TR148 King, Etal

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
CORRELATION OF OBSERVED BUILDING PERFORMANCE

WITH MEASURED GROUND MOTION
by
Stephanie A. King, Anne S. Kiremidjian,
Pooya Sarabandi and Dimitrios Pachakis
Report No. 148

February 2005
The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center was established to promote

research and education in earthquake engineering. Through its activities our
understanding of earthquakes and their effects on mankinds facilities and structures
is improving. The Center conducts research, provides instruction, publishes reports
and articles, conducts seminar and conferences, and provides financial support for
students. The Center is named for Dr. John A. Blume, a well-known consulting
engineer and Stanford alumnus.
Address:
The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center
Stanford University
Stanford CA 94305-4020
(650) 723-4150
(650) 725-9755 (fax)
racquelh@stanford.edu
http://blume.stanford.edu
2005 The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center
Correlation of Observed Building Performance

with Measured Ground Motion
Stephanie A. King
Weidlinger Associates, Inc.
Anne S. Kiremidjian
Pooya Sarabandi
Dimitris Pachakis
Stanford University
CSMIP 2001 Data Interpretation Project

Final Report
May 31, 2005
ABSTRACT
This report describes an investigation of the correlation of building performance with
recorded strong ground motion, and the subsequent development of empirical motion-damage
relationships in the form of lognormal fragility curves and derived damage probability matrices.
The data used in the project are limited to non-proprietary post-earthquake investigation datasets
containing both damaged and undamaged buildings that were systematically collected and
archived by experienced engineers within 1000 feet of strong ground motion recording stations.
Empirical lognormal fragility curves are developed for six model building types
(including wood, concrete, and steel frame) conditional on 16 strong ground motion parameters
and six building demand parameters, using four standard characterizations of building
performance (ATC-13, HAZUS99, FEMA 273/356, and Vision 2000). The curves and derived
damage probability matrices are compared to models published in ATC-13 (ATC, 1985) and
HAZAUS99 (FEMA, 1999). The comparison shows that the relationships developed in the
project are quite different from the published models; however, the loss estimates resulting from
the application of the models are similar.
Given the small number of datasets used in the analysis, the motion-damage relationships
developed in the project are limited in their application. However, the databases of strong
ground motion parameters and building performance data developed for the analysis, as well as
the methodology outlined and illustrated for developing empirical fragility curves, provide a
wealth of information that can be augmented and used in future research on the correlation of
building performance with recorded strong ground motion.
APPLICATION TO CODES AND PRACTICES

Relationships between building performance and measured ground motion form the core
of regional and site-specific earthquake loss estimation methodologies. Currently-used
relationships are based primarily on expert opinion and results of analytical model simulation,
with select inclusion of proprietary empirical datasets. Correlations between damage and
measured ground motion, such as those developed in this project, provide a means for validating
and revising the currently-used relationships. The non-proprietary empirical data on building
performance and the corresponding strong ground motion records that have been collected,
archived, standardized, and analyzed in the process of developing the correlations also provide a
valuable source of information that can be augmented with data following future earthquakes.
Correlations between building performance and measured ground motion are used not
only for earthquake loss estimation, but also for validating and calibrating existing building
design codes and practices. The development of new performance-based seismic design codes
requires the ability to characterize the performance of various types of structures under various
levels of ground shaking. Performance characterization is also necessary in the seismic risk
assessment process, e.g., an owner weights the costs of various risk reduction measures for a new
or existing building against the benefits in terms of improved seismic performance.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was primarily funded by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program of the California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation.
Additional funding was provided by Weidlinger Associates, Inc. and the John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center at Stanford University. The authors wish to thank Moh Huang
and Tony Shakal of CSMIP for their guidance and oversight. The authors are also grateful to the
following individuals who provided valuable data for use in the project: David Bonowitz,
Consulting Structural Engineer; Bret Lizundia, Rutherford & Chekene; Chris Poland, Degenkolb
Engineers; and Chris Rojahn, Applied Technology Council. Ayse Hortacsu and Wing Yin Law
provided assistance with the case study application in Chapter 5 and the information contained in
Appendix B.
iii
CONTENTS
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
1.
2.
3.
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
1.1
Background ..............................................................................................................1
1.2
Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................3
1.3
Organization of the Report.......................................................................................4
Building Performance Data..................................................................................................6

2.1
Summary of Datasets Collected...............................................................................6
2.2
Classification by Structural Type.............................................................................8
2.3
Characterization of Earthquake Performance ..........................................................9
Strong Ground Motion Data ..............................................................................................12

3.1
Sources for Data.....................................................................................................12
3.2
Time-Dependent Ground Motion Parameters........................................................13
3.3
3.2.1
Peak Values of Ground Motion Amplitude ...............................................13
3.2.2
Duration .....................................................................................................18
3.2.3
RMS Acceleration......................................................................................20
3.2.4
Arias Intensity............................................................................................21
Frequency-Dependent Ground Motion Parameters ...............................................22

3.3.1
Response Spectrum Values........................................................................22
3.3.2
Response Spectrum (Housner) Intensity....................................................23
3.3.3
Acceleration Response Intensity................................................................23
3.3.4
Effective Peak Acceleration and Effective Peak Velocity.........................24
iv
4.
3.4
Modified Mercalli Intensity ...................................................................................24
3.5
Building Demand Parameters ................................................................................25
3.5.2
Roof Drift Ratio .........................................................................................26
3.5.3
Interstory Drift Ratio..................................................................................28
3.5.4
Ratio of Spectral Acceleration to Design Base Shear Coefficient.............30
4.1
Overview................................................................................................................33
4.2
Data Analysis and Model Development Methodology..........................................35
4.4
6.
Predominant Period of Buildings...............................................................25
Development of Motion-Damage Relationships ...............................................................33
4.3
5.
3.5.1
4.2.1
Correlation Between Building Performance and Measured Ground

Motion Parameters .....................................................................................35
4.2.2
Empirical Damage Probability Matrices....................................................35
4.2.3
Fragility Functions .....................................................................................37
4.2.4
Derived Damage Probability Matrices.......................................................38
Summary of Results...............................................................................................40
4.3.1
Wood Frame Buildings ..............................................................................40
4.3.2
Steel Frame Buildings................................................................................49
4.3.3
Concrete Frame Buildings (Northridge Earthquake).................................57
4.3.4
Concrete Frame Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake)......................................68
Sensitivity of Distance from Recording Station to Building Site ..........................74
Application of Motion-Damage Relationships ..................................................................78

5.1
Regional Damage and Loss Estimation .................................................................78
5.2
Site-Specific Damage and Loss Estimation...........................................................84
Conclusions........................................................................................................................95
References......................................................................................................................................98
Appendix A: Ground Motion Parameter Data ............................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Lognormal Fragility Parameters and Curves..........................................................B-1
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
3-1
Illustration of Trifunac and Brady strong-motion duration (90% cumulative energy)......19
3-2
Illustration of bracketed duration with 0.05g acceleration threshold ................................20
4-1
Illustration of relationship among damage probability matrix, probability distribution fit,

and fragility curve for hypothetical data............................................................................34
4-2
Fragility curves for W1 building class, (a) computed in the project and (b) from
HAZUS99 ..........................................................................................................................46
4-3
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGA..............48
4-4
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and parameter
PGD ...................................................................................................................................49
4-5
Damage probability matrix for W1 building class, (a) computed in the project and (b)
from ATC-13 .....................................................................................................................50
4-6
Fragility curves for S1 building class, (a) computed in the project and (b) from
HAZUS99 (class S1M high code) .....................................................................................54
4-7
Fragility curves for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGA ...............55
4-8
Fragility curves for S1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and

parameter R .......................................................................................................................56
4-9
Damage probability matrix for S1 building class, (a) computed in the project and (b) from
ATC-13 (class 16, mid-rise steel moment frame)..............................................................57
4-10
Fragility curves for C1 building class (Northridge earthquake), (a) computed in the
project and (b) from HAZUS99 (class C1H high code) ....................................................65
4-11
Fragility curves for C1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter HI ..................66
4-12
Fragility curves for C1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and

parameter RMS...................................................................................................................66
4-13
Damage probability matrix for C1 building class (Northridge earthquake), (a) computed
in the project and (b) from ATC-13 (class 20, high-rise concrete moment frame) ...........67
4-14
Fragility curves for C3 building class (Chi-Chi earthquake), (a) computed in the project
and (b) from HAZUS99 (class C3M low code).................................................................72
4-15
Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), ATC-13 damage states, and
parameter PGA...................................................................................................................73
vii
4-16
Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), FEMA 273/356 performance

levels, and parameter AI.....................................................................................................74
4-17
Damage probability matrix for C3 building class (Chi-Chi earthquake), (a) computed in
the project and (b) from ATC-13 (class 79, mid-rise concrete frame with masonry infill
walls)..................................................................................................................................75
5-1
ShakeMap Intensity map for the 1994 Northridge earthquake..........................................79
5-2
Site acceleration response spectra computed for data shown in Table 5-9........................87
5-3
Simulated acceleration time history data corresponding to response spectra shown in

Figure 5-2...........................................................................................................................88
viii
LIST OF TABLES
2-1
Model Building Type Classification from FEMA 310 (FEMA, 1998) ...............................8
2-2
ATC-13 Damage States (ATC, 1985)..................................................................................9
2-3
HAZUS99 Damage States (FEMA, 1999).........................................................................10
2-4
FEMA 273/356 Performance Levels (FEMA, 2000) ........................................................10
2-5
Vision 2000 Performance Levels (SEAOC, 1995) ............................................................10
2-6
Correspondence Among Damage States and Percent Loss ...............................................10
2-7
Summary of Building Performance Data...........................................................................11
3-1
Summary of Northridge Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Stations used in Project......14
3-2
Summary of Chi-Chi Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Stations Used in Project .........17
3-3
Values for Modification Factor C0 (from FEMA, 2000) ...................................................28
3-4
Ductility Factors used in Base Shear Coefficient Calculations .........................................32
3-5
Modal Mass Coefficient Values.........................................................................................32
4-1
Strong Ground Motion and Building Demand Parameters Used in Project ......................36
4-2
Correlations Between Ground Motion and Building Demand Parameters and Damage
States or Performance Levels for Building Class W1 .......................................................41
4-3
Correlations Between Ground Motion and Building Demand Parameters and Percent
Loss for Building Class W1...............................................................................................42
4-4
States or Performance Levels for Building Class W2 .......................................................43
4-5
Loss for Building Class W2...............................................................................................44
4-6
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class W1...............45
4-7
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class W2...............45
4-8
States or Performance Levels for Building Class S1 .........................................................51
4-9
Loss for Building Class S1 ................................................................................................52
ix
4-10
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class S1 ................53
4-11
States or Performance Levels for Building Class C1 (Northridge Earthquake) ................58
4-12
Loss for Building Class C1 (Northridge Earthquake)........................................................59
4-13
States or Performance Levels for Building Class C2 (Northridge Earthquake) ................60
4-14
Loss for Building Class C2 (Northridge Earthquake)........................................................61
4-15
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class C1 (Northridge
Earthquake) ........................................................................................................................63
4-16
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class C2 (Northridge
Earthquake) ........................................................................................................................64
4-17
States or Performance Levels for Building Class C3 (Chi-Chi Earthquake).....................69
4-18
Loss for Building Class C3 (Chi-Chi Earthquake) ............................................................70
4-19
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class C3 (Chi-Chi
Earthquake) ........................................................................................................................71
4-20
Comparison Between Ground Motion and Building Demand Parameters and Damage
States or Performance Levels for Building Class S1 and Two Site-to-Station Distances .77
5-1
HAZUS99 Results: Number of Buildings in Each Damage State by General Structural

Class for Los Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Default
Fragility Parameters ...........................................................................................................80
5-2
HAZUS99 Results: Number of Buildings in Each Damage State by General Structural

Class for Los Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using
Fragility Parameters Developed in Project ........................................................................80
5-3
HAZUS99 Results: Number of Buildings in Each Damage State by General Occupancy

Class for Los Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Default
Fragility Parameters ...........................................................................................................82
5-4
HAZUS99 Results: Number of Buildings in Each Damage State by General Occupancy

Class for Los Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using
Fragility Parameters Developed in Project ........................................................................82
5-5
HAZUS99 Results: Building Loss by General Structural Class for Los Angeles County
and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Default Fragility Parameters............83
5-6
HAZUS99 Results: Building Loss by General Structural Class for Los Angeles County
and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Fragility Parameters Developed in
Project ................................................................................................................................83
5-7
HAZUS99 Results: Building Loss by General Occupancy Class for Los Angeles County
and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Default Fragility Parameters............85
5-8
HAZUS99 Results: Building Loss by General Occupancy Class for Los Angeles County
and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Fragility Parameters Developed in
Project ................................................................................................................................85
5-9
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Parameters for Building Site ..............................................86
5-10
Ground Motion Parameters Computed from Site-Specific Acceleration Data..................90
5-11
Expected Damage for Example Site-Specific Analysis of Single-Story W1 Building for

10% in 50 Year Ground Motion Hazard............................................................................91
5-12
Expected Damage for Example Site-Specific Analysis of Single-Story W1 Building for

2% in 50 Year Ground Motion Hazard..............................................................................92
5-13
Expected Loss for Example Site-Specific Analysis of Single-Story W1 Building for 10%
in 50 Year Ground Motion Hazard ....................................................................................93
5-14
Expected Loss for Example Site-Specific Analysis of Single-Story W1 Building for 2%

in 50 Year Ground Motion Hazard ....................................................................................94
xi
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Relationships between building performance and ground motion form the core of
earthquake loss estimation methodologies, and are also used for structural analysis studies and in
the design code formulation process. Currently-used motion-damage relationships are based
primarily on models developed from expert opinion, such as ATC-13 (ATC, 1985), or models
that combine analytical model results with expert opinion, such as HAZUS99 (FEMA, 1999).
Attempts have been made to update the published motion-damage relationships with empirical
data collected after damaging earthquakes (see Anagnos et al., 1995; FEMA, 2000; Lizundia and
Holmes, 1997). Small improvements have been made, but in most cases, progress in model
refinement has been hampered by the lack of useful building performance empirical data.
The majority of the building performance empirical datasets that have been collected
following significant earthquakes are deficient in some respect, which limits their use for
developing relationships that correlate building performance to ground motion. Some of the
deficiencies in these datasets include the following:
Relatively small number of data points
Bias towards damaged or noteworthy buildings
Focus is only on a few select building types
Not collected in a consistent and complete manner by experienced engineers
Collected and held by private companies; not publicly available for research use
Buildings are not located near to free-field recording instruments

In recent years, there have been selected efforts undertaken to remedy the lack of useful
building performance empirical data. For example, following the 1994 Northridge earthquake,
an effort was made to systematically document the effects of earthquake shaking on structures
adjacent to locations of strong ground motion recordings. The ATC-38 project (ATC, 2000)
involved the inspection of more than 500 buildings located near (within 1000 feet of) 30 strong
motion recording stations. The resulting database of building characteristic and performance
documentation, photos, and strong motion recordings provides a wealth of information for
developing new motion-damage relationships based on non-proprietary empirical data. A similar
dataset was also developed following the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake by Degenkolb
Engineers (Heintz and Poland, 2001).
The U.S. Federal Government, via the 2001-2005 Strategic Plan of the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), has also recently recognized the importance
of post-earthquake investigations. The primary responsibility and authority for post-earthquake
investigations rests with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Recognizing the many
deficiencies in the current post-earthquake data collection and dissemination efforts, the USGS,
with assistance from the Applied Technology Council, developed a Plan to Coordinate NEHRP
Post-Earthquake Investigations (USGS, 2003). The NEHRP post-earthquake coordination plan
addresses coordination among the NEHRP agencies (Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Science Foundation
(NSF), USGS) and their partners. The plan covers all aspects of post-earthquake investigations
ranging in time from hours to years after the earthquake. Most importantly, for the development
of relationships correlating building performance to recorded ground motion, the NEHRP plan
deals with identification, collection, processing, documentation, dissemination, and archiving of
the results of the post-earthquake investigations.
The availability of comprehensive empirical data on the performance of buildings in

earthquakes is one essential part of developing motion-damage relationships. A second essential
part is a clear and systematic method for combining that empirical data with the associated
recorded ground motion parameters to produce fragility curves and damage probability matrices
that can be used in earthquake loss estimation methodologies, structural studies, and in design
code formulation. Examples of published material on fragility curve development include
Singhal and Kiremidjian (1996), who present a method for developing fragility curves using
simulated ground motion parameters with analytically-derived building performance data, and
Basoz and Kiremidjian (1999), who use documented bridge damage and repair cost data with
recorded earthquake motions to develop empirical fragility curves for several classes of highway
bridges.
1.2
Purpose and Scope

The primary purpose of this project was to develop motion-damage relationships based
on the correlation of observed building performance with measured ground motion parameters.
Data used for developing the motion-damage relationships were limited to those buildings for
which consistent and complete post-earthquake surveys were done and for which a strong ground
motion recording instrument is located close enough so that the recorded motion at the
instrument site can be assumed to be that experienced at the building site. Due to this limitation,
motion-damage relationships (in the form of fragility curves and damage probability matrices)
were developed only for those building types with enough data points to result in a statistically
significant sample size.
The scope of the project involved the completion of the following tasks:
Identify and collect non-proprietary building performance datasets and relevant strong
ground motion data recordings
Classify building performance data by structural type and damage characterization
Compute time- and frequency-dependent ground motion parameters and archive in a

database
Identify ground motion parameters with highest correlation with building performance
for purposes of developing motion-damage relationships
Develop fragility curves and damage probability matrices
Compare new fragility curves and damage probability matrices to existing motiondamage relationships
1.3
Illustrate use of relationships

Organization of Report
This report describes the development of motion-damage relationships based on the
correlation of observed building performance with measured ground motion parameters. Chapter
2 describes the building performance data, including the criteria for selection and the
classification of the data records for use in correlating performance to measured ground motion.
A standard classification was used for building type and four different classifications were used
to characterize performance levels. Chapter 3 provides a similar discussion of the strong ground
motion data that were used in the project. Ground motion recordings located within 1000 feet
and 1 km of inspected buildings were selected and analyzed to compute time- and frequencydependent ground motion parameters for correlation with building performance. Chapter 3 also
includes definitions of the ground motion parameters.
The procedure for developing relationships that correlate building performance to

measured ground motion parameters is described in Chapter 4. Relationships were developed for
a select set of building types and ground motion parameters, limited to those building types for
which sufficient data were available and ground motion parameters for which the highest
correlations were observed. Also included in Chapter 4 is a comparison of the correlations
between building performance and measured ground motion using ground motion data recorded
within 1000 feet of the building versus ground motion recorded within 1 km. Chapter 5
illustrates the use of the motion-damage relationships for regional and site-specific earthquake
loss estimation, including comparison to the most commonly used published models.
Appendices to this report include the ground motion parameter data and the lognormal
fragility curves developed in the project. Appendices A and B contain most of this information
in hard copy. The complete set of ground motion parameter data and motion-damage
relationship data can be obtained in electronic format by contacting the authors of the report.
The building performance database cannot be released as an appendix to this report; however,
those interested in the data can obtain copies of the original datasets from the appropriate
organization as discussed in Chapter 2.
BUILDING PERFORMANCE DATA
2.1
Summary of Datasets Collected

In order to develop meaningful and useful motion-damage relationship that correlate
building performance to recorded ground motion data, the datasets need to satisfy certain criteria.
These criteria include:
Proximity to free-field ground motion recordings building should be located close

enough to strong motion recordings so that the shaking at the building site can be
approximated as the shaking at the instrument site. Also, the building should not
have any site-specific geologic conditions that might alter the ground shaking at the
site.
Non-proprietary the datasets should contain information that is available to the

general public so that other researchers may use the raw data, with their own
proprietary data or with information collected after future earthquakes.
Sufficient number of data points statistical relationships will only be meaningful for
those building classes with a large enough sample size.
Consistent building survey information building performance data should have been
collected in a standard format with consistent inspector interpretation of qualitative
and quantitative measures of damage.
Unbiased with respect to building damage datasets often include information only
for damaged buildings. Statistical relationships will not be meaningful unless the
datasets include information for both damaged and undamaged buildings.
The first task of the project was to identify and collect datasets that meet the above
criteria, which were found to be quite stringent and limiting. Extensive data search efforts were
undertaken for appropriate datasets from several recent significant earthquakes, including the
1989 Loma Prieta, the 1994 Northridge, the 1999 Chi-Chi, and the 2000 Nisqually earthquakes.
The following datasets were collected for use in the project:
ATC-38 Database on the Performance of Structures Near Strong-Motion

Recordings: 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake (ATC, 2000). This dataset
contains approximately 500 buildings of several structural types surveyed by licensed
engineers and located within 1000 feet of a strong motion recording station.
LADiv88 Rutherford and Chekene Database on the Performance of Rehabilitated

Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (Retrofitted According to Los Angeles Division 88
Standards) in the 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake (Lizundia and Holmes,
1997). This dataset contains approximately 850 retrofitted unreinforced masonry
building that were inspected following the earthquake; only about 50 of the buildings
are located within 1000 feet of a strong motion recording station.
SAC Database on the Performance of Steel Moment Frame Buildings in the 1994
Northridge, California Earthquake (FEMA, 2000). This dataset contains
approximately 150 steel frame buildings that were inspected following the earthquake
as part of the FEMA-funded SAC project; only about 20 of the buildings are located
within 1000 feet of a strong motion recording station.
Chi-Chi Degenkolb Database on the Performance of Buildings Near Strong-Motion

Recording Stations (Heintz and Poland, 2001). This dataset contains approximately
85 concrete frame buildings inspected following the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan
earthquake. The development of this dataset followed the ATC-38 method, and all
buildings are located within 1000 feet of a strong motion recording station.
2.2
Classification by Structural Type

Following the collection and archiving of the datasets listed in Section 2.1, it was
necessary to use a consistent and standard classification of building characteristics to group

buildings by structural type. The buildings were classified according to the FEMA 310 (FEMA,
1998) model building type definitions shown in Table 2-1. In most cases, the datasets did not
have enough information to allow distinction between stiff and flexible diaphragms, thus the
buildings were assumed to belong to the more general class, e.g., S1 instead of S1A.
Table 2-1
Model Building Type Classification from FEMA 310 (FEMA, 1998)
Framing System
Wood Light Frame
Commercial or Long-Span Wood Frame
Steel Moment Frame
Steel Braced Frame
Steel Light Frame
Steel Frame w/ Concrete Shear Walls
Steel Frame w/ Infill Masonry Shear Walls
Concrete Moment Frame
Concrete Shear Wall Building
Concrete Frame w/ Infill Masonry Shear Walls
Precast/Tiltup Concrete Shear Walls
Precast Concrete Frame w/ Concrete Shear Walls
Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall with Flexible
Diaphragms
Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall with Stiff
Diaphragms
Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall
Reference Codes
W1 - Typical Construction
W1A - Soft-story Construction
W2
S1 - Stiff Diaphragms
S1A - Flexible Diaphragms
S3
S4
C1
C2 - Stiff Diaphragms
C2A - Flexible Diaphragms
C3 - Stiff Diaphragms
C3A - Flexible Diaphragms
PC1 - Flexible Diaphragms
PC1A - Stiff Diaphragms
PC2
RM1
RM2
URM - Flexible Diaphragms
URMA - Stiff Diaphragms
2.3
Characterization of Earthquake Performance

In addition to a standard classification by structural type, it was necessary to group the
buildings by a standard and consistent description of earthquake performance. Four different

performance characterizations were used in the project to facilitate more wide-spread use of the
developed motion-damage relationships. Tables 2-2 through 2-5 summarize these four
characterizations, namely ATC-13 (ATC, 1985) damage states, HAZUS99 (FEMA, 1999)
damage states, FEMA 273/356 (FEMA, 2000) performance levels, and Vision 2000 (SEAOC,
1995) performance levels. The performance of each building was described in one of these four
characterizations or in terms of percent loss (of building replacement value). A correspondence
among the performance characterizations was developed in terms of percent loss as shown in
Table 2-6 so that the performance of each building could be characterized using all four schemes.
Table 2-7 summarizes the building performance data by structural type, HAZUS99
damage state (None, Slight, Moderate, Extensive, and Complete), and source of data. Note that
the largest dataset is the W1 model building type (Wood Light Frame), representing nearly 50%
of the total buildings. Note also that more than 80% of the buildings were reported to have little
or no damage.
Table 2-2
Damage State
1, None
2, Slight
3, Light
4, Moderate
5, Heavy
6, Major
7, Destroyed
ATC-13 Damage States (ATC, 1985)

Loss as Percentage of Replacement Value
0%
0-1%
1-10%
10-30%
30-60%
60-100%
100%
Table 2-3
Damage State
None
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Table 2-4
HAZUS99 Damage States (FEMA, 1999)

Loss as Percentage of Replacement Value
0%
2%
10%
50%
100%
FEMA 273/356 Performance Levels (FEMA, 2000)
Performance Level
Operational
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
Table 2-5
Vision 2000 Performance Levels (SEAOC, 1995)
Performance Level
Fully Operational
Operational
Life Safe
Near Collapse
Collapse
Table 2-6
ATC-13
Damage
State
% Loss
None
0
Slight
0-1
Light
1-10
Moderate
10-30
Heavy
30-60
Major
60-100
Destroyed 100
Overall Damage Description

Very Light
Light
Moderate
Severe
Overall Damage Description

Negligible
Light
Moderate
Severe
Complete
Correspondence Among Damage States and Percent Loss

HAZUS99
Damage
State
% Loss
None
0-2
Slight
2-10
Moderate
10-50
Extensive 50-100
Complete
100
FEMA 273/356
Damage
State
% Loss
Very Light
0-1
Light
1-10
Moderate
10-50
Severe
50-100
10
Vision 2000
Damage
State
% Loss
Negligible
0-2
Light
2-10
Moderate
10-50
Severe
50-100
Complete
100
Table 2-7
Summary of Building Performance Data

Number of Building Records by HAZUS99 Damage State
Model
Building
Type
Source
of Data
W1
W2
Within 1 km of
Recording Station
Within 1000 feet of

Recording Station1
N2
S3
M4
ATC-38
195
ATC-38
31
S1
SAC,
ATC-38
18
16
S2
ATC-38
S3
ATC-38
10
S4
ATC-38
S5
ATC-38
C1
11
C6
U7
Total
21
235
35
43
10
ATC-38
13
20
C2
ATC-38,
Chi-Chi
48
11
63
C3
ATC-38,
Chi-Chi
40
22
12
14
90
PC1
ATC-38
10
PC2
ATC-38
RM1
ATC-38
31
32
66
RM2
ATC-38
23
URM
ATC-38
10
18
URM
(rehab.)
LADiv88
29
14
10
440
125
67
22
27
TOTALS
1
E5
Includes both free field and basement level recordings

2
5
None
Extensive
3
6
Slight
Complete
4
7
Moderate
Unknown
N2
S3
M4
E5
C6
U7
Total
11
46
57
54
54
35
25
116
683
54
46
71
173
STRONG GROUND MOTION DATA
3.1
Sources for Data

Following the collection of the building performance datasets, the corresponding strong
ground motion data were identified and collected. For the ATC-38 and Chi-Chi building
datasets, the strong ground motion data are included as database tables linked via the attribute
containing the building identification number. All buildings in these two datasets could be used
in the analysis as they are all located very close (within 1000 feet) of the recording stations. For
the SAC and LADiv88 building datasets, only those buildings located near to free-field strong
motion recording stations (and on similar site conditions) could be used. This was done by
mapping the building locations in a GIS and overlaying a map of the ground motion recording
stations. Two classes of buildings were extracted from their respective datasets those within
1000 feet of a recording station and those within 1 km of a recording station. The 1 km distance
criterion was added so that a sensitivity study of the resulting motion-damage correlations to
distance between buildings and recording stations could be done, as discussed in Section 4.3.
The strong ground motion data for the stations identified within the vicinity of the SAC
and LADiv88 buildings were obtained from several sources including:
COSMOS Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems

Virtual Data Center, which contains links to strong ground motion from the Strong
Motion Instrumentation Program of the California Geological Survey, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the University of Southern
California, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (www.cosmos-eq.org)
PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Strong Motion Database

(peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/)
12
NGDC National Geophysical Data Center Earthquake Strong Motion CD-ROM

(www.ngdc.noaa.gov)
A total of 83 earthquake strong ground motion recordings (66 from the Northridge
earthquake and 17 from the Chi-Chi earthquake) were collected, analyzed, and archived for use
in the project. A summary of these recording stations is given in Table 3-1. For each strong
motion record, the ground motion parameters were computed for the two horizontal components
and one vertical component. Appendix A includes a print-out of all the strong ground motion
parameters. A digital copy of the tables shown in Appendix A can be obtained by contacting one
of the authors of this report.
3.2
Time-Dependent Ground Motion Parameters
3.2.1
Peak Values of Ground Motion Amplitude

The parameters used to describe ground motion amplitude include peak ground
acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and peak ground displacement (PGD). Inertia
forces depend directly on acceleration, thus PGA is one of the parameters typically used to
describe the intensity and damage potential of an earthquake at a given site. However, PGA has
been shown to be a poor indicator of damage because it does not capture the acceleration time
historys frequency content, strong motion duration, or energy all characteristics that influence
the damage potential of earthquake shaking. PGV has recently been proposed as an indicator of
earthquake shaking severity, especially for structures that are sensitive to loading in the
intermediate-frequency range. PGV has also been shown to correlate relatively well with
Modified Mercalli Intensity (see Wald et al., 1999). PGD is generally associated with the lowerfrequency components of earthquake shaking. It is a more difficult parameter to measure
accurately due to signal processing errors with the filtering and integration of accelerograms, as
13
Table 3-1
Summary of Northridge Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Stations Used in

Project
Station
Code
Station Name
Instrument
Location
Distance to
Epicenter
(km)
CSMIP
24087
CSMIP
24231
CSMIP
24279
CSMIP
24303
CSMIP
24322
CSMIP
24370
CSMIP
24385
CSMIP
24386
CSMIP
24389
CSMIP
24400
CSMIP
24436
CSMIP
24463
CSMIP
24464
CSMIP
24538
CSMIP
24567
CSMIP
24579
CSMIP
24605
CSMIP
24611
CSMIP
24612
CSMIP
24643
Arleta,
Nordhoff Ave. Fire Station
Los Angeles,
7-story UCLA Bldg.
Newhall,
LA County Fire Station
Los Angeles,
Hollywood Storage Grounds
Sherman Oaks,
13-story Commercial Bldg.
Burbank,
6-story Commercial Bldg.
Burbank,
10-story Residential Bldg.
Van Nuys,
7-story Hotel
Century City,
LACC North
Los Angeles,
Obregon Park
Tarzana,
Cedar Hill Nursery
Los Angeles,
5-story Warehouse
North Hollywood,
20-story Hotel
Santa Monica,
City Hall Grounds
Los Angeles,
13-story Office Bldg.
Los Angeles,
Los Angeles,
University Hospital Grounds
Los Angeles,
Temple and Hope
Los Angeles,
Pico and Sentous
Los Angeles,
Ground floor
Station Location
Longitude Latitude
(W)
(N)
118.439
34.236
Ground floor
118.442
34.069
Ground floor
19
118.533
34.387
Instrument
shelter
Basement
23
118.339
34.090
10
118.465
34.154
Ground floor
22
118.308
34.185
Ground floor
21
118.311
34.187
Ground floor
118.471
34.221
Instrument
shelter
Ground floor
20
118.418
34.063
39
118.178
34.037
Instrument
shelter
Basement
118.534
34.160
36
118.223
34.028
Basement
19
118.539
34.138
Instrument
shelter
Basement
24
118.490
34.011
32
118.247
34.050
Basement
32
118.261
34.044
Instrument
shelter
Instrument
shelter
Instrument
shelter
Basement
36
118.198
34.062
32
118.246
34.059
31
118.271
34.043
21
118.416
34.059
14
Table 3-1 (cont.)
Summary of Northridge Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Stations

Used in Project
Station
Code
Station Name
Instrument
Location
Distance to
Epicenter
(km)
CSMIP
24688
USC 3
Los Angeles,
UCLA Grounds
Northridge
White Oak Covenant Church
Los Angeles,
Mount St. Marys College
Hollywood,
Laurel Childrens Center
Los Angeles,
St. Thomas School
Los Angeles,
Dayton Heights School
Los Angeles,
W. Vernon Ave. School
Los Angeles,
Fire Station 12
Los Angeles,
Divine Saviour School
Canoga Park,
Epiphany Lutheran Church
Sunland,
Mt. Gleason School
La Crescenta,
Anderson Clark School
Los Angeles,
Saturn Street School
Los Angeles,
3620 S. Vermont Ave.
Arcadia,
855 Arcadia Ave.
Los Angeles,
Sepulveda VA Hospital
Los Angeles,
Brentwood VA Hospital
Los Angeles,
1111 Sunset Blvd.
Malibu Canyon,
Monte Nido Fire Station
Topanga,
Fire Station
Instrument
shelter
Ground floor
18
Station Location
Longitude Latitude
(W)
(N)
118.439
34.068
118.517
34.209
Ground floor
15
118.057
34.086
Ground floor
21
118.537
34.086
Ground floor
29
118.335
34.045
Ground floor
26
118.298
34.082
Ground floor
33
118.279
34.005
Ground floor
34
118.189
34.111
Ground floor
32
118.222
34.088
Ground floor
118.537
34.213
Ground floor
22
118.303
34.202
Ground floor
26
118.254
34.238
Ground floor
25
118.355
34.046
Ground floor
31
118.293
34.023
Ground floor
45
118.059
34.127
Instrument
shelter
Instrument
shelter
Basement
118.478
34.249
18
118.463
34.063
31
118.248
34.067
Instrument
shelter
Instrument
shelter
20
118.693
34.078
15
118.599
34.084
USC 15
USC 18
USC 20
USC 21
USC 22
USC 32
USC 33
USC 53
USC 58
USC 60
USC 91
USC 96
USC 99
USGS
637
USGS
638
USGS
872
USGS
5080
USGS
5081
15
Table 3-1 (cont.)

Used in Project
Station
Code
Station Name
Instrument
Location
Distance to
Epicenter
(km)
USGS
5082N
USGS
5082S
USGS
5233
USGS
5284
USGS
5296
CSMIP
C002
CSMIP
C003
CSMIP
C006
CSMIP
C011
CSMIP
C014
CSMIP
C083
CSMIP
C086
CSMIP
C107
CSMIP
C115
CSMIP
C134
CSMIP
C136
CSMIP
C166
CSMIP
C201
CSMIP
C209
CSMIP
C217
Los Angeles,
Wadsworth VA Hospital
Los Angeles,
Wadsworth VA Hospital
Los Angeles,
1100 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles,
1955 Purdue Ave.
Pasadena,
535 South Wilson Ave.
Encino,
Ventura Blvd. #12
Encino,
Ventura Blvd. #1
Los Angeles,
Wilshire Blvd. #28
Los Angeles,
Miramar Street #1
Sherman Oaks,
Ventura Blvd. #6
North Hollywood,
Lankershim Blvd. #2
Beverly Hills,
Camden Drive #1
Encino,
Ventura Blvd. #13
Los Angeles,
Witmer Street #1
Universal City,
Universal City #2
Burbank,
Alameda Ave. #3
Glendale,
Brand Blvd. #4
Encino,
Ventura Blvd. #9
Los Angeles,
Wilshire Blvd. #11
Burbank,
Alameda Ave. #2
Instrument
shelter
Instrument
shelter
Basement
19
Station Location
Longitude Latitude
(W)
(N)
118.453
34.054
19
118.448
34.050
31
118.263
34.052
Basement
21
118.445
34.040
Instrument
shelter
Basement
39
118.127
34.136
8*
118.48*
34.16*
Ground floor
9*
118.48*
34.16*
Basement
29*
118.29*
34.06*
Ground floor
30*
118.27*
34.06*
Basement
9*
118.47*
34.15*
Basement
17*
118.37*
34.15*
Basement
20*
118.41*
34.07*
Basement
8*
118.49*
34.16*
Basement
31*
118.27*
34.06*
Ground floor
18*
118.36*
34.14*
Basement
19*
118.34*
34.15*
Basement
27*
118.26*
34.16*
Basement
7*
118.49*
34.16*
Ground floor
31*
118.26*
34.05*
Basement
19*
118.34*
34.15*
16
Table 3-1 (cont.)

Station
Code

Used in Project
Station Name
CSMIP
Van Nuys,
C233
Sherman Way #1
CSMIP
Los Angeles,
C234
5th Street #2
CSMIP
Woodland Hills,
C246
Oxnard Blvd. #4
CSMIP
Los Angeles,
C281
Sunset Blvd. #1
CSMIP
Glendale,
C286
Central Ave. #1
CSMIP
Van Nuys,
C315
Erwin St. #1
* values are approximate
Table 3-2
Instrument
Location
Distance to
Epicenter
(km)
Ground floor
8*
Station Location
Longitude Latitude
(W)
(N)
*
118.46
34.20*
Basement
32*
118.25*
34.05*
Basement
7*
118.60*
34.18*
Ground floor
23*
118.33*
34.10*
Ground floor
27*
118.26*
34.15*
Basement
9*
118.45*
34.18*
Summary of Chi-Chi Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Stations Used in

Project
Station
Code
Station Name
Instrument
Location
Distance to
Epicenter
(km)
CHY006
CHY028
TCU045
TCU052
TCU065
TCU067
TCU068
TCU071
TCU072
TCU074
TCU075
TCU076
TCU078
TCU079
TCU084
TCU095
TCU129
Chiayi-Meishan School
Yunlin-Shanfeg School
Miaoli-Shitan School
Taichung-Guangcheng School
Taichung-Wufeng School
Taichung-Chienmin School
Taichung-Shigang School
Tsaotun School
Nantou-Kuoshing School
Nantou-Nanguang School
Nantou-Tsaotun School
Nantou-Nantou School
Nantou-Shuili School
Yutshi School
Sun Moon School
Hsinchu-Emei School
Mingjeng School
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
40
45
77
38
26
28
47
14
21
19
20
15
5
8
9
95
14
17
Station Location
Longitude Latitude
(E)
(N)
120.55
23.58
120.82
23.63
120.91
24.54
120.82
23.85
120.69
24.06
120.72
24.09
120.77
24.28
120.79
23.99
120.85
24.04
120.96
23.96
120.68
23.98
120.68
23.91
120.85
23.81
120.89
23.84
120.90
23.88
121.01
24.69
120.68
23.88
well as issues with long period noise (Campbell, 1985; Boore et al., 1993), and is rarely used as a
measure of ground motion damage potential.
3.2.2
Duration
The duration of strong ground motion can have a significant influence on earthquake
damage. Many physical processes, such as the degradation of stiffness and strength of certain
types of structures and buildup of pore-water pressures in loose, saturated sands, are sensitive to
the number of load or stress reversals that occur during an earthquake. A motion of short
duration may not produce enough load reversals to result in damage to the structure, even if the
amplitude of the motion is high. On the other hand, a motion with moderate amplitude but long
duration can produce enough load reversals to cause substantial damage.
An earthquake accelerogram generally contains all accelerations from the time
earthquake begins until the time motion returns to the level of background noise. For
engineering purposes, only the strong motion portion of the acceleration is of interest. Several
measures of strong-motion duration have been discussed in the literature. Common definitions
of strong-motion duration include those by Trifunac and Brady (1975) and Bolt (1969), as
discussed below.
Ninety Percent Cumulative Duration (T90)
The Trifunac and Brady strong-motion duration is the time interval required to
accumulate 90 percent of the total energy. The times T1 and T2 of Trifunac and Bradys duration
definition (T90) are the points at which 5% and 95% of the total energy have been recorded, as
given in the following equations:
Td
T1
a (t)dt = 0.05 a (t)dt

2
(3.1)
18
Td
T2
a (t)dt = 0.95 a (t)dt
(3.2)
T90 = T2 T1
(3.3)
where:
Td is the total duration of the earthquake shaking
a(t) is the ground acceleration at time t
Figure 3-1 illustrates the concept of 90% cumulative energy and the corresponding
strong-motion duration.
Figure 3-1
Illustration of Trifunac and Brady strong-motion duration (90% cumulative

energy).
19
Bracketed Duration (Tb)

Bracketed duration (Bolt, 1969) is defined as the time between the first and last
exceedences of a threshold acceleration level. In this project, the most common acceleration
threshold level of 0.05g was used for computing bracketed duration. Figure 3-2 illustrates the
concept of bracketed duration.
Definition of Bracketed Duration - Northridge 1994, Los Angeles 19-story Office
0.3
0.2
First
Exceedance
Td
+0.05g
Acceleration (g)
0.1
-0.1
-0.05g
Last Exceedance
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Figure 3-2
3.2.3
10
20
30
time (sec)
40
50
60
Illustration of bracketed duration with 0.05g acceleration threshold.
RMS Acceleration
The root mean square (RMS) acceleration represents the intensity of earthquake shaking
over the strong-motion duration. RMS acceleration is defined as:
1
RMS =
Ts
2
a
(
t
)
dt
Ts
(3.4)
20
where:
TS is the strong-motion duration
RMS acceleration is a measure of the average rate of energy imparted by the ground
motion. It is often useful for engineering purposes because it incorporates the effect of duration
and it is not strongly influenced by large, high-frequency accelerations, which typically occur
only over a very short period of time. However, RMS acceleration does not provide any
information about the frequency content as it is the sum of the input energy at all frequencies. In
addition, RMS acceleration can be sensitive to the method used to define strong motion duration.
In this project, RMS acceleration has been calculated for three different definitions of strong
motion duration: 90% cumulative duration, bracketed duration, and the total duration of the
acceleration time history record.
3.2.4
Arias Intensity
Arias Intensity is a parameter closely related to RMS acceleration. Arias (1970) defined
the intensity, I, of an earthquake as the sum of the energy dissipated (per unit weight) by all the
structures belonging to the entire population, represented in equation format as:
I = Ed
(3.5)
where:
E is the energy dissipated per unit weight of a structure as a consequence of the
motion induced in it by an earthquake
is the frequency of the structure
21
Using Rayleighs Theorem for the conservation of energy in the time and frequency domains,
Equation 3.5 can be written as:
I=
Td
a
2g
(3.6)
(t )dt
where:
I is the intensity at zero damping
Td is the total duration of earthquake motion
g is the acceleration due to gravity
Arias Intensity has units of velocity and provides an estimate of the total energy
contained in an acceleration time history record. However, Arias Intensity does not incorporate
any information on the frequency content or strong motion duration of the earthquake.
3.3
Frequency-Dependent Ground Motion Parameters
3.3.1
Response Spectrum Values
A linear elastic response spectrum describes the maximum response of a single degreeof-freedom (SDOF) system to a particular input motion as a function of the natural frequency (or
natural period) and damping ratio of the SDOF system. Spectral acceleration, Sa, provides an
estimation of the maximum elastic force that can be developed in an elastic SDOF system.
Spectral Velocity, Sv, and spectral displacement, Sd, also provide information about the elastic
behavior of a SDOF system at a given frequency or period.
For each building in this project, the predominant period was estimated as described in
Section (3.4). Using the conventional damping ratio of five percent for all structures ( = 5%),
corresponding spectral values were extracted from the elastic response spectrum using
interpretation between given fundamental period values as needed.
22
3.3.2
Response Spectrum (Housner) Intensity
Response Spectrum Intensity or Housner Intensity (Housner, 1959) characterizes the

relative severity of earthquake shaking in terms of the area under the pseudo-velocity response
spectrum between 0.1 and 2.5 seconds, a range in periods that captures the fundamental period of
many structures. Housner Intensity is expressed as the following:
SI ( ) = I H
2.5
1
= S v (T , )dT =
2
0.1
2.5
(T , )TdT
(3.7)
0.1
where:
Sa(T,) is the pseudo acceleration response at period T and damping ratio
Sv(T,) is the pseudo-velocity response at period T and damping ratio
As shown in Equation 3.7, Housners Response Spectrum Intensity is the first moment of
the area of Sa (0.1 < T < 2.5 seconds) about the Sa axis. This implies that the Housner Intensity is
larger for ground motions with a significant amount of low-frequency content. Thus, ground
motions with larger Housner Intensity can indicate a higher damage potential for tall structures.
Housner Intensity, however, does not provide information on the strong motion duration.
3.3.3
Acceleration Spectrum Intensity
To characterize strong ground motion of structures with fundamental periods of less than
0.5 seconds, Von Thun et al., (1988) introduced Acceleration Spectrum Intensity (ASI), defined
as:
0.5
ASI =
(T , = 0.05)dT
(3.8)
0.1
where:
Sa(T,=0.05) is the spectral acceleration response at period T and damping ratio
equal to 5%
23
ASI is the area under the acceleration response spectra between 0.1 and 0.5 seconds, the
period range of interest for most low rise buildings. Similar to Housner Intensity, ASI does not
represent the effects of strong motion duration.
3.3.4
Effective Peak Acceleration and Effective Peak Velocity
Effective Peak Acceleration (EPA) and Effective Peak Velocity (EPV) are two factors
that are used to normalize standard response spectra, first suggested for this use in the ATC 3-06
report (ATC, 1978). EPA is defined as the average spectral acceleration over the period range of
0.1 to 0.5 seconds divided by 2.5. EPV is defined as the average spectral velocity at a period of 1
second divided by 2.5. The process of averaging the spectral values over a range of periods
minimizes the influence of local spikes in the response spectra. Again, strong motion duration is
not captured with the EPA and EPV parameters.
3.4
Modified Mercalli Intensity
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) is a qualitative parameter used to characterize the

severity of ground shaking in a geographic region. It is based on a scale that ranges from I to XII
with each level described by the effects of shaking on the people, ground surface, and built
environment (often older construction types) in the area. There is much dispute concerning the
use of this parameter. The critics maintain that the MMI scale is too subjective (it cant be
measured), it is out-of-date, and it is more of a damage scale than a ground motion scale. The
advantages to the use of the MMI scale are that it has been in use for a long time, it is familiar to
most earthquake practitioners, and one of the most widely used loss estimation models (ATC-13)
uses MMI as the input ground motion parameter.
Wald et al. (1999) developed an Instrumental Intensity (IMM) scale for use with
ShakeMap, a program to produce near real-time ground shaking distribution maps based on
24
recorded data. For this reason, IMM is occasionally referred to as ShakeMap Intensity. Based on
a regression analysis of data recorded in several earthquakes and the corresponding distribution
of MMI, IMM is computed from recorded peak ground acceleration (PGA) or peak ground
velocity (PGV) according to the following:
PGA
I MM = 3.66 log 1.66
(3.9)
PGV
I MM = 3.47 log + 2.35
(3.10)
Equation 3.9 is used for IMM of 7 or less, while Equation 3.10 is used for IMM values
greater than 7. In this project, both MMI and IMM were assigned to each recording station from
the Northridge earthquake. MMI assignment was made using the MMI map for the earthquake
produced by Dewey et al. (1994). For the recording stations from the Chi-Chi earthquake, only
IMM was computed as MMI is not typically used outside of the United States and a MMI map is
not available for this earthquake.
3.5
Building Demand Parameters
Most of the ground motion parameters discussed in the previous sections depend only on
the recorded strong ground motion and are independent of the buildings structural
characteristics. Building demand parameters characterize the effect of the ground shaking on the
building by considering the height, predominant period, and lateral-load resisting system of the
building. The most commonly used building demand parameters, and those used in this project,
are related to building drift in terms of roof drift ratio and maximum interstory drift ratio.
3.5.1
Predominant Period of Buildings
The predominant or fundamental period of a building depends on the material and type of
lateral force resisting system used in its construction. Chopra et al. (1998) have analyzed the
recorded response of a number of buildings to earthquake ground motions and performed
25
regression analysis to determine appropriate formulas for calculating the predominant period of
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame, steel moment-resistant frame and reinforced
concrete shear wall buildings. For reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame buildings, the
best estimate of the buildings predominant period (T, in seconds) can be calculated from the
building height (H, in feet) as follows:
T = 0.018H 0.90
(3.11)
For steel moment-resisting frame buildings, the best estimate of the buildings predominant
period can be calculated by the following:
T = 0.035H 0.80
(3.12)
For unreinforced masonry buildings, the following formula from the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (ICBO, 1997) was used to compute the predominant period:
T = 0.02H 0.75
(3.13)
Camelo et al. (2001) have analyzed the recorded seismic and forced vibration response of woodframe buildings and have proposed a formula for estimating the buildings predominant period as
follows:
T = 0.032 H 0.55
3.5.2
(3.14)
Roof Drift Ratio
Lateral drift is a primary cause of structural and nonstructural damage in buildings

subjected to earthquake strong ground motion. In recent studies (Moehle, 1992; Wallace 1994;
Priestley, 1996), researchers have shown that the use of displacement, rather than force, as the
demand parameter during the design process permits a more direct way to control damage. For
the purposes of this project, roof drift ratio was calculated as a function of the spectral
displacement at the buildings predominant period, the total height of the building, and a
26
correction factor that relates the spectral displacement of an equivalent single degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) system with the roof displacement of the buildings multi degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
system.
The estimate of building displacement demand during the recorded earthquake ground
motion was computed as the spectral displacement demand normalized by the height of the
building to obtain a spectral drift ratio. The spectral drift ratio, Sd , was calculated by the
following:
Sd = S d (T ) H
(3.15)
where:
Sd(T) is the building spectral displacement demand obtained from the 5% damped
response spectrum of the earthquake ground motion recorded at or near
the building site
T is the predominant period of the building, computed according to Section 3.5.1
H is the building height (in units equivalent to Sd(T))
A minor inconsistency occurs when calculating the spectral drift ratio by Equation 3.15,
due to the fact that the spectral displacement demand, based on an equivalent single degree-offreedom system (SDOF), was normalized by the building height instead of an equivalent height
of the SDOF system. In order to achieve consistency and ensure that the demands can be
compared to building code drift limits and that FEMA 273/356 (FEMA, 2000) drift ratios can be
related to building performance, the spectral drift ratio calculated in Equation 3.15 was translated
to an estimate of the building roof drift ratio. The roof drift ratio, R, is calculated by the
following:
R = S C0 =
d
S d (T )C0
H
(3.16)
27
where:
C0 is a modification factor that translates the spectral displacement demand,
which represents the displacement of an equivalent SDOF system, to the

roof displacement of the building
The value of C0 depends on the dynamic characteristics of the building, and is based on the
values provided in FEMA 273/356. C0 depends on the number of stories, the load pattern and
whether or not the building behaves as a shear building. A shear building is defined here as a
building in which for all stories, interstory drift decreases with increasing height. Values for C0
are given in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3
Number of
Stories
1
2
3
5
10+
Values for Modification Factor C0 (from FEMA, 2000)
Triangular Load
Pattern
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
Shear Buildings
Uniform Load Pattern
1.0
1.15
1.2
1.2
1.2
Any Load
Pattern
1.0
1.15
1.2
1.2
1.2
Other Buildings
Any Load
Pattern
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
3.5.3 Interstory Drift Ratio
As an improvement to the roof drift ratio computation discussed above, Miranda (2002)
has suggested the use of alternate modification factors for considering the contribution of
additional modes and inelastic behavior in MDOF systems. Mirandas modification factors
consider the effects of displacement ductility of the structure, the fundamental period of the
structure, the number of stories, the lateral load pattern, the stiffness reduction along the height
of the structure, and the flexural and shear behavior of the structure. Maximum interstory drift
ration, IDRmax, is written as:
28
IDRmax = 1 2 3 4
Sd
H
(3.17)
where:
1 is a dimensionless factor for the continuous model, assuming a uniform mass

distribution
2 is the ratio between the maximum interstory drift ratio and the roof drift ratio
3 is the ratio of maximum inelastic displacement ui to the maximum elastic
displacement ue
4 is a dimensionless factor that captures the effect of ductility and number of

stories of the buildings
H is the height of building in units corresponding to Sd
Sd is the spectral displacement, evaluated at the predominant period of the
structure and a damping ratio of 5%

Miranda (1999) and Miranda and Reyes (2002) use the following equations to compute the
modification factors in Equation 3.17:
z
1 =
z
z
=1
( z / H )
=0
j =1
(3.18)
=1
(z / H )
2
j =1 i
=0
where:
(z/H) is the normalized lateral deflected shape given by: ( z / H ) =

N is the number of stories
29
u( z / H )
u( z / H = 1)
du ( z / H ) dz
H u ( z / H = 1)
2 = max
3 = i = 1 + 1 exp(12T 0.8 )
ue
(3.19)
1
(3.20)
where:
T is the predominant period of the structure
is the displacement ductility ratio
4 = 1+
3.5.4
30
N
200
(3.21)
Ratio of Spectral Acceleration to Design Base Shear Coefficient
This ratio reflects the relationship of the actual seismic demand, expressed by the spectral
acceleration at the predominant period of the building computed from recorded data and the
lateral acceleration for which the building was designed. Ratios greater than one suggest that the
building is likely to be damaged. In this project, the base shear coefficient was computed
according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) provisions of the year in which the building was
designed. The construction year was substituted for the design year when the latter was not
available. In the particular case of the retrofitted masonry buildings, it was assumed that these
buildings comply with the 1988 UBC.
Calculation of this ratio is a method for rapid damage evaluation of buildings after
earthquakes which is proposed and described in detail in ATC-54 (ATC, in progress). The
method consists of the following basic steps:
1.
Calculate the lateral force coefficient defined as the design lateral force, Vb,
divided by W1, where W is the weight of the structure and 1 is the modal mass
coefficient that ranges from 0.7 to 1.0.
30
2.
Multiply the lateral force coefficient by 1.4 to account for the assumption that
actual capacities of structural materials are approximately 40% higher than those
used in design.
3.
Compute the spectral acceleration at the predominant period, Sa(T), of the

structure from the recorded strong motion data.
4.
Calculate the ratio, , of the spectral acceleration to the modified lateral force
coefficient as follows:
S a (T )W1
1.4Vb
(3.22)
Standard building types are not uniform throughout the progression of the UBC, covering
the years 1927 to 1994 as required for the project. In addition, the building types described in
the codes do not coincide exactly with the model building type classification adopted for use in
the project. Thus, assumptions were made as to the code ductility coefficients that should be
used for the computing the base shear value in Step 1 above. For example, the UBC provisions
from 1961 up until 1988 use the horizontal force factor K in the determination of the base shear
coefficient, while from 1988 on, the factor Rw is used instead to represent the ductility in each
structural system. Table 3-4 shows the K and Rw factors for the relevant model building types
that were assumed for this project.
For computing the base shear coefficient value in Step 1 above, an additional assumption
was required for the value of the model mass coefficient. This coefficient reflects the fraction of
the building weight that participates in the first mode response; its value depends on the number
of stories and the distribution of stiffness along the building height. Such detailed information
31
was not available in the building performance data, thus an approximation that depends on the
number of stories was used as shown in Table 3-5.
Table 3-4
Ductility Factors used in Base Shear Coefficient Calculations
Model Building Type (see Table 2-1)

S1, Steel moment frames
S2, Steel braced frames
S3, Steel light frames
C1, Concrete moment frames
C2, Concrete shear wall buildings
C3, Concrete frame with infill masonry shear walls
W1, Wood light frames
W2, Wood frames, commercial and industrial
URM, Unreinforced masonry bearing wall
Table 3-5
K
0.67
0.8
1
0.67
0.8
1
1
1
1
Modal Mass Coefficient Values
Number of Stories
>20
11-20
2-10
1
Modal Mass Coefficient 1

0.7
0.8
0.9
1
32
Rw
12
8
9
12
8
8
9
9
6
DEVELOPMENT OF MOTION-DAMAGE RELATIONSHIPS
4.1
Overview
The overall objective of the project is to develop relationships between building

performance and measured ground motion. Ideally, the relationships should be for several
classes of building and for various ground motion parameters. Chapters 2 and 3 described the
datasets of building response data and corresponding strong motion recordings, respectively, that
were utilized in the project. As discussed, the datasets were limited to those that were of
adequate quality, consistency, and completeness. Thus, the number of points for some of the
building classes were insufficient to develop motion-damage relationships for those classes.
This is noted so that future post-earthquake building surveys can take this into consideration
when determining which buildings should be investigated.
The final datasets included four basic groups of buildings: the steel, concrete and woodframe buildings that experienced the Northridge earthquake, and the concrete-frame buildings
that experienced the Chi-Chi earthquake. Each building was matched with the corresponding
free field or reference strong ground motion recording station within 1000 feet. Buildings
located within 1000 feet of only a basement level recording station were also included, but noted
accordingly. In addition, buildings with recording stations located at a distance greater than
1000 feet, but less than 1 km, were also included and so noted. The strong ground motion
parameters, the building response measures, and the building damage states or performance
levels computed as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 were merged in the same database.
The model development first focused on the identification of strong correlations between
building performance and measured ground motion parameters. Empirical damage probability
matrices were developed for all building performance descriptors and the corresponding ground
33
motion or building demand parameters. Damage probability matrices (DPMs) show the
conditional probability of being in a discrete damage state or performance level as a function of
the input ground motion or building demand level, which can be a discrete value (e.g., MMI) or a
range of values (e.g., PGA). For the areas of strong correlation, fragility curves were developed
in the form of lognormal probability distributions. Fragility curves show the conditional
probability of being equal to or exceeding a given damage state or performance level as a
function of the ground motion or building demand parameter. Final DPMs were derived from
the fragility functions by discretizing the continuous distributions. Figure 4-1 illustrates the
relationship between DPMs, probability distributions, and fragility curves.
DAMAGE PROBABILITY MATRIX
Probability of being in a given damage state as a function of range in PGA
for a given building type
Damage State
PGA 0-0.2g
PGA 0.2-0.4g
PGA 0.4-0.6g
PGA 0.6-0.8g
PGA 0.8-1.0g
1, <2% loss
90
80
60
25
20
2, 2-10% loss
10
15
20
40
30
3, 10-30% loss
15
20
30
4, 30-60% loss
10
15
5, >60% loss
probability
probability(DS >= 3|PGA)
PGA
Damage (% loss)
Probability distribution fit to
data in DPM for PGA 0.6-0.8g
Figure 4-1
Cumulative probability distribution

based on distributions fit to data
Illustration of relationship among damage probability matrix, probability

distribution fit, and fragility curve for hypothetical data.
34
The remainder of this chapter describes the development of the fragility curves and
DPMs, summarizes the results, and compares select results to some commonly-used motiondamage relationships.
4.2
Data Analysis and Model Development Methodology
4.2.1
Correlation Between Building Performance and Measured Ground Motion

Parameters
Correlations between building performance, characterized in terms of the damage states

and performance levels discussed in Chapter 2, were computed for the strong ground motion and
building demand parameters listed in Table 4-1. For each of these parameters, the correlation
was computed with the numeric values of the damage states or performance levels, i.e., ATC-13,
HAZUS99, FEMA 273/356, and Vision2000. In the cases where there were missing data,
correlations were calculated both by deleting the missing data and by filling the missing values
with the averages. No significant differences were observed and it was decided to proceed by
using averages to compensate for missing values. The ground motions at every station have
three components (horizontal north-south, horizontal east-west, vertical) so most of the ground
motion and building demand parameters were calculated using both the maximum of the
horizontal components and their average. It was observed that the parameters calculated using
the average horizontal values had greater correlation with the damage states/performance levels
in most cases, thus the average values were used for the model development. Ground motion
parameters for the vertical direction were computed (see Appendix A), but they are not typically
used for motion-damage relationships and were not given further consideration in this project.
4.2.2 Empirical Damage Probability Matrices
The entries of the damage probability matrix (DPM) for a given building type are defined
as the probability of being in a specific damage state or performance level as a function of the
35
Table 4-1
Strong Ground Motion and Building Demand Parameters Used in Project
Parameter
Peak Ground Acceleration
Peak Ground Velocity
Peak Ground Displacement
Total Record Duration
90% Cumulative Duration
Bracketed Duration
Root Mean Acceleration for Total Duration
Root Mean Acceleration for 90% Duration
Root Mean Acceleration for Bracketed Duration
Arias Intensity
Acceleration Spectrum Intensity
Effective Peak Acceleration
Effective Peak Velocity
Response Spectrum or Housner Intensity
ShakeMap Instrumental Intensity
Roof Drift Ratio
Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio
Spectral Acceleration Design Force Coefficient Ratio
Spectral Displacement at Predominant Period
Spectral Velocity at Predominant Period
Spectral Acceleration at Predominant Period
Abbreviation
PGA
PGV
PGD
Duration
T90
Tb
RMS
RMS90
RMSb
AI
ASI
EPA
EPV
HI
MMI
IMM
R
IDRmax
SaDBSC
Sd
Sv
Sa
Units
g
cm/sec
cm
seconds
seconds
seconds
g
g
g
cm/sec
g
g
cm/sec
cm/sec
----%
%
--cm
cm/sec
g
given ground motion or building demand parameter. To calculate the empirical DPMs, the
building samples were segregated into five bins by partitioning the ranges in ground motion or
building demand parameters. For the buildings in each subgroup the empirical distribution of the
corresponding damage states or performance levels was calculated. The only exceptions to the
partitioning of the ground motion parameters into five bins were the Modified Mercalli Intensity
(MMI) and the ShakeMap Instrumental Intensity (IMM) that were partitioned in seven (MMI = VI
to XII) in order to be consistent with the MMI scale and the ATC-13 damage probability
matrices.
36
4.2.3
Fragility Functions
The fragility functions were developed according to the methodology outlined in Singhal
and Kiremidjian (1996), consisting of the following steps:
1.
Isolate from the database the pairs of damage state/performance level and ground
motion parameters for all the buildings of a particular building type. The set of all
these pairs constitutes the sample to be analyzed.
2.
Divide the range of ground motion or building demand parameters into bins. The
number of bins to be used depends on the size of the sample, according to one of
the typical algorithms used for creating histograms. There should be enough
samples in each bin to allow proper fitting of a probability distribution.
3.
Using the samples in each bin, fit a lognormal distribution to the data for damage
states/performance levels (DS) given the range of the ground motion measure
(IM). In other words estimate the parameters of:
f DS |IM =
dP[ DS ds | IM = im ]
dDS
(4.1)
where im is the midpoint of the bin. The estimation is done by the standard
maximum likelihood estimators and a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is used to
determine the goodness of fit.
4.
For each bin, the probability of a building being in or exceeding a particular

damage state is calculated using the estimated parameters, i.e. P[DS ds | IM =
im], ds = 1,, Nds, where Nds is the total number of damage states.
5.
Using the probabilities computed in Step 4, a lognormal cumulative distribution

function (CDF) is fit to all the points that correspond to the same damage state but
different ground motion measures. This fit is accomplished by the minimizing the
37
square error. This lognormal CDF is the fragility function and expresses the
probability of being in or exceeding a particular damage state as a function of the
intensity measure.
In Section 4.3, comparisons are made between the fragility parameters calculated in Step
5 with those given in HAZUS99 (FEMA, 1999), which are defined here for clarification. The
probability of being in, or exceeding, a particular damage state, ds, given the spectral
displacement, Sd, is defined in HAZUS99 by the function:
1
S
ln d
P[ds | S d ] =
ds S d ,ds
(4.2)
where:
S d ,ds is the median value of spectral displacement at which the building reaches
the threshold of damage state, ds
ds is the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of spectral displacement for

damage state, ds
is the standard normal cumulative distribution function
The parameters that are estimated from Step 5 correspond to the parameters (mean of
logarithms) and (standard deviation of logarithms) of a lognormal CDF. Thus the
correspondence between the two sets of parameters is:
4.2.4
ln S d ,ds = S d ,ds = e
(4.3a)
ds =
(4.3b)
Derived Damage Probability Matrices
With the parameters of the fragility function, one can easily develop the damage
probability matrix, showing the probability of the building being in damage state ds for a given
38
value (or range of values) of the ground motion measure im. For example, using the values of
the mid-points of the ground motion intensity measures, the elements of the damage probability
matrix, DPM(i,j), are computed as:
DPM (i , j ) = P[ DS = i | IM = im ( j )] = P[ DS i | IM = im ( j )] P[ DS i + 1 | IM = im ( j )]
(4.4a)
where:
im(j) is the value of the ground motion measure at the mid-point of the jth bin
i = 2, 3, , Nds; for i = 1 the elements are written as:
DPM (1, j ) = 1 P[ DS 2 | IM = im ( j )]
(4.4b)
Formulation of the fragility functions and DPMs for the Vision 2000 performance levels
required a slightly modified approach. As can be seen in Table 2-5, the damage states or
performance levels of Vision 2000 are decreasing from ten to one with increasing damage, in
contrast to all other performance levels. For consistency with the fragilities functions and DPMs
developed for the other performance levels (ATC-13, FEMA273, and HAZUS99), it was decided
to consolidate the performance levels into five groups of two so that there would be a direct
correspondence with the HAZUS99 performance levels. Thus for the fragility function
estimation, the probability of a building being in or exceeding a particular damage state (i.e.,
sustaining heavier damage) is computed from the revised formula as follows:
P[DS ds| IM = im], ds = 1,, Nds
(4.5)
The elements of the DPM are computed as follows:

DPM(1,j)=P[DS=1 or 2|IM=im(j)]=P[DS 3|IM=im(j)]-P[DS 1|IM=im(j)]
(4.6a)
(4.6b)
(4.6c)
(4.6d)
39
DPM(5,j)=P[DS=9 or 10|IM=im(j)]=1-P[DS 9|IM=im(j)]

4.3
(4.6e)
Summary of Results
This section contains a summary of the motion-damage relationships developed for wood
frame, steel frame, and concrete frame buildings. Note that the concrete frame buildings were
separated into those that experienced shaking in the 1994 Northridge earthquake and those that
experienced the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. This was done because it was decided that although
they could be grouped in similar buildings classes, the differences in construction between the
two countries were too great. For each building class, correlations between building
performance and measured ground motion parameters are presented followed by a comparison of
select motion-damage relationships to commonly-used fragility functions and damage
probability matrices. Appendix B contains a complete set of the motion-damage relationships
developed in this project, including fragility function parameters and curves. The information in
Appendix B may be obtained in electronic format by contacting one of the authors of this report.
4.3.1
Wood Frame Buildings
The dataset of wood frame buildings used in the project included two classes, W1
(residential, light frame) and W2 (industrial and commercial) with 229 and 34 buildings,
respectively. The set of W1 buildings was the largest of any class of buildings in the project.
The correlations of building performance with the ground motion measures are shown in
Tables 4-2 and 4-3 for class W1 and in Tables 4-4 and 4-5 for class W2. Tables 4-2 and 4-4
show the correlation for building performance in terms of damage states and performance levels,
while Tables 4-3 and 4-5 show the correlation for building performance in terms of percent loss.
Percent loss was included to help determine if the non-linear mapping from percent loss to
40
damage states or performance levels (e.g., 0-1% loss = damage state 2, while 1-10% loss =
damage state 3) has an effect on the correlations.
Table 4-2
Parameter
AI
MMI
Duration
IMM
HI
PGV
EPV
PGD
Sd
IDRmax
RMS90
RMSb
R
Sa
Sv
SaDBSC
ASI
EPA
RMS
PGA
Tb
T90
Correlations Between Ground Motion and Building Demand Parameters and

Damage States or Performance Levels for Building Class W1
ATC-13
0.228
0.200
0.152
0.136
0.131
0.114
0.097
0.084
0.073
0.062
0.059
0.055
0.052
0.038
0.037
0.014
0.005
-0.006
-0.015
-0.026
-0.030
-0.125
FEMA 273/356
0.173
0.137
0.023
0.167
0.174
0.168
0.180
0.145
0.043
0.066
0.116
0.100
0.073
0.076
0.021
0.059
0.066
0.060
0.079
0.045
0.047
-0.165
HAZUS99
0.173
0.137
0.023
0.167
0.174
0.168
0.180
0.145
0.043
0.066
0.116
0.100
0.073
0.076
0.021
0.059
0.066
0.060
0.079
0.045
0.047
-0.165
Vision 2000
-0.173
-0.137
-0.023
-0.167
-0.174
-0.168
-0.180
-0.145
-0.043
-0.066
-0.116
-0.100
-0.073
-0.076
-0.021
-0.059
-0.066
-0.060
-0.079
-0.045
-0.047
0.165
As shown in Tables 4-2 through 4-5, the correlations for classes W1 and W2 are quite
low. In addition, there is not a significant difference between the correlations using discrete
damage states and linear ranges in percent loss, thus the fragility curve development did not
include the percent loss ranges. The ground motion measures that show relatively higher
correlation for W1 buildings are AI, MMI, and IMM, Duration, and a few measures associated
41
with ground velocity (HI, EPV, PGV). For the W2 buildings, relatively higher correlations are
observed for the T90, Sd, Sv, and AI.
Table 4-3
Parameter
EPV
HI
PGV
IMM
AI
MMI
PGD
RMS90
IDRmax
R
Sa
RMSb
Sd
RMS
SaDBSC
Sv
ASI
Duration
EPA
PGA
Tb
T90

Percent Loss for Building Class W1
ATC-13
0.157
0.133
0.129
0.127
0.121
0.118
0.115
0.085
0.082
0.081
0.073
0.069
0.067
0.049
0.048
0.045
0.037
0.031
0.031
0.024
0.005
-0.139
FEMA 273/356
0.165
0.139
0.136
0.132
0.125
0.117
0.121
0.091
0.082
0.083
0.077
0.075
0.065
0.057
0.052
0.043
0.042
0.023
0.036
0.030
0.012
-0.146
HAZUS99
0.173
0.143
0.141
0.134
0.134
0.118
0.124
0.097
0.085
0.086
0.080
0.078
0.067
0.062
0.054
0.044
0.046
0.015
0.040
0.035
0.012
-0.156
Vision 2000
0.173
0.143
0.141
0.134
0.134
0.118
0.124
0.097
0.085
0.086
0.080
0.078
0.067
0.062
0.054
0.044
0.046
0.015
0.040
0.035
0.012
-0.156
Fragility functions were developed for the W1 and W2 classes for the following ground
motion measures that exhibited relatively higher correlation with building performance: Sd
(average horizontal), Sd (maximum horizontal), MMI, IMM, EPV, IDRmax, R, PGV, Sv, RMS, HI,
PGD, Sa, PGA and Tb.
The functions were developed for all four standards of building performance (i.e., ATC13, HAZUS99, FEMA 273/356, and Vision 2000). The parameters were first estimated using all
42
the buildings in a class, regardless of age and height. Next, the buildings were separated into two
groups, those constructed before 1975 (179 W1 buildings and 30 W2 buildings) and those after
(23 W1 buildings and 4 W2 buildings). Correlation were also computed for these sub-set classes
of buildings; however, they were found not to differ significantly from those shown in Tables 4-2
through 4-5. Further analysis was not done on the sub-sets of W1 and W2 building, except as
discussed below for purposes of comparison with HAZUS99 fragility curves.
Table 4-4
Parameter
T90
IMM
PGA
ASI
EPA
PGV
RMS
EPV
HI
RMSb
PGD
Sd
AI
MMI
R
RMS90
Sv
Sa
Tb
SaDBSC
Duration
IDRmax

Damage States or Performance Levels for Building Class W2
ATC-13
0.136
0.023
0.016
0.008
0.006
-0.006
-0.025
-0.033
-0.034
-0.041
-0.049
-0.065
-0.069
-0.080
-0.081
-0.084
-0.103
-0.108
-0.147
-0.153
-0.161
-0.386
FEMA 273/356
-0.114
-0.283
-0.204
-0.135
-0.136
-0.284
-0.176
-0.310
-0.294
-0.197
-0.352
0.204
-0.256
-0.188
0.050
-0.258
0.174
-0.046
-0.456
-0.069
-0.403
0.023
HAZUS99
-0.114
-0.283
-0.204
-0.135
-0.136
-0.284
-0.176
-0.310
-0.294
-0.197
-0.352
0.204
-0.256
-0.188
0.050
-0.258
0.174
-0.046
-0.456
-0.069
-0.403
0.023
Vision 2000
0.114
0.283
0.204
0.135
0.136
0.284
0.176
0.310
0.294
0.197
0.352
-0.204
0.256
0.188
-0.050
0.258
-0.174
0.046
0.456
0.069
0.403
-0.023
Fragility curves were also developed for the pre-1975 W1 and W2 building classes for
comparison with the HAZUS99 Moderate Code damage functions, which are expressed in terms
43
of spectral displacement. The HAZUS99 fragility parameters and the fragility parameters
computed in this project (using average horizontal spectral displacement) for the W1 and W2
building classes are shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7, respectively. Fragility curves for the moderate
code W1 buildings from HAZUS99 and as computed in this project for pre-1975 W1 buildings
are shown in Figure 4-2.
Table 4-5
Parameter
Sd
Sv
R
Sa
SaDBSC
ASI
EPA
PGA
IDRmax
RMS
RMSb
RMS90
MMI
AI
IMM
T90
PGV
HI
EPV
PGD
Duration
Tb

Percent Loss for Building Class W2
ATC-13
0.259
0.246
0.160
0.098
0.046
0.004
0.002
-0.046
-0.046
-0.070
-0.071
-0.129
-0.157
-0.170
-0.176
-0.195
-0.195
-0.225
-0.241
-0.285
-0.309
-0.346
FEMA273/356
0.278
0.266
0.171
0.105
0.055
-0.004
-0.006
-0.060
-0.013
-0.079
-0.079
-0.138
-0.162
-0.180
-0.196
-0.214
-0.213
-0.241
-0.258
-0.303
-0.321
-0.362
HAZUS99
0.302
0.297
0.216
0.163
0.104
0.049
0.046
0.000
-0.028
-0.038
-0.030
-0.086
-0.148
-0.146
-0.156
-0.249
-0.180
-0.214
-0.231
-0.277
-0.282
-0.317
Vision 2000
0.302
0.297
0.216
0.163
0.104
0.049
0.046
0.000
-0.028
-0.038
-0.030
-0.086
-0.148
-0.146
-0.156
-0.249
-0.180
-0.214
-0.231
-0.277
-0.282
-0.317
As shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7 and Figure 4-2, the differences in the estimated fragility
parameters between the various damage states are small, while the HAZUS99 parameters for the
damage states are quite distinct. One possible explanation for this observation is that the
44
HAZUS99 fragility curves were estimated based on analysis of one model building of this
structural type, while the empirically-derived curves come from many buildings of the same
structural type. Hence the performance of the particular building population of the same class is
not uniform and for the close values of spectral displacement there are buildings in several
damage states.
Table 4-6
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class
W1
Median Sd (in) and Lognormal Standard Deviation (Beta)
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Median Beta
Median
Beta
Median Beta Median Beta
Type
High Code
Moderate Code
Low Code
Pre-Code
Fitted Parameters,
all buildings
Fitted Parameters,
pre-1975 buildings
Table 4-7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.84
0.93
1.01
0.68
1.51
1.25
1.25
1.0
0.74
0.81
0.86
0.98
1.05
0.38
5.04
3.86
3.86
3.09
0.79
0.85
0.89
1.02
1.07
0.31
12.6
9.45
9.45
7.56
0.80
0.97
1.04
0.99
1.06
0.29
0.62
0.80
0.74
0.42
0.82
0.36
0.83
0.34
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class
W2
Type
High Code
Moderate Code
Low Code
Pre-Code
Fitted Parameters,
all buildings
Fitted Parameters,
pre-1975 buildings

Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Median Beta
Median
Beta
Median Beta
Median Beta
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.69
0.45
0.81
0.89
0.97
1.04
0.42
2.59
2.14
2.14
1.71
0.51
0.88
0.95
0.9
0.97
0.25
8.64
6.62
6.62
5.29
0.91
0.9
0.95
0.89
0.9
0.47
21.6
16.2
16.2
12.96
0.95
0.83
0.92
0.99
0.99
0.45
0.41
0.28
0.53
0.27
0.59
0.25
0.60
0.24
45
P[DS>=ds|Spectral Displacement]
0.75
0.5
Slight
Moderate
0.25
Extensive
Complete
0
0
0.5
1.5
Spectral Displacement (in)
(a)
1
0.75
0.5
Slight
0.25
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
0
0
10
(b)
Figure 4-2
Fragility curves for W1 building class, (a) computed in the project and (b)
from HAZUS99.
Another source of difference between the HAZUS99 fragility curves and those developed
here is that the empirical data tend to be concentrated at lower values of Sd and in the lower
damage states. For the curves representing higher levels of damage, only a small number of data
46
points were used in the analysis, thus the parameters should be used with caution. Note also that
the fragility curves in Figure 4-2 actually cross at an Sd value of about 0.9 inches, thus they
should not be used beyond this level of displacement.
The lognormal fragility curves cross in Figure 4-2, as well as in the curves for some of
the other building types and ground motion parameters. A lognormal probability distribution is
described by two parameters as discussed in Section 4.2.3 the mean of the logs ( or similarly
the median e) and the standard deviation of the logs ( or ). Although the mean or median
increases with increasing levels of damage and ground motion parameters for the curves
developed in this project, the curves cross because of the standard deviation values. If the
standard deviation values for each level of damage are not relatively similar, the curves are likely
to cross as they do in Figure 4-2, for higher or lower levels of ground motion, i.e., those levels
that are located further from the mean or median. In developing the lognormal parameters for
this project, the standard deviation values were not forced to fit a specific range in values as is
sometimes done in fitting probability distributions to empirical data.
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show additional lognormal fragility curves developed from the
complete W1 building dataset. Figure 4-3 shows the probability of being in or exceeding ATC13 damage states as a function of PGA and Figure 4-4 shows the probability of being in or
exceeding FEMA 273/356 performance levels as a function of PGD. These two figures are a
small sample of the data contained in Appendix B.
Damage probability matrices were developed for the same parameters for which the
fragility curves were: Sd (average horizontal), Sd (maximum horizontal), MMI, IMM, EPV, IDRmax,
R, PGV, Sv, RMS, HI, PGD, Sa, PGA and Tb. The matrices were developed from the raw
empirical data and also derived from the fragility curves. Those derived from the fragility curves
47
are discussed in this section. The damage probability matrices in terms of Modified Mercalli
Intensity (MMI) for the W1 and W2 building classes can be compared to the DPMs published in
ATC-13. Figure 4-5 shows the comparison of the DPM computed in the project for class W1
with the DPM published in ATC-13 for low rise wood frame buildings (Class 1).
1
Slight
P(DS>=ds|Peak Ground
Acceleration)
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Figure 4-3
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter

PGA.
As shown in Figure 4-5, the two damage probability matrices are quite different. The
ATC-13 DPM, developed by fitting Beta distributions to expert opinion data, shows a significant
increase in probabilities of being in higher damage states for higher levels of MMI. Although,
the empirically derived DPM (derived from the lognormal fragility curves) also shows an
increase, it is very gradual. Most of the data points are at MMI levels of IX or lower, thus the
probabilities associated with MMI X and XI should be used with caution. Note also that the
ATC-13 DPM reflects a much narrower probability distribution on damage at each MMI level.
48
Chapter 5 includes examples illustrating the implementation of the fragility curves and
damage probability matrices for regional and site-specific damage estimation, including
comparisons to estimates produced with the models provided in HAZUS99 and ATC-13.
Displacement)
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
Peak Ground Displacement (cm)
Figure 4-4
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, FEMA 273/356, and parameter PGD.
4.3.2 Steel Frame Buildings
The dataset of steel frame buildings used in the project included class S1 (steel moment
frames) with 24 buildings. The correlations of building performance with the ground motion
measures are shown in Tables 4-8 for building performance in terms of damage states and
performance levels, and in Table 4-9 for building performance in terms of percent loss.
As can be seen in Tables 4-8 and 4-9, the ground motion measures that have the highest
correlations to damage are IDRmax, Sd, EPV, PGV, Sv, and RMS. Similar observations were also
reported by Boatwright et al. (2001). In particular, Boatwright et al. considered the following
ground motion parameters: peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and
49
the 5% damped pseudo velocity response spectral (PSV) ordinates from which they take the RMS
average value for the ordinates from 0.3 to 3 seconds. As the damage measure, they consider the
tagging intensity, which is an estimate of intensity that uses municipal safety tagging data
aggregated by census tracts. They conclude that the logarithms of PGV and average PSV
correlate better ( = 0.85) with the tagging intensity than PGA ( = 0.75).

Damage State
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
1-None
0.817
0.787
0.760
0.734
0.709
0.687
2-Slight
0.134
0.148
0.159
0.168
0.175
0.180
3-Light
0.030
0.037
0.043
0.048
0.053
0.057
4-Moderate
0.010
0.013
0.016
0.019
0.022
0.024
5-Heavy
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.009
0.011
0.013
6-Major
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.004
7-Destroyed
0.004
0.008
0.013
0.019
0.027
0.036
(a)
Damage State
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
1-None
0.037
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
2-Slight
0.685
0.268
0.016
~0
~0
~0
3-Light
0.278
0.732
0.949
0.624
0.115
0.018
4-Moderate
~0
~0
0.035
0.376
0.760
0.751
5-Heavy
~0
~0
~0
~0
0.125
0.231
6-Major
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
7-Destroyed
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
(b)
Figure 4-5
Damage probability matrix for W1 building class, (a) computed in the

project and (b) from ATC-13.
50
Table 4-8
Parameter
IDRmax
R
EPV
PGV
Sv
RMS
HI
IMM
PGD
Sa
AI
RMS90
MMI
RMSb
PGA
ASI
EPA
SaDBSC
Tb
Sd
Duration
T90

Damage States or Performance Levels for Building Class S1
ATC-13
0.6822
0.6798
0.6677
0.6361
0.6171
0.5905
0.5709
0.5306
0.5106
0.4581
0.4449
0.4376
0.4083
0.3927
0.2639
0.2532
0.2475
0.2250
0.1878
0.0000
-0.3490
-0.4584
FEMA 273/356
0.6893
0.6654
0.7883
0.6364
0.6018
0.6426
0.4874
0.4934
0.3600
0.4195
0.4304
0.3875
0.2314
0.2900
0.1331
0.1962
0.1696
0.2152
0.5124
-0.0817
-0.3592
-0.2414
HAZUS99
0.6893
0.6654
0.7883
0.6364
0.6018
0.6426
0.4874
0.4934
0.3600
0.4195
0.4304
0.3875
0.2314
0.2900
0.1331
0.1962
0.1696
0.2152
0.5124
-0.0817
-0.3592
-0.2414
Vision 2000
-0.6893
-0.6654
-0.7883
-0.6364
-0.6018
-0.6426
-0.4874
-0.4934
-0.3600
-0.4195
-0.4304
-0.3875
-0.2314
-0.2900
-0.1331
-0.1962
-0.1696
-0.2152
-0.5124
0.0817
0.3592
0.2414
Tables 4-8 and 4-9 show that spectral displacement (Sd), spectral acceleration (Sa), and
SaDBSC all appear to the poorly correlated with the performance levels for building class S1.
Note also that significantly higher correlations are obtained for all parameters with percent loss
(Table 4-9) than damage state or performance level (Table 4-8). The similarity of the correlation
values of the HAZUS99 damage states and FEMA 273/356 and Vision 2000 performance levels
in Table 4-8 is due to the fact that the same buildings are included in the first three damage
states. The correlation values of Vision 2000 are negative because the performance levels
decrease with increased damage.
51
Table 4-9
Parameter
EPV
IDRmax
PGV
R
RMS
Sv
HI
IMM
Tb
AI
PGD
RMS90
Sa
MMI
RMSb
ASI
EPA
PGA
SaDBSC
Sd
T90
Duration

Percent Loss for Building Class S1
ATC-13
0.9247
0.8044
0.7707
0.7581
0.7439
0.7182
0.6181
0.6091
0.5511
0.5066
0.4722
0.4423
0.4249
0.3383
0.3320
0.2204
0.1944
0.1861
0.1373
0.0092
-0.2550
-0.4543
FEMA 273/356
0.9275
0.7970
0.7640
0.7484
0.7414
0.7100
0.6054
0.6005
0.5759
0.5002
0.4544
0.4326
0.4146
0.3199
0.3184
0.2123
0.1847
0.1724
0.1310
0.0047
-0.2302
-0.4519
HAZUS99
0.9631
0.8229
0.7985
0.7655
0.7649
0.7380
0.6395
0.6304
0.5889
0.5174
0.4824
0.4413
0.4037
0.3483
0.3228
0.2142
0.1867
0.1844
0.0945
0.0392
-0.2207
-0.4792
Vision 2000
0.9631
0.8229
0.7985
0.7655
0.7649
0.7380
0.6395
0.6304
0.5889
0.5174
0.4824
0.4413
0.4037
0.3483
0.3228
0.2142
0.1867
0.1844
0.0945
0.0392
-0.2207
-0.4792
Fragility functions were developed for the S1 class for the following ground motion
measures that exhibited higher correlation with building performance: Sd (average horizontal), Sd
(maximum horizontal), MMI, IMM, EPV, IDRmax, R, PGV, Sv, RMS, HI, PGD, Sa, PGA and Tb.
Average horizontal values were used for all ground motion measures except spectral
displacement. The data are too sparse to enable estimation of fragility parameters for different
heights and design code dates, thus the data are combined for all heights resulting in one set of
fragility parameters for this building class. The functions were developed for all four standards
of building performance (i.e., ATC-13, HAZUS99, FEMA 273/356, and Vision 2000).
52
However, convergence at Step 5 of the procedure outlined in Section 4.2.3 (minimization of the
square errors) could not always be achieved. Different initial values were tried for each curve.
The HAZUS99 fragility parameters and the fragility parameters computed in this project
(using average horizontal spectral displacement) for the S1 building class are shown in Table 410. Figure 4-6 shows the fragility curves corresponding to the parameters listed in Table 4-10,
for the high code mid-rise S1M buildings from HAZUS99 and as computed in this project for S1
buildings. Note that there were no parameters computed for the complete damage state due to
the lack of data. For the other curves, the data sets were small, thus the parameters should be
used with caution. For larger values of Sd, the fragility curves for the different damage states
actually cross for similar reasons as discussed for wood frame buildings in Section 4.3.1. The
data are concentrated at low Sd values, thus the curves should not be used beyond an Sd value of
approximately 8 inches.
Table 4-10
Code Level
High
Code
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class S1
Bldg.
Type
S1L
S1M
S1H
Moderate
S1L
Code
S1M
S1H
Low
S1L
Code
S1M
S1H
PreS1L
Code
S1M
S1H
HAZUS99 Max.
Bounds
Min.
Fitted Parameters

Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Median Beta
Median
Beta
1.30
0.80
2.59
0.76
6.48
0.69
17.28
0.72
2.16
0.65
4.32
0.66
10.80
0.67
28.80
0.74
3.37
0.64
6.74
0.64
16.85
0.65
44.93
0.67
1.30
0.80
2.24
0.75
5.08
0.74
12.96
0.88
2.16
0.65
3.74
0.68
8.46
0.69
21.60
0.87
2.37
0.64
5.83
0.64
13.21
0.71
33.70
0.83
1.30
0.77
2.07
0.78
4.38
0.86
10.80
0.96
2.16
0.68
3.44
0.78
7.30
0.85
18.00
0.98
3.37
0.66
5.37
0.70
11.38
0.74
28.08
0.92
1.04
0.85
1.65
0.82
3.50
0.80
8.64
0.95
1.73
0.70
2.76
0.75
5.84
0.81
14.40
0.98
2.70
0.69
4.30
0.71
9.11
0.85
22.46
0.93
3.37
0.85
6.74
0.82
16.85
0.86
44.93
0.98
1.04
0.64
1.65
0.64
3.50
0.65
8.64
0.67
5.52
0.85
6.61
0.45
7.08
0.36
NA
NA
53
0.75
0.5
0.25
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
0
0
10
10
(a)
1
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
0.75
Complete
0.5
0.25
0
0
(b)
Figure 4-6
Fragility curves for S1 building class, (a) computed in the project and (b)
from HAZUS99 (class S1M high code).
As shown in Table 4-10 and Figure 4-6, the differences in the estimated fragility
parameters between the various damage states are small, while the HAZUS99 parameters for the
damage states are quite distinct. This is a similar result as was observed for the wood frame
54
results discussed in Section 4.3.1, and the same possible explanation holds the HAZUS99
fragility curves were estimated based on analysis of one model building of this structural type,
while the empirically-derived curves come from many buildings of the same structural type.
Hence the performance of the particular building population of the same class is not uniform and
for the close values of spectral displacement there are buildings in several damage states.
Figures 4-7 and 4-8 show additional lognormal fragility curves developed from the S1
building dataset. Figure 4-7 shows the probability of being in or exceeding ATC-13 damage
states as a function of PGA and Figure 4-8 shows the probability of being in or exceeding FEMA
273/356 performance levels as a function of R. These two figures are a small sample of the data
contained in Appendix B.
P(DS>=ds|Peak Ground Acceleration)
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
Figure 4-7
Fragility curves for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter

PGA.
55
are discussed in this section. The damage probability matrix in terms of Modified Mercalli
Intensity (MMI) for the S1 building class can be compared to the DPMs published in ATC-13.
Figure 4-9 shows the comparison of the DPM computed in the project for class S1 with the DPM
published in ATC-13 for mid-rise steel moment frame buildings (Class 16).
P(DS>=ds|Spectral Roof Drift Ratio)
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Roof Drift Ratio (% )
Figure 4-8
Fragility curves for S1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and

parameter R.
increase, it is very gradual. Note that the empirical data were clustered at lower damage levels,
thus the empirically derived DPM has values only for damage states none and slight. This
reflects a very narrow probability distribution on damage at each MMI level that does not
56
realistically portray the expected seismic performance of steel moment frame buildings. In
addition, most of the empirical data points are at MMI levels of IX or lower, thus the
probabilities associated with MMI X and XI should not be used.

Damage State
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
1-None
0.996
0.90
0.56
0.19
0.04
0.005
2-Slight
0.004
0.10
0.44
0.81
0.96
0.995
3-Light
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
4-Moderate
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
5-Heavy
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
6-Major
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
7-Destroyed
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
(a)
Damage State
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
1-None
0.212
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
2-Slight
0.561
0.175
0.019
~0
~0
~0
3-Light
0.227
0.825
0.959
0.665
0.126
0.005
4-Moderate
~0
~0
0.022
0.335
0.866
0.602
5-Heavy
~0
~0
~0
~0
0.008
0.393
6-Major
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
7-Destroyed
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
(b)
Figure 4-9
4.3.3
Damage probability matrix for S1 building class, (a) computed in the project
and (b) from ATC-13 (class 16, mid-rise steel moment frame).
Concrete Frame Buildings (Northridge Earthquake)
The dataset of concrete frame buildings (Northridge earthquake) used in the project
included two classes, C1 (concrete moment resisting frame) and C2 (concrete frame with
57
concrete shear wall) with 20 and 60 buildings, respectively. The correlations of building
performance with the ground motion measures are shown in Tables 4-11 and 4-12 for class C1
and in Tables 4-13 and 4-14 for class C2. Tables 4-11 and 4-13 show the correlation for building
performance in terms of damage states and performance levels, while Tables 4-12 and 4-14 show
the correlation for building performance in terms of percent loss. Correlations were also
developed for class C3 (concrete frame with masonry in-fill shear wall), but due to the size of the
dataset (13 buildings) buildings in this class were not further analyzed.
Table 4-11
Parameter
ASI
EPA
RMSb
RMS90
PGA
AI
IMM
PGV
RMS
R
EPV
HI
PGD
IDRmax
MMI
Duration
Sv
Tb
Sd
Sa
SaDBSC
T90

Damage States or Performance Levels for Building Class C1 (Northridge
Earthquake)
ATC-13
0.676
0.671
0.639
0.604
0.579
0.575
0.566
0.551
0.545
0.520
0.510
0.497
0.454
0.377
0.343
0.296
0.276
0.157
0.063
-0.098
-0.136
-0.383
FEMA 273/356
0.660
0.663
0.585
0.588
0.544
0.567
0.475
0.473
0.540
0.522
0.517
0.485
0.387
0.377
0.251
0.195
0.214
0.247
0.025
-0.159
-0.214
-0.424
58
HAZUS99
0.660
0.663
0.585
0.588
0.544
0.567
0.475
0.473
0.540
0.522
0.517
0.485
0.387
0.377
0.251
0.195
0.214
0.247
0.025
-0.159
-0.214
-0.424
Vision 2000
-0.660
-0.663
-0.585
-0.588
-0.544
-0.567
-0.475
-0.473
-0.540
-0.522
-0.517
-0.485
-0.387
-0.377
-0.251
-0.195
-0.214
-0.247
-0.025
0.159
0.214
0.424
Table 4-12
Parameter
ASI
EPA
AI
RMS90
RMS
RMSb
EPV
PGA
R
HI
PGV
IMM
IDRmax
PGD
Tb
Sv
MMI
Duration
Sd
Sa
SaDBSC
T90

Percent Loss for Building Class C1 (Northridge Earthquake)
ATC-13
0.747
0.733
0.694
0.670
0.652
0.635
0.615
0.608
0.559
0.532
0.519
0.495
0.438
0.436
0.432
0.317
0.309
0.155
0.098
-0.120
-0.155
-0.341
FEMA 273/356
0.744
0.725
0.708
0.667
0.658
0.617
0.632
0.602
0.559
0.527
0.510
0.481
0.474
0.426
0.477
0.370
0.284
0.130
0.141
-0.117
-0.146
-0.325
HAZUS99
0.750
0.732
0.709
0.673
0.664
0.629
0.626
0.607
0.554
0.530
0.512
0.481
0.443
0.433
0.477
0.332
0.311
0.134
0.112
-0.111
-0.141
-0.312
Vision 2000
0.750
0.732
0.709
0.673
0.664
0.629
0.626
0.607
0.554
0.530
0.512
0.481
0.443
0.433
0.477
0.332
0.311
0.134
0.112
-0.111
-0.141
-0.312
As can be seen in Tables 4-11 and 4-12, the ground motion measures that have the
highest correlations to damage are the ASI, EPA, RMSb, RMS90, PGA, and AI. These tables show
that spectral displacement (Sd), spectral acceleration (Sa), and SaDBSC all appear to be poorly
correlated with the performance levels for building class C1, possibly indicating that either the
fundamental period of the building changes due to concrete cracking, or the original estimate of
the fundamental period is not correct. Note also that significantly higher correlations are
obtained for all parameters with percent loss (Table 4-12) than damage state or performance
level (Table 4-11). The similarity of the correlation values of the HAZUS99 damage states and
59
FEMA 273/356 and Vision 2000 performance levels in Table 4-11 is due to the fact that the
same buildings are included in the first three damage states. The correlation values of Vision
2000 are negative because the performance levels decrease with increased damage.
Table 4-13
Parameter
IDRmax
Sd
Sv
IMM
R
HI
PGD
PGV
MMI
RMSb
Duration
RMS90
EPV
SaDBSC
EPA
PGA
ASI
Sa
AI
RMS
T90
Tb

Damage States or Performance Levels for Building Class C2 (Northridge
Earthquake)
ATC-13
0.313
0.268
0.244
0.231
0.223
0.192
0.179
0.159
0.103
0.096
0.061
0.006
0.005
-0.003
-0.042
-0.057
-0.064
-0.074
-0.105
-0.107
-0.350
-0.496
FEMA 273/356
0.178
0.154
0.063
0.211
0.108
0.135
0.086
0.142
-0.027
0.024
0.012
-0.044
0.037
-0.042
-0.090
-0.115
-0.111
-0.139
-0.149
-0.090
-0.290
-0.388
HAZUS99
0.178
0.154
0.063
0.211
0.108
0.135
0.086
0.142
-0.027
0.024
0.012
-0.044
0.037
-0.042
-0.090
-0.115
-0.111
-0.139
-0.149
-0.090
-0.290
-0.388
Vision 2000
-0.178
-0.154
-0.063
-0.211
-0.108
-0.135
-0.086
-0.142
0.027
-0.024
-0.012
0.044
-0.037
0.042
0.090
0.115
0.111
0.139
0.149
0.090
0.290
0.388
As shown in Tables 4-13 and 4-14, the correlations for class C2 are quite low, especially
in comparison to class C1 correlations shown in Tables 4-11 and 4-12. Although the material
types (concrete frame) are similar, the lateral load resisting systems significantly influence the
observed earthquake performance as predicted from a measured ground motion parameter. The
difference could also be due to the disparity in the sample sizes (20 for class C1 and 60 for class
60
C2). The ground motion measures that show relatively higher correlation for C2 buildings are
spectral displacement, IMM, and IDRmax. Note that Tb and T90 have relatively high negative
correlation with damage state or performance level and percent loss, and that lower correlations
are obtained for all parameters with percent loss (Table 4-14) than damage state or performance
level (Table 4-13).
Table 4-14
Parameter
IMM
PGV
HI
Sd
IDRmax
PGD
Duration
Sv
R
EPV
RMSb
RMS90
MMI
SaDBSC
EPA
PGA
ASI
RMS
AI
Sa
T90
Tb

Percent Loss for Building Class C2 (Northridge Earthquake)
ATC-13
0.195
0.133
0.129
0.123
0.115
0.093
0.061
0.044
0.042
0.025
0.025
-0.036
-0.047
-0.072
-0.077
-0.094
-0.097
-0.098
-0.125
-0.146
-0.250
-0.328
FEMA 273/356
0.189
0.129
0.122
0.109
0.098
0.083
0.057
0.025
0.028
0.028
0.018
-0.040
-0.060
-0.076
-0.080
-0.097
-0.100
-0.095
-0.126
-0.150
-0.239
-0.311
HAZUS99
0.173
0.119
0.112
0.086
0.060
0.078
0.075
0.008
-0.007
0.023
0.014
-0.037
-0.072
-0.088
-0.072
-0.086
-0.092
-0.094
-0.113
-0.150
-0.209
-0.267
Vision 2000
0.173
0.119
0.112
0.086
0.060
0.078
0.075
0.008
-0.007
0.023
0.014
-0.037
-0.072
-0.088
-0.072
-0.086
-0.092
-0.094
-0.113
-0.150
-0.209
-0.267
Fragility functions were developed for the C1 and C2 classes for the following ground
motion measures that exhibited higher correlation with building performance: Sd (average
horizontal), Sd (maximum horizontal), MMI, IMM, EPV, IDRmax, R, PGV, Sv, RMS, HI, PGD, Sa,
61
PGA and Tb. (These are the same ground motion measures for which fragility curves were
developed for the S1 building class.) Average horizontal values were used for all ground motion
measures except spectral displacement. The data are too sparse to enable estimation of fragility
parameters for different heights and design code dates, thus the data are combined for all heights
resulting in one set of fragility parameters for this building class. The functions were developed
for all four standards of building performance (i.e., ATC-13, HAZUS99, FEMA 273/356, and
Vision 2000). However, convergence at Step 5 of the procedure outlined in Section 4.2.3
(minimization of the square errors) could not always be achieved. Different initial values were
tried for each curve.
(using average horizontal spectral displacement) for the C1 and C2 building classes are shown in
Tables 4-15 and 4-16, respectively. Note that convergence could not be achieved for the slight
and moderate damage states for the C2 buildings in Table 4-16. Figure 4-10 shows the fragility
curves corresponding to the parameters listed in Table 4-15, for the high code high-rise C1H
buildings from HAZUS99 and as computed in this project for C1 buildings. For all curves, the
data sets were small, thus the parameters should be used with caution. For larger values of Sd,
the fragility curves for the different damage states do not cross as they do for the wood and steel
frame buildings; however, they appear to converge at a probability level of approximately 0.70.
The data are concentrated at low Sd values, thus the curves should not be used beyond the Sd
range indicated in Figure 4-10.
As shown in Tables 4-15 and 4-16 and Figure 4-10, the differences in the estimated
fragility parameters between the various damage states are small, while the HAZUS99
parameters for the damage states are quite distinct. This is a similar result as was observed for
62
the steel and wood frame results discussed in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, and the same possible
explanation holds the HAZUS99 fragility curves were estimated based on analysis of one
model building of this structural type, while the empirically-derived curves come from many
buildings of the same structural type. Hence the performance of the particular building
population of the same class is not uniform and for the close values of spectral displacement
there are buildings in several damage states.
Table 4-15
Code Level
High
Code
Fragility Parameters from HAZUS99 and from Project for Building Class C1
(Northridge Earthquake)
Bldg.
Type
C1L
C1M
C1H
Moderate
C1L
Code
C1M
C1H
Low
C1L
Code
C1M
C1H
PreC1L
Code
C1M
C1H
HAZUS99 Max.
Bounds
Min.
Fitted Parameters

Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Median Beta
Median
Beta
0.9
0.81
1.8
0.84
5.4
0.86
14.4
0.81
1.5
0.68
3
0.67
9
0.68
24
0.81
2.16
0.66
4.32
0.64
12.96
0.67
34.56
0.78
0.9
0.89
1.56
0.9
4.2
0.9
10.8
0.89
1.5
0.7
2.6
0.7
7
0.7
18
0.89
2.16
0.66
3.74
0.66
10.08
0.76
25.92
0.91
0.9
0.95
1.44
0.91
3.6
0.85
9
0.97
1.5
0.7
2.4
0.74
6
0.86
15
0.98
2.16
0.7
3.46
0.81
8.64
0.89
21.6
0.98
0.72
0.98
1.15
0.94
2.88
0.9
7.2
0.97
1.2
0.73
1.92
0.77
4.8
0.83
12
0.98
1.73
0.71
2.76
0.8
6.91
0.94
17.28
1.01
2.16
0.98
4.32
0.94
12.96
0.94
34.56
1.01
0.72
0.66
1.15
0.64
2.88
0.67
7.2
0.78
6.67
2.71
14.55
1.39
17.42
1.09
18.32
1.02
Figures 4-11 and 4-12 show additional lognormal fragility curves developed from the C1
states as a function of HI and Figure 4-12 shows the probability of being in or exceeding Vision
2000 performance levels as a function of RMS. These two figures are a small sample of the data
contained in Appendix B.
63
Table 4-16
Code Level
High
Code
(Northridge Earthquake)
Bldg.
Type
C2L
C2M
C2H
Moderate
C2L
Code
C2M
C2H
Low
C2L
Code
C2M
C2H
PreC2L
Code
C2M
C2H
HAZUS99 Max.
Bounds
Min.
Fitted Parameters

Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Median Beta
Median
Beta
0.72
0.81
1.8
0.84
5.4
0.93
14.4
0.92
1.2
0.74
3
0.77
9
0.68
24
0.77
1.73
0.68
4.32
0.65
12.96
0.66
34.56
0.75
0.72
0.91
1.52
0.97
4.17
1.03
10.8
0.87
1.2
0.81
2.53
0.77
6.95
0.73
18
0.91
1.73
0.66
3.64
0.68
10
0.7
25.92
0.87
0.72
1.04
1.37
1.02
3.55
0.99
9
0.95
1.2
0.82
2.29
0.81
5.92
0.81
15
0.99
1.73
0.68
3.3
0.73
8.53
0.84
21.6
0.95
0.58
1.11
1.1
1.09
2.84
1.07
7.2
0.93
0.96
0.86
1.83
0.83
4.74
0.8
12
0.98
1.38
0.73
2.64
0.75
6.82
0.92
17.28
0.97
1.73
1.11
4.32
1.09
12.96
1.07
34.56
0.99
0.58
0.66
1.1
0.65
2.84
0.66
7.2
0.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.06
0.67
21.50
0.65
are discussed in this section. Damage probability matrices in terms of Modified Mercalli
Intensity (MMI) for the C1 building class can be compared to the DPMs published in ATC-13.
Figure 4-13 shows the comparison of the DPM computed in the project for class C1 with the
DPM published in ATC-13 for high-rise concrete moment frame buildings (Class 20).
64
0.75
0.5
Slight
0.25
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
(a)
1
0.75
0.5
Slight
0.25
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
(b)
Figure 4-10
Fragility curves for C1 building class (Northridge earthquake), (a) computed

in the project and (b) from HAZUS99 (class C1H high code).
65
P(DS>=ds|Housner Intensity)
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
Housner Intensity - 5% damping (cm/sec)
Figure 4-11
Fragility curves for C1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter .
P(DS>=ds|RMS Acceleration)
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
RMS Acceleration (g)
Figure 4-12
Fragility curves for C1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and

parameter RMS.
66

Damage State
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
1-None
0.89
0.71
0.48
0.28
0.15
0.07
2-Slight
0.04
0.16
0.31
0.43
0.47
0.47
3-Light
0.02
0.05
0.11
0.17
0.23
0.29
4-Moderate
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
5-Heavy
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
6-Major
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
7-Destroyed
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
(a)
Damage State
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
1-None
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
2-Slight
0.225
0.023
0.002
~0
~0
~0
3-Light
0.775
0.977
0.834
0.276
0.031
0.004
4-Moderate
~0
~0
0.164
0.716
0.850
0.448
5-Heavy
~0
~0
~0
0.008
0.119
0.544
6-Major
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
7-Destroyed
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
(b)
Figure 4-13
Damage probability matrix for C1 building class (Northridge earthquake),

(a) computed in the project and (b) from ATC-13 (class 20, high-rise concrete
moment frame).
increase, it is very gradual. Note that the empirical data were clustered at lower damage levels,
thus the empirically derived DPM does not have values for damage states greater than moderate.
67
This reflects a very narrow probability distribution on damage at each MMI level that does not
realistically portray the expected seismic performance of concrete frame buildings. In addition,
most of the empirical data points are at MMI levels of IX or lower, thus the probabilities
associated with MMI X and XI should not be used.
4.3.4
Concrete Frame Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake)
The dataset of concrete frame buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake) used in the project included
class C3 (concrete frame with masonry infill walls) with 77 buildings. The correlations of
building performance with the ground motion measures are shown in Tables 4-17 for building
performance in terms of damage states and performance levels, and in Table 4-18 for building
performance in terms of percent loss. Note that since the intensity measures assigned to this
earthquake are not MMI; this parameter was not used in the analysis. The ShakeMap Intensity
(IMM) was used; however, the relationships used to compute IMM are based primarily on data from
California, so the applicability of this measure for Taiwan may be limited.
As shown in Tables 4-17 and 4-18, the correlations for the C3 building class performance
with the ground motion parameters are quite low, and there appears to be little difference
between the correlations with damage state or performance level and those with percent loss.
The ground motion parameters with relatively higher correlations with building performance are
RMS90, PGV, IMM, RMSb, PGD, AI, and EPV. These tables show that spectral displacement (Sd),
spectral velocity (Sv), spectral acceleration (Sa), and SaDBSC all appear to the poorly correlated
with the performance levels for building class C3, possibly indicating that either the fundamental
period of the building changes due to concrete cracking, or the original estimate of the
fundamental period is not correct.
68
Table 4-17
Parameter
MMI
RMS90
PGV
IMM
RMSb
PGD
AI
EPV
Duration
RMS
Tb
PGA
ASI
EPA
Sa
HI
SaDBSC
Sv
Sd
IDRmax
T90
R

Damage States or Performance Levels for Building Class C3 (Chi-Chi
Earthquake)
ATC-13
NA
0.269
0.269
0.255
0.229
0.223
0.203
0.195
0.190
0.143
0.133
0.049
0.022
0.012
0.008
0.004
-0.020
-0.028
-0.058
-0.078
-0.084
-0.092
FEMA 273/356
NA
0.213
0.239
0.211
0.178
0.194
0.151
0.157
0.215
0.093
0.120
-0.018
0.015
-0.006
-0.067
-0.029
-0.074
-0.069
-0.068
-0.071
-0.063
-0.092
HAZUS99
NA
0.213
0.239
0.211
0.178
0.194
0.151
0.157
0.215
0.093
0.120
-0.018
0.015
-0.006
-0.067
-0.029
-0.074
-0.069
-0.068
-0.071
-0.063
-0.092
Vision 2000
NA
-0.259
-0.278
-0.248
-0.223
-0.234
-0.199
-0.184
-0.213
-0.139
-0.141
-0.009
-0.028
-0.017
0.008
-0.009
0.011
0.049
0.075
0.071
0.073
0.098
Fragility functions were developed for the C3 class for the following ground motion
measures that exhibited higher correlation with building performance: Sd (average horizontal), Sd
(maximum horizontal), IMM, EPV, IDRmax, R, PGV, AI, RMS90, RMSb, and Tb. Average
horizontal values were used for all ground motion measures except spectral displacement. The
data are too sparse to enable estimation of fragility parameters for different heights and design
code dates, thus the data are combined for all heights resulting in one set of fragility parameters
for this building class. The functions were developed for all four standards of building
performance (i.e., ATC-13, HAZUS99, FEMA 273/356, and Vision 2000). However,
69
convergence at Step 5 of the procedure outlined in Section 4.2.3 (minimization of the square
errors) could not always be achieved. Different initial values were tried for each curve.
Table 4-18
Parameter
MMI
PGV
IMM
PGD
Duration
RMS90
EPV
Tb
AI
RMSb
RMS
SaDBSC
ASI
PGA
HI
EPA
Sd
IDRmax
Sv
Sa
R
T90

Percent Loss for Building Class C3 (Chi-Chi Earthquake)
ATC-13
NA
0.254
0.252
0.207
0.201
0.199
0.193
0.165
0.134
0.113
0.077
0.060
-0.010
-0.012
-0.023
-0.023
-0.030
-0.035
-0.046
-0.047
-0.054
-0.080
FEMA 273/356
NA
0.262
0.252
0.212
0.178
0.184
0.177
0.119
0.118
0.124
0.073
0.006
0.006
-0.012
0.006
-0.006
-0.065
-0.052
-0.100
-0.098
-0.058
-0.086
HAZUS99
NA
0.268
0.251
0.219
0.202
0.192
0.180
0.126
0.127
0.139
0.077
-0.003
0.005
-0.019
-0.004
-0.009
-0.058
-0.046
-0.098
-0.097
-0.052
-0.082
Vision 2000
NA
0.268
0.251
0.219
0.202
0.192
0.180
0.126
0.127
0.139
0.077
-0.003
0.005
-0.019
-0.004
-0.009
-0.058
-0.046
-0.098
-0.097
-0.052
-0.082
(using average horizontal spectral displacement) for the C3 building class are shown in Table 419. Note that HAZUS99 does not include fragility parameters for this building class for
moderate and high code regions. Figure 4-14 shows the fragility curves corresponding to the
parameters listed in Table 4-19, for the low code mid-rise C3M buildings from HAZUS99 and as
70
computed in this project for C3 buildings. For all curves, the data sets were small, thus the
parameters should be used with caution.
Table 4-19
Code Level
(Chi-Chi Earthquake)
Bldg.
Type
High
Code
C3L
C3M
C3H
Moderate
C3L
Code
C3M
C3H
Low
C3L
Code
C3M
C3H
PreC3L
Code
C3M
C3H
HAZUS99 Max.
Bounds
Min.
Fitted Parameters

Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Median Beta
Median
Beta
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.54
1.09
1.08
1.07
2.7
1.08
6.3
0.91
0.9
0.85
1.8
0.83
4.5
0.79
10.5
0.98
1.3
0.71
2.59
0.74
6.48
0.9
15.12
0.97
0.43
1.19
0.86
1.15
2.16
1.15
5.04
0.92
0.72
0.9
1.44
0.86
3.6
0.9
8.4
0.96
1.04
0.73
2.07
0.75
5.18
0.9
12.1
0.95
1.3
1.19
2.59
1.15
6.48
1.15
15.12
0.98
0.43
0.71
0.86
0.74
2.16
0.79
5.04
0.91
0.89
1.17
3.01
1.22
7.19
1.34
10.01
1.40
As shown in Figure 4-14, the fragility curves for the C3 building type computed from the
project dataset correspond relatively well with the HAZUS99 fragility curves . This
correspondence was not observed for the Northridge earthquake steel frame, wood frame, and
concrete frame results discussed in Sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.3. One possible explanation for
the well-formed empirical C3 fragility curves is that the buildings in the dataset are almost all
school buildings, ranging in height from 2 to 4 stories, and most likely designed and constructed
according to consistent standards. This uniformity in construction with a given building class
was not observed in the wood frame, steel frame, and concrete frame (Northridge earthquake)
building datasets.
71
0.75
0.5
Slight
Moderate
0.25
Extensive
Complete
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
(a)
1
0.75
0.5
Slight
Moderate
0.25
Extensive
Complete
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
(b)
Figure 4-14
Fragility curves for C3 building class (Chi-Chi earthquake), (a) computed in

the project and (b) from HAZUS99 (class C3M low code).
Figures 4-15 and 4-16 show additional lognormal fragility curves developed from the C3
states as a function of PGA and Figure 4-16 shows the probability of being in or exceeding
72
FEMA 273/356 performance levels as a function of AI. These two figures are a small sample of
the data contained in Appendix B.
1
Slight
Acceleration)
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
Figure 4-15
Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), ATC-13 damage

states, and parameter PGA.
fragility curves were: Sd (average horizontal), Sd (maximum horizontal), IMM, EPV, IDRmax, R,
PGV, AI, RMS90, RMSb, and Tb. The matrices were developed from the raw empirical data and
also derived from the fragility curves. Those derived from the fragility curves are discussed in
this section. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) is not used in Taiwan, thus in order to compare
the results to the DPMs published in ATC-13, IMM is used instead. Figure 4-17 shows the
comparison of the DPM computed in the project for class C3 with the DPM published in ATC13 for mid-rise concrete frame with masonry infill wall buildings (Class 79).
73
P(DS>=ds|Arias Intensity)
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Arias Intensity (cm/sec)
Figure 4-16
Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), FEMA 273/356

performance levels, and parameter AI.
increase with IMM, it is very gradual. Note that the empirically derived DPMs have significant
probabilities at lower damage states as well as the collapse damage state (7). Note also that the
empirically derived DPM represent a wide distribution of damage at each intensity level, while
the ATC-13 DPM represents a more narrow distribution.
4.4
Sensitivity of Distance from Recording Station to Building Site
As shown in Table 2-7, the SAC dataset of S1 buildings and the LADiv88 dataset of
rehabilitated URM buildings were discriminated by those buildings within 1000 feet of a
recording station and those within 1 km of a recording station. The LADiv88 dataset was not
74
ShakeMap Intensity
Damage
State
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
1-None
1.00
0.96
0.88
0.50
0.15
0.02
2-Slight
~0
~0
0.04
0.26
0.37
0.27
3-Light
~0
~0
~0
0.05
0.14
0.21
4-Moderate
~0
~0
0.01
0.05
0.11
0.16
5-Heavy
~0
~0
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.10
6-Major
~0
~0
~0
0.01
0.02
0.04
7-Destroyed
~0
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.15
0.20
(a)
Damage State
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
1-None
0.005
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
2-Slight
0.153
0.029
~0
~0
~0
~0
3-Light
0.812
0.666
0.135
0.019
0.003
~0
4-Moderate
0.03
0.301
0.693
0.406
0.141
0.02
5-Heavy
~0
0.004
0.172
0.544
0.634
0.284
6-Major
~0
~0
~0
0.031
0.222
0.675
7-Destroyed
~0
~0
~0
~0
~0
0.021
(b)
Figure 4-17
Damage probability matrix for C3 building class (Chi-Chi earthquake), (a)

computed in the project and (b) from ATC-13 (class 79, mid-rise concrete
frame with masonry infill walls).
used in the analysis as it was too difficult to ascertain the quality of the retrofits and develop a
consistent dataset of buildings with similar seismic resisting properties. The SAC dataset of
buildings within 1000 feet of a recording station was used to develop the motion-damage
relationships described in Section 4.3.2. Correlations between building performance and
recorded ground motion parameters were developed for the SAC buildings that were located
within 1 km of a recording station in order to evaluate the effect of distance between site and
75
recording station on motion-damage correlation. The dataset of S1 buildings within 1 km of a

recording station includes 57 samples, compared to the dataset within 1000 feet, which includes
24 samples.
Table 4-20 shows a comparison of the correlations between performance of the S1
buildings in the 1994 Northridge earthquake and the recorded ground motion parameters within
1000 feet and within 1 km. The results show that slightly higher correlations exist for IDRmax,
R, Sv, IMM, and T90 (negative); significantly higher correlations exist for MMI, PGD, Sd, HI, and
Duration (negative); slightly lower correlations exist for EPV, PGV, RMS, AI, RMS90, RMSb,
ASI, EPA, PGA, SaDBSC; and significantly lower correlations exist for Sa and Tb. It is expected
that building performance would be more highly correlated with measured ground motion
recorded closer to the building site; however, the results shows in Table 4-20 are inconclusive.
Repeating the comparison with datasets larger than 24 and 57 buildings, respectively, is likely to
produce more conclusive results.
76
Table 4-20
Parameter
IDRmax
R
EPV
PGV
Sv
RMS
HI
IMM
PGD
Sa
AI
RMS90
MMI
RMSb
PGA
ASI
EPA
SaDBSC
Tb
Sd
Duration
T90
Comparison of Correlations Between Ground Motion and Building Demand

Parameters and Damage States or Performance Levels for Building Class S1
for Two Site-to-Station Distances
ATC-13
1000 ft 1 km
0.6822
0.7239
0.6798
0.7168
0.6677
0.6607
0.6361
0.5123
0.6171
0.7121
0.5905
0.5772
0.5709
0.7598
0.5306
0.5153
0.5106
0.6997
0.4581
0.1506
0.4449
0.3044
0.4376
0.3486
0.4083
0.6677
0.3927
0.3063
0.2639
0.1839
0.2532
0.1612
0.2475
0.1529
0.2250
0.2199
0.1878
0.1485
0.0000
0.5774
-0.3490
-0.6915
-0.4584
-.06096
FEMA 273/356
1000 ft 1 km
0.6893
0.7575
0.6654
0.7466
0.7883
0.7096
0.6364
0.5203
0.6018
0.7498
0.6426
0.5858
0.4874
0.7834
0.4934
0.5114
0.3600
0.6765
0.4195
0.1302
0.4304
0.3024
0.3875
0.3290
0.2314
0.6872
0.2900
0.2710
0.1331
0.1424
0.1962
0.1419
0.1696
0.1240
0.2152
0.1851
0.5124
0.2113
-0.0817
0.5899
-0.3592
-0.7025
-0.2414
-0.5266
77
HAZUS99
1000 ft
1 km
0.6893
0.7575
0.6654
0.7466
0.7883
0.7096
0.6364
0.5203
0.6018
0.7498
0.6426
0.5858
0.4874
0.7834
0.4934
0.5114
0.3600
0.6765
0.4195
0.1302
0.4304
0.3024
0.3875
0.3290
0.2314
0.6872
0.2900
0.2710
0.1331
0.1424
0.1962
0.1419
0.1696
0.1240
0.2152
0.1851
0.5124
0.2113
-0.0817
0.5899
-0.3592
-0.7025
-0.2414
-0.5266
Vision 2000
1000 ft 1 km
-0.6893
0.7575
-0.6654
0.7466
-0.7883
0.7096
-0.6364
0.5203
-0.6018
0.7498
-0.6426
0.5858
-0.4874
0.7834
-0.4934
0.5114
-0.3600
0.6765
-0.4195
0.1302
-0.4304
0.3024
-0.3875
0.3290
-0.2314
0.6872
-0.2900
0.2710
-0.1331
0.1424
-0.1962
0.1419
-0.1696
0.1240
-0.2152
0.1851
-0.5124
0.2113
0.0817
0.5899
0.3592
-0.7025
0.2414
-0.5266
APPLICATION OF MOTION-DAMAGE RELATIONSHIPS
Relationships between building performance and strong ground motion are most
commonly used for regional and site specific earthquake damage and loss estimation, with the
resulting estimates providing information for purposes such as emergency response planning,
probabilistic risk assessment, and performance-based design. The relationships developed in this
project are summarized in Chapter 4, while Appendix B includes a complete listing of the
lognormal fragility parameters and the resulting fragility curves for the wood, steel, and concrete
frame building types. Based on this information alone, it is not possible to assess the quality and
potential use of the motion-damage relationships. A more meaningful assessment is based on the
results of the application of the relationships, i.e., the resulting regional and site-specific damage
and loss estimates, as discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2.
5.1
Regional Damage and Loss Estimation
The HAZUS99 (FEMA, 1999) software was used to assess the motion-damage
relationships developed in this project. The study region was Los Angeles County. The
software was run using the ShakeMap (USGS, 2003) developed for the M 6.7 1994 Northridge
earthquake; Figure 5-1 shows the distribution of ShakeMap Intensity for the earthquake. The
software was first run with the default lognormal fragility parameters. Next, the fragility
parameters developed in this project for the W1, W2, S1, C1, and C2 building classes were used
to replace the default fragility parameters for the corresponding building classes in the HAZUS
software. The replacement procedure followed that outlined in Porter et al. (2001).
The results of the HAZUS analysis using the default and replaced fragility parameters
with the 1994 Northridge earthquake ShakeMap are given in Tables 5-1 through 5-8. Tables 5-1
and 5-2 compare the number of buildings in each damage state by general structural class. In
78
Figure 5-1
ShakeMap Intensity map for the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
general, the number of buildings in the damage states of None and Complete increased
significantly, while the number of buildings in the Slight, Moderate, and Extensive damage states
decreased. The wood frame buildings show results that are similar to the total building
inventory, as would be expected since they make up approximately 92% of the inventory. For
79
Table 5-1
General
Structural
Class
Concrete
Mobile Home
Precast
Reinforced
Masonry
Steel
URM
Wood
TOTAL
Table 5-2
General
Structural
Class
Concrete
Mobile Home
Precast
Reinforced
Masonry
Steel
URM
Wood
TOTAL
1
HAZUS99 Results: Number of Buildings in Each Damage State by General

Structural Class for Los Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake
ShakeMap Using Default Fragility Parameters
Number of Buildings by HAZUS99 Damage State
None
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
TOTAL
12,763
32,814
11,193
26,664
2,987
8,802
2,216
4,837
2,048
8,394
2,440
4,850
613
3,814
745
1,801
105
1,566
162
303
18,516
55,390
16,756
38,455
13,542
3,309
1,216,291
1,316,576
1,918
1,181
410,652
432,593
2,324
1,059
153,587
174,702
747
409
16,945
25,074
113
209
4,946
7,404
18,644
6,167
1,802,421
1,956,349

Structural Class for Los Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake
ShakeMap Using Fragility Parameters Developed in Project
(% Change from Results Using Default Fragility Parameters)
None
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
12,732
2,922
2,832
43
11
(-0.2)
(-2.2)
(38.3)
(-93.0)
(-89.5)
32,814
8,802
8,394
3,814
1,566
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
11,193
2,216
2,440
745
162
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
26,664
4,837
4,850
1,801
303
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
15,166
1,195
1,635
552
112
(12.0)
(-37.7)
(-29.6)
(-26.1)
(-0.9)
3,309
1,181
1,059
409
209
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
1,696,471
75,427
12,269
2,551
16,904
(39.5)
(-81.6)
(-92.0)
(-84.9)
(241.8)
1,798,349
96,580
33,479
9,915
19,267
(36.6)
(-77.7)
(-80.8)
(-60.5)
(160.2)
Changes in total number of buildings are due to round-off error in HAZUS99 software
80
TOTAL1
18,540
(0.1)
55,390
(0.0)
16,756
(0.0)
38,455
(0.0)
18,660
(0.1)
6,167
(0.0)
1,803,622
(0.1)
1,957,590
(0.1)
concrete frame buildings, the number in the None and Slight damage states changed very little,
but there was a significant shift in the number of buildings from the Extensive and Complete
damage states to the Moderate damage state. For the steel frame buildings, the number of
buildings in the None damage state increased with the number in the other damage states
decreased.
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 compare the number of buildings in each damage state by general
occupancy class. The relationship between structural class and occupancy class depends only on
the mapping scheme defined in the HAZUS software. This mapping scheme was not changed in
the analysis, nor was the inventory for the study region. Thus the results shown in Table 5-4 are
based only on the changes in building damage by structural class and the mapping between
structural class and occupancy class built into the HAZUS software. Note that the number of
buildings in each damage state changed for nearly all occupancy classes, with the number of
buildings in the None and Complete damage states increasing, and the number of buildings in the
Slight, Moderate, and Extensive damage states decreasing.
Structural, nonstructural, and total building losses are compared in Tables 5-5 and 5-6 by
general structural class. For the three building classes with modified fragility parameters, the
losses decreased, by more than 10% for structural loss. This is consistent with the increase in the
number of buildings in the None damage state. Nonstructural loss did not change because
nonstructural fragility parameters were not considered in the project. The decrease in total loss
was almost insignificant (from $16.93B to $16.52B, or 2.4%) due to the fact that the
nonstructural loss (which remains constant) comprised more than 80% of the total building loss.
In the HAZUS software, replacement values for nonstructural components are typically 70 to
80% of the total replacement value of the building.
81
Table 5-3
General
Occupancy
Class
Agricultural
Commercial
Education
Government
Industrial
Religious
Residential
TOTAL
Table 5-4
General
Occupancy
Class
Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Government
Industrial
Religious
Residential
TOTAL
1

Occupancy Class for Los Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake
ShakeMap Using Default Fragility Parameters
None
307
33,036
1,938
508
10,408
2,303
1,268,082
1,316,582
HAZUS99 Damage State

Slight
Moderate
Extensive
74
9,246
257
14
2,230
506
420,284
432,611
65
7,399
142
5
1,918
268
164,922
174,719
25
2,347
28
0
596
51
22,225
25,272
Complete
TOTAL
6
544
7
0
164
9
6,742
7,472
477
52,572
2,372
527
15,316
3,137
1,882,255
1,956,656

Occupancy Class for Los Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake
ShakeMap Using Fragility Parameters Developed in Project
(% Change from Results Using Default Fragility Parameters)
None
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
415
34
38
10
9
(35.2)
(-54.1)
(-41.5)
(-60.0)
(50.0)
36,283
6,098
6,593
1,585
1,567
(9.8)
(-34.0)
(-10.9)
(-32.5)
(188.1)
2,195
135
116
14
7
(13.3)
(-47.5)
(-18.3)
(-50.0)
(0.0)
549
8
4
0
0
(8.1)
(-42.9)
(-20.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
11,248
1,705
1,720
426
233
(8.1)
(-23.5)
(-10.3)
(-28.5)
(42.1)
2,686
237
208
20
7
(16.6)
(-53.2)
(-22.4)
(-60.8)
(-22.2)
1,744,979
88,586
25,309
8,125
17,280
(37.6)
(-78.9)
(-84.7)
(-63.4)
(156.3)
1,798,355
96,803
33,988
10,180
19,103
(36.6)
(-77.6)
(-80.5)
(-59.7)
(155.7)
Changes in total number of buildings are due to round-off error in HAZUS99 software
82
TOTAL1
506
(6.1)
52,126
(-0.8)
2,467
(4.0)
561
(6.5)
15,332
(0.1)
3,158
(0.7)
1,884,279
(0.1)
1,958,429
(0.1)
Table 5-5
HAZUS99 Results: Building Loss by General Structural Class for Los

Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Default
Fragility Parameters
General
Structural
Class
Concrete
Mobile Home
Precast
Reinforced
Masonry
Steel
URM
Wood
TOTAL
Table 5-6
Structural
Loss ($1,000)
Nonstructural
Total Building
321,441
51,753
344,032
354,523
1,185,176
124,631
870,492
1,271,606
1,506,617
176,384
1,214,524
1,626,129
331,943
152,077
1,419,668
2,975,437
1,070,631
456,155
8,974,569
13,953,260
1,402,574
608,232
10,394,237
16,928,697
HAZUS99 Results: Building Loss by General Structural Class for Los

Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Fragility
Parameters Developed in Project
General
Structural
Class
Concrete
Mobile Home
Precast
Reinforced
Masonry
Steel
URM
Wood
TOTAL
Structural
Loss ($1,000)
Nonstructural
Total Building
141,978
(-55.8)
51,822
(0.0)
344,031
(0.0)
354,527
1,185,176
(0.0)
124,631
(0.0)
870,492
(0.0)
1,271,606
1,327,154
(-11.9)
176,453
(0.0)
1,214,523
(0.0)
1,626,133
(0.0)
258,899
(-22.0)
152,227
(0.0)
1,265,557
(-10.9)
2,569,041
(-13.7)
(0.0)
1,070,631
(0.0)
456,155
(0.0)
8,974,569
(0.0)
13,953,260
(0.0)
(0.0)
1,329,530
(-5.2)
608,382
(0.0)
10,240,126
(-1.5)
16,522,301
(-2.4)
83
Tables 5-7 and 5-8 compare structural, nonstructural, and total building losses by general
occupancy class. As discussed above for the number of buildings in each damage state, results
by occupancy class depend on the mapping between occupancy class and structural class.
Damage is computed by structural class (based on the input ground motion and fragility
parameter data), but loss is computed by occupancy class (based on replacement values). Thus
the total losses should be consistent, whether discriminated by structural class or occupancy
class. As shown in Table 5-8, the structural losses decrease for nearly all occupancy classes and
the decrease in total loss is the same as that shown in Table 5-6, as is expected due to the
mapping between the two sets of classes.
5.2
Site-Specific Damage and Loss Estimation
The prior section focused on the application of motion-damage relationships for regional
damage and loss estimation, illustrating the use of fragility curves for damage described by
HAZUS99 damage states as a function of spectral displacement (Sd). This section focuses on
site-specific damage and loss estimation to illustrate the use of the developed fragility curves for
other ground motion parameters and other damage or performance characterization. Motiondamage relationships, regardless of the method used to develop them, are typically intended to
represent the average behavior, with uncertainty, of a group of buildings of similar type that are
subjected to the same ground motion. The user needs to be aware of the limitations in applying
these relationships to a single building, where the uncertainty on the performance of an
individual facility can be greater than the uncertainty on the performance of a group of similar
facilities. Further discussion of uncertainties is beyond the scope of this project. The damage
and loss estimates provided in this section are limited to expected values.
84
Table 5-7
HAZUS99 Results: Building Loss by General Occupancy Class for Los

Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Default
Fragility Parameters
General
Occupancy
Class
Agricultural
Commercial
Education
Government
Industrial
Religious
Residential
TOTAL
Table 5-8
Structural
5,101
999,548
30,808
14,464
212,055
43,307
1,670,154
2,975,437
Loss ($1,000)
Nonstructural
Total Building
4,183
3,092,207
149,522
51,016
690,767
151,236
9,814,329
13,953,260
9,284
4,091,755
180,330
65,480
902,822
194,543
11,484,483
16,928,697
HAZUS99 Results: Building Loss by General Occupancy Class for Los

Angeles County and 1994 Northridge Earthquake ShakeMap Using Fragility
Parameters Developed in Project
General
Occupancy
Class
Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Government
Industrial
Religious
Residential
TOTAL
Structural
4,207
(-17.5)
1,317,749
(31.8)
23,540
(-23.6)
12,196
(-15.7)
213,354
(0.6)
29,710
(-31.4)
968,285
(-42.0)
2,569,041
(-13.7)
Loss ($1,000)
Nonstructural
Total Building
4,183
(0.0)
3,092,207
(0.0)
149,522
(0.0)
51,016
(0.0)
690,767
(0.0)
151,236
(0.0)
9,814,329
(0.0)
13,953,260
(0.0)
85
8,390
(-9.6)
4,409,956
(7.8)
173,062
(-4.0)
63,212
(-3.5)
904,121
(0.1)
180,946
(-7.0)
10,782,614
(-6.1)
16,522,301
(-2.4)
The motion-damage relationships are used to estimate damage and loss to a hypothetical
single-story wood frame dwelling (W1) located in southern California. The purpose here is to
not only illustrate the use of the motion-damage relationships, but also to compare and assess the
reasonableness of the damage and loss results obtained using the various parameters from a
single ground motion record. The ground motion parameters are based on the probabilistic
seismic hazard for the site, obtained from the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project
website (USGS, 2003). Table 5-9 lists the probabilistic seismic hazard parameters. The site
acceleration response spectra corresponding to these parameters, computed using the method of
FEMA 273/356 (FEMA, 2000), are shown in Figure 5-2. Simulated time histories for the site
were also obtained from the USGS website, and are shown in Figure 5-3 for the two levels of
seismic hazard.
Table 5-9
Hazard Level
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Parameters for Building Site
Short Period Acceleration, Ss (g)
Long Period Acceleration, S1 (g)
10% in 50 years
1.26
0.46
2% in 50 years
2.09
0.84
The time-dependent and frequency-dependent ground motion parameters were computed

following the same procedure as for the recorded ground motion used in the project. These
parameters are listed in Table 5-10 for the two seismic hazard levels. Tables 5-11 and 5-12 list
the expected damage, in terms of percent loss, for a W1 building for each characterization of
performance (i.e., ATC-13, HAZUS99, FEMA 273/356, and Vision 2000) for each ground
motion parameter for which reasonable lognormal fragility curves could be developed (see
Appendix B for a complete list). Table 5-11 shows results for the 10% in 50 year hazard ground
motion data and Table 5-12 shows the results for the 2% in 50 year hazard ground motion data.
86
The results shown in Tables 5-11 and 5-12 were found by first computing the probability of
being in each damage state or performance level using the lognormal fragility curves. Table 2-6,
which gives the relationship between damage state or performance level and percent loss, was
then used to compute the expected value of damage in terms of percent loss. Tables 5-13 and 514 list the expected loss values, found by assuming a replacement value of $300,000 for the
hypothetical W1 building. Table 5-13 shows results for the 10% in 50 year hazard ground
motion data and Table 5-14 shows the results for the 2% in 50 year hazard ground motion data.
2.5
Spectral Acceleration (g)
10% in 50 years
2% in 50 years
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
Period (sec)
Figure 5-2
Site acceleration response spectra computed for data shown in Table 5-9.
The results shown in Tables 5-11 and 5-12 can be used to compare damage estimates for
a given ground motion parameter using the four different types of performance characterization
or for a given performance characterization using the various ground motion parameters. For the
10% in 50 year hazard level (Table 5-11), a comparison across performance or damage state
characterizations shows that the ATC-13 damage state characterization results in higher
87
0.8
Acceleration (g)
10% in 50 years
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
0
10
15
20
25
Time (sec)
1.5
2% in 50 years
Acceleration (g)
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0
10
15
20
25
Time (sec)
Figure 5-3
Simulated acceleration time history data corresponding to response spectra

shown in Figure 5-2.
estimates of damage, followed by HAZUS99 and Vision 2000, with the FEMA 273/356
characterization producing the lowest damage estimates. This result is not surprising, as ATC-13
uses seven damage states, HAZUSS99 and Vision 2000 use five, and FEMA 273/356 uses four
(including no damage). Each damage state has an associated mean percentage of loss as shown
in Table 2-6, thus the higher damage states in ATC-13 (with mean percent loss values of 45%,
80% and 100%) will contribute to higher expected values. A comparison across ground motion
parameters shows that similar damage estimates are produced using the relationships developed
88
for PGV, PGD, Tb, RMS, EPV, HI, IMM, R, IDRmax, Sd, Sv, and Sa. The relationships based on
PGA and MMI produce slightly higher estimates of damage. For comparison purposes, for this
building and the 10% in 50 year hazard level, the expected damage based on the damage
probability matrix published in ATC-13 is 9.2% and that computed using the HAZUS99 method
and data is 8.3%, both of which are higher than most of the values reported in Table 5-11.
For the 2% in 50 year hazard level (Table 4-12) the results are not as consistent as for the
10% in 50 year hazard level. Comparison across damage state or performance characterization
shows consistent results for the ground motion parameters of Tb, IMM, IDRmax, Sd, and Sv.
Comparison across ground motion parameters shows consistent results for the same parameters,
except Tb. The consistency of the results is only an indication of the motion-damage
relationships producing similar expected values; it is not an indication as to whether or not the
expected values are reasonable. In fact, for this high level of seismic hazard (2475-year return
period), one would expect higher levels of damage than that shown for these four parameters in
Table 4-12. For example, the expected damage based on the damage probability matrix
published in ATC-13 is 19.8% and that computed using the HAZUS99 method and data is
10.3%. The results shown in Table 4-12 are lower than expected because the motion-damage
relationships on which they are based were developed using data from the 1994 Northridge
earthquake, a relatively moderate event with shaking similar to the 10% in 50 year hazard level
rather than the 2% in 50 year hazard level. This emphasizes the point that the motion-damage
relationships developed in this project are limited in application to moderate levels of ground
motion; extrapolation beyond that point should be done with caution.
The results in Tables 5-13 and 5-14 are similar to those in Tables 5-11 and 5-12 as they
are computed by multiplying percent loss by the assumed replacement value for the building.
89
Tables 5-13 and 5-14 are only included for those who, based on experience with post-earthquake
repair, find it easier to compare actual dollar values of loss rather than percentages.
It should be noted that it would be interesting to compare the correlations among damage
estimates based on the various ground motion parameters with the correlations among the actual
ground motion parameters themselves. Several researchers have looked at correlations among
ground motion parameters, for example Naeim and Anderson (1996); however, the comparison
of these correlations with those among the damage estimates given in this section is beyond the
scope of this project.
Table 5-10
Ground Motion Parameters Computed from Site-Specific Acceleration Data

Parameter

Peak Ground Velocity (cm/sec)
Total Record Duration (sec)
90% Cumulative Duration (sec)
Bracketed Duration (sec)
Root Mean Acceleration for Total Duration (g)
Root Mean Acceleration for 90% Duration (g)
Root Mean Acceleration for Bracketed Duration (g)
Acceleration Spectrum Intensity (g)
Effective Peak Acceleration (g)
Effective Peak Velocity (cm/sec)
Response Spectrum or Housner Intensity (cm/sec)
Modified Mercalli Intensity1
Roof Drift Ratio (%)
Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio (%)
Spectral Displacement at Predominant Period2 (cm)
Spectral Velocity at Predominant Period2 (cm/sec)
Spectral Acceleration at Predominant Period2 (g)
1
2
10% in 50 year
Value
0.74
43.1
10.3
64
7.0
12.8
0.06
0.18
0.14
409.3
0.50
0.50
40.8
227.6
IX
8.0
0.17
0.21
0.63
27.9
1.26
2% in 50 year
Value
1.18
127.3
59.2
64
6.0
13.2
0.11
0.33
0.24
1140.7
0.84
0.83
73.4
405.7
X
9.7
0.29
0.35
1.05
46.3
2.09
Computed using formula from Trifunac and Brady (1975), with rounding to nearest integer
Predominant period for one-story wood frame building estimated as 0.14 sec.
90
Table 5-11
Expected Damage for Example Site-Specific Analysis of Single-Story W1

Building for 10% in 50 Year Ground Motion Hazard
Parameter

(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
Root Mean Acceleration for
Total Duration (g)
90% Duration (g)
Bracketed Duration (g)
Acceleration Spectrum
Intensity (g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
Response Spectrum or
Housner Intensity (cm/sec)
ShakeMap Instrumental
Intensity
Maximum Interstory Drift
Ratio (%)
Spectral Displacement at
Predominant Period (cm)
Spectral Velocity at
Predominant Period
(cm/sec)
Spectral Acceleration at
Predominant Period (g)
Expected Damage in Percent Loss

by Damage or Performance Characterization Type
ATC-13
HAZUS99
FEMA 273/356
Vision 2000
9.5
8.6
0.6
81.4
2.8
1.0
0.5
1.1
5.7
1.0
0.5
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.9
1.3
NA
0.6
0.8
1.3
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
1.8
13.4
2.4
NA
1.0
NA
0.5
NA
NA
3.7
2.4
2.4
1.0
1.7
0.5
2.0
1.0
3.2
1.6
0.8
1.6
3.0
1.5
0.8
1.5
2.5
2.0
1.3
2.0
Note: NA indicates that reasonable fragility curve parameters could not be found.
91
Table 5-12
Expected Damage for Example Site Specific Analysis of Single-Story W1

Parameter

(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
Total Duration (g)
90% Duration (g)
Intensity (g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
Intensity
Ratio (%)
Predominant Period
(cm/sec)
Expected Damage in Percent Loss

ATC-13
HAZUS99
FEMA 273/356
Vision 2000
12.3
11.7
1.0
100.0
4.7
59.0
73.5
18.2
19.3
100.0
75.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.0
1.3
NA
0.6
1.1
1.3
99.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.1
32.5
27.9
3.9
NA
2.3
NA
1.8
NA
NA
5.0
4.8
10.9
9.1
7.1
8.5
97.5
9.1
4.1
5.1
4.3
5.1
3.2
3.2
2.5
3.2
3.1
48.5
37.1
48.5
92
Table 5-13
Expected Loss for Example Site Specific Analysis of Single-Story W1

Parameter

(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
Total Duration (g)
90% Duration (g)
Intensity (g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
Intensity
Ratio (%)
Predominant Period
(cm/sec)
Expected Loss in $
ATC-13
HAZUS99
FEMA 273/356
Vision 2000
28,500
25,930
1,850
244,130
8,390
3,010
1,500
3,350
17,150
3,110
1,540
3,110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11,660
3,910
NA
1,880
2,490
3,910
3,680
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6,120
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3,610
5,440
40,190
7,260
NA
3,150
NA
1,570
NA
NA
11,000
7,070
7,240
3,100
5,150
1,510
5,960
3,100
9,520
4,650
2,370
4,650
9,010
4,420
2,430
4,420
7,400
5,950
3,940
5,950
93
Table 5-14
Expected Loss for Example Site Specific Analysis of Single-Story W1

Parameter

(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
Total Duration (g)
90% Duration (g)
Intensity (g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
Intensity
Ratio (%)
Predominant Period
(cm/sec)
Expected Loss in $
ATC-13
HAZUS99
FEMA 273/356
Vision 2000
36,950
34,980
3,110
299,920
14,080
177,100
220,540
54,490
57,920
300,000
225,000
300,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33,000
3,980
NA
1,930
3,440
3,980
298,760
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6,360
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
66,230
97,450
83,770
11,830
NA
7,030
NA
5,250
NA
NA
15,090
14,270
32,800
27,220
21,160
25,420
292,360
27,230
12,360
15,370
12,860
15,370
9,600
9,470
7,410
9,580
9,250
145,410
111,430
145,410
94
CONCLUSIONS
This project entailed an investigation of the correlation of building performance with

recorded strong ground motion, with the intention of developing motion-damage relationships
based on the empirical data collected during the project. The data were limited to nonproprietary post-earthquake investigation datasets containing both damaged and undamaged
buildings that were systematically collected and archived by experienced engineers. In addition,
the buildings had to be located within 1000 feet of a strong motion recording station. These
stringent data criteria limited the number of sample points that could be used in the project.
The project was completed through the execution of several tasks, including: (1)
collecting and archiving of building performance datasets and corresponding strong ground
motion records; (2) computing time- and frequency-dependent strong ground motion parameters;
(3) inferring standard damage states (ATC-13, HAZUS99) and performance levels (FEMA
273/356 and Vision 2000) for building survey records, as well as other relevant building
information such as applicable design code, fundamental period, and seismic demand
parameters; (4) computing correlations between building performance and ground motion or
building demand parameters for those standard building types with sufficient sample sizes; (5)
developing lognormal fragility curves and derived damage probability matrices for those
relationships between building performance and measured ground motion showing relatively
higher correlations; and (6) illustrating the use of the developed fragility curves for regional and
site-specific earthquake loss estimation applications.
The building and ground motion datasets used in the project were limited in size (number
of points) and range (levels of building damage and strong ground motion), thus the resulting
95
data correlations and motion-damage relationships are also limited in their application. Despite
these limitations, the following observations can be made about the results of the project:
A method for developing empirical motion-damage relationships in the form of

lognormal fragility curves and derived damage probability matrices was described and
illustrated.
A database of strong ground motion parameters based on recordings from the 1994
Northridge, California and 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake was developed and is
available for use in future research.
A database of consistent building performance information with computed seismic

demand parameters was developed and is available for use in future research.
Numerous sets of fragility curves for six model building types, including wood, steel, and
concrete frame, were developed for several strong ground motion and building demand
parameters, based on four different characterizations of building performance.
Regional and site-specific earthquake loss estimation applications of the developed

motion-damage relationships indicate that although the fragility curves are significantly
different from published models, the loss results produced with these relationships are
similar to those produced with the published models.
A comparison of correlation between building performance and measured strong ground

motion using two different site-to-station distances (1000 feet and 1 km) proved
inconclusive due to the limited data sample size.
Future post-earthquake investigation work should focus on the systematic and accurate
gathering and archiving of non-proprietary building performance (including damaged and
undamaged structural and nonstructural systems) data near to strong ground motion
96
recording stations, including considerations of: (1) large sample sizes of common model
building types, (2) wide range in building performance, and (3) wide range in strong
ground motion levels.
Data collected in future earthquakes can be added to the datasets developed in this project
and the fragility curves can be updated using the methodology outlined in this report.
97
REFERENCES
Anagnos, T., Rojahn, C., and Kiremidjian, A., 1995, NCEER-ATC Joint Study on Fragility of
Buildings, Technical Report NCEER-95-0003, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York at Buffalo.
ATC, 2000, Database on the Performance of Structures Near Strong-Motion Recordings: 1994
Northridge, California, Earthquake, ATC-38 Report, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, CA.
ATC, 1985, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, ATC-13 Report, Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
ATC, 1978, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings,
ATC-3-06 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
Arias, A., 1970, A Measure of Earthquake Intensity, in Hansen, R.J., ed., Seismic Design for
Nuclear Power Plants, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, pp 438-483.
Basoz, N. and Kiremidjian, A.S., 1999, Development of Empirical Fragility Curves for
Bridges, Optimizing Post-Earthquake Lifeline System Reliability, Technical Council on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Monograph No. 16, Proceedings of the 5th U.S. Conference
on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia,
pp 693-702.
Boatwright, J., Thywissen, K. and Seekins, L.C., 2001, Correlation of Ground Motion and
Intensity for the 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp 739-752.
Bolt, B.A., 1969, Duration of Strong Motion, Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, pp 1304-1315.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, Open-File
Report 93-509, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.
Campbell, K.W., 1985, Strong Motion Attenuation Relations: A Ten-Year Perspective,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp 759-804.
Camelo, V.S., Beck, J.L., and Hall, J.F., 2001, Dynamic Characteristics of Woodframe
Buildings, CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Report, Consortium of Universities for
Research in Earthquake Engineering, Richmond, CA.
Chopra, A.K., Goel, R.K., and De la Llera, J.C., 1998, Seismic Code Improvements Based on
Recorded Motions of Buildings During Earthquakes, in Proceedings of SMIP 98 Seminar
on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program,
Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA.
98
FEMA, 2000, Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel
Moment-Frame Buildings, Report FEMA-351, Prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA, 1999, HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, Technical Manual, Prepared
by the National Institute of Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA, 1998, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings A Prestandard, Report FEMA
310, Prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA, 2000, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report FEMA 356
(revised from FEMA 273/274), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Heintz, J.A. and Poland, C.D., 2001, Correlating Measured Ground Motion with Observed
Damage, Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to Volume 17, pp. 110-130.
Housner, G.W., 1959, Behavior of Structures During Earthquakes, Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 85, No. EM14, pp 109-129.
ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
CA.
Kramer, S.L, 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
Lizundia, B. and Holmes, W.T., 1997, The performance of rehabilitated URM buildings in the
Northridge earthquake, Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop on Research
on the Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994, California Universities for
Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe), Richmond, California, Vol. III-A, 1998,
pages III-116 - III-123.
Miranda, E. and Reyes, C.J., 2002, Approximate Lateral Demands in Multistory Buildings with
Nonuniform Stiffness, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 7, pp 840-849.
Miranda, E., 1999, Approximate Seismic Lateral Deformation Demands in Multistory
Buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 4, pp 417-425.
Moehle, J.P., 1992, Displacement-Based Design of RC Structures Subjected to Earthquakes,
Naeim, F. and Anderson, J.C., 1996, Design Classification of Horizontal and Vertical
Earthquake Ground Motion (1933-1994), Report to the U.S. Geological Survey, JAMA
Report No. 7738.68-96, John A. Martin & Associates, Los Angeles, CA.
99
Porter, K.A., Beck, J.L., Seligson, H.A., Scawthorn, C.R., Tobin, L.T., Young, R., and Boyd, T.,
2001, Improving Loss Estimation for Wood Frame Buildings, Final Report on Tasks 4.1 and
4.5 of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project, CUREE, Richmond, CA.
Priestley, M.J.N., 1996, Displacement-Based Seismic Assessment of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Buildings, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp 256-272.
SEAOC, 1995, Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings (Vision 2000), Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
Singhal, A. and Kiremidjian, A.S., 1996, A Method for Earthquake Motion-Damage
Relationships with Application to Reinforced Concrete Frames, John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center Technical Report No. 119, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Trifunac, M.D and Brady, A.G., 1975, On the correlation of seismic intensity with peaks of
recorded strong ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 65,
No. 1, pp 139-162.
USGS, 2003, Plan to Coordinate Post-Earthquake Investigations, Circular 1242, United States
Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.
USGS, 2003, ShakeMap Website, www.shakemap.org.
USGS, 2003, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project Website,
geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/index.html.
Von Thun, J.L. ed., 1988, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II: Recent Advances in
Ground-Motion Evaluation, Geotechnical Special Publication 20, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY.
Wald, D.J., Quitoriano, V., Heaton, T.H., and Kanamori, H., 1999, Relationships between Peak
Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California,
Wallace, J.W., 1994, Displacement-Based Design of RC Structural Walls, Proceedings of the
Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II, pp 191-200.
100
APPENDIX A: GROUND MOTION PARAMETER DATA
A.1
1994 Northridge, California Earthquake......................................................................... A-2
A.2
1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake ................................................................................. A-9
A-1
APPENDIX A: GROUND MOTION PARAMETER DATA

A.1
Station
1994 Northridge, California Earthquake
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
N90E
0.34
40.4
8.9
60
13.1
24.4
0.041
0.082
0.063
152.6
0.28
0.27
35.3
130.0
N00E
0.31
23.4
8.3
60
13.5
14.9
0.036
0.071
0.070
117.4
0.25
0.24
23.4
106.1
VERT
0.55
17.5
6.4
60
14.6
21.6
0.048
0.091
0.079
209.3
0.27
0.33
11.7
80.6
N90E
0.22
24.6
5.8
60
11.6
11.8
0.026
0.057
0.057
64.7
0.20
0.20
20.2
91.5
N00E
0.28
24.1
5.1
60
11.1
9.8
0.027
0.059
0.064
67.0
0.23
0.23
13.3
88.5
VERT
0.24
16.0
2.3
60
11.4
11.8
0.026
0.055
0.056
60.2
0.14
0.15
7.3
44.5
N90E
0.58
74.8
17.6
60
5.9
15.7
0.069
0.207
0.133
436.0
0.64
0.61
44.2
235.8
N00E
0.59
94.7
30.5
60
5.5
15.7
0.078
0.245
0.152
567.0
0.58
0.55
70.6
350.6
VERT
0.55
30.7
12.8
60
7.2
12.6
0.056
0.152
0.121
286.2
0.51
0.50
20.4
77.2
N90E
0.23
18.2
4.7
60
12.5
14.8
0.032
0.066
0.063
94.1
0.21
0.22
14.6
87.1
N00E
0.39
22.3
4.3
60
11.0
15.2
0.047
0.103
0.091
200.7
0.34
0.35
32.1
95.3
VERT
0.14
9.9
2.4
60
14.0
10.3
0.020
0.039
0.045
36.3
0.08
0.09
8.4
42.5
N90E
0.21
29.4
8.7
60
23.9
15.7
0.033
0.050
0.063
103.7
0.23
0.22
14.8
114.6
N00E
0.45
54.9
13.1
60
10.0
15.3
0.057
0.133
0.112
302.2
0.42
0.40
35.5
191.9
VERT
0.18
18.8
4.5
60
22.3
13.5
0.023
0.035
0.045
48.0
0.15
0.15
8.2
69.3
N90E
0.30
24.4
4.1
60
10.4
13.8
0.036
0.082
0.074
119.7
0.33
0.32
17.7
72.8
Comp
Code
CSMIP
24087
CSMIP
24231
CSMIP
24279
CSMIP
24303
CSMIP
24322
CSMIP
24370
CSMIP
24385
CSMIP
24386
CSMIP
24389
CSMIP
24400
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
N00E
0.21
16.8
3.4
60
14.7
15.1
0.026
0.050
0.050
63.3
0.21
0.20
12.4
59.7
VERT
0.13
6.3
2.0
60
13.0
12.5
0.020
0.041
0.042
37.3
0.14
0.14
7.7
29.4
N90E
0.26
11.6
3.0
60
13.0
14.0
0.028
0.057
0.056
72.2
0.20
0.21
14.1
57.2
N00E
0.29
20.3
3.5
60
10.0
11.3
0.033
0.077
0.075
102.9
0.32
0.31
14.4
58.0
VERT
0.12
7.3
1.1
60
12.5
9.5
0.017
0.035
0.039
26.6
0.13
0.13
5.5
25.1
N90E
0.45
50.9
7.9
60
12.1
22.0
0.058
0.123
0.095
314.0
0.45
0.43
35.1
174.1
N00E
0.40
35.3
12.0
60
12.1
17.6
0.059
0.124
0.107
317.6
0.47
0.44
30.8
174.4
VERT
0.27
14.9
5.7
60
16.7
11.2
0.034
0.062
0.076
108.9
0.27
0.28
8.2
63.3
N90E
0.26
21.4
6.0
60
13.6
14.4
0.036
0.071
0.071
118.8
0.24
0.24
16.9
104.8
N00E
0.22
25.1
6.0
60
14.7
14.1
0.029
0.055
0.057
76.3
0.18
0.18
27.8
97.5
VERT
0.12
8.7
3.2
60
17.9
10.5
0.015
0.027
0.034
22.1
0.07
0.08
7.0
36.7
N90E
0.35
14.5
4.2
60
11.4
18.4
0.035
0.076
0.062
111.9
0.29
0.29
9.5
53.6
N00E
0.41
30.9
2.6
60
11.9
14.8
0.039
0.084
0.078
143.7
0.40
0.39
23.5
77.8
VERT
0.11
4.3
1.7
60
21.3
8.3
0.012
0.018
0.025
12.4
0.07
0.08
2.7
18.7
A-2
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
N90E
1.78
110.2
29.2
60
10.6
27.3
0.157
0.354
0.232
227.4
1.36
1.36
62.2
337.2
N00E
0.99
77.2
28.2
60
12.6
30.2
0.134
0.277
0.189
166.9
0.95
0.93
42.6
258.3
VERT
1.05
72.3
17.0
60
8.6
19.2
0.107
0.269
0.190
106.5
0.86
0.89
21.2
114.2
CSMIP
N90E
0.19
15.3
2.0
60
16.8
10.4
0.020
0.035
0.043
36.1
0.15
0.15
8.6
47.1
24463
N00E
0.25
14.3
1.8
60
14.8
11.4
0.023
0.044
0.050
49.5
0.20
0.19
11.0
48.9
VERT
0.08
5.6
0.8
60
23.1
4.6
0.010
0.016
0.025
9.6
0.07
0.07
4.6
22.8
CSMIP
N90E
0.11
11.9
2.9
60
13.1
8.2
0.020
0.040
0.049
36.6
0.15
0.14
11.3
55.4
24464
N00E
0.31
34.8
7.2
60
8.8
10.3
0.030
0.074
0.071
83.1
0.22
0.21
29.8
127.0
Station
Comp
Code
CSMIP
24436
CSMIP
24538
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
VERT
0.13
9.2
1.2
60
10.1
9.6
0.016
0.038
0.038
24.5
0.09
0.09
12.8
35.6
N90E
0.88
41.8
14.3
60
8.8
13.6
0.056
0.138
0.115
285.7
0.63
0.64
18.3
166.0
N00E
0.37
24.9
6.5
60
11.3
12.9
0.036
0.078
0.075
118.1
0.27
0.28
20.2
123.1
VERT
0.23
14.0
3.8
60
18.4
12.8
0.019
0.033
0.038
34.4
0.12
0.14
6.3
53.5
CSMIP
S00W
0.18
16.4
2.7
60
17.0
9.2
0.0189
0.034
0.044
33.1
0.18
0.15
8.8
14.2
24567
S90W
0.17
14.7
3.4
60
17.4
9.7
0.0197
0.035
0.045
36.0
0.16
0.13
11.6
14.1
VERT
0.06
4.8
1.5
60
23.2
0.0
0.0087
0.013
0.050
7.0
0.06
0.05
4.2
5.4
N90W
0.13
9.4
3.1
60
18.4
13.6
0.019
0.032
0.037
32.8
0.16
0.15
11.7
49.8
CSMIP
24579
N00E
0.16
16.8
2.7
60
15.9
15.5
0.019
0.035
0.036
33.5
0.14
0.14
14.0
56.1
VERT
0.08
5.3
1.7
60
20.6
2.4
0.010
0.016
0.027
9.0
0.07
0.07
3.1
30.0
CSMIP
N05E
0.49
31.1
2.3
60
11.2
15.9
0.039
0.084
0.074
137.4
0.46
0.44
20.8
70.8
24605
N95E
0.21
10.7
2.5
60
13.4
11.9
0.024
0.049
0.052
54.2
0.18
0.18
6.7
36.9
VERT
0.12
6.4
1.3
60
14.1
7.7
0.014
0.027
0.034
17.9
0.12
0.12
3.2
18.9
CSMIP
S90E
0.13
13.8
3.3
60
16.2
10.3
0.019
0.035
0.042
33.3
0.13
0.13
6.6
55.1
24611
S00E
0.18
20.0
2.7
60
14.2
11.6
0.022
0.044
0.048
46.4
0.16
0.16
14.2
60.5
VERT
0.10
4.6
1.2
60
17.7
9.9
0.011
0.020
0.024
11.8
0.07
0.07
3.7
17.9
CSMIP
S90E
0.10
12.1
3.8
60
22.9
9.8
0.014
0.022
0.030
19.0
0.10
0.10
6.0
49.6
24612
S00E
0.19
14.3
2.3
60
17.4
9.4
0.017
0.030
0.039
26.7
0.12
0.12
10.9
49.1
VERT
0.07
5.3
1.6
60
22.1
5.2
0.010
0.016
0.023
10.1
0.07
0.07
5.7
30.3
CSMIP
N90E
0.32
21.8
5.2
60
14.2
16.4
0.032
0.062
0.059
93.2
0.23
0.24
15.6
92.4
24643
N00E
0.18
15.0
4.8
60
13.9
15.0
0.026
0.052
0.051
63.3
0.17
0.18
15.4
70.9
VERT
0.13
10.8
3.1
60
18.5
11.8
0.016
0.028
0.033
24.2
0.11
0.12
4.4
39.1
CSMIP
N90E
0.28
22.0
4.0
60
11.3
15.7
0.031
0.067
0.059
87.3
0.21
0.22
14.5
63.9
24688
N00E
0.47
21.9
7.3
60
10.2
15.5
0.042
0.097
0.082
164.4
0.31
0.33
13.3
111.3
VERT
0.27
9.6
3.1
60
12.0
12.5
0.023
0.049
0.049
49.4
0.17
0.18
7.2
45.2
A-3
Station
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
S00E
0.44
59.8
17.6
60
11.5
19.9
0.069
0.149
0.118
435.7
0.50
0.47
52.1
269.3
S90E
0.31
30.5
9.1
60
16.8
18.3
0.045
0.081
0.080
190.5
0.35
0.35
21.8
141.8
Comp
Code
USC 3
USC 15
USC 18
USC20
USC 21
USC 22
USC 32
USC 33
USC 53
USC 58
USC 60
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
VERT
0.77
34.0
7.0
60
8.2
15.0
0.063
0.161
0.125
365.1
0.42
0.47
23.6
106.0
S20E
0.18
29.6
5.0
31
6.8
9.5
0.036
0.072
0.063
60.8
0.18
0.16
22.8
94.8
N70E
0.21
17.4
4.1
31
9.1
9.3
0.035
0.061
0.061
58.4
0.22
0.21
13.8
76.6
VERT
0.14
6.5
1.2
31
9.2
7.2
0.022
0.038
0.042
22.6
0.13
0.13
6.3
31.9
117.8
S00E
0.25
27.0
5.2
47
13.3
14.6
0.035
0.063
0.062
90.1
0.19
0.18
37.8
S90E
0.13
12.5
4.1
47
16.1
13.2
0.025
0.040
0.044
43.6
0.17
0.17
10.0
59.1
VERT
0.13
11.3
3.6
47
20.5
10.8
0.018
0.026
0.034
23.2
0.08
0.09
8.5
49.7
S00W
0.17
12.1
3.4
48
19.9
10.2
0.019
0.028
0.036
26.5
0.12
0.12
11.4
50.9
S90E
0.10
13.9
4.5
48
21.6
10.9
0.017
0.024
0.031
21.6
0.11
0.10
8.9
55.9
28.1
VERT
0.05
5.6
1.3
48
24.2
10.9
0.010
0.013
0.016
7.1
0.05
0.05
3.8
N00W
0.42
20.9
2.5
37
10.1
12.6
0.045
0.082
0.075
115.0
0.40
0.39
10.6
60.2
N90W
0.32
23.8
3.2
37
9.4
10.9
0.047
0.089
0.085
127.1
0.37
0.34
17.9
72.7
23.9
VERT
0.08
5.6
0.9
37
14.4
7.1
0.014
0.022
0.027
11.5
0.07
0.07
4.5
S00E
0.27
19.1
2.0
41
14.4
15.2
0.032
0.052
0.052
65.8
0.24
0.23
13.0
53.2
S90E
0.25
24.0
3.6
41
13.0
14.3
0.033
0.056
0.055
70.6
0.28
0.26
13.7
69.7
VERT
0.09
4.4
1.1
41
18.9
8.3
0.016
0.022
0.029
15.8
0.09
0.10
3.3
20.3
N58E
0.13
10.3
1.7
42
14.4
9.3
0.019
0.031
0.037
23.2
0.13
0.13
6.6
36.3
N32W
0.16
7.8
1.2
42
12.3
11.2
0.024
0.042
0.045
37.5
0.18
0.18
6.7
34.2
VERT
0.10
4.1
0.8
42
12.3
6.6
0.015
0.026
0.031
14.0
0.08
0.09
2.6
19.0
37.0
S37E
0.15
8.2
1.4
30
9.9
8.7
0.023
0.038
0.040
24.6
0.15
0.15
6.2
N53E
0.21
14.5
2.5
30
10.8
12.2
0.032
0.050
0.048
45.7
0.18
0.18
12.2
54.2
VERT
0.07
3.1
0.6
30
13.4
9.7
0.015
0.022
0.023
10.9
0.06
0.07
2.8
13.4
S16W
0.38
59.6
12.1
56
12.1
16.9
0.056
0.113
0.100
267.4
0.36
0.35
30.2
211.4
S74E
0.33
33.0
8.5
56
15.0
24.5
0.047
0.085
0.070
186.6
0.34
0.34
19.5
138.2
VERT
0.36
13.7
3.2
56
11.8
17.8
0.039
0.080
0.068
130.4
0.21
0.26
13.3
62.0
S80W
0.15
15.1
3.7
49
13.7
9.7
0.024
0.043
0.051
44.1
0.14
0.13
28.8
73.2
S10E
0.13
14.9
4.4
49
19.0
11.4
0.021
0.032
0.041
34.0
0.13
0.13
12.6
55.8
37.3
VERT
0.17
12.4
1.5
49
13.3
12.3
0.02
0.037
0.038
30.6
0.15
0.15
9.0
S00E
0.14
10.7
1.2
41
11.3
8.3
0.02
0.037
0.043
26.1
0.13
0.14
6.6
31.1
S90E
0.21
11.8
1.0
41
10.1
10.3
0.026
0.049
0.050
41.5
0.18
0.18
11.0
35.6
VERT
0.10
4.4
0.5
41
13.0
8.3
0.015
0.024
0.029
13.3
0.09
0.09
3.1
13.9
A-4
Station
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
S70E
0.42
40.7
5.1
32
8.8
12.3
0.055
0.100
0.087
148.5
0.45
0.45
33.8
121.1
N20E
0.43
34.9
3.9
32
11.5
13.4
0.044
0.068
0.066
92.3
0.33
0.34
26.5
92.1
VERT
0.10
7.4
1.6
32
17.7
7.2
0.017
0.021
0.028
13.3
0.09
0.09
5.2
32.0
Comp
Code
USC 91
USC 96
USC 99
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
N90E
0.24
22.2
5.8
40
16.5
10.8
0.022
0.033
0.040
30.3
0.14
0.14
18.9
74.5
N00E
0.13
10.9
4.1
40
16.8
12.0
0.021
0.031
0.035
27.8
0.13
0.12
7.3
41.4
VERT
0.06
5.4
1.4
40
24.3
5.7
0.012
0.014
0.020
8.7
0.06
0.06
2.6
29.9
S82W
0.09
9.8
1.9
48
17.7
7.3
0.016
0.025
0.032
18.3
0.10
0.10
10.3
40.1
S08E
0.09
8.1
1.8
48
21.3
6.3
0.014
0.020
0.028
14.6
0.10
0.09
4.6
31.1
VERT
0.08
3.9
1.2
48
19.9
7.0
0.011
0.016
0.022
8.7
0.06
0.07
3.7
18.8
USGS
N00W
0.93
75.4
14.2
48
8.5
21.8
0.097
0.219
0.144
699.2
0.84
0.81
42.9
228.3
0637
N90W
0.75
76.9
12.6
48
8.2
17.5
0.08
0.183
0.132
473.1
0.52
0.52
78.1
262.5
VERT
0.46
24.4
9.6
48
10.0
17.4
0.051
0.105
0.083
188.9
0.32
0.33
15.5
79.0
USGS
S15W
0.19
23.7
5.4
29
10.8
10.9
0.032
0.049
0.050
45.2
0.17
0.16
32.5
224.0
0638
N75W
0.16
17.6
8.4
29
11.2
10.3
0.033
0.050
0.052
47.6
0.16
0.15
47.6
205.4
VERT
0.14
9.3
2.4
29
13.0
10.2
0.026
0.037
0.040
29.8
0.11
0.11
12.4
93.0
USGS
N12W
0.14
14.1
1.7
29
13.7
11.1
0.023
0.032
0.036
24.1
0.11
0.11
12.2
48.9
0872
S78W
0.15
12.8
2.6
29
12.0
10.4
0.026
0.039
0.041
31.3
0.14
0.13
10.0
51.8
VERT
0.06
4.8
0.9
29
14.3
6.2
0.014
0.019
0.023
9.1
0.07
0.07
3.8
20.8
USGS
N00W
0.18
8.0
2.1
29
8.6
9.0
0.028
0.048
0.048
34.2
0.12
0.13
8.7
30.2
5080
N90W
0.16
7.5
1.7
29
9.2
10.4
0.026
0.044
0.042
30.7
0.14
0.14
5.7
20.9
VERT
0.14
3.8
1.1
29
10.5
10.4
0.021
0.033
0.034
19.7
0.06
0.06
3.6
14.3
USGS
N00W
0.33
15.0
4.1
29
8.8
14.3
0.049
0.083
0.068
104.1
0.29
0.28
8.5
51.7
5081
N90W
0.20
11.9
2.1
29
10.2
11.4
0.034
0.054
0.053
51.1
0.19
0.20
6.0
27.7
VERT
0.21
6.5
2.1
29
10.3
11.4
0.032
0.050
0.049
44.5
0.10
0.11
4.0
18.4
USGS
N35W
0.39
21.2
4.5
29
9.7
12.8
0.049
0.080
0.072
106.6
0.33
0.35
16.2
93.6
5082N
S35W
0.30
32.9
9.8
29
11.8
12.1
0.044
0.065
0.065
84.4
0.27
0.29
23.5
108.8
VERT
0.15
10.5
3.9
29
15.1
12.0
0.024
0.031
0.034
24.8
0.09
0.10
4.9
49.1
USGS
N35W
0.39
21.2
4.5
29
9.7
12.8
0.049
0.080
0.072
106.6
0.33
0.35
16.2
93.6
5082S
S35W
0.30
32.9
9.8
29
11.8
12.1
0.044
0.065
0.065
84.4
0.27
0.29
23.5
108.8
VERT
0.15
10.5
3.9
29
15.1
12.0
0.024
0.031
0.034
24.8
0.09
0.10
4.9
49.1
USGS
N62W
0.14
10.6
3.3
29
14.8
9.4
0.025
0.033
0.039
26.9
0.12
0.13
9.7
48.7
5233
S28W
0.16
12.9
2.4
29
14.1
8.1
0.023
0.031
0.038
22.7
0.11
0.12
12.8
46.0
VERT
0.09
5.9
1.9
29
18.5
7.0
0.015
0.018
0.024
10.2
0.06
0.07
4.1
30.0
A-5
Station
Comp
Code
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
USGS
S55W
0.44
64.7
15.9
33
10.5
20.8
0.07
0.118
0.088
250.2
0.36
0.35
62.5
234.7
5284
S35E
0.40
47.6
6.3
33
12.1
19.4
0.064
0.100
0.083
208.4
0.32
0.32
53.5
155.8
VERT
0.17
14.3
5.1
33
16.2
15.5
0.03
0.041
0.042
45.8
0.13
0.15
7.1
44.8
USGS
N00W
0.16
9.8
1.3
29
12.8
10.1
0.028
0.040
0.044
34.6
0.18
0.17
7.7
36.8
5296
N90W
0.144
9.9
1.9
29
14.5
9.4
0.03
0.040
0.049
39.9
0.17
0.17
6.0
40.0
CSMIP
C002
VERT
0.10
4.9
1.2
29
14.9
10.9
0.022
0.029
0.032
20.8
0.10
0.10
4.0
19.6
HI
0.42
42.8
11.5
60
11.6
17.1
0.052
0.112
0.096
250.1
0.36
0.36
30.6
178.7
144.6
H2
0.40
31.7
9.7
60
12.0
17.5
0.054
0.115
0.099
271.4
0.37
0.38
16.9
VERT
0.22
16.4
4.1
60
14.0
14.8
0.03
0.060
0.060
85.9
0.17
0.19
8.1
72.9
CSMIP
S90W
0.50
56.9
15.5
30
9.7
16.0
0.085
0.142
0.116
335.5
0.39
0.41
26.3
211.0
C003
S00W
0.29
31.0
10.7
30
11.3
16.4
0.07
0.108
0.094
226.5
0.28
0.30
21.2
163.5
VERT
0.35
20.3
4.9
30
11.8
16.8
0.061
0.092
0.081
170.6
0.22
0.23
12.8
78.4
CSMIP
HI
0.11
12.3
2.4
40
18.4
8.1
0.019
0.026
0.034
21.3
0.10
0.10
11.5
48.3
C006
H2
0.16
17.6
3.4
40
14.7
11.7
0.021
0.033
0.037
27.8
0.11
0.11
13.7
57.2
28.6
VERT
0.05
6.9
1.1
40
18.3
7.3
0.011
0.016
0.020
8.1
0.05
0.05
5.5
CSMIP
HI
0.17
14.3
3.2
60
14.7
11.8
0.021
0.039
0.044
38.9
0.15
0.15
13.7
61.0
C011
H2
0.44
32.3
3.9
60
8.8
11.3
0.034
0.085
0.078
110.0
0.34
0.35
19.2
73.4
VERT
0.12
7.8
1.2
60
13.9
9.1
0.012
0.024
0.028
13.7
0.10
0.10
4.1
29.2
CSMIP
N00W
0.44
60.8
16.2
60
10.8
18.8
0.062
0.139
0.109
355.1
0.44
0.42
48.1
233.1
C014
N90W
0.36
30.8
9.2
60
25.1
19.6
0.044
0.065
0.074
179.0
0.29
0.31
16.8
131.6
VERT
0.24
17.3
4.3
60
16.8
14.2
0.031
0.055
0.060
86.3
0.14
0.15
12.7
74.9
CSMIP
S63W
0.21
29.4
5.5
60
21.9
20.9
0.028
0.045
0.046
74.5
0.18
0.18
19.7
111.8
C083
S27E
0.30
49.7
8.9
60
15.4
15.4
0.037
0.070
0.071
128.2
0.26
0.25
37.9
145.6
VERT
0.16
14.9
2.6
60
15.7
11.8
0.019
0.036
0.041
34.9
0.14
0.13
16.0
51.7
CSMIP
HI
0.28
14.4
4.7
38
11.6
13.6
0.043
0.073
0.070
106.4
0.25
0.27
20.7
78.5
C086
H2
0.25
29.2
6.2
38
13.2
15.2
0.04
0.065
0.062
95.4
0.26
0.26
21.2
111.7
CSMIP
C107
VERT
0.10
9.5
3.1
38
15.9
8.1
0.018
0.026
0.034
19.0
0.08
0.08
12.2
41.7
HI
0.32
23.6
6.6
60
14.7
16.4
0.038
0.072
0.070
131.3
0.26
0.26
20.6
121.5
H2
0.42
36.2
12.2
60
11.3
16.3
0.044
0.096
0.083
180.6
0.30
0.29
23.8
157.8
VERT
0.24
17.0
3.5
60
10.9
14.2
0.031
0.069
0.063
88.6
0.15
0.17
11.9
60.9
CSMIP
HI
0.24
16.8
2.5
40
12.0
11.6
0.03
0.051
0.053
54.1
0.21
0.21
11.9
50.5
C115
H2
0.21
11.4
3.3
40
15.0
11.0
0.024
0.037
0.043
36.0
0.15
0.15
9.1
56.4
VERT
0.07
5.5
1.8
40
20.5
8.0
0.014
0.019
0.025
12.0
0.07
0.07
5.2
30.7
A-6
Station
Comp
Code
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
CSMIP
HI
0.32
34.7
7.7
60
9.3
9.2
0.029
0.071
0.073
80.3
0.24
0.22
28.6
130.9
C134
H2
0.11
11.6
2.7
60
15.7
13.8
0.019
0.035
0.038
32.5
0.12
0.11
14.6
66.2
VERT
0.13
7.9
1.5
60
12.7
7.9
0.013
0.027
0.031
15.8
0.08
0.09
7.5
31.3
CSMIP
HI
0.19
24.0
3.6
20
11.3
12.2
0.039
0.049
0.049
46.4
0.14
0.13
27.1
95.3
C136
H2
0.21
29.4
6.3
20
9.7
11.7
0.045
0.062
0.058
63.5
0.17
0.17
32.9
110.2
40.7
VERT
0.20
12.8
1.9
20
9.6
9.5
0.031
0.043
0.043
30.1
0.13
0.13
14.8
CSMIP
HI
0.16
9.0
2.0
60
13.4
10.7
0.02
0.040
0.045
36.2
0.16
0.16
13.0
39.2
C166
H2
0.24
10.6
2.8
60
11.3
12.1
0.026
0.056
0.056
61.7
0.21
0.21
12.0
49.0
CSMIP
C201
VERT
0.24
7.2
1.4
60
10.9
12.1
0.021
0.047
0.046
42.1
0.15
0.15
5.6
28.3
S00E
0.44
34.3
12.6
60
15.0
17.6
0.047
0.089
0.086
206.8
0.30
0.31
21.2
165.7
S90E
0.25
31.3
7.8
60
15.8
18.5
0.038
0.071
0.068
136.3
0.24
0.25
18.6
131.8
VERT
0.16
17.4
3.7
60
12.8
11.7
0.026
0.053
0.056
61.6
0.16
0.17
14.8
67.2
CSMIP
N00W
0.21
18.3
2.0
60
11.8
10.5
0.028
0.059
0.064
70.7
0.22
0.22
11.7
51.6
C209
N90W
0.20
11.9
3.5
60
14.8
12.1
0.023
0.043
0.048
47.0
0.16
0.17
10.7
57.2
VERT
0.07
6.4
1.4
60
21.4
10.4
0.011
0.017
0.021
10.7
0.07
0.07
5.4
30.5
CSMIP
HI
0.19
21.6
3.8
60
12.1
12.1
0.027
0.058
0.059
69.1
0.18
0.18
24.2
97.5
C217
H2
0.27
42.0
6.9
60
12.0
9.9
0.031
0.066
0.074
90.1
0.22
0.21
37.4
127.4
CSMIP
C233
VERT
0.18
12.5
1.7
60
10.3
7.5
0.018
0.042
0.048
30.7
0.13
0.13
15.0
41.5
S00E
0.27
28.8
7.2
60
18.4
24.3
0.041
0.070
0.064
156.0
0.35
0.33
33.0
112.9
S90E
0.37
36.1
9.1
60
20.2
27.2
0.04
0.065
0.058
146.1
0.28
0.29
34.7
154.9
VERT
0.25
16.8
6.4
60
26.3
28.4
0.03
0.043
0.043
85.0
0.20
0.19
16.1
88.2
CSMIP
HI
0.12
11.4
2.5
60
19.0
6.9
0.012
0.021
0.029
14.0
0.08
0.09
10.7
44.9
C234
H2
0.10
7.0
2.9
60
21.4
5.9
0.012
0.019
0.029
12.9
0.07
0.07
6.1
34.1
CSMIP
C246
CSMIP
C281
VERT
0.07
4.6
2.3
60
21.6
7.2
0.01
0.015
0.020
8.7
0.05
0.05
4.8
23.9
N90E
0.32
42.1
11.1
60
14.3
17.2
0.052
0.101
0.095
248.1
0.37
0.37
20.5
178.0
207.4
N00E
0.41
55.9
14.8
60
11.2
23.1
0.057
0.125
0.091
300.8
0.43
0.40
29.5
VERT
0.44
14.3
4.0
60
10.1
14.3
0.045
0.103
0.090
184.7
0.25
0.29
6.9
54.0
HI
0.31
35.7
5.7
45
10.5
11.6
0.044
0.086
0.084
133.1
0.27
0.26
39.1
125.5
H2
0.30
22.7
4.8
45
11.8
17.4
0.042
0.078
0.067
124.5
0.30
0.29
23.8
108.8
VERT
0.16
8.9
2.6
45
14.3
14.1
0.024
0.040
0.041
39.8
0.09
0.10
6.1
44.1
CSMIP
HI
0.19
13.1
2.2
60
9.0
8.8
0.023
0.057
0.059
50.6
0.18
0.18
17.3
50.8
C286
H2
0.17
10.3
1.2
60
14.3
7.4
0.016
0.031
0.042
24.2
0.14
0.13
13.1
37.6
VERT
0.09
5.1
0.7
60
11.9
5.5
0.012
0.026
0.034
13.8
0.10
0.09
3.9
21.4
A-7
Station
Comp
Code
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
CSMIP
HI
0.13
17.8
6.1
60
53.7
54.0
0.021
0.021
0.021
41.7
0.11
0.11
11.1
91.0
C315
H2
0.13
22.0
8.0
60
53.7
54.2
0.02
0.020
0.020
36.2
0.10
0.10
11.7
83.6
VERT
0.14
16.7
5.7
60
51.8
20.2
0.015
0.016
0.022
21.7
0.08
0.08
9.0
72.7
A-8
A.2
Station
1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
N90E
0.35
60.2
23.3
120
24.2
31.6
0.0331
0.070
0.063
202.9
0.36
0.30
41.1
34.0
N00E
0.36
42.1
16.4
120
26.6
30.2
0.0284
0.057
0.055
149.3
0.33
0.28
53.0
30.0
VERT
0.22
21.7
14.6
120
30.1
23.2
0.0185
0.035
0.040
63.5
0.13
0.12
15.3
16.4
N90E
0.59
60.6
19.7
120
8.7
39.9
0.0537
0.189
0.093
533.7
0.66
0.56
71.9
59.4
N00E
0.71
84.8
27.8
120
5.9
41.1
0.0565
0.241
0.096
590.4
0.73
0.62
77.7
64.8
18.4
Comp
Code
CHY006
CHY028
TCU045
TCU052
TCU065
TCU067
TCU068
TCU071
TCU072
TCU074
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
VERT
0.35
31.0
18.7
120
13.1
37.5
0.0234
0.067
0.041
101.3
0.16
0.13
10.8
N90E
0.46
47.8
37.6
90
11.3
15.7
0.0317
0.085
0.074
139.1
0.50
0.42
21.1
34.9
N00E
0.48
46.4
15.0
90
10.8
14.2
0.0291
0.080
0.071
117.1
0.36
0.30
29.6
31.4
VERT
0.34
18.9
15.9
90
11.8
12.6
0.0164
0.043
0.042
37.3
0.16
0.13
13.7
16.3
N90E
0.36
136.0
164.1
150
17.3
27.5
0.0352
0.098
0.081
286.1
0.23
0.19
46.8
32.6
N00E
0.45
148.1
154.7
150
16.5
25.6
0.0354
0.101
0.085
290.3
0.28
0.24
57.5
40.5
VERT
0.20
129.4
120.2
150
16.1
19.8
0.0189
0.055
0.051
82.7
0.14
0.12
11.8
16.1
N90E
0.79
118.0
89.0
150
29.2
43.9
0.0577
0.124
0.106
769.2
0.35
0.30
66.9
48.0
N00E
0.57
91.1
48.9
150
28.9
42.8
0.0559
0.121
0.104
721.3
0.34
0.30
72.5
45.3
22.8
VERT
0.26
69.5
53.6
150
25.2
34.4
0.0263
0.061
0.054
160.1
0.18
0.15
14.4
N90E
0.50
80.8
55.9
150
21.7
32.0
0.0396
0.099
0.085
362.1
0.37
0.31
52.1
38.9
N00E
0.32
54.3
28.1
150
23.0
28.4
0.0337
0.082
0.076
262.0
0.42
0.35
35.1
34.8
VERT
0.23
49.3
32.0
150
23.5
24.6
0.0181
0.043
0.043
75.7
0.17
0.15
17.4
17.9
N90E
0.50
213.3
186.5
150
12.5
26.9
0.0375
0.123
0.088
325.7
0.55
0.46
45.7
48.7
N00E
0.36
219.2
269.5
150
13.2
25.0
0.0368
0.118
0.089
313.7
0.25
0.22
28.7
33.6
VERT
0.53
185.8
154.2
150
7.3
12.7
0.027
0.116
0.091
168.2
0.25
0.21
27.7
29.8
N90E
0.57
44.5
13.8
90
24.5
58.2
0.082
0.149
0.102
933.3
0.58
0.58
47.7
211.9
N00E
0.65
69.4
49.1
90
23.7
58.7
0.0828
0.153
0.102
950.8
0.62
0.63
48.7
176.6
VERT
0.45
34.8
31.3
90
21.5
30.0
0.0447
0.087
0.077
276.5
0.25
0.30
16.8
83.1
N90E
0.48
70.8
38.9
150
22.0
66.6
0.05
0.124
0.075
578.8
0.48
0.40
69.2
46.1
N00E
0.37
52.2
34.6
150
24.1
102.9
0.0465
0.110
0.056
499.5
0.39
0.33
56.3
42.9
21.0
VERT
0.28
26.9
25.2
150
22.6
25.7
0.0259
0.063
0.061
154.6
0.20
0.17
18.5
N90E
0.60
74.6
22.7
150
12.6
70.0
0.0526
0.172
0.077
640.2
0.51
0.43
87.7
52.8
N00E
0.37
46.3
18.9
150
21.2
70.4
0.0369
0.093
0.054
314.8
0.33
0.29
46.9
37.7
VERT
0.27
20.0
13.0
150
19.3
63.2
0.0242
0.064
0.037
135.3
0.15
0.13
11.4
18.3
A-9
Station
PGA
PGV
PGD
Total
Record
ASI
EPA
EPV
Housner
Intensity
D=5%
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(g)
(g)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
N90E
0.33
102.0
77.8
150
27.4
37.6
0.0359
0.080
0.071
298.1
0.32
0.27
20.2
29.4
N00E
0.26
35.4
29.8
150
32.4
35.8
0.0233
0.047
0.047
125.0
0.23
0.19
22.7
18.1
VERT
0.23
51.1
24.9
150
29.6
32.4
0.0206
0.044
0.043
98.3
0.13
0.12
11.8
16.5
N90E
0.34
59.0
41.7
150
29.8
40.0
0.039
0.083
0.075
352.4
0.33
0.28
24.7
29.5
N00E
0.43
59.1
40.2
150
28.4
41.0
0.0398
0.087
0.076
366.1
0.36
0.31
44.0
34.4
19.0
Comp
Code
TCU075
TCU076
TCU078
TCU079
90%
Duration
Bracketed
Duration
RMS
Total
RMS
90%
RMS
Bracketed
Arias
Intensity
VERT
0.28
31.7
17.0
150
29.2
34.2
0.0263
0.057
0.054
160.0
0.15
0.13
17.8
N90E
0.44
40.9
21.7
150
26.0
32.4
0.05
0.114
0.107
578.5
0.47
0.41
37.5
47.4
N00E
0.31
33.6
9.1
150
26.1
36.0
0.0398
0.091
0.081
366.8
0.37
0.32
18.7
32.2
VERT
0.17
17.9
12.1
150
27.7
30.2
0.019
0.042
0.041
83.1
0.11
0.10
13.2
13.9
N90E
0.74
61.2
11.1
90
24.2
38.4
0.0746
0.136
0.114
770.8
0.58
0.57
43.0
224.1
N00E
0.74
61.2
11.1
90
24.2
38.4
0.0746
0.136
0.114
770.8
0.58
0.57
43.0
224.1
VERT
0.39
25.3
12.6
90
24.7
29.8
0.0375
0.068
0.064
194.7
0.27
0.27
15.5
74.1
A-10
APPENDIX B: LOGNORMAL FRAGILITY PARAMETERS AND CURVES
Appendix B: List of Figures ........................................................................................................B-2

Appendix B: List of Tables........................................................................................................B-11
B.1
Wood Frame (W1) Buildings.........................................................................................B-13
B.2
Wood Frame (W2) Buildings.........................................................................................B-39
B.3
Steel Frame (S1) Buildings............................................................................................B-54
B.4
Concrete Frame (C1) Buildings (Northridge Earthquake).............................................B-67
B.5
Concrete Frame (C2) Buildings (Northridge Earthquake).............................................B-88
B.6
Concrete Frame (C3) Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake) .................................................B-99
B-1
APPENDIX B: LIST OF FIGURES
B-1
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sd ..............B-15
B-2
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter MMI..........B-15
B-3
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter IMM ............B-16
B-4
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter EPV ..........B-16
B-5
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter R ..............B-17
B-6
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGV..........B-17
B-7
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sv ..............B-18
B-8
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter RMS..........B-18
B-9
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGD .........B-19
B-10 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sa ..............B-19
B-11 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGA..........B-20
B-12 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter IDRmax ......B-20
B-13 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and
parameter Sd ...................................................................................................................B-22
parameter IMM .................................................................................................................B-22
parameter R ...................................................................................................................B-23
B-16 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and parameter
PGV................................................................................................................................B-23
parameter Sv ...................................................................................................................B-24
parameter HI ..................................................................................................................B-24
PGD ...............................................................................................................................B-25
B-2
parameter Sa ...................................................................................................................B-25
parameter Tb ...................................................................................................................B-26
IDRmax ............................................................................................................................B-26
B-23 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter Sd ..........B-28
B-24 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter IMM ........B-28
B-25 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter R ..........B-29
B-26 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter PGV......B-29
B-27 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter Sv ..........B-30
B-28 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter PGD .....B-30
B-29 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter Sa ..........B-31
B-30 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter PGA......B-31
B-31 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter Tb ..........B-32
B-32 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter IDRmax ..B-32
B-33 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and
parameter Sd ...................................................................................................................B-34
parameter R ...................................................................................................................B-34
parameter PGV...............................................................................................................B-35
parameter Sv ...................................................................................................................B-35
parameter RMS...............................................................................................................B-36
B-3
parameter HI ..................................................................................................................B-36
parameter PGD ..............................................................................................................B-37
parameter Sa ...................................................................................................................B-37
parameter PGA...............................................................................................................B-38
parameter Tb ...................................................................................................................B-38
parameter IDRmax ...........................................................................................................B-39
parameter Sd ...................................................................................................................B-42
EPV ................................................................................................................................B-42
PGV................................................................................................................................B-43
parameter Sv ...................................................................................................................B-43
PGD ...............................................................................................................................B-44
B-49 Fragility curves for W2 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter Sd ..........B-46
B-50 Fragility curves for W2 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter R ..........B-46
B-51 Fragility curves for W2 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter PGV......B-47
B-52 Fragility curves for W2 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter Sv ..........B-47
B-53 Fragility curves for W2 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter RMS......B-48
B-54 Fragility curves for W2 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter HI .........B-48
B-55 Fragility curves for W2 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter PGD .....B-49
B-4
parameter Sd ...................................................................................................................B-51
parameter EPV ...............................................................................................................B-51
parameter R ...................................................................................................................B-52
parameter PGV...............................................................................................................B-52
parameter Sv ...................................................................................................................B-53
parameter RMS...............................................................................................................B-53
parameter HI ..................................................................................................................B-54
parameter PGD ..............................................................................................................B-54
B-64 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sd ................B-56
B-65 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter R................B-56
B-66 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGD...........B-57
B-67 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sa ................B-57
B-68 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGA ...........B-58
B-69 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter IDRmax ........B-58
B-70 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and
parameter Sd ...................................................................................................................B-60
parameter R ...................................................................................................................B-60
parameter Sa ...................................................................................................................B-61
B-5
B-73 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and parameter
IDRmax ............................................................................................................................B-61
B-74 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter Sd ............B-63
B-75 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter R............B-63
B-76 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter IDRmax ....B-64
B-77 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and parameter Sd .B-66
B-78 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and parameter R .B-66
B-79 Fragility curves for S1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and
B-80 Fragility curves for C1 buildings (Northridge earthquake), ATC-13 damage states, and
parameter IMM .................................................................................................................B-69
parameter R ...................................................................................................................B-69
parameter HI ..................................................................................................................B-70
parameter PGA...............................................................................................................B-70
parameter Tb ...................................................................................................................B-71
B-86 Fragility curves for C1 buildings (Northridge earthquake), FEMA 273/356 performance
levels, and parameter Sd .................................................................................................B-73
levels, and parameter EPV .............................................................................................B-73
levels, and parameter R .................................................................................................B-74
levels, and parameter PGD ............................................................................................B-74
B-6
levels, and parameter Sa .................................................................................................B-75
levels, and parameter IDRmax .........................................................................................B-75
B-92 Fragility curves for C1 buildings (Northridge earthquake), HAZUS99 damage states, and
parameter Sd ...................................................................................................................B-77
parameter IMM .................................................................................................................B-77
parameter EPV ...............................................................................................................B-78
parameter PGV...............................................................................................................B-78
parameter RMS...............................................................................................................B-79
parameter PGD ..............................................................................................................B-79
parameter Sa ...................................................................................................................B-80
parameter PGA...............................................................................................................B-80
parameter Tb ...................................................................................................................B-81
B-102 Fragility curves for C1 buildings (Northridge earthquake), Vision 2000 performance
levels, and parameter Sd .................................................................................................B-83
levels, and parameter IMM ...............................................................................................B-83
levels, and parameter EPV .............................................................................................B-84
B-7
levels, and parameter PGV.............................................................................................B-85
levels, and parameter RMS.............................................................................................B-85
levels, and parameter HI ................................................................................................B-86
levels, and parameter PGD ............................................................................................B-86
levels, and parameter Sa .................................................................................................B-87
levels, and parameter PGA.............................................................................................B-87
levels, and parameter Tb .................................................................................................B-88
parameter IMM .................................................................................................................B-90
parameter R ...................................................................................................................B-90
B-8
parameter R ...................................................................................................................B-96
B-125 Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), ATC-13 damage states, and
parameter Sd .................................................................................................................B-101
parameter IMM ...............................................................................................................B-101
parameter R .................................................................................................................B-102
parameter PGV.............................................................................................................B-102
parameter Sa .................................................................................................................B-103
parameter PGA.............................................................................................................B-103
parameter RMS90 ..........................................................................................................B-104
parameter AI.................................................................................................................B-104
B-133 Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), FEMA 273/356 performance
levels, and parameter Sd ...............................................................................................B-106
levels, and parameter IMM .............................................................................................B-106
B-9
levels, and parameter EPV ...........................................................................................B-107
levels, and parameter R ...............................................................................................B-107
levels, and parameter PGV...........................................................................................B-108
levels, and parameter PGA...........................................................................................B-108
levels, and parameter RMSb .........................................................................................B-109
levels, and parameter RMS90 ........................................................................................B-109
levels, and parameter AI...............................................................................................B-110
B-142 Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), HAZUS99 damage states, and
parameter Sd .................................................................................................................B-112
parameter IMM ...............................................................................................................B-112
parameter EPV .............................................................................................................B-113
parameter R .................................................................................................................B-113
parameter Tb .................................................................................................................B-114
parameter RMSb ...........................................................................................................B-114
parameter RMS90 ..........................................................................................................B-115
parameter AI.................................................................................................................B-115
B-10
B-150 Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), Vision 2000 performance levels,
and parameter Sd ..........................................................................................................B-117
and parameter IMM ........................................................................................................B-117
and parameter EPV ......................................................................................................B-118
and parameter R ..........................................................................................................B-118
and parameter PGV ......................................................................................................B-119
and parameter RMSb.....................................................................................................B-119
and parameter RMS90 ...................................................................................................B-120
and parameter AI ..........................................................................................................B-120
B-11
APPENDIX B: LIST OF TABLES
B-1
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W1 Buildings for ATC-13 Damage

States ..............................................................................................................................B-14
B-2
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W1 Buildings for FEMA 273/356

Performance Levels .......................................................................................................B-21
B-3
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W1 Buildings for HAZUS99 Damage

States ..............................................................................................................................B-27
B-4
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W1 Buildings for Vision 2000 Performance
Levels.............................................................................................................................B-33
B-5
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W2 Buildings for ATC-13 Damage

States ..............................................................................................................................B-40
B-6

Performance Levels .......................................................................................................B-41
B-7
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W2 Buildings for HAZUS99 Damage

States ..............................................................................................................................B-45
B-8
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W2 Buildings for Vision 2000 Performance
Levels.............................................................................................................................B-50
B-9
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for S1 Buildings for ATC-13 Damage

States ..............................................................................................................................B-55
B-10 Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for S1 Buildings for FEMA 273/356 Performance
Levels.............................................................................................................................B-59
B-11 Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for S1 Buildings for HAZUS99 Damage
States ..............................................................................................................................B-62
B-12 Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for S1 Buildings for Vision 2000 Performance
Levels.............................................................................................................................B-65
B-13 Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for C1 Buildings (Northridge Earthquake) for
ATC-13 Damage States .................................................................................................B-68
FEMA 273/356 Performance Levels .............................................................................B-72
HAZUS99 Damage States .............................................................................................B-76
B-12
Vision 2000 Performance Levels...................................................................................B-82
ATC-13 Damage States .................................................................................................B-89
FEMA 273/356 Performance Levels .............................................................................B-92
HAZUS99 Damage States .............................................................................................B-95
Vision 2000 Performance Levels...................................................................................B-97
B-21 Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for C3 Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake) for ATC13 Damage States.........................................................................................................B-100
B-22 Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for C3 Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake) for FEMA
273/356 Performance Levels .......................................................................................B-105
B-23 Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for C3 Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake) for
HAZUS99 Damage States ...........................................................................................B-111
B-24 Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for C3 Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake) for Vision
2000 Performance Levels ............................................................................................B-116
B-13
B.1
Wood Frame (W1) Buildings
Table B-1
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W1 Buildings for ATC-13

Damage States
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
1.30
3.83
2.19
0.24
3.10
1.45
5.62
5.13
-1.58
1.65
6.34
4.71
5.74
5.33
-2.00
1.79
*
*
3.52
3.45
2.04
4.25
-0.67
1.27
*
*
0.39
Light
4.33
3.93
2.32
0.22
3.64
1.12
25.76
15.80
0.31
2.05
11.73
5.95
18.16
11.76
1.81
3.63
*
*
3.85
1.74
2.73
2.16
0.48
1.78
*
*
1.57
3.07
2.31
ATC-13 Damage State

Moderate
Heavy
6.07
7.26
4.00
4.08
2.38
2.41
0.20
0.20
3.75
3.75
0.94
0.83
83.45
198.94
43.15
92.23
2.65
5.33
2.89
3.83
14.47
11.94
6.11
4.24
33.13
42.96
17.82
20.64
6.80
-0.91
5.70
1.09
*
*
*
*
4.73
5.95
1.89
2.28
7.06
15.39
3.97
7.37
1.92
3.69
2.39
3.03
*
*
*
*
1.46
1.38
1.70
See Table 4-1 and Section 4.2.3 for definitions of parameters
* Reasonable parameters could not be determined from dataset
B-14
1.45
Major
8.19
4.17
2.44
0.19
3.73
0.76
257.57
110.50
8.24
4.81
11.69
3.79
47.75
21.25
-1.15
0.88
*
*
7.37
2.74
33.31
14.46
5.70
3.70
*
*
1.42
Destroyed
8.58
4.21
2.45
0.19
3.71
0.73
243.79
101.50
9.71
5.29
11.57
3.62
48.92
21.15
-1.25
0.80
*
*
8.11
2.97
50.32
21.10
6.75
4.04
*
*
1.45
1.35
1.32
P(DS>=ds|Spectral Displacement)
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Spectral Displacement (cm)
P(DS>=ds|Modified Mercalli Intensity)
Figure B-1
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sd.
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
Figure B-2

MMI.
B-15
P(DS>=ds|Instrumental Intensity)
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
Figure B-3

IMM.
1
P(DS>=ds|Effective Peak Velocity)
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure B-4

EPV.
B-16
1
Slight
P(DS>=ds|Roof Drift Ratio)
Light
Moderate
0.8
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter R.
Figure B-5
P(DS>=ds|Peak Ground Velocity)
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure B-6

PGV.
B-17
P(DS>=ds|Spectral Velocity)
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Spectral Velocity (cm/sec)
Figure B-7
Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sv.
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Figure B-8

RMS.
B-18
Displacement)
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
40
30
Figure B-9

PGD.
P(DS>=ds|Spectral Acceleration)
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Figure B-10 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sa.
B-19
1
Slight
Acceleration)
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
Figure B-11 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter
PGA.
1
Slight
Light
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
Figure B-12 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter
IDRmax.
B-20
Table B-2

Performance Levels
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
FEMA 273/356 Performance Level

Immediate
Life Safety
Collapse
Occupancy
Prevention
0.45
0.58
0.65
0.54
0.37
0.29
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.43
2.46
2.47
0.13
0.09
0.07
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.71
-0.54
-0.46
0.90
0.60
0.47
4.71
4.61
4.66
0.22
0.07
0.07
5.15
4.66
4.67
1.11
0.47
0.35
-0.11
-0.68
-0.63
1.79
0.52
0.40
6.02
6.12
6.17
0.43
0.30
0.23
2.90
3.12
3.30
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.59
0.70
0.77
0.27
0.21
0.18
5.56
0.81
0.93
2.94
0.29
0.24
3.79
3.93
4.02
0.62
0.42
0.33
-0.96
-0.91
-0.89
0.19
0.13
B-21
0.10
0.8
0.6
0.4
Immediate Occupancy
0.2
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-13 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and
parameter Sd.
P(DS>=ds|Shakemap Instumental
Intensity)
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
Shakemap Instrumental Intensity
parameter IMM.
B-22
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
parameter R.
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
parameter PGV.
B-23
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
parameter SV.
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
Housner Intensity - 5 % damping (cm/sec)
parameter HI.
B-24
Displacement)
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
40
30
parameter PGD.
1
Immediate Occupancy
0.8
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
parameter Sa.
B-25
P(DS>=ds|Bracketed Duration)
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
parameter Tb.
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
parameter IDRmax.
B-26
Table B-3
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W1 Buildings for HAZUS99

Damage States
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
0.42
0.68
*
*
2.40
0.14
*
*
-0.96
0.88
4.72
0.30
4.89
1.14
*
*
*
*
2.87
0.22
0.54
0.28
0.50
1.51
3.98
0.92
-0.97
0.24

Moderate
Extensive
0.63
0.70
0.38
0.31
*
*
*
*
2.45
2.46
0.08
0.06
*
*
*
*
-0.74
-0.66
0.48
0.40
4.80
4.82
0.16
0.13
4.67
4.70
0.46
0.36
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.15
3.27
0.19
0.17
0.70
0.76
0.20
0.18
2.27
4.17
2.21
2.74
4.15
4.27
0.47
0.39
-0.89
-0.86
0.14
0.11
B-27
Complete
0.71
0.29
*
*
2.46
0.06
*
*
-0.61
0.38
4.83
0.13
4.90
0.40
*
*
*
*
3.30
0.17
0.78
0.17
4.97
2.94
4.86
0.54
-0.85
0.11
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Slight
Moderate
0.2
Extensive
Complete
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-23 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter
Sd.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
IMM.
B-28
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
R.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
PGV.
B-29
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Sv.
1
Displacement)
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
PGD.
B-30
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Sa.
1
Slight
Acceleration)
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
PGA.
B-31
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Tb.
1
Slight
Moderate
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IRDmax (% )
IDRmax.
B-32
Table B-4
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W1 Buildings for Vision 2000

Performance Levels
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Operational
0.42
0.68
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.60
0.16
4.91
0.58
4.89
1.14
-2.59
0.13
5.94
0.46
2.87
0.22
0.54
0.28
-0.86
0.25
3.98
0.92
-0.97
0.24
Vision 2000 Performance Level

Life Safe
Near Collapse
0.63
0.70
0.38
0.31
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.55
-1.43
0.09
0.11
5.08
2.13
0.32
0.26
4.67
4.70
0.46
0.36
-2.54
-2.47
0.08
0.09
6.09
6.12
0.26
0.21
3.15
3.27
0.19
0.17
0.70
0.76
0.20
0.18
-0.56
-0.44
0.20
0.18
4.15
4.27
0.47
0.39
-0.89
-0.86
0.14
B-33
0.12
Collapse
0.71
0.29
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.45
0.10
5.14
0.24
4.70
0.34
-2.43
0.10
6.13
0.20
3.30
0.17
0.78
0.17
-0.41
0.17
4.30
0.37
-0.85
0.11
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-33 Fragility curves for W1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and
parameter Sd.
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
parameter R.
B-34
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
parameter PGV.
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
parameter Sv.
B-35
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
parameter RMS.
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
Housner Intensity - 5 % damping (cm/sec)
parameter HI.
B-36
Displacement)
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
40
30
parameter PGD.
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2 .5
parameter Sa.
B-37
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
parameter PGA.
1
Operational
0.8
Life Safe
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
parameter Tb.
B-38
1
Operational
Life Safe
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
parameter IDRmax.
B-39
B.2
Wood Frame (W2) Buildings
Table B-5
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W2 Buildings for ATC-13

Damage States
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Light
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ATC-13 Damage State

Moderate
Heavy
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B-40
Major
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Destroyed
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Table B-6

Performance Levels
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1

Immediate
Life Safety
Collapse
Occupancy
Prevention
0.27
0.55
0.62
0.46
0.44
0.34
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.58
4.24
4.80
0.87
0.82
0.78
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.45
3.54
3.58
0.42
0.28
0.21
3.82
3.95
4.03
0.71
0.47
0.37
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.66
2.28
2.48
0.54
0.57
0.47
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B-41
1
Light
0.8
Moderate
Severe
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
parameter Sd.
1
Light
Moderate
0.8
Severe
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
parameter EPV.
B-42
Light
Moderate
0.8
Severe
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
parameter PGV.
1
Light
0.8
Moderate
Severe
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
parameter Sv.
B-43
P(DS>=ds|Peak Ground Displacement)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Light
0.2
Moderate
Severe
0
0
10
20
30
40
parameter PGD.
B-44
Table B-7
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W2 Buildings for HAZUS99

Damage States
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
0.13
0.42
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.68
1.55
3.34
0.36
3.55
0.60
-2.06
1.88
8.37
3.99
1.55
0.55
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Moderate
Extensive
0.26
0.84
0.25
0.47
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.49
-0.45
0.76
0.59
3.44
3.47
0.19
0.15
3.69
3.93
0.32
0.34
-2.14
-2.16
0.64
0.46
7.58
7.47
1.44
1.06
2.33
2.51
0.54
0.46
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B-45
Complete
0.88
0.45
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.44
0.55
3.48
0.15
4.03
0.36
-2.16
0.43
7.93
1.13
2.54
0.44
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.8
0.6
0.4
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
0.2
Complete
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Sd.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
R.
B-46
0.8
0.6
0.4
Slight
Moderate
0.2
Extensive
Complete
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
PGV.
1
Slight
0.8
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Sv.
B-47
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
RMS.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
HI.
B-48
Displacement)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
0.2
Complete
0
0
10
20
30
40
PGD.
B-49
Table B-8
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for W2 Buildings for Vision 2000

Performance Levels
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Operational
0.13
0.42
*
*
*
*
3.82
1.38
-0.68
1.55
3.34
0.36
3.55
0.60
-2.06
1.88
8.37
3.99
1.83
0.79
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Life Safe
Near Collapse
0.35
0.38
0.30
0.24
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5.16
5.62
1.17
1.03
-0.49
-0.46
0.76
0.58
3.44
3.47
0.19
0.15
3.69
3.76
0.32
0.27
-2.14
-2.16
0.64
0.46
7.58
7.47
1.44
1.06
2.36
2.51
0.55
0.46
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B-50
Collapse
0.34
0.22
*
*
*
*
5.74
0.99
-0.46
0.54
3.47
0.14
3.81
0.27
-2.16
0.43
7.44
0.97
2.54
0.44
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
parameter Sd.
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
parameter EPV.
B-51
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
parameter R.
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
parameter PGV.
B-52
1
Operational
0.8
Life Safe
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
parameter Sv.
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
parameter RMS.
B-53
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
parameter HI.
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
10
20
30
40
parameter PGD.
B-54
B.3
Steel Frame (S1) Buildings
Table B-9
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for S1 Buildings for ATC-13 Damage

States
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
2.72
3.42
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.49
0.68
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.73
0.76
-1.57
4.99
-0.89
3.16
*
*
-0.08
Light
4.47
3.29
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.95
0.73
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.27
0.51
1.15
5.12
0.38
2.67
*
*
0.36
0.80
0.72
ATC-13 Damage State

Moderate
Heavy
5.35
5.88
3.22
3.18
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.04
1.85
1.50
2.60
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.03
4.56
1.23
2.19
2.53
3.26
4.94
4.72
0.86
1.08
2.40
2.24
*
*
*
*
0.57
0.68
0.68
B-55
0.66
Major
6.25
3.15
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.39
3.97
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6.97
3.52
3.67
4.51
1.21
2.12
*
*
0.76
Destroyed
6.40
3.14
*
*
*
*
*
*
5.77
4.68
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
8.44
4.28
3.81
4.43
1.26
2.08
*
*
0.79
0.64
0.64
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-64 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sd.
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure B-65 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter R.
B-56
1
Slight
Light
Moderate
0.8
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
Figure B-66 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGD.
1
Slight
Light
Moderate
0.8
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Figure B-67 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter Sa.
B-57
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
Figure B-68 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter PGA.
1
Slight
Light
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
Figure B-69 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, ATC-13 damage states, and parameter
IDRmax.
B-58
Table B-10
Fragility Curve Parameters for S1 Buildings for FEMA 273/356

Performance Levels
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1

Immediate
Life Safety
Collapse
Occupancy
Prevention
3.40
4.37
4.88
2.44
1.75
1.40
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.05
-0.08
1.74
0.86
1.17
1.77
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.21
4.37
9.44
4.72
5.83
6.50
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.49
0.74
1.37
0.52
0.40
B-59
0.47
Immediate Occupancy
0.8
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-70 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and
parameter Sd.
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
parameter R.
B-60
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
parameter Sa.
1
Immediate Occupancy
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
parameter IDRmax.
B-61
Table B-11
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for S1 Buildings for HAZUS99

Damage States
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
2.82
2.22
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.24
-1.14
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.49
0.52

Moderate
Extensive
4.02
4.37
1.38
1.14
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.05
1.27
1.55
1.55
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.76
1.42
0.32
0.40
B-62
Complete
4.46
1.08
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.87
1.72
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.43
0.37
1
Slight
0.8
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-74 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter Sd.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure B-75 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter R.
B-63
1
Slight
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
Figure B-76 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, HAZUS99 damage states, and parameter
IDRmax.
B-64
Table B-12
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for S1 Buildings for Vision 2000

Performance Levels
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Operational
2.82
2.22
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.24
0.82
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.49
0.52

Life Safe
Near Collapse
4.02
4.37
1.38
1.14
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.05
1.27
1.14
1.55
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.63
0.67
0.28
0.22
B-65
Collapse
4.46
1.08
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.87
1.72
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.67
0.21
1
Operational
0.8
Life Safe
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-77 Fragility curve for S1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and
parameter Sd.
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
parameter R.
B-66
1
Operational
Life Safe
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
parameter IDRmax.
B-67
B.4
Concrete Frame (C1) Buildings (Northridge Earthquake)
Table B-13
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for C1 Buildings (Northridge

Earthquake) for ATC-13 Damage States
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
*
*
*
*
2.05
0.14
*
*
-1.47
1.12
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.45
1.29
*
*
*
*
-1.15
0.90
3.17
1.98
-0.37
Light
*
*
*
*
2.16
0.15
*
*
-0.67
1.28
*
*
*
*
*
*
5.43
1.36
*
*
*
*
-0.39
1.16
4.32
2.06
0.72
2.34
2.09
ATC-13 Damage State

Moderate
Heavy
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.23
2.28
0.17
0.17
*
*
*
*
-0.09
0.38
1.46
1.62
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6.44
7.55
1.81
2.31
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.14
0.50
1.28
1.34
5.00
5.45
2.12
2.17
1.21
1.50
1.98
B-68
1.91
Major
*
*
*
*
2.31
0.18
*
*
0.79
1.76
*
*
*
*
*
*
8.75
2.84
*
*
*
*
0.75
1.37
5.80
2.21
1.69
Destroyed
*
*
*
*
2.33
0.18
*
*
0.97
1.82
*
*
*
*
*
*
9.35
3.09
*
*
*
*
0.85
1.39
5.93
2.22
1.76
1.87
1.85
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
Figure B-80 Fragility curve for C1 buildings (Northridge earthquake), ATC-13 damage
states, and parameter IMM.
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
states, and parameter R.
B-69
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
states, and parameter HI.
1
Slight
Acceleration)
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
B-70
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
states, and parameter Tb.
1
Slight
Light
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
states, and parameter IDRmax.
B-71
Table B-14
Fragility Curve Parameters for C1 Buildings (Northridge Earthquake) for

FEMA 273/356 Performance Levels
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1

Immediate
Life Safety
Collapse
Occupancy
Prevention
3.03
3.55
3.78
2.34
1.49
1.12
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.75
4.70
4.69
1.92
0.99
0.69
-0.83
-0.45
-0.42
1.13
0.67
0.39
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.52
3.58
3.49
1.98
1.02
0.64
1.04
1.42
7.44
1.58
1.00
3.51
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.06
0.50
0.72
1.41
0.98
B-72
0.77
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-86 Fragility curve for C1 buildings (Northridge earthquake), FEMA 273/356
performance levels, and parameter Sd.
1
Immediate Occupancy
0.8
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
performance levels, and parameter EPV.
B-73
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
performance levels, and parameter R.
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
performance levels, and parameter PGD.
B-74
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
performance levels, and parameter Sa.
1
Immediate Occupancy
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
performance levels, and parameter IDRmax.
B-75
Table B-15

Earthquake) for HAZUS99 Damage States
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
2.83
2.71
*
*
2.14
0.16
3.99
1.39
*
*
3.73
0.89
*
*
-2.93
0.77
*
*
3.10
1.81
0.72
1.49
-0.70
0.90
3.13
0.82
-0.08
1.58

Moderate
Extensive
3.61
3.79
1.39
1.09
*
*
*
*
2.27
2.32
0.12
0.10
4.12
4.14
0.60
0.45
*
*
*
*
4.04
4.08
0.36
0.26
*
*
*
*
-2.24
-1.63
0.80
0.95
*
*
*
*
3.02
3.02
0.54
0.38
1.61
7.85
1.02
3.58
0.54
0.86
1.08
0.94
3.42
3.45
0.47
0.35
0.56
0.73
0.92
0.74
B-76
Complete
3.84
1.02
*
*
2.34
0.10
4.15
0.42
*
*
4.09
0.24
*
*
-1.40
1.00
*
*
3.02
0.35
1.37
0.57
0.86
0.87
3.45
0.32
0.77
0.70
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-92 Fragility curve for C1 buildings (Northridge earthquake), HAZUS99 damage
states, and parameter Sd.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
B-77
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
states, and parameter EPV.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
states, and parameter PGV.
B-78
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
states, and parameter RMS.
1
Displacement)
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
states, and parameter PGD.
B-79
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
states, and parameter Sa.
1
Acceleration)
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
B-80
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
1
Slight
Moderate
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
B-81
Table B-16

Earthquake) for Vision 2000 Performance Levels
Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Operational
2.83
2.71
*
*
2.14
0.16
3.99
1.39
-0.97
1.17
3.73
0.89
*
*
-2.93
0.77
5.08
1.07
3.10
1.81
0.39
0.81
-0.70
0.90
3.13
0.82
-0.08
1.58

Life Safe
Near Collapse
3.61
3.79
1.39
1.09
*
*
*
*
2.27
2.32
0.12
0.10
4.12
4.14
0.60
0.45
-0.48
-0.44
0.53
0.36
4.04
4.08
0.36
0.26
*
*
*
*
-2.24
-1.63
0.80
0.95
5.60
5.72
0.66
0.53
3.02
3.02
0.54
0.38
0.58
1.34
0.37
0.61
0.54
0.86
1.08
0.94
3.42
3.45
0.47
0.35
0.56
0.73
0.92
0.74
B-82
Collapse
3.84
1.02
*
*
2.34
0.10
4.15
0.42
-0.43
0.33
4.09
0.24
*
*
-1.40
1.00
5.75
0.50
3.02
0.35
1.37
0.57
0.86
0.87
3.45
0.32
0.77
0.70
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-102 Fragility curve for C1 buildings (Northridge earthquake), Vision 2000
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
performance levels, and parameter IMM.
B-83
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
B-84
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
performance levels, and parameter PGV.
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
performance levels, and parameter RMS.
B-85
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
performance levels, and parameter HI.
1
Operational
Displacement)
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
performance levels, and parameter PGD.
B-86
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
performance levels, and parameter Sa.
1
Acceleration)
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
performance levels, and parameter PGA.
B-87
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
performance levels, and parameter Tb.
1
Operational
Life Safe
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
B-88
B.5
Concrete Frame (C2) Buildings (Northridge Earthquake)
Table B-17

Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
*
*
*
*
2.08
0.13
*
*
-1.95
0.57
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.99
Light
*
*
*
*
2.17
0.13
*
*
-1.59
0.55
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.53
1.37
1.88
ATC-13 Damage State

Moderate
Heavy
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.22
2.25
0.12
0.12
*
*
*
*
-1.41
-1.30
0.54
0.53
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.96
3.23
2.39
B-89
2.81
Major
*
*
*
*
2.26
0.12
*
*
-1.22
0.53
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.35
Destroyed
*
*
*
*
2.27
0.12
*
*
-1.19
0.53
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.85
3.17
3.32
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
0.8
0.6
Slight
Light
0.4
Moderate
Heavy
0.2
Major
Destroyed
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
B-90
1
Slight
Light
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
B-91
Table B-18
Fragility Curve Parameters for C2 Buildings (Northridge Earthquake) for

Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1

Immediate
Life Safety
Collapse
Occupancy
Prevention
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.11
2.13
2.19
0.03
0.03
0.04
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.71
-1.60
-1.54
0.34
0.24
0.19
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.16
0.86
5.52
1.33
2.10
B-92
3.70
0.8
0.6
0.4
Immediate Occupancy
0.2
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0
6
10
11
12
0.8
0.6
0.4
Immediate Occupancy
0.2
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
B-93
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
B-94
Table B-19

Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Slight
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.81
0.30
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.11
1.31

Moderate
Extensive
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.70
-1.64
0.17
0.15
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.58
0.78
0.82
0.68
B-95
Complete
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.60
0.15
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.82
0.64
0.8
0.6
0.4
Slight
Moderate
0.2
Extensive
Complete
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Slight
Moderate
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
B-96
Table B-20

Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
MMI
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
Sv
(cm/sec)
RMS
(g)
HI
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
IDRmax
1
Operational
*
*
*
*
2.10
0.03
*
*
-1.81
0.30
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.11
1.31

Life Safe
Near Collapse
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.16
2.22
0.04
0.05
*
*
*
*
-1.69
-1.51
0.17
0.19
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.58
0.64
0.82
0.63
B-97
Collapse
*
*
*
*
2.55
0.05
*
*
-1.45
0.20
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.65
0.59
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
6
10
11
12
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
B-98
1
Operational
Life Safe
P(DS>=ds|IDRmax)
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
IDRmax (% )
B-99
B.6
Concrete Frame (C3) Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake)
Table B-21
Lognormal Fragility Curve Parameters for C3 Buildings (Chi-Chi

Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
RMSb
(g)
RMS90
(g)
AI
(cm/sec)
1
Slight
0.46
0.92
2.20
0.10
*
*
-1.30
2.10
3.16
2.04
*
*
-0.65
4.06
-1.32
1.07
*
*
*
*
-2.46
1.07
5.08
2.44
Light
1.17
1.20
2.31
0.16
*
*
0.35
3.00
4.79
2.03
*
*
3.21
6.72
-0.31
2.04
*
*
*
*
-1.69
1.37
6.93
3.79
ATC-13 Damage State

Moderate
Heavy
2.01
2.75
1.59
1.89
2.40
2.54
0.23
0.32
*
*
*
*
2.00
3.68
3.91
4.82
6.04
7.51
2.41
3.23
*
*
*
*
9.94
23.83
12.02
22.77
1.31
3.58
3.21
4.74
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.08
-0.66
1.53
1.60
9.11
10.36
4.55
4.41
B-100
Major
3.36
2.10
2.72
0.44
*
*
5.43
5.78
9.80
4.67
*
*
64.34
53.57
7.37
7.33
*
*
*
*
-0.37
1.63
10.74
3.92
Destroyed
3.60
2.18
2.83
0.51
*
*
6.31
6.27
11.42
5.70
*
*
130.76
103.73
10.43
9.46
*
*
*
*
-0.26
1.63
10.72
3.64
0.8
0.6
Slight
0.4
Light
Moderate
Heavy
0.2
Major
Destroyed
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-125 Fragility curve for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), ATC-13 damage
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
B-101
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
states, and parameter PGV.
B-102
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
states, and parameter Sa.
1
Slight
Acceleration)
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
B-103
P(DS>=ds|RMS Acceleration 90%)
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
RMS Acceleration 90% (g)
states, and parameter RMS90.
1
Slight
Light
0.8
Moderate
Heavy
Major
0.6
Destroyed
0.4
0.2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
states, and parameter AI.
B-104
Table B-22
Fragility Curve Parameters for C3 Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake) for

Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
RMSb
(g)
RMS90
(g)
AI
(cm/sec)
1

Immediate
Life Safety
Collapse
Occupancy
Prevention
1.00
2.01
3.18
1.26
1.38
1.56
2.30
2.41
2.47
0.21
0.16
0.12
3.93
4.87
5.55
1.91
1.44
1.28
-0.58
0.62
2.07
1.70
1.69
1.92
4.60
5.65
5.99
2.55
1.41
0.87
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-0.45
1.05
1.59
3.01
2.41
1.79
*
*
*
*
*
*
-2.24
-1.56
-1.38
1.69
1.21
0.84
-1.66
-0.92
-0.95
2.24
1.45
0.84
5.94
7.61
10.24
2.00
2.36
3.08
B-105
0.8
0.6
0.4
Immediate Occupancy
0.2
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-133 Fragility curve for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), FEMA 273/356
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
Figure B-134 Fragility curve for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), ATC FEMA 273/356
B-106
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
B-107
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
performance levels, and parameter PGA.
B-108
P(DS>=ds|RMS Bracketed
Acceleration)
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
RMS Bracketed Acceleration (g)
performance levels, and parameter RMSb.
1
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
performance levels, and parameter RMS90.
B-109
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
0.8
Collapse Prevention
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
B-110
Table B-23

Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
RMSb
(g)
RMS90
(g)
AI
(cm/sec)
1
Slight
0.81
1.17
2.27
0.20
3.91
3.65
-0.85
1.48
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.83
3.46
-2.48
1.69
-1.90
2.54
6.36
5.35

Moderate
Extensive
2.03
2.90
1.22
1.34
2.41
2.46
0.13
0.10
5.24
5.55
1.55
1.19
0.79
2.15
1.62
1.90
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5.42
5.87
1.80
1.53
-1.55
-1.39
1.08
0.83
-0.91
-0.97
1.29
0.81
9.64
9.34
3.88
2.23
B-111
Complete
3.24
1.40
2.48
0.10
5.63
1.12
2.65
2.00
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5.90
1.39
-1.38
0.75
-1.04
0.67
8.51
1.34
0.8
0.6
0.4
Slight
Moderate
0.2
Extensive
Complete
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-142 Fragility curve for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), HAZUS99 damage
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
B-112
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
states, and parameter EPV.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
B-113
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
1
P(DS>=ds|RMS Bracketed
Acceleration)
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
states, and parameter RMSb.
B-114
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
states, and parameter RMS90.
1
Slight
Moderate
0.8
Extensive
Complete
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
states, and parameter AI.
B-115
Table B-24

Parameter1
Sd
(cm)
IMM
EPV
(cm/sec)
R
(%)
PGV
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Sa
(g)
PGA
(g)
Tb
(sec)
RMSb
(g)
RMS90
(g)
AI
(cm/sec)
1
Operational
0.81
1.17
2.27
0.20
3.91
3.65
-0.85
1.48
4.15
2.71
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-2.48
1.69
-1.90
2.54
5.66
1.84

Life Safe
Near Collapse
2.03
2.90
1.22
1.34
2.41
2.46
0.13
0.10
5.24
5.55
1.55
1.19
0.79
2.15
1.62
1.90
5.58
5.89
1.02
0.75
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.55
-1.39
1.08
0.83
-0.91
-0.97
1.29
0.81
7.76
9.94
2.24
2.87
B-116
Collapse
3.24
1.40
2.47
0.10
5.63
1.12
2.65
2.00
5.98
0.71
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-1.38
0.75
-1.04
.67
10.86
3.12
0.8
0.6
0.4
Operational
Life Safe
0.2
Near Collapse
Collapse
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure B-150 Fragility curve for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), Vision 2000
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6
10
11
12
B-117
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
B-118
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
P(DS>=ds|RMS Bracketed Acceleration)
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
performance levels, and parameter RMSb.
B-119
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
performance levels, and parameter RMS90.
1
Operational
Life Safe
0.8
Near Collapse
Collapse
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
B-120

TR148 King, Etal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TR148 King, Etal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

CORRELATION OF OBSERVED BUILDING PERFORMANCE

Report No. 148

The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center was established to promote

2005 The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center

Correlation of Observed Building Performance

CSMIP 2001 Data Interpretation Project

APPLICATION TO CODES AND PRACTICES

Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................3

Organization of the Report.......................................................................................4

Building Performance Data..................................................................................................6

Summary of Datasets Collected...............................................................................6

Classification by Structural Type.............................................................................8

Characterization of Earthquake Performance ..........................................................9

Strong Ground Motion Data ..............................................................................................12

Sources for Data.....................................................................................................12

Time-Dependent Ground Motion Parameters........................................................13

Peak Values of Ground Motion Amplitude ...............................................13

Frequency-Dependent Ground Motion Parameters ...............................................22

Response Spectrum Values........................................................................22

Response Spectrum (Housner) Intensity....................................................23

Acceleration Response Intensity................................................................23

Effective Peak Acceleration and Effective Peak Velocity.........................24

Modified Mercalli Intensity ...................................................................................24

Building Demand Parameters ................................................................................25

Roof Drift Ratio .........................................................................................26

Interstory Drift Ratio..................................................................................28

Ratio of Spectral Acceleration to Design Base Shear Coefficient.............30

Data Analysis and Model Development Methodology..........................................35

Predominant Period of Buildings...............................................................25

Development of Motion-Damage Relationships ...............................................................33

Correlation Between Building Performance and Measured Ground

Empirical Damage Probability Matrices....................................................35

Fragility Functions .....................................................................................37

Derived Damage Probability Matrices.......................................................38

Wood Frame Buildings ..............................................................................40

Steel Frame Buildings................................................................................49

Concrete Frame Buildings (Northridge Earthquake).................................57

Concrete Frame Buildings (Chi-Chi Earthquake)......................................68

Sensitivity of Distance from Recording Station to Building Site ..........................74

Application of Motion-Damage Relationships ..................................................................78

Regional Damage and Loss Estimation .................................................................78

Site-Specific Damage and Loss Estimation...........................................................84

Illustration of Trifunac and Brady strong-motion duration (90% cumulative energy)......19

Illustration of bracketed duration with 0.05g acceleration threshold ................................20

Illustration of relationship among damage probability matrix, probability distribution fit,

Fragility curves for S1 buildings, FEMA 273/356 performance levels, and

Fragility curves for C1 buildings, Vision 2000 performance levels, and

Fragility curves for C3 buildings (Chi-Chi earthquake), FEMA 273/356 performance

ShakeMap Intensity map for the 1994 Northridge earthquake..........................................79

Simulated acceleration time history data corresponding to response spectra shown in

ATC-13 Damage States (ATC, 1985)..................................................................................9

HAZUS99 Damage States (FEMA, 1999).........................................................................10

FEMA 273/356 Performance Levels (FEMA, 2000) ........................................................10

Vision 2000 Performance Levels (SEAOC, 1995) ............................................................10

Correspondence Among Damage States and Percent Loss ...............................................10

Summary of Building Performance Data...........................................................................11

Summary of Northridge Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Stations used in Project......14

Values for Modification Factor C0 (from FEMA, 2000) ...................................................28

Ductility Factors used in Base Shear Coefficient Calculations .........................................32

Modal Mass Coefficient Values.........................................................................................32

HAZUS99 Results: Number of Buildings in Each Damage State by General Structural

HAZUS99 Results: Number of Buildings in Each Damage State by General Structural