This article was downloaded by: [UNAM]

On: 16 February 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918399446]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713683556

Seismic vulnerability functions of multi-storey buildings: estimation and

applications
Luis Estevaa; Orlando Díaz-Lópeza; Eduardo Ismael-Hernándeza
a
Institute of Engineering, National University of Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico, DF, Mexico

First published on: 22 January 2009

To cite this Article Esteva, Luis , Díaz-López, Orlando and Ismael-Hernández, Eduardo(2010) 'Seismic vulnerability
functions of multi-storey buildings: estimation and applications', Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6: 1, 3 — 16,
First published on: 22 January 2009 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15732470802663755
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732470802663755

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Vol. 6, Nos. 1–2, February–April 2010, 3–16

Seismic vulnerability functions of multi-storey buildings: estimation and applications

Luis Esteva*, Orlando Dı́az-López and Eduardo Ismael-Hernández
Institute of Engineering, National University of Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria,
04320 Mexico, DF, Mexico
(Received 10 October 2007; final version received 3 December 2008)

Seismic vulnerability functions of structural systems are presented as expressions relating earthquake intensities with
quantitative measures of their probable consequences on the performance of those systems. The consequences
considered include direct and indirect costs of structural and non-structural damage, either for the condition of
system survival or for the possibilities of partial or total collapse. A review is presented of recent efforts towards the
development of these functions for multi-storey building systems and for their application in life-cycle optimization
studies for the establishment of target safety levels and the corresponding seismic design criteria. Special attention is
given to the evaluation of system reliability with respect to the ultimate capacity (collapse) failure mode. Results are
presented of some studies about the time-dependent process of damage accumulation and reliability evolution in
building frames, as well as of the optimum design criteria and maintenance strategies for structural frames with
hysteretic energy-dissipating devices.
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011

Keywords: seismic vulnerability; secant-stiffness reduction index; expected damage functions; life-cycle optimisation;
energy-dissipating devices; optimum maintenance policies

format where the components of the vulnerability

1. Introduction
For a given structural system, a seismic vulnerability
function serves to express the relationship between
the intensity of an earthquake excitation and a
quantitative measure of its probable consequences on
the performance of that system. These consequences
may include concepts such as the direct and indirect
costs of structural and non-structural damage, either
for the condition of system survival or for the
possibilities of partial or total collapse. In many
applications related to risk analysis and risk-related
engineering decision making, such as studies about
life-cycle optimum performance levels, it has been
deemed convenient to express vulnerability
functions in monetary terms, after recognising the
difficult problems related to assigning values to
consequences, such as loss of human lives and
arousing of social unrest, which cannot be directly
expressed in those terms. Dealing with these pro-
blems is beyond the scope of this article. However,
considering that risk-related decisions must be
sensitive to socially acceptable risk levels, in addition
to those resulting from formal cost-benefit optimisa-
tion formulations, here, we have preferred to adopt a
functions accounting for expected values of
monetary losses (whether direct or indirect) are
kept separate from those related to life and limb
potential losses.
Emphasis in this article is centred on the
estimation of quantitative indicators of system
reliability and expected performance required to
obtain probabilistic assessments of the types of losses
described in the previous paragraph. For this
purpose, a critical review is presented in x2 of
some previous research results for the estimation of
expected damage functions of structural elements
and subsystems, as well as of the seismic reliability
functions of multi-storey buildings and of the
resulting recommendations for the formulation of
performance- and reliability-based criteria and meth-
ods for the practice of earthquake engineering. This
is followed by several proposals to fill identified gaps
of previous research, or to provide alternatives to
improve available criteria and algorithms for the
estimation of seismic vulnerability functions of multi-
storey building systems. Some examples are pre-
sented to illustrate the application of the proposed
new concepts and criteria.

*Corresponding author. Email: lestevam@ii.unam.mx

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online

Ó 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/15732470802663755
http://www.informaworld.com
 4 L. Esteva et al.
2. Seismic vulnerability functions of multi-storey
buildings
2.1. Failure and damage components of seismic
vulnerability functions
According to Esteva et al. (2002c), the seismic
vulnerability function of a structural system exposed
to several failure modes, including collapse (exceeding
of ultimate capacity), can be expressed as follows:
dðyÞ ¼ dðyjSÞð1  pF ðyÞÞ þ dF pF ðyÞ; ð1Þ
where d(y) is the expected value of the cost of the
consequences of the performance attained by the
system if subjected to an earthquake of intensity y;
pF(y) is the corresponding probability of collapse; and
d(yjS) and dF are the expected values of the costs of
consequences, conditional to survival or to collapse of
the system, respectively. In all cases, the expected cost
values are normalised, dividing them by the initial
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
construction cost C0. Function d(yjS) depends on the
probability distribution of the physical damage experi-
enced by all structural and non-structural components
of the system, as well as of the direct and indirect
consequences of that damage. Its evaluation must also
account for potential damage experienced by equip-
ment, installations or contents that may fail, for
instance, by overturning or by excessively high
dynamic response.
Figure 1 shows two usual manners of representing
the seismic vulnerability function d(y). The dashed line
represents failure probabilities, while the dotted line
represents expected damage costs. The latter can take
values greater than unity, because actual damage
values can be greater than the initial construction cost.
Reyes (1999) presents a list of publications report-
ing the results of laboratory tests oriented to relating
physical damage levels with maximum amplitudes of
Figure 1. Expected damage and failure probability
vulnerability functions.
lateral distortions for different types of structural sub-
assemblages. Reyes (1999) includes, among others,
reinforced concrete frames with different qualities of
ductility-oriented detailing, flat slabs, isolated and
coupled reinforced concrete shear walls, steel frames
with different types of seismic details, cross-braced
panels and infill walls (masonry, precast elements, roof
systems and glass). In addition, quantitative indicators
of physical damage that consider maximum values of
local distortions and hysteretic energy dissipation or
low-cycle fatigue indexes have been developed on the
basis of experimental studies on pseudo-dynamic or
dynamic tests (Park and Ang 1984). However, no
significant efforts have been devoted to apply this
knowledge to the estimation of vulnerability functions
of complex nonlinear systems, such as tall buildings, in
spite of their relevance for the establishment of
optimum performance-based seismic design criteria.
Similar comments can be made about vulnerability
problems related to overturning or other failure modes
of equipment, furniture, objects or installations sensi-
tive to floor velocities or accelerations, which have
received attention during the last few years, following
an approach proposed by Ishiyama (1982), with
important results that have hardly transcended into
practical applications to performance oriented design.
This shortcoming may be blamed, partly, at least, on
the deficient (or zero) interaction between structural
engineers and equipment providers.
The experimental information provided by Reyes
(1999) and the references mentioned by him can be
represented by equations of the following form (Esteva
et al. 2002c):
dd ðcÞ ¼ 0; c < ccr ð2aÞ
and
dd ðcÞ ¼ 1  exp ðkðc  ccr Þm Þ; c > ccr : ð2bÞ
In these equations, dd is the ratio of the direct cost of
damage on a structural or non-structural element to its
initial construction cost, when it is subjected to a
lateral distortion with an amplitude c; ccr is the value
of that distortion required to initiate cracking; and k
and m are empirically determined constants. For some
practical applications, the forms of Equation (2) can be
simplified by taking ccr ¼ 0.
Ismael-Hernández et al. (2004) present some simple
models to estimate component d(yjS) of the vulner-
ability function d(y), including the contributions of
direct and indirect costs. For this purpose, they adopt
an equation of a form equivalent to:
X
dðyjSÞ ¼ ðc þ r1 Þ ddi ðyjSÞ; ð3Þ
i
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
where ddi (yjS) is the expected value of the direct cost of
damage for the ith component of the system; r1 is the
ratio of direct to indirect costs; and c, given by
Equation (4), depends on the conditional value of the
expected damage and on a pair of variables, a and q,
where a 4 q. The q variable takes into account that
the direct replacement cost of a given system compo-
nent is usually larger than its initial construction cost,
and a takes into account a fixed initial cost attached to
repair costs, associated with the logistic arrangements
that have to be implemented before the actual repair
work starts. For the calculation of ddi (yjS), it is
necessary to obtain expected values of functions
similar to those given by Equation (4) with respect to
the probability density function of the corresponding
distortion, ci.
a qX
n
c¼a ddi ðyjSÞ: ð4Þ
n i
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
In this equation, n is the number of components of the
system that may suffer damage during the seismic
excitation and q is an empirical constant, taken equal
to 1.2 by Ismael-Hernández et al. (2004). It can easily
be seen that c tends to q when the direct cost of damage
for the whole system tends to unity, while it tends to a
when the direct cost tends to zero.
2.2. Probability of reaching the ultimate limit state
(collapse)
Displacement-based practical criteria for earthquake
resistant design are based on the concept that the event
of reaching a given performance limit is associated
with the condition that the structural distortion
reaches a value equal to the corresponding deforma-
tion capacity. According to this, the estimation of the
seismic reliability of complex nonlinear systems for
given values of the ground-motion intensity is ordina-
rily based on a measure of the probability that, for an
ensemble of earthquake excitations with a specified
intensity, the ratio of the peak absolute value of the
nonlinear displacement response demand of the system
to the corresponding deformation capacity is greater
than unity. For multi-storey buildings, both displace-
ment demand and deformation capacity can either be
expressed in terms of the global lateral distortion (that
is, the relative displacement of the roof with respect to
the foundation divided by the building height) or in
terms of the storey distortion where the ratio of the
displacement demand to the deformation capacity is
largest during the dynamic response.
When defining a seismic vulnerability function, the
earthquake intensity must be measured by an adequate
indicator, having a high statistical correlation with the
5
seismic response of the system of interest, and capable
of producing accurate estimates of those variables that
determine the reliability functions of interest. This is
ordinarily achieved using the ordinate of the linear
response spectrum for the fundamental period of the
system. Approximate estimates of second-moment
probabilistic indicators of both variables (response
demand and deformation capacity) are often obtained
with the aid of a simplified reference system, char-
acterised by mechanical properties determined by
means of a static pushover analysis of the detailed
system. A normalised value of the intensity can then be
used, such as the expected value of the ductility
demand on the simplified reference system (Esteva
et al. 2002a, b), or as the ratio of that demand to the
corresponding deformation capacity, expressed in
terms of available ductility.
In spite of the generalised use of deformation
capacities as a basic variable for the establishment of
failure conditions for multi-storey buildings, it has
been recognised that their probabilistic estimates
obtained by means of pushover analysis are tied to
severe limitations, as, according to this approach, it is
not possible to account for (a) the influence of
cumulative damage associated with the cyclic response
and (b) the dependence of the lateral deformation
capacity on the response configuration of the system
when it approaches failure. Additional limitations are
related to the practical difficulties associated with the
identification of the critical storeys (those with the
highest demand/capacity ratios) and with the fact that,
at some storeys, deformation capacities cannot be
reached through conventional pushover analysis, as
this can be prevented by the occurrence of lateral
failure mechanisms at other storeys.
Figure 2, taken from Pérez-Martı́nez (2007), illus-
trates one of the problems related to the definition of
the global lateral deformation capacity of a multi-
storey system. The figure presents some results obtained
from the step-by-step nonlinear response analysis of a
five-storey building frame with masonry infill panels; it
shows cyclic shear force versus lateral distortion curves
for the fourth storey, where the lateral distortion
reaches its maximum value, as well as for the system
as a whole (base shear versus roof displacement). It is
easily observed that, while the curve corresponding to
the fourth storey is regular and stable, that correspond-
ing to the global distortion shows very erratic beha-
viour, which results from the fact that the lateral
configuration of the system does not remain propor-
tional throughout time, but keeps changing from
instant to instant, thus affecting the ratio of base shear
to global distortion for a given value of the latter.
Alternative criteria to determine seismic vulner-
ability functions have been proposed that do not
 6 L. Esteva et al.
Figure 2 Cyclic shear force versus lateral distortions for a multi-storey building frame (from Pérez-Martı́nez 2007): (a) fourth
storey distortions and (b) global distortions.
depend on the use of the concept of deformation
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
capacity (Esteva 1992, Shome and Cornell 1999,
Alamilla and Esteva 2006); according to these refer-
ences, system collapse is assumed to take place when
the displacements predicted by the dynamic response
analysis become infinitely large and non-reversible.
The stiffness matrix then becomes ill conditioned.
According to this, the safety factor with respect to this
type of failure for a given ground motion time history
is obtained as the scale factor that has to be applied to
that time history in order to reach the minimum value
of the intensity required to produce system collapse.
This intensity will be denoted ‘failure intensity’.
Because the determination of the required scaling
factor has to be attained by means of an iterative
procedure, it may call for excessive demands of
computer time.
The method of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA;
Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) offers both possibilities
for the estimation of probabilistic indicators of seismic
reliability for given ground motion intensities: either
on the basis of deformation capacities or using the
concept of failure intensity. According to this method,
the lateral deformation capacity of the system of
interest is defined as the value of the peak roof
displacement when the slope of the incremental
dynamic response function (spectral acceleration ver-
sus peak roof displacement) becomes lower than a
specified value; this point also serves to define the
failure intensity. It offers the possibility to visualise
the evolution of the lateral roof displacement as
the intensity grows, as well as to observe the values
reached by the ground motion intensity before the
occurrence of unbounded peak roof displacements.
However, these advantages are often tied to excessive
computer time demands (Dolsek and Fajfar 2004).
In this paper, an alternative approach is explored,
based on the use of a secant-stiffness reduction index
for the estimation of reliability functions relating the
reliability index b (Cornell 1969) with the ground
motion intensity, including the influence of cumulative
damage and avoiding the need to obtain probabilistic
definitions of lateral deformation capacities. This
approach is based on the concept of failure intensity,
mentioned above.
3. Secant-stiffness reduction index as a basis for
seismic reliability and vulnerability functions
3.1. Probabilistic relationships between intensity and
stiffness-reduction index
The possibility of estimating the seismic reliability
function of a structural system in terms of a probabil-
istic description of the reduction of the secant lateral
stiffness for the maximum amplitude of the response of
the system of interest to an earthquake ground motion
of specified intensity was first proposed by Esteva and
Ismael (2003) and further refined by Esteva and Dı́az-
López (2006). In the following, this criterion is reviewed
and some recently developed concepts intended to
improve its efficiency are presented.
Consider a multi-storey building with a cyclic
response curve similar to that shown in Figure 3,
when subjected to a horizontal earthquake ground
motion. In this figure, the x-axis represents the relative
lateral displacements u of the roof of the building with
respect to its base, while the instantaneous values of
the base shear forces V are represented by the y-axis.
At the instant when the lateral relative displacement
is largest, the secant global stiffness K ¼ V/u has
suffered a reduction from its initial value K0. The
collapse of the system can be expressed by the
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 7

Figure 3. Cyclic response curves for base-shear versus roof lateral displacement for a system with tri-linear behaviour.

condition K ¼ 0. Therefore, a secant-stiffness reduc-

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011

tion indicator ISSR ¼ (K0 – K)/K0 can be defined, so

that the failure condition is expressed as ISSR ¼ 1.0.
Figure 4 shows values of Q, the natural logarithm
of ISSR of a multi-storey building system for different
values of m0, the ductility demand of the corresponding
simplified reference system, which may be interpreted
as a value of the intensity normalised with respect to a
simple indicator of the seismic capacity of the system.
In consistence with its definition, Q cannot take values
higher than 0, which leads to a discrete concentration
of its probability density function at that value.
Therefore, for a given value of the intensity (y), the
probability density function of Q ¼ ln ISSR is equal to
fQ(q), which is continuous for q 5 0 and includes a
discrete concentration at q ¼ 0, which is equal to
pF(y) ¼ P(Q ¼ 0jy), the failure probability for an Figure 4. Safety margins in a multi-storey building system
intensity equal to y. In order to permit the joint versus ductility demands in a simplified reference system.
analysis of information including cases with values of
Q  0, Esteva and Ismael (2003) introduced an
auxiliary variable U, such that Q ¼ U for Q 5 0
and Q ¼ 0 for U  0 (i.e. for the failure condition).
The probability density function of U is designated by
fU(), and the associated cumulative distribution
function by FU() (see Figure 5). These functions
are characterised by a set of parameters {k} that
determine their basic properties, such as mean,
standard deviation and skewness. (For instance, in
the case of a Gaussian distribution, {k} may be made Figure 5. Introduction of auxiliary variable to represent the
by the mean and the standard deviation of U.) These probability density function of Q(y).
parameters can, in turn, be expressed as functions of y,
G(yja), with given form and unknown parameters, a.
It is also assumed that we count with a set of m þ n step time history dynamic response analysis. Under the
pairs of values of the normalised intensity m0i, and the assumption that these pairs of values are ordered so
corresponding logarithmic damage index Q ¼ qi, that Q is smaller than 0 (survival condition) for the first
where the latter is obtained by means of a step-by- m cases, and equal to 0 for the remaining n cases, the
 8 L. Esteva et al.
likelihood function can be expressed as follows in
terms of a:
Y
m Y
n   
LðaÞ ¼ fU ðui jyi ; aÞ 1  F U 0 yj ; a :
i¼1 j¼1
The vector of parameters a is determined by means of a
maximum likelihood approach applied to the sample
of pairs of values of Y and Q.
This article follows an approach proposed by
Esteva and Dı́az-López (2006) for the determination
of the reliability function b(y), starting from a sample
of pairs of values of ISSR and Y. Here, b is the safety
index proposed by Cornell (1969) and y is a given value
of the ground motion intensity. If the sample includes
only cases with ISSR 5 1.0, the reliability function can
be obtained by means of a regression analysis; if cases
with ISSR ¼ 1.0 are also included, a maximum like-
lihood analysis must be performed. Instead of for-
mulating the problem as that of obtaining an indicator
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
of the probability that ISSR 5 1.0 (survival) for a given
intensity, attention is focused on the determination of
second moment indicators of the probability distribu-
tion of ZF ¼ lnYF, where YF is the minimum value
of the intensity required to lead to the condition
ISSR ¼ 1.0 (collapse). For an earthquake with intensity
equal to y, the safety margin ZM is defined as the
natural logarithm of the ratio YF/y. The reliability
function can then be expressed as:
bðyÞ ¼ ðEðZF Þ  ln yÞ=sðZF Þ;
where E() and s() stand for expected value and
standard deviation, respectively.
For the structural system of interest, a sample of
pairs of random values of Z and the stiffness reduction
index, ISSR, can be used to estimate means and
standard deviations of Z(u), the latter defined as the
natural logarithm of the random intensity Y that
corresponds to ISSR ¼ u. The values of Z in the sample
that correspond to values of ISSR ¼ 1.0 are upper
bounds of ZF ¼ lnYF, where YF is the minimum value
of Y required to produce system failure. Therefore, the
points corresponding to these values of ZF cannot be
incorporated into the sample used to estimate E(Z(u))
and s(Z(u)) by means of conventional minimum-
squares regression analysis. However, they can be
included in the estimation process, through a max-
imum likelihood analysis slightly different from that
proposed by Esteva and Ismael (2003) and described
above.
The expected value and the standard deviation of
Z(u) will now be represented by the functions
E(Z(u)ja 1) and s(Z(u)ja 2), with a given form and
unknown vectors, a 1 and a 2, of the parameters to be
estimated using a sample including m values of
ISSR 5 1.0 and n values of ISSR ¼ 1.0. For the
observed sample, the likelihood function of (a 1, a 2)

ð5Þ can be expressed as:
Y
m Y
n    
Lða1 ; a2 Þ ¼ f Z ð z i j ui ; a1 ; a2 Þ 1  FZ zj uj ; a1 ; a2 :
i¼1 j¼1
ð7Þ
In order to get sufficiently accurate estimates of the
mean and the standard deviation of ZF, without an
excessively large computational effort, it is convenient
to generate samples containing a large proportion of
its points with values of ISSR slightly smaller than 1.0.
This can be achieved by means of an algorithm that
includes two basic steps: (a) an approximate probabil-
istic relationship between ISSR and Z is first obtained
from a small sample of those variables and (b) a new
sample of values of ISSR is determined for a set of
simulated ground motion records, with their intensities
chosen in such a manner that they have high
probabilities of producing damage levels in the
required intervals. This probabilistic relationship just
mentioned may be as simple as the expected value of
Z ¼ lnY as a function of ISSR.
3.2. Efficient scheme for Monte Carlo simulation of
pairs of values of ISSR and Z
ð6Þ Consider a multi-storey reinforced concrete wall–frame
dual system similar to that shown in Figure 6, built at a
soft soil site in the Valley of Mexico, and designed in
accordance with the 2004 edition of the Mexico City
Building Code (NTC 2004). In order to estimate its
seismic reliability function, a probabilistic model of the
mechanical properties and of the gravitational loads
acting on the system was formulated, and a sample of
possible realisations of the vector of those properties
was generated by Monte Carlo simulation, as de-
scribed in Esteva et al. (2002b), using the statistical
properties reported by Meli (1976) and Mirza and
McGregor (1979). The model proposed by Wang and
Shah (1987) was adopted to represent the constitutive
functions describing the bending behaviour of the
critical sections at the ends of beams, columns and
walls. For each system in the sample, a nonlinear
analysis was made of its response to a randomly
chosen member of a sample of artificial ground motion
time histories with statistical properties representative
of those expected at the site of interest. Figures 7 and 8
show respectively a typical ground motion time history
and a set of pseudo-acceleration response spectra
included in the sample, in all cases for a damping
ratio equal to 0.05. The Monte Carlo simulation was
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Figure 6. Reinforced concrete dual wall–frame multi-storey building structure.
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
Figure 7. Artificial ground motion acceleration time history
at a soft soil site in the Valley of Mexico.
Figure 8. Pseudo-acceleration response spectra for samples
of synthetic ground motion records at a soft soil site in the
Valley of Mexico.
performed according to the algorithm proposed by
Grigoriu et al. (1988). In Figure 7, a is the ground
acceleration, as a function of time t (seconds), M is the
9
S-wave earthquake magnitude, R the site-to-source
distance (km) and SCT identifies a soft soil site in
Mexico City (Secretarı́a de Comunicaciones y
Transportes). In Figure 8, y/g is the spectral accelera-
tion as a fraction of gravity and T is the natural period
of the structure (seconds). The response results are
presented in Figure 9, where Z ¼ Sdl/uF is a normalised
intensity, Sdl is the ordinate of the linear displacement
response spectrum and uF is the deformation capacity,
determined by means of a conventional static pushover
analysis. An empirical equation of the form E(Z) ¼
a þ b(1–u) þ c(1–u)2 was fitted to the data. For the
variance, the following form was adopted: var (Z) ¼
a1 þ b1(u). The resulting reliability function, deter-
mined by means of Equation (6), appears in Figure 10.
For values of the intensity leading to linear re-
sponse amplitudes of the simplified reference system
approximately equal to the deformation capacity
estimated through a static pushover analysis, b is
approximately equal to 2.0; for Z equal to 0.7, b is
approximately equal to 4.5. Under the assumption
that Z is normally distributed, these values correspond
to failure probabilities of 0.023 and 0.34610–4,
respectively.
The information shown in Figure 9 was also used
to make a rough assessment about efficient criteria for
choosing the sampling range of Z, intended to produce
a large proportion of values of Z slightly smaller than
1.0, thus leading to more accurate estimates of the
expected value and the standard deviation of ZF, the
minimum value of the intensity required to produce
collapse. The results of this analysis are shown in
Figures 11 and 12. Figure 11 shows all cases with
 10 L. Esteva et al.

ISSR 5 1.0, while Figure 12 shows the probability that

ISSR will be contained in the interval 0.8 5 ISSR 5 1.0,
as a function of the normalised width of the
sampling interval (D/ZX), for different values of ZX
(the central value of Z). It can be easily seen that this
probability remains practically constant, about 0.6, for
1.3 5 ZX 5 1.5 and 0.10 5 D/ZX 5 0.8.

3.3. Applications
The concepts described in the previous sections have
been applied to the study of two systems with different
types of lateral-force-resisting structural arrange-
ments: a frame system (Figure 13) and a wall–frame

Figure 9. Values of normalised intensities for given levels of

the stiffness reduction index ISSR.
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011

Figure 12. Probabilities of generating values of ISSR in the

interval (0.8, 1.0], in terms of ZX and D/ZX.
Figure 10. Reliability function for system in Figure 6.

Figure 11. Sample of values of Z and ISSR for the system in

Figure 6. Figure 13. Multi-storey frame building studied in x3.3.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
system (Figure 14). They are square in-plan 10-storey
buildings, regular along their height. They are sup-
posed to be built at the SCT site in Mexico City (soft
soil). They possess the same number of lateral-resisting
frames in the two orthogonal directions. The general
properties of each system selected are schematically
presented in the mentioned figures. The systems were
designed to comply with the 1993 edition of the
Mexico City Building Code, taking into account the
influence of both accidental torsion and soil–structure
interaction. Some results of the study are discussed in
the following paragraphs; other results, not presented
here, were reported by Dı́az-López and Esteva (2006).
Two main objectives were established: (a) compar-
ing the values of the reliability index b produced by the
criterion proposed in xx3.1 and 3.2 with those resulting
from the incremental dynamic analysis proposed by
Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2002) and (b) studying the
sensitivity of the results to the criteria used to generate
the samples of recorded and synthetic ground motion
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
time histories used for the Monte Carlo simulation of
structural response and performance. Variables taken
as random include dead and live loads, cross sections
of structural members and parameters that determine
the stress–strain properties of concrete and reinforcing
steel.
As mentioned by Dı́az and Esteva (2006), three
different families of seismic ground motion records
were selected to represent seismic excitation: one
corresponds to a set of actual acceleration records
obtained at the site where the structures are assumed to
be located (Family F1); the other two are integrated by
synthetic time histories (Families F2 and F3). The
latter were generated by two different simulation
algorithms. Both consider the ground acceleration as
Figure 14. Multi-storey dual wall–frame system studied in
x3.3.
11
a non-stationary Gaussian stochastic process with
evolutionary spectral density. Family F2 is simulated
in accordance with the procedure described by
Alamilla (1997), while Family F3 is that mentioned
in x3.2; it was generated by the algorithm proposed
by Grigoriu et al. (1988). The statistical properties of
all simulated records are similar (except for a scaling
factor) to those of the East-West component of the
SCT record of the earthquake of 19 September 1985.
Pseudo-acceleration response spectra for Families 1
and 2 are shown in Figures 15 and 16, respectively;
those corresponding to Family 3 were shown in
Figure 8.
Figures 17a and b show plots of computed values
of the normalised intensity measures ln(y/g) versus
values of ISSR, for the frame and the dual wall–frame
system of Figures 13 and 14, respectively. Here, y is
equal to the spectral pseudo-acceleration for the
fundamental period of the system and g is the
acceleration of gravity. Differences ranging from 0.2
to 0.25 can be observed between the mean values of
Figure 15. Family F1: response spectra for recorded
ground motion time histories.
Figure 16. Family F2: response spectra for synthetic
ground motion records.
 12 L. Esteva et al.
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011

Figure 17. Relation between normalised intensities and values of the secant-stiffness reduction index (ISSR) for: (a) a frame and
(b) a wall–frame.

ln(y/g) for the ground motion families F3 and F2; this

means a factor ranging from 1.22 to 1.28 for the
median values of y/g. These differences arise from
those associated with the detailed representation of the
evolutionary statistical properties of the instantaneous
variances and frequency contents of the ground
motion accelerations, as assumed by Alamilla (1997)
and Grigoriu et al. (1988) models; the former is based
on a much simpler, but less accurate model of the
evolution of the mentioned variables.
Figure 18 shows that the reliability index b varies in
a much faster way with y/g for the dual wall–frame
system than for the frame system. This may be due to
the fact that, in the former case, the lateral strength
Figure 18. Reliability functions determined with the aid of
and stiffness are concentrated in the wall, while they incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and the secant-stiffness
are distributed among different structural members in reduction index (ISSR).
the other case. Differences in the values of b for both
families of ground motion time histories are shown to approximately 0.2 to 0.7. This systematic trend is
be small for b, and are approximately equal to 3.0, consistent with the way failure intensities are deter-
but can be greater than 1.0 (in absolute value) for mined according to each approach: while the criterion
higher values of this index. Figure 18 also shows that based on the IDA assumes that failure occurs when
values of b determined with the aid of the index ISSR the slope of the intensity versus lateral distortion
are systematically larger than those determined in curve reaches a sufficiently low (but not zero) pre-
accordance with the IDA approach. Differences are established value, use of the failure criterion based on
not too large, however, they range from a value of ISSR equal to zero corresponds to the limit
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
where the IDA curve would tend for increasing values
of the intensity.
The differences observed in Figures 17 and 18
demonstrate the requirement for systematic studies
oriented to (a) formulating recommendations regard-
ing criteria for the generation of samples of synthetic
ground motion records and (b) developing simplified
design rules for engineering practice intended to lead to
consistent reliability levels for different families of
structural arrangements.
4. Use of seismic vulnerability and risk functions in the
establishment of seismic design criteria based on
optimum performance levels
4.1. Life-cycle risk analysis for the condition of no
damage accumulation
If the seismic hazard at the site is represented by nY(y),
the annual rate of occurrence of earthquake ground
motions with intensities equal to or higher than y, the
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
seismic risk sustained by the system can be represented
by D, the expected value of the annual cost of damage
and failure consequences, given by Equation (8), in
terms of the vulnerability functions d(yjS), dF and
pF(y):
D ¼ ðDS þ DF Þ C0 ; ð8Þ
where
Z  
dnY ðyÞ
DS ¼  dðyjSÞð1  pF ðyÞÞdy ð9aÞ
dy 
and
Z   actions on the frame members and preventive-replace-
dnF ðyÞ
DF ¼  dF pF ðyÞdy: ð9bÞ
dy 
These equations are based on the assumption that DS
and DF are constant in time; that is, they do not depend
on the damage that may have accumulated in the
system as a consequence of its response to previous
earthquakes or of other potential damage sources.
They imply the adoption of a maintenance strategy
such that all damage is detected and repaired
immediately after its occurrence.
According to Ismael-Hernández et al. (2004),
optimum seismic design criteria should be established
in accordance with an objective function given by the
following equation:
Dðc; T; zÞ
Uðc; T; zÞ ¼ C0 ðc; T; zÞ þ ; ð10Þ
g "
where T and c are, respectively, the fundamental
natural period and the base-shear ratio, taken as
13
control parameters for the required values of the
lateral stiffness and strength; z is the viscous damping
ratio; and g is a net discount rate, which is used to
transform future benefits and costs into their present
values. The last term in the second member of
Equation (10) must be evaluated in accordance with
Equations (8) and (9). Once the optimum values of c
and T are determined, they can be transformed into an
equivalent design criterion, with a conventional format
expressed in terms of two performance requirements:
ultimate capacity and serviceability limit conditions.
The latter specifies a maximum acceptable distortion
for a moderate intensity seismic excitation; the
former is presented in the form of the pseudo-
acceleration response spectrum for the ultimate
capacity performance requirement, together with a
base-shear reduction factor intended to account
for structural over-strength and nonlinear dynamic
response. An illustrative example of this was presented
by Ismael-Hernández et al. (2004).
4.2. Influence of damage accumulation and
maintenance strategies
Esteva (2006) presents a Markov model for the process
of damage accumulation on a composite structural
system made of a conventional frame and a set of
energy-dissipating devices, taking into account main-
tenance and repair actions. The structural response of
the system to a given earthquake, and therefore the
damage increment at each individual member or critical
section, is a function of both the characteristics of the
earthquake ground motion and of the residual damage
throughout the system at the start of that event. Repair
ment measures on the energy dissipation devices
(EDDs) are undertaken whenever empirical evidence
or theoretical assessment lead us to consider that
current damage levels at individual elements or
portions of the system may have reached critical
acceptance thresholds. In general, damage on the frame
members is apparent in the form of local cracking and/
or crushing, while that on the EDDs may be apparent
or has to be theoretically inferred on the basis of their
estimated responses to the earthquakes experienced.
In accordance with the above process, the vulner-
ability function of the system varies in time in a
random manner. As a consequence, DS and DF
(Equation (9)) are not constant in time, and the
objective function to be minimised, previously given by
Equation (10), is now expressed as:
#
X
1
U ¼ C0 þ E LgT
i
i
; ð11Þ
i¼1
 14 L. Esteva et al.
where C0 and g were as defined above; E[] stands for
expected value, Ti, i ¼ 1, . . ., ?, are the (random)
times of occurrence of earthquakes that may affect the
system and Li, i ¼ 1, . . ., ?, are the losses associated
with those earthquakes – they include damage and
failure consequences as well as repair and maintenance
actions. The latter are expressed in terms of the
threshold values of local accumulated damage for
repair or replacement of structural members. An
analytic formulation for the probabilistic description
of this process was previously proposed by Esteva and
Dı́az (1993).
A practical option for the determination of the
optimum combination of the values of the design
parameters and the repair and maintenance strategies
consists of the use of Monte Carlo simulations to
determine values of U for several alternative combina-
tions of these parameters and strategies. The following
paragraphs summarise an approach proposed by
Esteva (2006) for the time-history description of the
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
process of damage accumulation and maintenance
actions for a single-storey system with one EDD.
Consider the case of a combined single-storey
system, made by a conventional rigid frame and an
EDD. Just after the occurrence of the jth earthquake,
the damage accumulated on that device equals Ddj,
wile that affecting the structural frame is equal to Dfj.
After the (j þ 1)th event, these values become respec-
tively Dd(jþ1) ¼ DDj þ dd(jþ1) and Df(jþ1) ¼ Dfj þ
df(jþ1), where dd(jþ1) and df(jþ1) are the correspond-
ing damage increments. If Dfj exceeds a given thresh-
old, designated here as Drf, the frame is repaired in
such a manner as to eliminate the damage accumu-
lated, thus restoring its initial strength and stiffness, Rf
and Kf. It is assumed that the damage level on the
frame can be assessed on the basis of the evidence of
physical deterioration, while that on the EDDs is
inferred from the estimated value of the low-cycle-
fatigue index. This information is used to implement
the preventive strategy of replacing the EDD after the
occurrence of a number of high-intensity earthquakes,
on the basis of a threshold value Drd.
Whether the process of occurrence of earthquake
ground motions with different characteristics considers
some kind of correlation with previous history or
ignores it, the levels of damage accumulated Dfj and
Ddj, j ¼ 1, . . . , ?, at the end of the jth earthquake
occur as events of a Markov process. The transition
probabilities from (Dfj, Ddj) to (Df(jþ1), Dd(jþ1))
are obtained from the probability density functions
of df(jþ1) and dd(jþ1), which depend on Dfj, Ddj and on
the probability density function of Yjþ1, the intensity
of the (j þ 1)th event.
In order to determine the conditional probability
density functions of Df(jþ1) and Dd(jþ1), given the
values corresponding to the end of the jth earthquake,
it is necessary to calculate the joint probability
density function of the waiting time to the (j þ 1)th
earthquake and its intensity, and to determine the
damage states D’fi and D’di of the system’s compo-
nents after carrying out the operations of repairing
the conventional frame members and/or replacing the
EDDs.
These concepts have been applied by Esteva et al.
(1999) to the study of the time-dependent process of
damage accumulation and reliability evolution in
building frames. They were also employed by the
same authors for the study of optimum design criteria
and maintenance strategies for structural frames with
hysteretic energy-dissipating devices. Because of the
complexity of the probability transition matrices
involved, extensive use has been made of Monte Carlo
simulations. One of the cases studied corresponds to a
two-bay, 15-storey frame system with hysteretic energy
dissipating devices. The system was supposed to be
built at a site in Mexico City where the seismic hazard
was represented by a Poisson process characterised by
the function relating seismic intensity with annual
exceedance rate. The state of damage at the end of each
earthquake was measured by the maximum value
attained at any storey by the index ISSR, defined above.
Searching for a life-cycle optimum solution, several
options were explored regarding the seismic design
coefficient c and the threshold values of ISSR adopted
as a condition for repair of the main frame and for
replacement of the energy dissipating devices (Drc and
Drd, respectively). Values of the negative utility
function U were obtained for each option, in accor-
dance with Equations (8) and (9). The resulting values
of U, normalised with respect to the initial construc-
tion cost for the main frame designed for gravitational
loads only, are depicted in Figure 19. The first section
corresponds to the plain conventional frame, while the
Figure 19. Utility functions for different design base-shear
ratios and maintenance strategies.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
other three sections contain energy dissipating devices
that contribute 75% of the lateral strength and stiffness
of each storey. It can be observed that the negative
utility function is sensitive to both the seismic design
coefficient and the repair and replacement strategies.
The large values that resulted for the initial and long-
term costs of the systems with EDDs are probably due
to the excessively large values assumed for the
contribution of those devices to the lateral strength
and stiffness of the combined system. This fact may
also be responsible for the high values shown by the
optimum threshold damage level for repair of the
conventional frame. Because no analysis has been
made of the sensitivity of these results to the
constitutive functions, the damage–response models,
the repair and replacement costs, and the consequences
of ultimate failure, their value is limited to their role
for the purpose of illustrating the application of the
proposed life-cycle optimisation criteria.
Results of a parametric study about expected
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
utility functions associated with different maintenance
strategies on reinforced concrete frames with
hysteretic EDDs were presented by Campos (2005)
and Esteva (2006). Variables covered include dis-
tribution of EDDs along the height of the building,
deformation capacity of conventional frame, econom-
ic value of collapse and damage threshold values for
repair and replacement.
5. Concluding remarks
The vulnerability function for a multi-storey building
system has been presented as the expected value of the
cost of the consequences of the performance attained
by the system if subjected to an earthquake of a given
intensity, including the potential events of both
collapse and survival. Its evaluation should account
for the physical damage experienced by all structural
and non-structural components of the system, as well
as of the direct and indirect consequences of that
damage. It must also account for potential damage
experienced by equipment, installations or contents
that may fail, for instance, by overturning or by
excessively high dynamic response.
Deformation-based criteria for the determination
of seismic reliability levels of multi-storey building
systems have been shown to be affected by significant
limitations, associated with the concepts of: (a)
sensitivity of the deformation capacity to the system
configuration at the instant of impending collapse and
(b) influence of strength and stiffness degradation
resulting from the process of damage accumulation.
Two alternative criteria were examined that do not
depend on the use of the concept of deformation
capacity: the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and
15
the secant-stiffness reduction index (ISSR). They both
assume that system collapse takes place when the
displacements predicted by the dynamic response
analysis become infinitely large and non-reversible.
The effective values of the elements of the resulting
stiffness matrix are then infinitely small. Both criteria
permit the estimation of the mean value and the
standard deviation of the failure intensity. They both
call for excessively long computer time demands, as
compared with criteria based on the concept of
deformation capacity. These demands are lower for
the approach based on the ISSR; they can be
additionally reduced with the aid of an algorithm
presented to improve its efficiency through a scheme
proposed for the determination of the optimum
sampling range for the ground motion intensities to
be used for its application.
Both the IDA and the SSRI criteria were applied
to the determination of seismic vulnerability func-
tions of two multi-storey buildings of similar global
dimensions, but with two different structural systems:
a rigid frame and a dual wall–frame system. The
results show that the reliability index varies in a
much faster way with the intensity for the dual
wall–frame system than for the frame system; this
may be due to the fact that, in the former case, the
lateral strength and stiffness are concentrated in the
wall, while they are distributed among different
structural members in the other case.
Differences in the values of the reliability index for
a given intensity, for two different families of ground
motion time histories depend on the value of that
index. The values determined with the aid of the SSRI
were systematically larger than those determined in
accordance with the IDA approach. Differences are
not too large, and their trend is consistent with the way
failure intensities are determined according to each
approach.
The results mentioned above demonstrate the
requirement for systematic studies oriented to (a)
formulating recommendations regarding criteria for
the generation of samples of synthetic ground motion
records and (b) developing simplified design rules for
engineering practice intended to lead to consistent
reliability levels for different families of structural
arrangements.
References
Alamilla, J., 1997. Simulación de registros en el valle de
Me´xico mediante procesos estocásticos modulados en
amplitud y frecuencia. Thesis (Masters). School of
Engineering, National University of Mexico, Mexico.
Alamilla, J. and Esteva, L., 2006. Seismic reliability
functions for multistory frame and wall–frame systems.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35 (15),
1899–1924.
 16 L. Esteva et al.
Campos, D., 2005. Diseño sı´smico óptimo de edificios con
disipadores de energı´a. (Optimum seismic design of
buildings with energy dissipators). Thesis (PhD). Gradu-
ate Program in Engineering, National University of
Mexico, Mexico.
Cornell, C.A., 1969. A probability-based structural code.
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 66 (12),
974–985.
Dı́az-López, O. and Esteva, L., 2006. Seismic reliability
analysis of complex nonlinear systems using secant-
stiffness-reduction indicators. In: Proceedings of first
European conference on earthquake engineering and
seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, paper 1068.
Dolsek, M. and Fajfar, P., 2004. IN2 – a simple
alternative for IDA. In: Proceedings of 13th world
conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver,
Canada, paper 3353.
Esteva, L., 1992. Nonlinear seismic response of soft-first-
story buildings subjected to narrow-band accelerograms.
Earthquake Spectra, 8 (3), 373–389.
Esteva, L., 2006. Reliability and optimization as design basis
for systems with energy-dissipating devices. In: Keynote
Lecture, Proceedings of 5th international workshop on life-
cycle cost analysis and design of civil infrastructure
systems, Seoul, Korea.
Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 13:20 16 February 2011
Esteva, L. and Dı́az, O., 1993. Optimum decisions related to
design and replacement of seismic energy dissipators. In:
Proceedings of 6th international conference on structural
safety and reliability, ICOSSAR 93, Innsbruck, Austria,
1, 653–660.
Esteva, L. and Dı́az-López, O., 2006. Seismic reliability
functions for complex systems based on a secant-stiffness
reduction index. In: Proceedings of 13th IFIP WG7.5
working conference, Kobe, Japan.
Esteva, L. and Ismael, E., 2003. A maximum likelihood
approach to system reliability with respect to seismic
collapse. In: Proceedings of 11th IFIP WG7.5 working
conference, Banff, Canada.
Esteva, L., Dı́az-López, O. and Garcı́a-Pérez, J., 1999.
Life cycle optimization of structures with seismic
energy-dissipating devices. In: D. Frangopol, ed., Case
studies in optimal design and maintenance planning of civil
infrastructure systems. American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Esteva, L., Alamilla, J., and Dı́az-López, O., 2002a. Failure
models, significant variables and reference systems in the
reliability-based seismic design of multistory buildings.
In: Proceedings of 7th US national conference on earth-
quake engineering, Boston, MA, USA.
Esteva, L., Dı́az-López, O., Garcı́a-Pérez, J., Sierra, G., and
Ismael, E., 2002b. Simplified reference systems in the
establishment of displacement-based seismic design
criteria. In: Proceedings of 12th European conference on
earthquake engineering, London, UK, paper 419.
Esteva, L., Dı́az-López, O., Garcı́a-Pérez, J., Sierra, G., and
Ismael, E., 2002c. Life-cycle optimization in the estab-
lishment of performance-acceptance parameters for
seismic design. Structural Safety, 24, 187–204.
Grigoriu, M., Ruiz, S.E. and Rosenblueth, E., 1988.
Nonstationary models of seismic ground acceleration.
Earthquake Spectra, 4 (3), 551–568.
Ishiyama, Y., 1982. Motions of rigid bodies and
criteria for overturning by earthquake excitations.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10
(5), 635–650.
Ismael-Hernández, E., Dı́az-López, O., and Esteva, L., 2004.
Seismic vulnerability analysis for optimum design of
multistory reinforced concrete buildings. In: Proceedings
of 13th world conference on earthquake engineering,
Vancouver, Canada, paper 514.
Meli, R., 1976. Bases para los criterios de diseño estructural
del proyecto del Reglamento de Construcciones para el
distrito federal (Bases for earthquake resistant design
criteria for the draft of Mexico City Building Code).
Mexico: Institute of Engineering, National University of
Mexico, report 375.
Mirza, S.A. and McGregor, J., 1979. Variation in dimensions
of reinforced concrete members. Journal of Structural
Division, ASCE, 105 (ST4), 751–766.
NTC, 2004. Normas te´cnicas complementarias para diseño por
sismo, Reglamento de construcciones para el distrito
federal (Complementary technical norms for earthquake
resistant design, Mexico City Building Code). Mexico
City.
Park, Y.J. and Ang, H.S., 1984. Mechanistic seismic damage
model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural
Division, ASCE, 110, 722–739.
Pérez-Martı́nez, R., 2007. Vulnerability analysis of
multistory building frames with masonry infill panels.
Research work in the development of Ph D Thesis.
Institute of Engineering, National University of Mexico,
Mexico.
Reyes, C., 1999. The serviceability limit state in the earth-
quake resistant design of buildings. Thesis (PhD). School
of Engineering, National University of Mexico, Mexico
(in Spanish).
Shome, N. and Cornell, C.A., 1999. Probabilistic seismic
demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Stanford,
California, USA: Department of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University, report no. RMS.35.
Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A., 2002. Incremental
dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31 (3), 491–514.
Wang, M.L. and Shah, S.P., 1987. Reinforced
concrete hysteresis model based on the damage concept.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15,
993–1003.