Vulnerability and risk

produced by natural hazards

Assoc. prof. dr. eng. Cristian Arion

www.utcb.ro Bucharest
Course 9
 Understanding seismic risk

The characteristics and circumstances of a

community, system or asset that make it
susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.
Phenomena that
could cause For infrastructure, issues such as building types;
damage, loss, for communities, also socio-economic context
interruption, etc. (poverty), disability, health, age
Quantified from
the perspective
of probability of
occurring/intensi
ty, based on
historical data People, property, systems, or other elements
and scientific present in hazard zones that are thereby
analyses subject to potential losses.

CORPORATE
MADE BY: LOUIS TWELVE
3
 3. Building typology matrix, BTM
Label Building type description Height description Code level*
Name No. of Height h, N L M H
stories m
RC Reinforced concrete structures
RC1 Concrete moment frames Low-rise 1-3 h9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h  21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC2 Concrete shear walls Low-rise 1-3 h9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h  21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC3 Concrete frames with unreinforced masonry
infill walls
3.1 Regularly infilled frames Low-rise 1-3 h9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h  21
High-rise 8+ h > 21

3.2 Irregularly frames (i.e., irregular structural Low-rise 1-3 h9

system, irregular infills, soft/weak story) Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h  21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC4 RC Dual systems (RC frames and walls) Low-rise 1-3 h9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h  21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC5 Precast Concrete Tilt-Up Walls Low-rise 1-3 h9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h  21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC6 Precast Concrete Frames with Concrete Low-rise 1-3 h9
shear walls Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h  21
High-rise 8+ h > 21

*Code level N - no code;

L - low-code (designed with unique arbitrary base shear seismic coefficient);
M - moderate-code;
H - high-code (code comparable with Eurocode 8)
In order to forecast damages which are expected to occur during future
earthquakes, it is necessary to know how various types of structures will
behave when exposed to ground shaking of different intensities.

The same knowledge is also essential for the cost-benefit studies to

determine the relative effectiveness (decrease in specific loss) of various
possible measures for seismic risk mitigation, estimate the genesis of
earthquake induced damages, possible collapse mechanisms including the
possible death and injury potential, and to define adequate resources and
organization of emergency response.
Vulnerability analysis is
“An understanding of the level of exposure of
persons and values (property) to the various
environmental hazards identified".

In an area exposed to multiple hazards,

vulnerability analysis should be carried out for
each type of hazard.
Vulnerability analysis shall provide information on:

 The sectors at risk, e.g. physical (building, infrastructure,

critical facilities, agriculture); social (vulnerable groups,
livelihoods, local institutions, poverty); and economic (means
of production, stocks, incomes, market interruptions);
and,
 The type of the risk (damage to public infrastructure,
production facilities, housing, or casualties).
 Domains of Vulnerability of a Community

 Physical (Physical vulnerability);

 Social (Social vulnerability); and,
 Economic (Economic vulnerability).
Of most crucial importance for organization and
training of emergency systems is the physical
vulnerability of the exposure, i.e. of the
o Population;
o The man-made property; and,
o The environment.
 RISK-UE
AN ADVANCED APPROACH TO EARTHQUAKE
RISK SCENARIOS, WITH APPLICATIONS TO
DIFFERENT EUROPEAN TOWNS

Co-ordinator - Pierre MOUROUX

BRGM - ARN
– Land Use Planning and Natural Risks -
FRANCE
Film RISK UE: Final Report of the RISK UE project presentation movie

"\Master FILS_2020 anul II curs\RISKUE.mpg"

• Definitions • WP1 • WP3 • WP5 • WP7
• RISK-UE • WP2 • WP4 • WP6 • WP15

The RISK-UE team

1 BRGM Land use Planning and Natural Risks Dept. - Marseilles P. Mouroux
2 GEOTER Geology, tectonics, environment and risks - Roquevaire Ch. Martin
3 POLIMI Politecnico - Structural Eng. Dept. - Milano E. Faccioli
4 UNIGE Univ. of Genoa - Structural Eng. and Geotecnics Dept. S. Lagomarsino
5 UTCB Technical Univ. of Civil Eng. - Bucharest D. Lungu
6 ICC Cartographic Institute of Catalunya - Barcelona A. Roca
7 AUTH Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki K. Pitilakis
8 IZIIS
Institute of Earthquake Eng. and Eng. Seismology - Skopje Z. Milutinovic
9 CLSMEE Lab. for Seismic Mechanics and Earthquake Eng. -Sofia M. Kostov
10 CIMNE Int. Center for Numerical Methods in Eng. - Barcelona A. Barbat
11 Ajuntament de Barcelona
12 Comune di Catania
13 Ministry of Public Works, Transport, Housing - Bucharest
14 Ville de Nice
15 Municipality of Sofia
16 Town of Bitola
17 Organization of Thessaloniki
RISK-UE EXTERNAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Dr Mohamed Belazougui CGS Algiers

Prof. Mario Ordaz UNAM Mexico

Prof. Robin Spence CAR Ltd Cambridge

• Definitions • WP1 • WP3 • WP5 • WP7
• RISK-UE • WP2 • WP4 • WP6 • WP15
DURATION : 38 months
15th January 2001 - 15th March 2004

TOTAL BUDGET : 2,5 M€

Contribution from EC : 1,625 M€

MAN-MONTHS : 900
• Definitions • WP1 • WP3 • WP5 • WP7
• RISK-UE • WP2 • WP4 • WP6 • WP15

PHENOMENON ELEMENTS AT RISK

Data Inventory

Analysis of the physical system Analysis of the urban system

natural context main issues

Hazard Vulnerability
Value
regional local physical funct. social

Selection of the scenario event RISK

SCENARIO(S)
Damages
Casualties
Direct and colateral costs Collective judgement
Weak Points of the
urban system Action Plans
 • Definitions • WP1 • WP3 • WP5 • WP7
• RISK-UE • WP2 • WP4 • WP6 • WP15

Vulnerability Assessment
of Current Buildings

TYPE I Type II
Vulnerability
Typological method Mechanical method
Model

Seismic input I - Intensity (EMS-98 scale) ADRS - Acceleration

Displacement Response Spectra

Observed damage Prestational damage

Damage 5 damage grades: D1 - D5 4 damage levels: LS1 – LS4

Poor data
Inventory Typological data
Existing database
of data Survey forms
Geometrical data
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX
Typological classification of the built-up area
While a variety of subclasses may be defined within each of
the generally defined building classes (for example, in respect
to the type of used floor or roof structure, type of exterior or
partition walls and construction materials used, as well, etc.)
for damage and casualty assessments and related needs,
five broad classes of buildings and houses may generally be
considered to represent reliably the variety of structural types
used traditionally for urbanization the Balkan Peninsula,
Mediterranean and Europe.
 V u ln erab ility C la ss
T yp e o f Stru ctu re
A B C D E F
EMS-98 Ad o b e & E arth brick

R ub b le sto n e, fie ld sto ne

MASONRY
S im p le (p lain ) sto n e
M assiv e s to n e
Unr ein fo r ced , w ith m an u fa ctu r ed sto ne u n its
Unr ein fo r ced , w ith R C floo r s
R ein forc ed o r c on fin e d

F ram e w itho ut eq. r es istant d esig n

REINFORCED

Fram e with m od erate level o f eq . resistant design

CONCRETE

Fram e w ith high level o f eq . resistant d esign

W alls w ith o u t eq . re sista nt d es ig n
W alls w ith m o derate level of eq . resistant d esign
W alls w ith h ig h lev el o f e q. r es istant de sign

S T E E L str u ctu re s

T IM BE R (W O O D ) str u cture s

M o st lik ely v u ln era b ility clas s

Pr ob a b le ra n g e
L es s p ro b able r an g e, e xc ep tio n al ca se s

C las s A re p resen ts c on structio n o f hig he st

vu ln e rab ility; Class F o f the lo w est.

D ifferen tiation o f Stru ctu res (Bu ilding s) in th e V uln erability C lasses
/S ourc e: E uro pea n M a croseism ic S c ale E M S -98/
 Classification of Damage to Masonry and RC Buildings
Damage
Degree General Damage Patterns
(D)
D1 Negligible to slight
damage:
No structural damage, slight
non-structural damage
EMS-98
D2 Moderate damage:
Slight structural damage,
moderate non-structural
damage
D3 Substantial to heavy
damage:
Moderate structural damage,
heavy non-structural damage
D4 Very heavy damage:
Heavy structural damage, very
heavy non-structural damage
D5 Destruction:
Very heavy structural damage
Masonry Buildings
Hairline cracks in very few
walls. Fall of small pieces of
plaster only.
Fall of loose stones from
upper parts of buildings in
very few cases.
Cracks in many walls. Fall of
fairly large pieces of plaster.
Partial collapse of chimneys.
Large and extensive cracks in
most walls. Roof tiles detach.
Chimneys fracture at the roof
line; failure of individual non-
structural elements (partitions,
gable walls)
Serious failure of walls; partial
structural failure of roofs and
floors.
Total or near total collapse.
RC Buildings
Fine cracks in plaster over
frame members or in walls at
the base. Fine cracks in
partitions and infills.
Cracks in columns and beams
of frames and in structural
walls. Cracks in partition and
infill walls; fall of brittle
cladding and plaster. Falling
mortar from the joints of wall
panels.
Cracks in columns and beam
column j joints of frames at the
base and at j joints of coupled
walls. Spalling of concrete
cover, buckling of reinforced
rods. Large cracks in partition
and infill walls, failure of
individual infill panels.
Large cracks in structural
elements with compression
failure of concrete and fracture
of reinforcement bars; bond
failure of beam reinforced
bars; tilting of columns.
Collapse of a few columns or
of a single upper floor.
Collapse of ground floor or
parts (e. g. wings) of buildings.
 Criteria for Damage and Usability Classification of Building Structures
Damage and
Usability
Usability Damage State (d)
Damage
Degree
Category Category (U)
None (d1): Slight
nonstructural damage,
D/U-C-I I. Usable very isolated or negligible
structural damage
Severe (d2): Extensive
II. Temporary nonstructural damage,
D/U-C-II considerable structural
unusable damage but yet repairable
structural system
Total (d3): Destroyed,
D/U-C-III III. Unusable partially or totally collapsed
structural system
Damage Description Note
(D)
Without visible damage to structural
elements. Possible fine cracks in the wall
D1 and ceiling mortar. Hardly visible
nonstructural and structural damage. Buildings classified in damage category 1 and
2 are without decreased seismic capacity and
Cracks to the wall and ceiling mortar. Falling do not pose danger to human life.
of large patches of mortar from wall and Immediately usable, or usable after removal
ceiling surface. Considerable cracks, or of local hazards (cracked chimneys, attics or
D2 partial failure of chimneys, attics and gable gable walls)
walls. Disturbance partial sliding, sliding and
falling down of roof covering. Cracks in
structural members.
Diagonal or other cracks to structural walls,
walls between windows and similar structural
elements. Large cracks in reinforced
D3 structural members: columns, beams, RC
walls. Partially failed or failed chimneys,
attics or gable walls, disturbance, sliding and Buildings classified in damage category 3 and
falling down of roof covering. 4 are of significant decreased seismic
capacity. Limited entry is permitted, unusable
Large cracks with or without disattachment
before repair and strengthening. Needs for
of walls with crushing of materials. Large
cracks with crushed material of walls supporting and protection of the building and
between windows and similar elements of its surroundings should be considered.
D4 structural walls. Large cracks with small
dislocation of RC structural elements:
columns, beams, RC walls. Slight dislocation
of structural elements and the whole
building.
Buildings classified in category 5 are unsafe
Structural elements and their connections with possible sudden collapse. Entry is
are extremely damaged and dislocated. A prohibited. Protection of streets and
large number of crushed structural elements. neighboring buildings or urgent demolition is
D5 Considerable dislocation of the of the entire required. Decision on demolition should be
building and roof structure. Partially or based on economic study considering repair
completely failed buildings. and strengthening as one of the possible
alternatives.
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX
Attribution of vulnerability class to typologies, RISK UE
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX

Probability distribution of damage degree - binomial law:

pk - probability of having damage of level k (k=0,1,2,3,4,5)

Damage levels: slight, moderate, heavy, very heavy, collapse

TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX

Represent the vulnerability curves with an analytical function

linked to vulnerability index IV, Cherubini et al., 1999

EMS-98 class A B C D E
Vulnerability index Iv 60 40 20 0 -20
 Vulnerability classes and corresponding Vulnerability index Iv
Building typology A B C D E F IV Interval
60 40 20 0 -20 -40
(typological) (modificator)
M1.1 60 50 - 70
M1.2  40 30 – 60

MASONRY

M1.3 20 0 – 45
M2 60 35 – 70
M3.1   40 20 – 60
M3.2 40 20 – 60
M3.3  40 (30) 10 – 50
M3.4  20 0 – 45
M4  0 -20 – 25
M5   20 -20 – 40
REINFORCED

RC1  0 -25 – 40
CONCRETE

RC2  0 -25 – 20
RC3.1 20 -5 – 45
RC3.2  20 most probable
0 – 45 class
RC4  -20possible-45class
–0
RC5   0 unlikely-25
class
– 20
RC6  20 -5 – 40
S1   20 0 – 60
STEEL

S2   -20 20 – -40
S3   0 20 – -20
S4  -20 0 – -45
S5  -20 0 – -45
WOOD W  0 40 – -25
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX

Parameter d of the binomial distribution for

each class and EMS-98 intensity
Intensity 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Class A 0.03 0.19 0.457 0.639 0.811 0.957 1 1
Class B 0.0105 0.1 0.277 0.457 0.639 0.811 0.957 1
Class C 0 0.0105 0.1 0.277 0.457 0.639 0.811 0.957
Class D 0 0 0.0105 0.1 0.277 0.457 0.639 0.903
Class E 0 0 0 0.0105 0.1 0.277 0.457 0.725
Class F 0 0 0 0 0.0105 0.1 0.277 0.639
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX

1
0.9 EMS-98 damage degree
0.8
0.7
Average damage

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
EMS Intensity

Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F

TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX

1977 Bucharest damage survey

Data source: The Romanian Earthquake on March 4, 1977 –
Balan St, Cristescu V, Cornea I – coordinators, 1982
Damage survey –under the auspices of National Council for
Science and Technology
Survey - individual forms filled on the site by structural
engineers and 200 students from Technical University of
Civil Engineering of Bucharest

Site activity – April 4-8, April 25-28 1977

Sample – 18.000 residential, schools and hotel buildings
 1977 Bucharest damage data
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX

Results for Bucharest - for eight classes of buildings:

A1 – low quality material buildings
A2 – pre-1940 masonry buildings with flexible floors
A3 - post-1940 masonry buildings with flexible floors
A4 – pre-1940 masonry buildings with rigid floors
A5 - post-1940 masonry buildings with rigid floors
A6 – RC frame structures
A7 – high-rise buildings with RC shear walls closely spaced
A8 – high-rise buildings with RC shear walls widely spaced
 Criteria for Damage and Usability Classification of Building Structures
Damage and
Usability
Usability Damage State (d)
Damage
Degree
Category Category (U)
None (d1): Slight
nonstructural damage,
D/U-C-I I. Usable very isolated or negligible
structural damage
Severe (d2): Extensive
II. Temporary nonstructural damage,
D/U-C-II considerable structural
unusable damage but yet repairable
structural system
Total (d3): Destroyed,
D/U-C-III III. Unusable partially or totally collapsed
structural system
Damage Description Note
(D)
Without visible damage to structural
elements. Possible fine cracks in the wall
D1 and ceiling mortar. Hardly visible
nonstructural and structural damage. Buildings classified in damage category 1 and
2 are without decreased seismic capacity and
Cracks to the wall and ceiling mortar. Falling do not pose danger to human life.
of large patches of mortar from wall and Immediately usable, or usable after removal
ceiling surface. Considerable cracks, or of local hazards (cracked chimneys, attics or
D2 partial failure of chimneys, attics and gable gable walls)
walls. Disturbance partial sliding, sliding and
falling down of roof covering. Cracks in
structural members.
Diagonal or other cracks to structural walls,
walls between windows and similar structural
elements. Large cracks in reinforced
D3 structural members: columns, beams, RC
walls. Partially failed or failed chimneys,
attics or gable walls, disturbance, sliding and Buildings classified in damage category 3 and
falling down of roof covering. 4 are of significant decreased seismic
capacity. Limited entry is permitted, unusable
Large cracks with or without disattachment
before repair and strengthening. Needs for
of walls with crushing of materials. Large
cracks with crushed material of walls supporting and protection of the building and
between windows and similar elements of its surroundings should be considered.
D4 structural walls. Large cracks with small
dislocation of RC structural elements:
columns, beams, RC walls. Slight dislocation
of structural elements and the whole
building.
Buildings classified in category 5 are unsafe
Structural elements and their connections with possible sudden collapse. Entry is
are extremely damaged and dislocated. A prohibited. Protection of streets and
large number of crushed structural elements. neighboring buildings or urgent demolition is
D5 Considerable dislocation of the of the entire required. Decision on demolition should be
building and roof structure. Partially or based on economic study considering repair
completely failed buildings. and strengthening as one of the possible
alternatives.
 1977 Bucharest damage data
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX

A1 A2 A3 A4
Intensity # of bldgs. Mean DD Stdev DD # of bldgs. Mean DD Stdev DD # of bldgs. Mean DD Stdev DD # of bldgs. Mean DD Stdev DD
6.5 804 1.25 0.71 1094 1.03 0.42 587 1.03 0.37 167 1.1 0.69
7 2697 1.49 0.84 2398 1.07 0.81 1293 1.21 0.49 604 1.27 0.56
7.5 1278 1.88 0.92 2299 1.82 0.62 581 1.4 0.7 500 1.31 0.62
8 205 2.06 0.82 1641 2.12 0.61 89 1.93 1.07 417 1.74 0.59

A5 A6 A7 A8
Intensity # of bldgs. Mean DD Stdev DD # of bldgs. Mean DD Stdev DD # of bldgs. Mean DD Stdev DD # of bldgs. Mean DD Stdev DD
6.5 135 1.13 0.63 140 1.26 0.8 31 1.62 0.67 32 1.79 0.79
7 722 1.28 0.96 216 1.3 0.72 64 1.79 0.79 191 2.03 0.74
7.5 330 1.46 0.75 196 1.51 0.85 131 2.13 0.81 82 2.14 0.78
8 114 1.87 1.02 141 2.14 1.21 37 2.86 0.82 45 2.47 0.84
 1977 Bucharest damage data
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY
5 INDEX
Bucharest, 1977 earthquake
4.5

4
Collapsed
buildings
3.5

3
Average damage

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0.05-0.15 0.15-0.25 0.25-0.35 0.35-0.5 0.5-0.7 0.7-1.0 1.0-1.3
T, s

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7

 1977 Bucharest damage data
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY
5
INDEX

Observed damage degree, 1977, Bucharest

Damage degree
3

0
6.5 7 7.5 8
MSK Intensity
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
 1977 Bucharest damage data
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY
0.45 INDEX
March 4, 1977 - Bucharest - A1
0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25
PDF

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
6.5 7 7.5 8
Seismic intensity
k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4 k=5
 1977 Bucharest damage data
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX
0.45
March 4, 1977 - Bucharest - A2
0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25
PDF

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
6.5 7 7.5 8
Seismic intensity
k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4 k=5
 0.7
TYPE I: VULNERABILITY INDEX
Bucharest'77 observed damage
0.6

0.5

Average damage
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 Bucharest data fitted – buildings ranging

from class A to class C of vulnerability
0
6.5 7 7.5 8
EMS Intensity

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

Fitting Bucharest data with the vulnerability index Iv

EMS-98 class A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
Vulnerability index Iv 45 47 37 36 38 39 49 51
TYPE II: CAPACITY CURVES METHOD
nonlinear static analysis (pushover) based on the comparison between :
• the demand of the earthquake (ADRS)
• the capacity of the structure to bear it (force-displacement curve)
• the performance point is a location where the displacement-ductility
demand of the ground motion is equal to the displacement-ductility
capacity of the structure

Capacity Curve URM 3STOREY

0.25 A3LLX
A3SLY
0.2 A3LSY
A3LSX

Cv (Vo/W)
0.15
A3LLY

0.1 A3SSY
B3LLX
0.05 B3SLY
B3LSY
0 B3LSX
0.00E+00 1.00E-04 2.00E-04 3.00E-04 4.00E-04 5.00E-04
B3LLY
drift (%) B3SSY
The FEMA/NIBS earthquake loss estimation methodology, commonly known as Hazus,
has many components, or modules:
Other sources of information on Hazus include Earthquake Spectra papers:
“Development of a National Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology” [Whitman et
al., 1997],
“Development of Building Damage Functions for Earthquake Loss Estimation [Kircher
et al., 1997a] and
“ Estimation of Earthquake Losses to
Buildings” [Kircher et al., 1997b].

Building-Related Modules of the FEMA/NIBS Methodology

Evaluation on Building Damage
Basic Terminology:

Damage: Destruction, deformation and inclination of a building, which includes structural and non-structural elements,
caused by an earthquake.

Damage index: Indices indicating degree of danger, class of damage for building as a whole, damage level for each
building element.

Safety: Building conditions which ensure the safety of human life even at a possible severe earthquake.

Structural element: Building elements which compose the structural system to resist dead and live loads, and external
loadings such as earthquake excitation.

Non-structural element: Building elements other than structural elements like exterior and interior wall, partition wall,
ceiling, roof, and so on.

Retrofit: Strengthening the structural system of an existing building with poor aseismic capability to fit the requirement of
current building code.
Deformation Mechanisms which
Cause Total Collapse
Deformation Mechanisms which
Cause Partial Collapse
Deformation Mechanisms which
Cause Partial Collapse
Pancake Floor Collapse
"Lean-to" Floor Collapse
"V" - Shape Floor Collapse
Tent Shape Floor Collapse
90° Angle Wall Collapse
Curtain-Fall
Wall Collapse
Inward/Outward Wall Collapse
Effect of seismic motion on
tall buildings
Effect of seismic motion on
tall buildings
Effect of seismic motion on
tall buildings
Effect of seismic motion on
tall buildings
Effect of seismic motion on
tall buildings
Effect of seismic motion on
tall buildings
The response of a building to the ground motion depends on important structural characteristics (period of
vibration, structural type, ductility, etc).

The following steps should be followed by the designer in case of earthquake-resistant design (Newmark and
Hall, 1982):

“1) Select the design seismic hazard;

2) Select the level of conservatism desired in the design (elastic or nonlinear behaviour);
3) Select the type of layout of the structure and estimate its dynamic and static parameters: a) dynamic and
static resistance, b) natural periods of vibration, c) damping characteristics, and d) deformation that can be
accommodated before failure or loss of function;

4) Through analysis, verify the adequacy of the selected structure and make any necessary changes in layout
or element strength. Check to be sure that a compatible design exists for all anticipated loadings. Steps 3 and
4 should be repeated until a satisfactory design is achieved;
5) Make a more accurate analysis of the final design and make further changes or refinements as may be
necessary. Repeat steps 2 to 4 if required;

In some cases a direct design procedure may involve only Steps 1, 2 and 3 (as it is the case with most of the
so-called pseudo static earthquake design procedures in building codes).”
Housner (1952) stated the followings: "The basic problem of engineering seismology
concerns the design of structures to resist earthquakes and there are three significant
aspects of this problem.
First there is the problem of designing a structure so that all its parts have equal
strengths to resist the stresses produced by earthquakes, that is, there should be an
uniform factor of safety against failure.
Second there is the problem of designing different structures to have the same factors of
safety, that is, to insure that a tall building will have the same degree of strength as a low
building, that a flexible building has the same degree of resistance against earthquakes
as a rigid building, etc.
Third there is the problem of determining the factor of safety, or the required strength to
resist earthquakes so that structures will be able to withstand the most severe ground
motion to which they are likely to be subjected, without experiencing serious damage.

The spectrum analysis of strong-motion earthquake records is pertinent to the solution of

all three of the aforementioned problems."
 Traditional Qualitative Approaches
Qualitative approaches for identification of system performance levels
FEMA 273 (1997)/356 (2000) define discrete structural performance levels as:
(1) Immediate Occupancy - occupants are allowed immediate access into the structure following the
earthquake and the pre-earthquake design strength and stiffness are retained;
(2) Life Safety - building occupants are protected from loss of life with some margin against the onset of
partial or total structural collapse; and
(3) Collapse Prevention – building continues to support gravity loading, but retains no margin against
collapse.
In addition to the discrete structural performance levels, FEMA 273 (1997)/356 (2002) also define structural
performance ranges such as:
(1) Damage Control Range – Range of structural damage between immediate occupancy and life safety; and
(2) Limited Safety Range – Range of structural damage between life safety and collapse prevention;
FEMA 273 (1997)/356 (2000) also defines nonstructural performance levels as:
(1) Operational- nonstructural components are able to function as prior to the earthquake;
(2) Immediate Occupancy – building access and life safety systems generally remain available and operable;
(3) Life Safety – nonstructural damage that is not life threatening; and
(4) Hazards Reduced - damage that includes potentially falling hazards, but high hazard components are
secured and will not fall. Preservation of egress, fire suppression systems, and other life safety issues are
not ensured;
 CONTENT
In terms of identifying the overall building performance level FEMA 273 (1997)/356 (2000) combines both the
structural and nonstructural performance levels. Several possible combinations are provided in a matrix format,
in addition to identifying those that are likely to be selected as a basis for design. Several of the typical building
performance levels are:
(1) Operational– sustain minimal or no damage to the structural and nonstructural components, and the building
is immediately suitable for normal use;
(2) Immediate Occupancy - sustain minimal or no damage to the structural elements and only minor damage to
the nonstructural components. Although immediate reoccupancy may be possible, some clean-up, repair, and
restoration of service utilities may be necessary before the building can function as normal;
(3) Life Safety – sustain extensive damage to the structural and nonstructural components, and be in need of
repairs before reoccupancy. Repairs may also be deemed economically impractical;
(4) Collapse Prevention – consists of the structural collapse prevention level with no consideration of
nonstructural vulnerabilities. The building may pose a significant hazard to life safety and be deemed as a
complete economic loss.

These traditional performance level definitions are based on qualitative definitions.

Engineers and researchers have long utilized the maximum interstory deformations (drifts) during earthquakes
to correlate with the previously described levels of structural performance
 Capacity - global

Global ultimate (NC) limit state is reached when in the first

important vertical structural element (column or wall) the
ultimate (NC) limit state is reached.
Expected Performance as Related to Risk Category and Level of
Ground Motion (frequent, design, maximum credible earthquake)
AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Australian/New Zealand Standard™
Structural design actions Part 0: General principles
 4. Mean recurrence interval

Usually the number of years, N is considered equal to the lifetime of ordinary buildings, i.e. 50 years.

Correspondence amongst MRI, Pexc,1 year and Pexc,50 years

Mean recurrence interval, Probability of exceedance Probability of exceedance

years MRI, in 1 year, Pexc,1 year in 50 years, Pexc,50 years

10 0.10 0.99
30 0.03 0.81
50 0.02 0.63
100 0.01 0.39
225 0.004 0.20 (20%)
475 0.002 0.10
975 0.001 0.05
2475 0.0004 0.02
ACC.-DISP. Spectrum & Force -
DISP. Relation of Buildings
Limit
Resp.

Resp. for reference

 Seismic Performance Evaluation Method
S a / g (C )
(S h e a r C o e ffic ie n t)
R e s p o n s e S p e ctrum (h =h 1 )
R e s p o n s e S p e ctru m (h = h2 )
R e sp o n se S p ec tru m (h= h 3)

D e m a n d C u rv e
P e rfo rm a n c e P o in t
C a p a c ity C u rv e
Te=T1

T e =T 2
T e =T 3

Δ =Δ 1 Δ =Δ 2 Δ =Δ 3
h= h 1 S d (Δ )
h =h 2 (D isp la c e m e n t)
h =h 3
h (D a m p in g F a c to r) E q u iv a le n t D a m p in g F a c to r
An acceleration response spectrum is a curve that shows the peak acceleration that different structures with
different dynamic properties would experience if subjected to a specific earthquake motion.

The horizontal axis is structural period, a measure of

the dynamic properties of structures.
If a structure is pushed to the side by a lateral force
(e.g., a strong gust of wind) and then released, it will
vibrate back and forth. A structure’s “period” is the
amount of time, in seconds, that a structure will take to
undergo one complete cycle of free vibration.

Acceleration response spectrum for the

1940 Imperial Valley earthquake,
north-south component
The vertical axis of the acceleration response spectrum is the acceleration that a structure will experience
depending upon its period.
“Spectral acceleration,” that is, the acceleration derived from a response spectrum, is designated Sa and is
usually calculated in units of the acceleration due to gravity, g. This plot indicates that tall structures with long
natural periods of about 3 seconds or more would experience relatively slight accelerations (0.1g or less) when
subjected to this earthquake while short structures with periods of 1 second or less would experience
accelerations of approximately 0.7g.
The structural analysis used to determine action effects from loads shall be in
accordance with the principles of structural mechanics.

Structural MODELS
The structural model shall reflect the behaviour of the structure for the
appropriate limit state being considered.
Structural models, parameters and properties shall be as given in the Standards
for design of material for the appropriate limit states.

Modelling shall be based on the following:

(a) Static or dynamic response, or both.
(b) Elastic or non-elastic (plastic) response, or both.
(c) Geometrically linear or geometrically non-linear response, or both.
(d) Time-independent or time-dependent behaviour, or both.
The design solution comes from the comparison of the seismic demand with the capacity of the structure.

The seismic demand is defined by the seismic action/input considered at the site, and through analysis it is
then expressed in terms of forces, moments, displacements, etc. that the structure has to withstand.

If the demand will exceed the capacity, failure or loss of function will result.

Although the seismic demand is a random variable beyond the control of the designer, the capacity of the
structure is to a large extent at his hands.

Nowadays the seismic design codes are using five major types of seismic analysis (methods):
(i) Response Spectrum Analysis that can be reduced in specific cases to
(ii) Equivalent Static Analysis,
(iii) Linear Dynamic Analysis,
(iv) Non-linear Static Analysis, and
(v) Non-linear Dynamic Analysis.
Response Spectrum Analysis

This approach permits to take into account the multiple modes of

response of a building. This is required in many building codes for
all structures. The response of a structure can be defined as a
combination of many modes of vibration. Computer analysis can
be used to determine these modes for a structure. For each mode, a
response is given by the design (inelastic) spectrum, based on the
modal period and the modal mass, and these responses are then
combined to provide an estimate of the total response of the
structure. Combination methods include the following:
- absolute sum - peak values are added together;
- square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS);
- complete quadratic combination (CQC).

The effects of lateral forces in the direction under consideration

can be obtained: story shears, story moments, floor deflections and
story drifts.
Equivalent Static Analysis

This approach defines a series of forces acting on a building to represent the

effect of earthquake ground motion, typically defined by a seismic design
response spectrum. It assumes that the building responds predominantly in its
fundamental mode. The response is revealed from a design response spectrum,
given the fundamental period of the building (either calculated or defined by the
building code).
To account for effects due to "yielding" of the structure, the codes apply
modification factors that reduce the design forces (e.g. force reduction factors).

The method is a simplification of the response spectrum method.

Both the Equivalent Static Analysis and the Response Spectrum Analysis have
similar capabilities and similar limitations.

In cases where structures are either too irregular, too tall or of special
significance to a community in disaster response, the response spectrum
approach is not always appropriate, and more complex analysis is often
required, such as non-linear static or dynamic analysis.
Linear Dynamic Analysis
For tall buildings, buildings with torsional irregularities, or non-orthogonal
systems, a dynamic procedure is required. In the linear dynamic procedure, the
building is modelled as a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system with a linear
elastic stiffness matrix and an equivalent viscous damping matrix. The seismic
input is modelled by an acceleration time history.

Non-linear Dynamic Analysis

Nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes ground motion records as input with a detailed
structural model. The non-linear properties of the structure are considered. This
approach is the most rigorous, and is required by some building codes for
buildings of unusual configuration or of special importance. However, the
calculated response can be very sensitive to the characteristics of the individual
ground motion used as seismic input; therefore, several analyses are required using
different ground motion records.
Non-linear Static Analysis

In general, linear procedures are applicable when the structure is expected to

remain nearly elastic for the level of ground motion or when the design results in
nearly uniform distribution of nonlinear response throughout the structure. As the
performance objective of the structure implies greater inelastic demands, the
uncertainty associated to linear procedures increases to a point that requires a high
level of conservatism in assumptions and acceptability criteria. Therefore,
procedures incorporating inelastic analysis can reduce the uncertainty and
conservatism.

The non-linear static analysis is also known as "pushover" analysis. A pattern of

forces is applied to a structural model that includes non-linear properties, and the
total force is plotted against a reference displacement to define a capacity curve.
This can then be combined with a demand curve (typically in the form of an
acceleration-displacement response spectrum ADRS), in order to identify the
expected seismic response.

Non-linear static procedures use equivalent SDOF structural models and represent
seismic ground motion with response spectra.
There are two types of seismic inputs considered for computations:
a) acceleration response spectrum
(for Response Spectrum Analysis, Equivalent Static Analysis,
and Non-linear Static Analysis)
and
b) acceleration time-history
(for Linear Dynamic Analysis and Non-linear Dynamic
Analysis).

A response spectrum is simply a plot of the peak response

(displacement, velocity or acceleration) of a series of oscillators of
varying natural period that are forced into motion by the same base
excitation.
The resulting plot can then be used to pick off the response of any
linear system, given its natural period.
 Acceleration
60

Acc. (cm/s/s)
SEW (peak:- 58.4 cm/s/s)

-60
60
Acc. (cm/s/s) SNS (peak: 34.9 cm/s/s)

-60
60
Acc. (cm/s/s)

SV (peak: 34.4 cm/s/s)

-60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (sec)

The three-component seismic record at ground surface obtained at

seismic station UTC1 (Technical University of Civil Engineering
Bucharest main campus) of the National Center for Seismic Risk
Reduction (NCSRR) seismic network, during the moderate
Mw=6.0 Vrancea subcrustal earthquake from October 27, 2004
 Acc. Response Spectrum (h=5%)
150
SEW
SNS
SV
Disp. Response Spectrum (h=5%)

Acceleration Response (cm/s/s)

1

100 0.5

Displacement Response (cm)

0.1

50 0.05

0.01

0.005
0
0 0.5 1 SEW
Period (sec) SNS
SV
0.001
Vel. Response Spectrum (h=5%) 0 0.5 1
10 Period (sec)

Elastic response spectra for the

Velocity Response (cm/s)

0.5
ground surface (S) record at
UTC1 station
0.1
(27.10.2007 Vrancea earthquake)
0.05

SEW
SNS
SV
0.01
0 0.5 1
Period (sec)
Fundamental period
Response spectra
The acceleration response spectrum will be different at each site and for each earthquake.
Factors that affect the shape and amplitude of the spectra include the earthquake’s magnitude, depth,
distance from the site, and the types of soil present.

Ground shaking at each site and in each earthquake is unique.

To facilitate representation of these complex phenomena, building codes specify the use of smoothed
spectra.
 the ground motion actually experienced
at each site, in each earthquake, and in
each direction is unique and
unpredictable.

1940 Imperial Valley

earthquake north-south and
east-west spectra.
The peaks and valleys in the spectra for the two directions of shaking also are somewhat different, meaning
that each of these two directions of shaking would affect structures somewhat differently and shaking in
other orientations also would affect structures differently.
It is impossible to precisely predict either the acceleration spectra that will occur at a site in future
earthquakes or what ground acceleration will cause a structure to collapse.
Design Code
 Vibration under earthquake
one-mass system=single degree of freedom system SDOF

Vibration of building Vibration model Equilibrium of forces

- m(X"+Y")

Q=keX
c X'

Equilibrium of forces :
Y" Y" - m (X” + Y” ) = c X’ + Q
2020/11/16 m (X” + Y” )+ c X’ + ke X = 0 83
 Formulation of the equation of motion of
SDOF linear model without Damping

2020/11/16
Free vibration of a SDOF model
without damping

Free vibration of a SDOF model

with damping