation, whilst
newer buildings tend to respond in a more ductile beam-sway mode, if appropriately
designed and constructed.
In Fig. 4, three possible displaced shapes of a frame structure with the same
rotation θ at the base are shown. The elastic (pre-yield) and inelastic deformed
shapes of beam-sway frames of 4 or fewer storeys, and the elastic deformed shape
of column-sway frames of any height is represented by profile (1). This displacement
profile is assumed to be linear, with a height to the centre of seismic force (Hcsf )
equal to 2/3 of the total height (HT ) of the actual structure (Hcsf = 0.67HT ). Pro-
file (2), on the other hand, shows elastic and inelastic deformed shapes of beam-sway
frames of 20 or more storeys, and is assumed to be parabolic in shape, with Hcsf
approximately equal to 0.61HT . For beam-sway frames of 5 to 19 storeys, Hcsf
is obtained through linear interpolation between these two profiles. Finally, profile
(3) represents the inelastic deformed shape of a column-sway frame, whereby the
height to the centre of seismic force approaches half the total height of the original
structure (Hcsf = 0.5HT ) at high ductility levels.
Clearly, there is an apparent inconsistency between the assumptions made in
the definition of the elastic displacement profiles for beam- and column-sway mech-
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098

Fig. 4. Deformation profiles for beam-sway and column-sway frames [Priestley, 1997].
anisms; the former features a height-dependent shape whilst the latter consists of
a constant linear profile. In fact, at the pre-yield stage, when a plastic deformation
mechanism has not yet been formed, it would seem more logical to assume equal
deformation profiles for both beam- and column-sway cases, both varying with
total height of the building. However, whilst the post-yield deformation profiles of
beam-sway mechanisms may be assumed to follow the same shape as their pre-yield
counterparts (i.e. variable height dependent shape) the same cannot be presupposed
for the case of column-sway structures, where a clearly height-independent defor-
mation shape forms upon yielding at the soft-storey level. If such variation in the
deformation profiles of column-sway mechanisms (from height-dependent at pre-
yield to height-independent in post-yield ranges) were to be taken into account, a
significant increase in the complexity of the capacity equations would result, with
little returns in terms of accuracy. For this reason, the height-independent column-
sway profiles suggested by Priestley [1997], for both elastic and inelastic phases,
have been adopted in the current work.
2.2. Effective height coefficient

In the derivation of the capacity curves, it is important to recognise that demand
is represented by a displacement spectrum providing the expected displacement
induced by an earthquake on a single degree of freedom (SDOF) oscillator of given
period and damping. As such, the displacement capacity provided must also be that
of the SDOF substitute structure rather than that of the structure itself. Thus, these
capacity curves must be a function of an effective height coefficient (efh ) defined
as the ratio between the height to centre of mass of the SDOF substitute structure,
HSDOF , that has the same displacement capacity (given a particular maximum
rotation defined by the chosen limit state) as the original structure at its centre
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
HT
Deformation profile of
actual structure
HCSF
H SDOF
ef h =
HT
HSDOF
Deformation profile of
θ equivalent SDOF
Fig. 5. Definition of effective height coefficient.
of seismic force (Hcsf ), and the total height of the original structure (HT ), as
schematically shown in Fig. 5. Clearly, efh is a function of deformed shape and,
through that, a function also of failure mode, level of ductility, and building height.
As gathered from the discussion in Sec. 2.1, for the case of beam-sway frames,
Hcsf is a function of total height, varying from a value of 0.67HT to 0.61HT as the
number of storeys increases from 4 to 20. Such variation, however, is clearly not
significant, and it was thus suggested by Priestley [1997] that, for regular structures,
displacements be determined considering an average Hcsf = 0.64HT , irrespective
of building height (and also ductility, since elastic and inelastic deformation profiles
have the same shape). Therefore, the effective height coefficient efh for beam-sway
frames can be computed using Eq. (1), defined below as a function of the number
of storeys n.
efh = 0.64 n≤4 (1a)

efh = 0.64 − 0.0125(n − 4) 4 < n < 20 (1b)
efh = 0.44 n ≥ 20 . (1c)
In the case of the column-sway mechanism, however, Hcsf decreases as inelastic

deformations increase from a “low-ductility value” of 0.67 to a “high-ductility value”
of 0.5. Thus, it is important for efh to somehow reflect the level of ductility (µ),
which varies with height of building and limit state. Furthermore, since the shift
from elastic to inelastic response phases implies also a change in the shape of the
deformation profiles, two effective height coefficients must defined. The first of these
coefficients, given by Eq. (2a), is to be used when calculating the elastic component
of the post-yield displacement capacity, whilst the second, shown by Eq. (2b), is
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
employed in the computation of its inelastic portion.

µ−1
efh = 0.67 − 0.17 (2a)
µ
1
efhp = . (2b)
n
However, since ductility must be defined as a function of efh , as shown in
Sec. 2.3.3, the use of Eq. (2a) will inevitably lead to the development of overly
complex relationships between effective period and height, which, on the other
hand, feature negligible gains in the accuracy of the results, as demonstrated by

the sensitivity studies carried out by Glaister [2002]. As such, it is proposed, for the
sake of simplicity, that Eq. (2a) is replaced by Eq. (3a), where instead of ductility,
the steel strain εs(Lsi) corresponding to a given limit state is used to define the
deformation-dependent elastic component of the effective height coefficient. Use of
this alternative representation of efh effectively fixes its value within any given limit
state, minimising considerably the complexity of the resulting equations whilst still
enabling it to vary between limit states and thus allowing for a close approximation
of the resulting capacity curves to their true shape.
εS(Lsi) − εy
efh = 0.67 − 0.17 (3a)
εS(Lsi)
1
efhp = . (3b)
n
2.3. Capacity-height relationships

The formulation of the capacity curves relating displacement capacity to period is
carried out through the combination of two distinctly different types of equations.
The first are physical capacity relationships that describe displacement capacity
as a function of total height (plus failure mode, member dimensions and material
properties), whilst the second introduce characteristics of structural response, de-
scribing period as a function of height. In this section the derivation of the former
is reviewed.
2.3.1. Yield limit states

The first step in calculating the displacement capacity of the equivalent single
degree of freedom system is the definition of yield displacements. Starting with the
previously discussed assumption that, for all pre-yield limit states, the displacement
profile is linear with height, and the average drift at yield is assumed to correspond
to the theoretical yielding point of an idealised bi-linear structural response, then
the structural displacement of the substitute structure corresponding to yielding of
the reinforcing steel (∆LSy ) can be estimated by Eq. (4), where θy represents frame
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
rotation at yield and is equivalent to the base rotation of the equivalent SDOF
substitute structure.
∆LSy = efh HT θy . (4)
To compute θy , one must first determine the curvature at yield (Φy ) as a func-
tion of the yield strain of steel (εy ) and the beam section height (hb ) or column
depth (hc ), for the cases of beam- and column-sway mechanisms, respectively. Ref-
erence was made to the work of Priestley [1993, 1998] to find estimates of these
curvatures, given in Eqs. (5a) and (6a), which are then used to define, assuming
linearly varying curvature distribution with a zero value at member midspan, the
yield chord rotation (θby or θcy ) expressions shown in Eqs. (5b) and (6b), where lb
stands for beam length. The final frame rotation values are obtained after multiply-
ing θby or θcy with empirical coefficients that aim at introducing the effects of flexure
and shear flexibility of joint and framing members. The resulting expressions are
shown by Eqs. (5c) and (6c), for the case of beam- and column-sway mechanisms,
respectively.
For beam-sway frames,
εy
Φy = 1.7 (5a)
hb
1 1b
θby = Φy 1b = 0.283εy (5b)
6 hb
1b
θy = 1.75 × θby = 0.5εy . (5c)
hb
For column-sway frames,
εy
Φy = 2.14 (6a)
hc
1 hs
θcy = Φy hs = 0.357εy (6b)
6 hc
hs
θy = 1.2 × θcy = 0.43εy . (6c)
hc
It is noteworthy that whilst the empirical flexibility/shear augmenting coefficient
introduced in Eq. (5c) follows the proposal of Priestley [1998], its column-based
counterpart [see Eq. (6c)] has been assumed by the authors, for consistency and
conceptual soundness, considering a much lower relative effect of joint and beam
deformability over the calculated column chord rotation. Evidently, future work
should target on the verification, and possible updating, of such scaling factor.
Finally, substituting Eqs. (5c) and (6c) into Eq. (4) results in the expressions for
yield displacement capacity of beam- and column-sway frames, respectively Eqs. (7)
and (8), below.
1b
∆LSy = 0.5efhHT εy (7)
hb
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
hs
∆LSy = 0.43efhHT εy . (8)
hc
It is also important to note that although the two yield displacement expressions
derived above appear somewhat different, they are conceptually identical, reflecting
the fact that at pre-yield stages, when a failure mechanism has not yet been formed,
the displacement capacity of a structure should be obtained using an unique set of
principles and rules for both beam- and column-sway type of buildings. The only
difference between these two equations being that in one it is the characteristics of
the beams that control the capacity, whilst in the other it is the characteristics of
the columns. The deformation mechanism, however, remains the same.

2.3.2. Post-yield limit states

Formulation of the capacity-height relationships for post-yield limit states is now
a simple matter of adding to the above equations a second term representing the
variation of inelastic displacement capacity as a function of height and limit state.
The latter being defined by setting maximum allowable concrete and steel strains
(εc(Lsi) and εs(Lsi) , respectively), the discussion of which is beyond the scope of the
present work.
Assuming plane strain relations across the critical section, the corresponding
maximum curvature (ΦLSi ) is determined from Eq. (9a), in which hx represents
either the beam section height (hb ) or column depth (hc ), depending on the failure
mechanism being considered. The maximum allowable plastic curvature (Φpi ) is
then found from Eq. (9b) as the difference between the maximum allowable curva-
ture (ΦLsi ) and the yield curvature (Φy ), defined earlier. The plastic hinge length
(Lph ) is defined by Eq. (9c), suggested by Paulay and Priestley [1992], and is then
used to determine the plastic rotation (θpi ), as shown in Eq. (9d). Finally, the
plastic component of the structural displacement (∆pi ) is obtained by multiplying
Eq. (9d) by the height of the yielding member Hx , representing either the total
effective height (efh HT ) or storey height (hs ), for beam- and column-sway frames,
respectively.
1
ΦLSi = (εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) ) (9a)
hx
Φpi = ΦLSi − Φy (9b)
Lph = efp hx = 0.5hx (9c)
θpi = Lph (ΦLSi − Φy ) = 0.5hx(ΦLSi − Φy ) (9d)
∆pi = θpi Hx = 0.5hx(ΦLSi − Φy )Hx . (9e)

It is important to note that the plastic hinge to section height/depth ratio (efp =
0.5) introduced in Eq. (9c) is an empirical value based on the observations made by
Paulay and Priestley [1992] for typical beam and column dimensions. Verification
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
of the validity of this parameter within the framework of the current research is an
expected outcome of future investigations. Alternatively, this empirical coefficient
could also be considered as an input parameter to be defined by users on a case-by-
case basis, a solution not adopted here so that the input required for application
of the proposed method is confined to the definition of material and geometrical
properties.
The structural displacement for a given post-yield limit state (∆LSi ) and fail-
ure mechanism, is obtained by adding together the yield and post-yield deforma-
tion components, resulting in the beam- and column-sway inelastic displacement
capacities shown below in Eqs. (10) and (11), respectively.

1b
∆LSi = 0.5efhHT εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 1.7 − εy (10)

hb
hs
∆LSi = 0.43efhHT εy + 0.5(εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 2.14εy )hs . (11)
hc
2.3.3. Ductility at any given limit state

The ductility at any particular limit state, defined as the ratio between values of
maximum and yield displacements, can now be readily obtained for both beam-sway
[Eq. (12)] and column-sway [Eq. (13)] mechanisms:
∆LSi εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 1.7εy hb
µLSi = =1+ (12)
∆LSy εy 1b
∆LSi εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 2.14εy hc
µLSi = =1+ . (13)
∆LSy 0.86εy efh HT
2.4. Period-height relationships

As described in Sec. 1.3, at the core of the proposed methodology lays a relation-
ship between period and height that must be valid throughout the entire displace-
ment range. Indeed, inspection of the yield and post-yield displacement capacity
equations derived above renders clear that, in order for the capacity curves to be
graphically superimposed onto a period-dependent demand curve (response spec-
tra), it is necessary to replace all Ht terms present in these capacity equations with
period-dependent functions. In what follows, such relationships, defining height as
a function of period, are derived.
2.4.1. Yield limit states

For limit states where ductility is less than or equal to one, the period of the
equivalent SDOF system (TLSy ) is equal to that of the actual building before yield-
ing, and can be given by an empirical equation of the form, as suggested in EC8
[CEN, 2001]:
3/4
TLSy = αHTβ = 0.1 · HT . (14)
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
As discussed in further detail in Sec. 5.1, it is clear that the use of such simplistic
relationship between period and height implies a considerable degree of approxima-
tion. Indeed, recent studies [e.g. Priestley, 1998; Priestley and Kowalsky, 2000] have
shown that period of buildings is also highly dependent on strength. However, the
incorporation in the proposed vulnerability assessment methodology of such period-
strength dependence requires extensive additional investigation, clearly beyond the
scope of the current presentation, for which reason the adoption of Eq. (14) was
deemed as appropriate and justifiable.
It is also important to note that the value of parameter α adopted here is
modified from that suggested in EC8 [CEN, 2001], where an α value of 0.075 is
used for estimation of period of uncracked buildings. In the present application, the
objective is to approximate period of buildings with cracked sections, and hence

the “uncracked α-value” has been increased by a factor of 1.35, assuming stiffness
of cracked buildings as approximately equal to 55% the stiffness of its uncracked
counterparts. This cracked to uncracked stiffness ratio fits well within the range of
values suggested by Paulay and Priestley [1992] whereby effective flexural stiffness
of cracked members is estimated to vary between values of 35% to 80% of those
corresponding to uncracked structural elements.
Finally, a simple resolving of Eq. (14) produces the sought after expression
giving height as a function of elastic period:
HT (TLSy ) = (10 · TLSy )4/3 . (15)
2.4.2. Post-yield limit states

With the period of the substitute structure being given by the secant stiffness to
the point of maximum deflection on a force-displacement curve, period-height re-
lationships for post yield limit states are greatly affected by the level of ductility.
Hence, for limit states in which the structure is expected to undergo inelastic de-
formations, a relationship between ductility and period must first be found, with
the aim of characterising the modified response of the inelastic structure.
Considering an elasto-plastic force-displacement relationship, the secant stiffness
to the point of maximum deflection (kLSi ) is a function (geometrically, at least) of
both elastic stiffness (ky ) and ductility (µLSi ). Since elastic period is also a function
of elastic stiffness, it can be assumed that effective period (TLSi ) of the inelastic
structure must in some way be a function of elastic period and ductility alone.
Eqs. (16a) to (16d) show the working through of these premises, and the resulting
expression relating effective period at a limit state i with the corresponding ductility
level and the elastic period, independent of failure mechanism.
fy = ky ∆y = kLSi ∆LSi (16a)

k y ∆y ky
kLSi = = (16b)
∆LSi µLSi
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
T ∝ k −12 ∝ µ1/2 (16c)

√
TLSi = TLSy µLSi . (16d)
With this relationship determined, the remaining derivation of the period-height
relationships is, in essence, complete. Equations (12) and (13), previously described,
provide expressions for ductility in terms of height, member dimensions, and ma-
terial properties, whilst Eq. (14) provides elastic period as a function of height.
Substituting these three equations into Eq. (16d) and solving for total height yields
the expressions for building height as a function of effective period for any given
limit state i. These are given below in Eqs. (17) and (18) for beam- and column-sway
mechanisms, respectively.
4/3
HT (TLSi ) = C3 TLSi (17)
2
C2 C1
HT (TLSi ) = − (18)
3 efh C2
where the constants C1 , C2 and C3 are defined as follows:
εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 2.14εy
C1 = hc (19a)
0.86εy
 s 1/3
3
2 C 1 4 
C2 = 1350 · TLSi +3 3 + 202500 · TLSi (19b)
efh
εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 1.7εy hb −2/3

C3 = 104/3 1 + . (19c)
εy 1b
It is observed that the column-sway period-height relationship given in Eq. (18)
is rather involved. Such complexity results from the fact that column-sway ductility
is a function of Ht [see Eq. (13)], thus introducing considerable intricacy in the in-
version of Eq. (16d). Considering, on the other hand, the beam-sway mechanism,
and noting that the ductility of this mechanism is independent of height, it is clear
that a much simpler, and more intuitive, relationship between period and height
[Eq. (17)] is obtained instead.
2.5. Capacity curves

Formulation of the final capacity curves, providing displacement capacity as a func-
tion of effective period, constitutes now a straightforward matter of combining
the two types of equations outlined above (capacity-height and height-period rela-
tionships) for the same failure mode and appropriate limit state. Substitution of
Eq. (15), expressing height as a function of period, into Eqs. (8) and (7), describing
yield displacement capacity as a function of height, results in the desired equa-
tions relating displacement capacity to effective period for pre-yield and yield limit
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
states. Similarly, the inclusion of Eqs. (17) and (18) into Eqs. (10) and (11) provides
a similar outcome for post-yield limit states. The resulting capacity curves for both
pre- and post-yield limit states are provided below in Eqs. (20) and (21) for beam-
and column-sway frames, respectively.
For beam-sway frames,
0.5efh1b εy
∆LSy (TLSy ) = (10 · TLSy )4/3 (20a)
hb

4/3 1b
∆LSi (TLSi ) = 0.5efhC3 TLSi εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 1.7 − εy . (20b)
hb
For column-sway frames,

0.43efhhs εy
∆LSy (TLSy ) = (10 · TLSy )4/3 (21a)
hc
2
0.43efhhs εy C2 C1
∆LSi (TLSi ) = −
hc 3 efh C2
+ 0.5(εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 2.14εy )hs . (21b)
It is perhaps worth noting that the efh term included in these capacity equations
relates to the effective height coefficient, defined by Eqs. (1) and (3a), and has not
been explicitly introduced in the expressions given here so as avoid large equation
sizes, unpractical for this type of presentation.
2.6. Curve characteristics

So as to enable a deeper conceptual insight into their workings, the capacity curves
derived above are discussed in further detail within this section. It is, however, note-
worthy that due to the more fundamental and simpler relationship between capacity
and height, the characteristics of these capacity relationships will be discussed with
respect to Eqs. (7), (8), (10) and (11) which provide displacement capacity as a
function of height (rather than effective period).
In all the examples included herein, yield limit states are defined with reference
to a steel strain εy = 0.0016, whilst post-yield limit state criteria vary according to
the type of failure mechanism adopted, as discussed below. As for the geometrical
characteristics of the building stock considered, a storey height hs = 3 m and a
beam span lb = 6 m have been arbitrarily adopted, together with the following
section dimensions; hb = 0.45 m and hc = 0.6 m.
2.6.1. Beam-sway curves

In Fig. 6, yield and post-yield displacement-height capacity curves for beam-sway
frames featuring the geometric and material properties described above, are shown.
The post-yield capacity curve was computed for strain values εc(Lsi) = 0.005 and
εs(LSi) = 0.015, corresponding to the ultimate capacity of an unconfined beam
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
80
Post-yield Capacity
Yield Capacity
60
Displacement [cm]
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 6. Yield and post-yield capacity curves for beam-sway frames.
under negative bending, the most critical condition in beam-sway mechanisms

[Priestley, 1997]. It is observed that, in apparent contradiction to what is read
from Eqs. (7) and (10), where capacity results as a linear function of the building’s
height, neither the yield nor the post-yield curves shown in Fig. 6, exhibit a linear
behaviour.
This nonlinearity of the beam-sway capacity curves comes as a result of the
parametric definition of the effective height coefficient (efh ), discussed earlier in
Sec. 2.2. The final capacity curves for both pre- and post-yield limit states are in
fact a combination of three components, depicted in Fig. 7 for the post-yield case,
each corresponding to a different representation of efh , depending on the number
of storeys n [see Eq. (1)], defined as the ratio between total and storey heights
(n = HT /hs ). Hence, whilst the first (n < 4) and third (n > 20) branches of beam-
sway capacity curves are linear, the intermediate section (4 < n < 20) is noticeably
nonlinear, thus rendering beam-sway capacity curves equally nonlinear.
2.6.2. Column-sway curves

Considering instead a column-sway failure mechanism, the capacity curves shown
in Fig. 8 are obtained, assuming a post-yield strain state of εc(Lsi) = 0.005 and
εs(LSi) = 0.04, that correspond to an unconfined column with low axial load
(P = 0.1fc Ag ). The latter is not a typical scenario, since it is rather common
for columns to be subjected to high vertical loads, either due to a gravity loads-
only design approach (typical in older structures) and/or as a result of overturning
moments induced by the seismic action. This, in turn, reduces significantly the in-
elastic deformation capacity of column-sway buildings, decreasing the gap between
yield and post-yield displacement capacities of the structure. Therefore, to allow
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
80
20
n>
60
Displacement [cm]
20
n<
4<
40
20
4
<
n
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 7. Components of a capacity curve for beam-sway frames.
20
Post-yield Capacity
Yield Capacity
15
Displacement [cm]
10
0
0 20 40 60
Height [m]
Fig. 8. Yield and post-yield capacity curves for column-sway frames.
for an easier perception of the differences between the yield and post-yield capacity
curves, the current example considers the not-so-common case of a base column
with reduced axial loads.
It is observed that a linear variation of capacity with height is featured by
both limit states. This is to be expected since Eqs. (8) and (11) clearly introduce
height as a linear operator. However, and unlike in the previously discussed beam-
sway case, the post-yield capacity curve does not start at the origin, but rather
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
appears translated upwards in the capacity axis. This height-independent capacity

shift results from the fact that, as discussed previously in this paper, the post-
yield component of the displacement capacity of column-sway mechanisms is not a
function of the building height, but rather an “invariable” parameter that depends
only on the geometrical and material characteristics of the soft-storey where the
collapse mechanism is formed [see Eq. (11)].
Figure 8, however, renders also clear that the gap between the yield and post-
yield capacity curves diminishes with height. Since, as discussed above, the post-
yield component of column-sway capacity curves is a height-independent quantity, it
results that such reduction can only be justified by a decrease of the contribution of
its yield counterpart. As inconsistent as this might seem, it is actually the correct
behaviour, particularly if one recalls the fact that, as discussed in Sec. 2.2, the
displacement capacities being computed here are those of the equivalent SDOF
structure, and not those of the actual building.
Observing Eq. (2a) and noting that efh diminishes with increasing ductility,
which in turn decreases with increasing building height or period (see Eq. (13) and
discussion in Sec. 3.1), we see that efh in fact increases with building height or
period, beginning with an initial value of 0.5 at a period of 0 s and approaching
asymptotically a value of 0.67 at larger periods. Since yield displacement component
in Eq. (11) is directly proportional to the effective height coefficient efh , it results
that this elastic component of the post-yield capacity will always be less than the
yield capacity of the same structure, diverging away from it as periods increase from
0 to around 10 s before turning to asymptotically approach it as periods increase
above this value, (see Fig. 9).
Also shown in Fig. 9 is the capacity curve for post-yield limit states assuming
efh as a function of ε(Lsi) , that is, considering efh constant within a given limit
∆
LSi, efh=f(µ)
LSi, efh=f(ε) LSi - inelastic
component
LSy
Displacement
LSi - elastic
component
≈T=5s Height H
Fig. 9. Components of post-yield capacity curve for column-sway frames.

May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
state i. This curve, on the other hand, is linear and the figure illustrates the general
range in which this approximation is valid (i.e. from 0 to 5 s), thus fully justifying
its adoption as an alternative for the more elaborate form of Eq. (2a), where ef h is
defined as a function of µ instead.
3. Computation of Demand Curves

3.1. Period-dependent demand curves
In Fig. 3, where the proposed vulnerability assessment method is schematically rep-
resented, it is suggested that the demand and capacity curves, defined as a function
of period, should be graphically superimposed, so as to determine the percentage of

structures falling within a particular limit state. The periods of intersection between
these two curves, representing the boundaries between any given pre- and/or post-
yield limit states, are then converted to their equivalent bounding heights using
Eqs. (17) and (18), and introduced into a cumulative distribution function (CDF)
of buildings with height to find the proportions of the exposed building stock falling
within each limit state. In order to follow such a procedure, it is thus clear that
appropriately derived period-dependent demand curves (i.e. displacement response
spectra) need to be obtained.
In the same way that we have accounted for, and represented changes in, ef-
fective height and period of the substitute structure as a function of ductility in
the above capacity curves, it is also necessary to capture the very same effect of
ductility on earthquake demand. Significant levels of ductility in the real structure
will result in the dissipation of energy through hysteretic action, thus reducing
the displacement demand of the earthquake. This effect is lost on the substitute
structure, which, by its very definition, remains elastic. As such, a means of repre-
senting in an elastic system the reduction in demand resulting from a given level of
displacement ductility is sought.
Many relationships between equivalent viscous damping (ξ) and ductility have
been suggested over the years [CEB, 1994]. Recently, the large majority of these have
taken a form similar to that of Eq. (22), whereby a and b are calibrating parameters
which vary according to the characteristics of the energy dissipation mechanisms
adopted by different authors, whilst ξE represents the equivalent viscous damping
when the structure is within the elastic, or pre-yield, response range. In this work,
values of a = 25 and b = 0.5, as suggested by Calvi [1999], were adopted, together
with an ξE = 2%.

1
ξ = a 1 − b + ξE . (22)
µi
The equivalent viscous damping values obtained through Eq. (22), for different
ductility levels, can then be combined with Eq. (23), proposed by Bommer et al.
[2000] and currently implemented in EC8 [CEN, 2002], to compute a reduction
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
30
25
20
Damping [%]
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period [s]
Fig. 10. Variation of damping with period, for the column-sway mechanism.
factor η to be applied to 5% damped spectra.

r
10
η= . (23)
5+ξ
It is, however, important to note that, for column-sway mechanisms, ductility
is inversely proportional to height [see Eq. (13)]. Consequently, equivalent viscous
damping results also inversely proportional to the effective period of the substitute
structure, as observed in Fig. 10, below. This effectively means that, for the as-
sessment of column-sway structures, Eqs. (22) and (23) imply not only a different
demand curve for each limit state (as for beam-sway frames), but also a different
level of damping for each spectral ordinate, decreasing as period increases. As coun-
terintuitive as this might initially feel, it is conceptually sound, constituting in fact
the only non-iterative method of ensuring that the damping in both the demand
and capacity curves at all their points of intersection is in agreement (i.e. the same).
In Fig. 11, yield and post-yield displacement response spectra obtained for an
accelerogram recorded during the Erzincan earthquake (Turkey, 1992) are given.
The yield spectrum was derived assuming an equivalent viscous damping of 5%,
naturally irrespective of the characteristics of the structures to be considered. The
beam- and column-sway inelastic counterparts were, on the other hand, specifically
derived for each of the two post-yield scenarios described earlier on. As expected,
following the discussion made above, the inelastic response spectrum derived for the
column-sway type of buildings is markedly different from its beam-sway equivalent,
due to the aforementioned dependence of equivalent damping on structural period.
As the period increases, the column-sway inelastic spectrum approaches the elastic
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
80
Yield (5% damping)

Post-yield (beam-sway)
60 Post-yield (column-sway)
Displacement [cm]
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period [s]
Fig. 11. Yield and post-yield displacement response spectra for the Erzincan earthquake (Turkey,
1992).
one, due to the decrease in level of damping, as opposed to the beam-sway case
where the inelastic to elastic spectra ratio is always constant.
3.2. Height-dependent demand curves

Clearly, the appearance and form of the period-dependent capacity curves derived
above [Eqs. (20) and (21)] has been dictated by a natural predisposition to represent
demand in its traditional displacement spectrum format. Indeed, and as discussed
in Sec. 2.4, displacement capacity is given in terms of period so that it can then be
plotted in the same space as a displacement spectrum, allowing graphical identifi-
cation of the boundaries between any given pre- and/or post-yield limit states.
However, the inversion of equations relating period to height as a function of
ductility ([Eq. (16d)], required in order to find capacity as a function of period,
is rather cumbersome and results in expressions that look deceptively complex. In
this complexity, the more fundamental and direct relationship between capacity
and height seen in Eqs. (10) and (11) is somewhat lost. Therefore, a variant to the
methodology developed thus far is presented herein. It is suggested, for the sake
of theoretical transparency, that the capacity curves are kept in their simple and
intuitive format of Eqs. (10) and (11), relating height to displacement, and that the
not so elegantly represented effect of ductility on period might instead be accounted
for on the demand side of the problem.
The previously derived period-height relationships [Eqs. (17) and (18)] can be
readily used to transform displacement spectra into curves of demand as a function
of height. In this manner, the ductility-dependent post-yield period shift, which was
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
80
60
Displacement [cm]
40
20 Yield (5% damping)

Post-yield (beam-sway)
Post-yield (column-sway)
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 12. Displacement demand as a function of height.
formerly introduced in the structural displacement capacity, is now accounted for

through changes made in the demand curves; inelastic spectral ordinates plotted as
a function of height, instead of period, result not only scaled down (as in Fig. 11),
but also translated to the left, as shown in Fig. 12 for the beam- and column-sway
post-yield scenarios introduced in Sec. 2.6.
In this way, the effective period change is captured and fully represented on the
demand side of the problem, without affecting capacity curves, and the simplicity
of the procedure is significantly increased as a result. The capacity and demand
curves, expressed as a function of height for all limit states considered, can now be
plotted on the same graph, and the bounding heights of all damage states, indicated
by the intersections of the demand and capacity curves, are found in one step (see
Sec. 4). These heights can then be directly transposed across the CDF of buildings
with height to find the proportion (or number) of buildings falling within each
limit state.
4. Brief Parametric Study

A thorough parametric study whereby the proposed methodology is put to the test
under a wide range of input scenarios and building stock characteristics is beyond
the scope of the present work. Nonetheless, a brief study of the effects that different
equation parameters might have on the outcome of the assessment procedure is
presented in what follows. All case studies considered herein refer to the building
stock introduced in Sec. 2.6, with variations indicated where appropriate.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
For the sake of simplicity, the outcome of the vulnerability assessment exercised
is given by means of a height range, ∆H, defined as the difference between the two
boundary heights where capacity meets demand (see Fig. 13). Buildings with a total
height within these two values, feature a displacement capacity that is smaller than
the respective demand, effectively meaning that they fail to meet the requirements
of the limit state under consideration. If one considers a uniform distribution of
buildings within a target area, then the higher the value of ∆H, the larger the
number of buildings at risk.
In this short study, the Erzincan record (Turkey, 1992) is used throughout, albeit
scaled to varying levels, where convenient. The ensuing results are merely indicative,
serving the single purpose of stimulating discussion on the characteristics of the
proposed assessment methodology, hopefully leading to a better understanding of

its workings.
4.1. Variability of input material properties

In Fig. 13, the yield capacity/demand curves for the beam-sway mechanism consi-
dering yield strain values of 0.0016 and 0.002, are given. The effect that the variation
of εy has on the capacity curves is clear; increasing the yield strain causes a pro-
portional augment in displacement capacity [see Eq. (7)], hence a reduction in the
number of buildings failing this limit state verification. Similar observations were
made for post-yield scenarios, consistently with Eq. (10). In summary, the higher
50
∆H=40 m
40
Displacement [cm]
30
20
ε y = 0.0020
ε y = 0.0016
10
∆H=53 m
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 13. Beam-sway yield capacity/demand curves for different values of steel yield strain (record
scaled down by 50%).
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
the grade of reinforcement steel, the smaller the number of buildings failing a given
limit state.
In Fig. 14, the ultimate concrete strain for the unconfined beams controlling
the deformation capacity of the beam-sway frame is varied between the values of
0.005 and 0.004 (the corresponding steel strains, resulting from section analysis,
are 0.015 and 0.010, respectively). The decrease in deformation capacity of the
concrete material causes, in this particular case, a 30% increase of the number of
buildings not being able to comply with the corresponding demand, confirming the
well-acknowledged fact that older buildings, where little confinement detailing is
present, are very sensitive to concrete deformation capacity.

The high sensitivity of beam-sway buildings to variation in material parameters
should not, however, constitute a major difficulty in the application of the proposed
vulnerability assessment methodology, since yield and ultimate strains of reinforce-
ment steel and concrete, respectively, can usually be well estimated, being typically
a discrete function of age and location. Hence, their approximation across a given
structural class is usually a valid and non-problematic operation.
As for the column-sway case, in Fig. 15 the ultimate limit state of the case study
frame is studied for two different levels of axial load (P = 0.2fcAg and P = 0.4fc Ag )
to which correspond, for a constant ultimate concrete strain of 0.005, steel strain
values of 0.010 and 0.005, respectively. It is observed that, despite such significant
variation in ultimate steel strain, the changes in the range of buildings failing the
limit state are minimal, in clear contrast to what has been noted for beam-sway
80
∆H=37 m
60
Displacement [cm]
40
20
ε c = 0.005
εc = 0.004
∆H=49 m
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 14. Beam-sway inelastic capacity/demand curves for different ultimate concrete strain
values.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
20
∆H=54 m
15
Displacement [cm]
10
εs = 0.005
ε s = 0.010
∆H=57 m
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 15. Column-sway inelastic capacity/demand curves for different steel strain values (record
cases. This is not entirely unexpected, as the beam-sway mechanism (being the
preferred mode of inelastic deformation) is a far more rational and ductile means of
inelastic deformation than the column-sway mechanism and as such makes better
use of any addition material ductility.
To be able to introduce a noticeable decrease in the vulnerability of reinforced
concrete buildings responding in a column-sway mode, one would require very high
values of concrete ultimate strain, a feature often unseen in structures designed
and built more than 10/20 years ago. It is therefore concluded that no significant
variations in the assessment results of columns-sway frames are expected to be
caused by the usually small variability in input material properties.
4.2. Variability of input geometrical properties

With regards to the variability of geometric input parameters (hs , lb , hc , hb ), a sig-
nificant effect on vulnerability of building stock, for both beam- and column-sway
cases, has been observed. In Fig. 16, the yield limit state of the beam-sway building
is checked for different beam length values. As expected [see Eq. (7)], reduction
of the beam span, from 6 to 5 metres, introduces a proportional decrease in yield
deformation capacity, thus increasing in 13% the number of buildings failing to
meet this limit state. A similar behaviour was observed with the variation of storey
height in the column-sway case.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
50
∆H=53 m
40
Displacement [cm]
30
20
lb = 6.0 m
lb = 5.0 m
10
∆H=60 m
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 16. Beam-sway yield capacity/demand curves for different beam lengths (record scaled down
by 50%).
In Fig. 17, alternatively, the column-sway demand/capacity curves at yield, are

plotted for two values of column section depth; hc = 45 and hc = 60 cm. Again, the
effects of such variation on the vulnerability of the building stock are evident, due to
the fact that yield displacement capacity is inversely proportional to column depth,
as noted in Eq. (8). The variation of beam section height produces an identical
effect when assessing beam-sway frames instead.
Such high sensitivity to geometrical input parameters could represent a potential
failing in the proposed methodology. In fact, reasonable estimates of variables such
as beam height, column depth and typical span length may, in some cases, be hard
to obtain across a large sample of buildings, thus rendering the outcome of the
vulnerability assessment exercise all the more uncertain.
A possible solution to these difficulties could be the introduction of more re-
fined classes of structures, discriminating buildings on the bases of not only failure
mechanism, but also as a function of key geometric variables such as beam/column
depth and span length. However, to do so would be to somewhat loose many of the
benefits of the proposed simplified approach, increasing considerably the need for
a more detailed inventory of the exposed building stock, along with the complexity
and computational demand of the method.
Alternatively, introducing a full probabilistic approach, where both the input
variables and period-height relationships are assumed to follow known statistical
distributions, could constitute an effective way of addressing such sensitivity diffi-
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
25
∆H=45 m
20
Displacement [cm]
15
10
hc = 0.45 m
hc = 0.60 m
5
∆H=57 m
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 17. Column-sway yield capacity/demand curves for different column section depths (record
culties without the necessity for a more refined building type classification, although
increasing significantly the theoretical complexity of the method. In Sec. 5.2, this
option is discussed further.
4.3. Variability of assumed empirical parameters

In the analytical derivation of the capacity curves, a number of empirical assump-
tions have been made, and discussed. These regarded the joint flexibility/shear
coefficient [Eqs. (5c) and (6c)], the plastic hinge coefficient [efp , see Eq. (9c)], and
the cracked period coefficient [α, see Eq. (14)]. As mentioned previously, it is clear
that further verification of some of these assumptions is required before practical
application to real case scenarios can take place.
In Fig. 18, the effects of varying the cracked period coefficient are illustrated
for the case of the column-sway mechanism, under the yield limit state verification.
Two possible scenarios were considered; α = 0.15 and α = 0.075. It is observed that,
whilst the capacity curve is kept unchanged, the demand curves vary significantly,
with an assessment outcome whereby practically all structures fail to meet the
requirements (α = 0.15) being shifted to a result where all structures pass the limit
state verification (α = 0.075).
Posing even greater difficulty is the estimation of the value of efp , defined earlier
as the ratio between plastic hinge length and section depth [Eq. (9c)]. Indeed, due
to its dependence on a large number of factors, plastic hinge length becomes a par-
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
25
20
Displacement [cm]
15
10
α = 0.15
α = 0.075
5
0
0 30 60 90 120
Height [m]
Fig. 18. Column-sway yield capacity/demand curves for different α values (record scaled down
by 75%).
80
∆H=37 m
60
Displacement [cm]
40
20 efp = 0.50
efp = 0.25
∆H=55 m
0
0 20 40 60 80
Height [m]
Fig. 19. Beam-sway post-yield capacity curves for different plastic hinge lengths.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
ticularly hard to quantify value, even for a single building, let alone for entire urban
areas. The relevance of such difficulty comes magnified by the fact that changing
the value of efp between limits often observed in the field, may introduce signif-
icant modifications in the outcome of the assessment exercise, as seen in Fig. 19,
where the adoption of a plastic hinge length equal to a quarter of the section depth,
instead of its half, results in a 50% increase in the number of buildings failing to
meet the limit state under consideration.
Similar comments can be made with regards to the effect of variability in the
joint flexibility/shear coefficients introduced in Eqs. (5c) and (6c), thus highlighting
the importance of having relatively precise estimations of all empirical parameters,

possibly on a regional basis. Work is currently under way to verify the adequacy of
the coefficients adopted in the current endeavour.
5. Discussion
5.1. Application to design
The most significant weakness in the simplified method described within the current
work is the limitation imposed by assuming a simple and approximate relationship
between period and height. As previously discussed, it is clear that the elastic
period of even regular frames is a function of more than height alone (indeed, most
buildings will even have different natural periods of vibration about their two major
axes), and it is this limitation that prevents one from using the above relationships
and curves for the purposes of design.
In fact, establishing a dependence of period on height alone implies that build-
ings of equal or similar heights and mass, irrespective of material properties and
dimensions, will possess the same elastic stiffness. Thus, as one increases the elastic
displacement capacity (by reducing member depth), one is also increasing the base
shear at yield (due to a constant elastic stiffness based solely on height). Taking
it to the extreme, it observed that this would imply that the smaller the member
depths, the higher the design force; an evidently absurd proposition.
A similar inconsistency is found when looking instead at inelastic periods and
secant stiffness. One of the most significant advantages of direct displacement-based
design, as proposed by Priestley [1997], is its insensitivity to the poorly defined or
unknown elastic stiffness. In the case of the derived capacity curves for ductile
limit states, it is clear to see that ductile effective periods are in fact a function
of elastic stiffness, implicitly determined in the assumed relationship between pe-
riod and height. Thus, base shear is shown once again to be a function of poorly
approximated elastic properties, rather than inelastic displacement and effective
period.
Although the above outlines a significant failing hidden within the proposed
methodology, it is a failing that is only highlighted when its equations are applied
to the assessment of a single structure or when such an application is with intent to
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
design. It must therefore be recalled that the motivation behind the development
of this simplified method was not one of design on a case-by-case basis, but one of
assessment on a large and non site-specific scale. As such, the use of such a simple
relationship between period and height can be judged as fully justified.
5.2. Deterministic vs. probabilistic approach

The method described thus far outlines a deterministic approach for the estimation
of loss due to a given earthquake within a particular building class over a particu-
lar region. In its derivation, two important assumptions have been implicitly made;
firstly, the existence of a known and deterministic relationship between period and
height and, secondly, that the various input parameters can be well approximated
over a given building stock. The first of these two assumptions allows the construc-
tion of the capacity-period curves derived in Sec. 2, whilst the second then enables
these curves to be applied indiscriminately across a given building stock.
However, both these assumptions are simplifications of the reality, and neglect
the existence of known uncertainties. Indeed, relationships between elastic period
and height are far from deterministic. Such equations are typically derived from re-
gression analysis with height as the only independent variable and, as such, possess
significant scatter. Whilst it will often be hard to determine single value approxima-
tions of the input parameters that will result in a meaningful estimation of capac-
ity across the entire building stock, the use of statistical distributions could often
capture in a much more credible manner the actual properties of these variables.
Characterising instead the input parameters (including height) as random vari-
ables, defined by known statistical distributions, and including in any period-height
relationship a measure of the scatter, the equations present in the current work could
be used to describe a correlated Joint Probability Density Function (JP DF ) be-
tween capacity and effective period. This JP DF would then be intersected by any
given demand curve in much the same way as are current capacity-period curves.
However, in this instance, the volume of the JP DF above the demand curve pro-
vides the probability of any building in the exposed stock chosen at random in
failing a given limit state, and through that the proportion of buildings in similar
condition.
In this way, the proposed methodology would clearly begin to approach, philo-
sophically at least, the method suggested by Calvi [1999], previously discussed.
However, in this case, the inclusion of sound fundamental relationships between
capacity and height, and between height and period, would provide a conceptually
sounder, more accurate, and ultimately more flexible solution.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, the first steps in the development of an innovative simplified method
for earthquake loss estimation of classes of buildings are presented. The proposed
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
procedure possesses all the inherent advantages of a displacement-based approach,

whilst reducing the required calculations by one or more orders of magnitude when
compared to conventional vulnerability assessment procedures such as the HAZUS
procedure.
The present endeavour consisted in deriving conceptually sound relationships
between period, height and displacement capacity, that enable direct estimation of
the distribution of damage states across a particular class of buildings at a specific
location for a prescribed earthquake scenario. The equations presented in the body
of this presentation provide the foundation for an extensive parametric study that
will follow, whereby case study applications used in sensitivity analyses will pursue
the identification of the effect that the variability in the quality of input data, and
the complexity of the modelling adopted, have on the outcome of a loss estimation
exercise.
Further, the paper outlines a deterministic method for displacement-based
earthquake loss assessment across a given region. The next step in the development
of this simplified displacement-based procedure, other than its obvious extension
to other building classes and structural systems (e.g. masonry structures, wall sys-
tems, infilled frames, shear failure mechanisms), must be the incorporation of a
probabilistic representation of both the period-height relationships and the input
variables to the capacity curves.
Acknowledgments
The authors are especially grateful to Dr. Julian Bommer, from Imperial College
of London, for his contributions to the development of this work. The basic idea
of the simplified approach presented in this paper was born of long and interesting
discussions with him, and his enthusiastic support and insightful suggestions, as
well the thorough reviews of parts of the manuscript, were extremely valuable for
the completion of the work presented herein. The authors would also like to thank
Professor Nigel Priestley for his helpful comments and suggestions, and Ms. Helen
Crowley, for her help in the verification of the derived formulae.
References
Bommer, J. J., Elnashai, A. S and Weir, A. G. [2000] “Compatible acceleration and
displacement spectra for seismic design codes,” Proc. 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Bommer, J., Spence, R., Erdik, M., Tabuchi, S., Aydinoglu, N., Booth, E., del Re, D. and
Peterken, O. [2002] “Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe
insurance,” J. Seism. 6(3), 431–446.
Calvi, G. M. [1999] “A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes
of buildings,” J. Earthq. Engrg. 3(3), 411–438.
Calvi, G. M. and Pavese, A. [1995] “Displacement based design of building structures,”
Proc. of the Fifth SECED Conference on European Seismic Design Practice, Chester,
United Kingdom, pp. 127–132.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
CEB [1994] Behaviour and Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Under Alternate
Action Inducing Inelastic Response. Bulletin No. 220, Comité Euro-International du
Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland.
CEN [2002] European Prestandard ENV 1998-1-4: Eurocode 8 — Design provisions for
earthquake resistance of structures, Part 1–4: Strengthening and repair of build-
ings. Draft No. 5, May 2002, Doc CEN/TC250/SC8/N317, Comite Europeen de
Normalisation, Brussels.
Faccioli, E., Pessina, V., Calvi, G. M. and Borzi, B. [1999] “A study on damage scenarios
for residential buildings in Catania,” J. Seism. 3, 327–343.
Fajfar, P. [1999] “Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra,” Earthq.
Engrg. & Struct. Dyn. 28(9), 979–993.
FEMA [1999] HAZUS99 — Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology: User’s Manual.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
Freeman, S. A., Nicoletti, J. P. and Tyrrell, J. V. [1975] “Evaluation of existing buildings

for seismic risk — A case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash-
ington,” Proceedings of the U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Inst., Oakland, California, pp. 113–122.
Freeman, S. A. [1998] “The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design,”
Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998.
Glaister, S. [2002] “A simplified deformation-based method for seismic vulnerability as-
sessment,” MSc Dissertation, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of
Seismic Risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
King, S. A., Kiremidjian, A. S., Basoz, N., Law, K., Vucetic, M., Douroudian, M., Olson,
R. A., Eidnger, J. M., Goettel, K. A. and Horner, G. [1997] “Methodologies for
evaluating the socio-economic consequences of large earthquakes,” Earthq. Spectra
13, 565–584.
Kircher, C. A., Nassar, A. A., Kustu, O. and Holmes, W. T. [1997] “Development of
building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation,” Earthq. Spectra 13(4),
663–682.
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N. and MacRae, G. A. [1995] “Displacement-based
design of RC bridge columns in seismic regions,” Earthq. Engrg. Struct. Dyn. 24(12),
1623–1643.
McGuire, R. K. [2001] “Deterministic vs. probabilistic earthquake hazard and risks,” Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Engrg. 21, 377–384.
Miyakoshi, J., Hayashi, Y., Tamura, K. and Fukuwa, N. [1997] “Damage ratio functions
for buildings using damage data of the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake,” Proceedings of
the Seventh International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR
’97), Kyoto.
Moehle, J. P. [1992] “Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earth-
quakes,” Earthq. Spectra 8(3), 403–428.
Musson, R. M. W. [2000] “Intensity-based seismic risk assessment,” Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Engrg. 20, 353–360.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. [1992] Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Pinho, R., Bommer, J. J and Glaister, S. [2002] “A simplified approach to displacement-
based earthquake loss estimation analysis,” Proceedings of the Twelfth European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK, Paper No. 738.
Priestley, M. J. N. [1993] “Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering — conflicts
between design and reality,” Bull. New Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthq. Engrg. 3, 329–341.
May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098
Priestley, M. J. N. [1997] “Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete

buildings,” J Earthq. Engrg. 1(1), 157–192.
Priestley, M. J. N. [1998] “Brief comments on elastic flexibility of reinforced concrete
frames and significance to seismic design,” Bull. New Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthq. Engrg.
31(4), 246–259.
Priestley, M. J. N. [2000] “Direct displacement based design fundamental procedures,”
Keynote Address, Proc. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auck-
land, New Zealand.
Priestley, M. J. N. and Kowalsky, M. J. [2000] “Direct displacement-based seismic design
of concrete buildings,” Bull. New Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthq. Engrg. 33(4), 421–444.
Scawthorn, C., Iemura, H. and Yamada, Y. [1981] “Seismic damage estimation for low-
and mid-rise buildings in Japan,” Earthq. Engrg. & Struct. Dyn. 9, 93–115.
Shinozuka, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Abrams, D. P., Hwang, H. H. M. and
Rose, A. [1997] “Advances in earthquake loss estimation and application to Memphis,

Tennessee,” Earthq. Spectra 13(4), 739–758.
Spence, R., Peterken, O., Booth, E., Aydinoglu, N. del Re, D., Bommer, J. and Tabuchi, S.
[2002] “Seismic loss estimation for Turkish catastrophe insurance,” Proceedings Sev-
enth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM, Paper No. 341.
Whitman, R. V., Anagnos, T., Kircher, C., Lagorio, H. C., Lawson, R. S. and Schneider,
P. [1997] “Development of a national earthquake loss methodology,” Earthq. Spectra
13(4), 643–661.
Yamazaki, F. and Murao, O. [2000] “Vulnerability functions for Japanese buildings based
on damage data from the 1995 Kobe earthquake,” in Implications of Recent Earth-
quakes on Seismic Risk (eds. A. S. Elnashai & S. Antoniou), Imperial College Press,
pp. 91–102.

Glaister 2003

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Glaister 2003

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

May 5, 2003 16:51 WSPC/124-JEE 00098

Journal of Earthquake Engineering,

DEVELOPMENT OF A SIMPLIFIED DEFORMATION-BASED

S. GLAISTER and R. PINHO

Keywords: Displacement; deformation-based; vulnerability assessment.

108 S. Glaister & R. Pinho

Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 109

1.2. Current methods for seismic vulnerability assessment of

vulnerability of building inventory to the effects of strong ground shaking, the

to direct economic loss.

110 S. Glaister & R. Pinho

mation of damage states. Further, and in contrast to methods based exclusively on

evolution in construction practice and, in particular, to model the effects of retrofit

Demand Spectrum 100%

Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 111

Fig. 2. Intersection of capacity areas with demand curves [Calvi, 1999].

112 S. Glaister & R. Pinho

1.3. Proposed deformation-based seismic vulnerability

shown conceptually in Fig. 3(a).

LS3 LS2 LS1 frequency

HLSi = f (TLsi , LSi)

Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 113

spectrum method to estimate directly the distribution of damage states across a

2. Derivation of the Capacity Curves

2.1. Failure modes and displacement profiles

114 S. Glaister & R. Pinho

2.2. Effective height coefficient

Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 115

Fig. 5. Definition of effective height coefficient.

efh = 0.64 n≤4 (1a)

In the case of the column-sway mechanism, however, Hcsf decreases as inelastic

116 S. Glaister & R. Pinho

employed in the computation of its inelastic portion.

hand, feature negligible gains in the accuracy of the results, as demonstrated by

2.3. Capacity-height relationships

2.3.1. Yield limit states

Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 117

118 S. Glaister & R. Pinho

the columns. The deformation mechanism, however, remains the same.

2.3.2. Post-yield limit states

Lph = efp hx = 0.5hx (9c)

θpi = Lph (ΦLSi − Φy ) = 0.5hx(ΦLSi − Φy ) (9d)

∆pi = θpi Hx = 0.5hx(ΦLSi − Φy )Hx . (9e)

Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 119

capacities shown below in Eqs. (10) and (11), respectively.

∆LSi = 0.5efhHT εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 1.7 − εy (10)

2.3.3. Ductility at any given limit state

2.4. Period-height relationships

2.4.1. Yield limit states

120 S. Glaister & R. Pinho

objective is to approximate period of buildings with cracked sections, and hence

HT (TLSy ) = (10 · TLSy )4/3 . (15)

2.4.2. Post-yield limit states

fy = ky ∆y = kLSi ∆LSi (16a)

Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 121

T ∝ k −12 ∝ µ1/2 (16c)

εC(LSi) + εS(LSi) − 1.7εy hb −2/3

2.5. Capacity curves

122 S. Glaister & R. Pinho

For column-sway frames,

2.6. Curve characteristics

2.6.1. Beam-sway curves

Deformation-Based Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 123