Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Risk assessment of CLT-RC hybrid building: Consideration of earthquake

types and aftershocks for Vancouver, British Columbia
Solomon Tesfamariam a, *, Katsuichiro Goda b
a
Professor, School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC, Canada, V1V 1V7
b
Associate Professor, Departments of Earth Sciences and Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tall-timber buildings using cross-laminated timber (CLT) have become a viable sustainable system. This paper
Cross-laminated timber wall presents seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of a 10-story CLT-reinforced concrete hybrid building. The
Concrete-timber hybrid system building is designed for the seismicity of Vancouver, and detailed 3D finite element model is developed in
Ductility factor
OpenSees. The evaluation is undertaken within a performance-based earthquake engineering framework in
Overstrength factor
Seismic risk
which seismic demand limits are defined with respect to the earthquake return periods. Two engineering demand
Seismic performance parameters, i.e. maximum inter-story drift ratio in both X and Z directions, as well as their combination are
Seismic hazard considered. Using 30 mainshock and mainshock-aftershock earthquake records (two horizontal components per
record), multiple stripe analysis and cloud analysis are performed, and the corresponding fragility and risk are
quantified. In addition efficiency of different intensity measures are considered. The vulnerability and risk
assessment results show viability of the hybrid building in high seismic zones.

1. Introduction earthquake engineering, Cornell and Krawinkler [12] proposed to

Cross-laminated timber (CLT), a mass timber product, enabled
viability of tall-timber building design and construction. The 2020 Na­
tional Building Code of Canada (NBC, [1]) increased the building height
limit from six to twelve stories with the use of mass timber (NRCan, [2]).
Tesfamariam et al. [3] showed the building height limit can be further
increased using hybrid buildings, e.g. steel and CLT [4] and reinforced
concrete (RC) and CLT [5,6]. For a 10-story RC-CLT hybrid building,
Tesfamariam et al. [6,7] developed ductility (Rd = 2.0) and overstrength
(Ro = 1.5) related seismic force modification factors following the FEMA
P695 [8] procedure. This paper extends the study reported in Tesfa­
mariam et al. [6,7] to quantify non-collapse fragility curves and risk,
with consideration of site-specific seismic hazard in Vancouver, British
Columbia (BC), and aftershocks. In south-western BC, for example,
crustal, inslab, and interface earthquakes (Fig. 1), contribute most
significantly to site-specific seismic hazards [9]. Quantifying the seismic
vulnerability and risk of the proposed hybrid building is of interest to
designers and decision makers.
Performance-based design philosophy is adopted in the 2005 Cana­
dian seismic design code following Structural Engineers Association of
California (SEACO) Vision 2000 [11]. For performance-based
probabilistically integrate seismic hazard, structural analysis, damage,
and loss estimation. Fragility curves are used to quantify the probability
of exceeding a limit state (LS) for a given earthquake intensity measure
(IM) level (e.g. Refs. [13–15]).
A limited number of studies have been reported on the fragility
curves for mass timber and timber-based hybrid buildings globally [5]
carried out a seismic vulnerability assessment of hybrid steel-timber
structure [16] quantified seismic modification factors for timber-steel
hybrid structure and developed collapse and non-collapse fragility
curves [17] carried out a seismic performance assessment of conven­
tional and post-tensioned CLT shear wall structures [18] presented
seismic vulnerability assessment of a 6-story CLT building. Yang and
Hong [19] presented a reliability and fragility assessment of mid-and
high-rise wood buildings subjected to seismic excitation using an
equivalent nonlinear inelastic single-degree-of-freedom system [20]
reported an experimental and analytical fragility assessment of a com­
bined heavy timber–steel-braced frame system [21] quantified the
behavior factor q and collapse fragility of 1- to 6-story CLT buildings
[22] reported non-structural seismic loss analysis of 5- and 12-story
buildings with post-tensioned CLT walls. The post-tensioned CLT walls
had limited structural damage [23] developed fragility curves for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: solomon.tesfamariam@ubc.ca (S. Tesfamariam), kgoda2@uwo.ca (K. Goda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107240
Received 29 November 2021; Received in revised form 22 February 2022; Accepted 3 March 2022
Available online 14 March 2022
0267-7261/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda
Fig. 1. Regional seismicity in south-western British Columbia, Canada [10].
timber-steel hybrid structures subjected to mainshock-aftershock
sequences.
Despite all these studies, risk assessments of CLT structures are not
extensively explored and this study presents such an evaluation –
practically lacking the integration of site-specific hazard parts. For the
10-story CLT-RC hybrid building reported in Tesfamariam et al. [5,6],
this paper presents a seismic risk evaluation with the seismicity of
Vancouver, BC. To achieve the seismic risk assessment, the objectives in
this study entail:
• Consideration of MSAS earthquake records and earthquake types, i.e.
shallow crustal earthquakes, deep inslab earthquakes, and mega-
thrust Cascadia subduction earthquakes, by selecting applicable re­
cords for subduction environments from extensive MSAS ground
motion datasets [24]), including the 2011 Tohoku earthquake re­
cords which can be regarded as closest proxy for the Cascadia sub­
duction events.
• Consideration of different combination of MaxISDRs as EDP. The
EDPs considered are MaxISDR in X and Z directions, geometric mean
geomean(X, Z) and square root of the sum of the squares SRSS(X, Z).
• Consideration of different IMs on efficiency. The IM considered are
spectral acceleration at the first Sa (T1), second Sa (T2), third Sa (T3)
mode periods, and composite index Sa (T1)β × Sa (T2)1− β. Their effi­
ciency is measured through residuals of the fitted prediction
equations.
• Computation of quantitative risk by convoluting the seismic demand
model with the seismic hazard of Vancouver.
2. Hybrid RC-timber building and modelling
A perspective view of the 10-story uncoupled building (10S–U) is
shown in Fig. 2a; the floor plan has a dimension of 28.7 m (Z, short axis)
× 40.7 m (X, long axis) (Fig. 2b). The layout and details of an RC-timber
tall hybrid building proposed by SOM [25] are considered in this study.
The CLT floor panels are designed as a one-way slab system spanning
between the central wall systems and the periphery framing. Further,
the concrete joints over the central walls and the spandrel beams around
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240
the periphery are designed to provide fixed support to the CLT. With
these assumptions, the CLT floors are designed with 245 mm thickness.
With 3.65 m equal story heights, the total height of the structure is 36.5
m. Following the 2015 NBC, the office building is designed with a live
load of 2.4 kN/m2 and a superimposed load of 2.8 kN/m2 to account for
the weight of floor finishes and partition load. The building is located in
Vancouver, BC, and the 2015 seismic hazard is considered for seismic
design purposes. The site Soil Class C (very dense soil or soft rock with
average shear-wave velocity, Vs30 = 450 m/s) is assumed.
The modelling details are provided in Ref. [6]. Salient features of the
modelling are:
• Numerical modelling is carried out in Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) finite element framework [26].
The numerical model is developed using 2D shell elements in
OpenSees that account for both in-plane and out-of-plane responses.
• Both walls and floors are designed using CLT Grade E1 per ANSI/APA
PRG 320 [27] and CSA O86-14 Update 2 [28]. The gravity load
design details for the glulam columns and CLT floors are provided in
Bezabeh et al. [16]; following the CSA 086 [29] standard.
• The stress grade E has a modulus of elasticity in the longitudinal and
transverse E0 = 11,700 MPa and E90 = 9000 MPa, respectively. In
OpenSees, the CLT walls are modelled as an elastic orthotropic multi-
axial material.
• The steel slit damper (SSD) connections [6] are used for shear
resistance between the CLT panels. The hold-down was modelled
with a buckling-restrained brace (BRB) system. The BRB hold-down
and SSD connections are the primary inelastic elements participating
in the rocking mechanism of the lateral system.
• The BRB hold-down and SSD connections in OpenSees are modelled
using Steel01 uniaxial material. A 600 kN yield force is used for the
BRB and the yield force for the SSD is varied with height.
• The contact between the CLT wall and the base (ground or RC beam),
and between panels is modelled as a parallel system using an elastic
no-tension (ENT) spring element.
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda
Fig. 2. RC-timber hybrid building: a) 3D perspective, and b) typical floor layout [6].
• Modal analysis is performed; the first mode period [T1 = 1.90 s] is
dominated by torsion, followed by translational modes in Z direction
[T2 = 1.47 s] (short axis) and X direction [T3 = 0.96 s] (long axis).
• The shear wall is designed and proportioned for wind load [25].
Reverse cyclic pushover analysis results show that the gravity system
and BRB hold-down have a flag-shape hysteretic response, however,
different stiffness in X and Y directions (Fig. 3). Under bi-directional
load, this difference contributes to the torsional sensitive structure.
The re-centering capability is associated with the layout of the shear
walls concentrated in the center, and gravity loads.
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240
3. Seismic hazard in vancouver and ground motion selection in
congruence with 2015 NBC
In developing seismic fragility curves of a building via nonlinear
dynamic analysis, ground motion (GM) records should reflect the
seismic hazard of the site and region [14]. In this paper, the GMs are
selected using multiple conditional mean spectra (CMS) and detailed
seismic hazard characteristics of contributing sources [24]. The neces­
sary inputs in defining the target CMS and selecting an appropriate set of
records are the uniform hazard spectra (UHS) corresponding to a return
period level (e.g. 1 in 2475 years) and the seismic disaggregation results.
The latter is employed to specify plausible earthquake scenarios in terms
of mean magnitude and mean distance and to estimate proportions of
seismic hazard contributions from different types of earthquakes (i.e.
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda
Fig. 3. Reverse cyclic load cycles for the 10S–U building (Ro = 1.5; Rd = 2): a) X direction and b) Z direction [6].
Fig. 4. (A) Seismic hazard curves for Vancouver based on different earthquake types and (b) seismic disaggregation for Vancouver – return period (TR) = 2475 years
and for spectral acceleration at 2.0s (SA (T = 2s)) [6].
crustal, interface, and inslab events). Although the site-specific UHS
values at numerous locations in Canada are available from Refs. [9,30];
detailed seismic disaggregation results are generally unavailable.
To obtain detailed information of seismic hazard characteristics of
contributing sources, an in-house probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
(PSHA) tool is developed based on Monte Carlo simulations [31] by
implementing all major components of the national seismic hazard
model as described in Ref. [30]. For the in-house PSHA tool, the length
of the synthetic earthquake catalog is set to 50 million years. Fig. 4a
compares seismic hazard curves for spectral acceleration at 2s Sa(T = 2s)
(nearest vibration periods to the vibration period of the 10S–U model)
based on different earthquake types. At the return period of 2475 years,
differences of the UHS values between the national seismic hazard
model and the in-house simulations are less than 2%. Fig. 4b shows both
inslab and interface earthquakes have dominant influence on the seismic
hazard in Vancouver. The Cascadia subduction earthquakes are the main
contributing events for Sa(T = 2s) at the return period of 2475 years,
whose scenarios are typically described as mean occurrence rate of
0.002 (1-in-500 years chance) and earthquake magnitudes between 8.5
and 9.1 at 120 km rupture distance.
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240
Three sets of 30 ground motion records (each with two horizontal
components) are selected for three return period levels (500, 1000, and
2500 years). Originally, the number of records was set to 25 by
considering proportions to hazard contributions from respective earth­
quake types for a given return period (Fig. 4b). This set-up leads to a
small number of crustal records (i.e. 2 out of 25) due to smaller relative
contributions to overall hazards (Fig. 4b). To investigate the effects of
earthquake types on the seismic fragility, additional five crustal records
are included in the record set, resulting in 30 records per return period.
Details of the ground motions selected are:
• At 500-year return period, 8 crustal, 8 interface, and 14 inslab re­
cords are selected.
• At 1000-year return period, 7 crustal, 11 interface, and 12 inslab
records are selected.
• At 2500-year return period, 7 crustal, 13 interface, and 10 inslab
records are selected.
Fig. 5 shows 5%-damped response spectra of the selected ground
motion records for 2500-year return period. The response spectral
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda
Fig. 5. Comparison of the response spectra of the selected records with the target response spectrum for TA = 2.0s at 2500-year return period a) crustal, b) interface,
c) inslab and d) weighted.
shapes of different earthquake types are different. Inslab records have
richer spectral content in the short vibration period range, while inter­
face records have more flat spectral shapes (the short vibration period
content attenuates more rapidly over distance, whereas the long vibra­
tion period content is richer due to larger magnitudes). The adopted
ground motion selection method reflects such regional characteristics of
influential ground motions for Vancouver. Sample unscaled record of
the three MSAS sequences earthquake events, and corresponding scaling
factors used for the 2500-years return period event, are shown in Fig. 6.
This figure also shows the scaling factor used in the GM selection.
4. Performance assessment
4.1. Engineering demand parameter
Nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) is carried out using the 30
GM records (i.e. orthogonal horizontal seismic excitations) discussed in
the previous section. Desired responses of the NLTHA, to relate the
structural performance with seismic damage, are quantified through
different engineering demand parameters (EDPs). The maximum inter-
story drift ratio (MaxISDR) is the EDP mostly considered in the Cana­
dian and international building codes [32]. proposed a
multi-dimensional damage measure that integrates MaxISDR and
5
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240
residual ISDR. However, as the response of the building has a
re-centering capability (Fig. 3), the residual ISDR is negligible and the
MaxISDR is only considered.
Fig. 7 shows story-wise ISDR of the MS and MSAS records, at 500-,
1000-, and 2500-year return periods. Fig. 8 shows the MaxISDR for the X
and Z directions with consideration of MS and MSAS record sequences.
For most of the ground motions, the MaxISDR for the Z direction is
higher than the X direction. It is also interesting to note that the Max­
ISDR of the MSAS records shows no appreciable difference to the MS
records. A few ground motions show higher responses due to the MSAS.
Two reasons for not having this appreciable difference can be
mentioned. First is that the system has re-centering capability, the per­
manent damage observed from the MS is minimal. Second is that af­
tershocks have less strong spectral acceleration content in the long
vibration period range [33]; consequently the seismic energy imparted
due to aftershocks may not be significant. As a result, for the MaxISDR
EDP considered, the MSAS sequence will not cause any appreciable in­
crease in damage. The effect of MSAS cumulative damage can be better
captured with energy-based damage index (e.g. Ref. [10]).
In the NBC 2015, the design earthquake level is specified as 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years. At this level, the collapse pre­
vention (CP) limit state, specified as MaxISDR <2.5%, is selected. From
the MSA NLTHA, the MaxISDR for crustal, interface, and inslab events
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240

Fig. 6. Time history records for crustal, interface, and inslab records for TA
= 2.0s.

are 2.56%, 2.47%, and 2.64%, respectively. Indeed, the crustal and
inslab events exceeded the MaxISDR = 2.5% limit by small percentage.
If the deterministic performance limit is not acceptable, the design can
indeed be iterated and the weaker direction can be strengthened. This
assessment is deterministic and does not account for the uncertainties in
modelling error, demand and capacity curves. This analysis is further
extended by considering probabilistic demand and capacity relation as
discussed in the next fragility curve section. In addition, in the scaling of
the GM selection, the inslab events have richer spectral acceleration
values in the lower period, and as the structure is scaled, the scaling
factor used is higher (e.g. Fig. 6). This results also highlight the impor­
tance of considering different sources of earthquake and not averaging
the MaxISDR from different sources of GMs.

4.2. Fragility curves

Fragilities curves are developed by computing the probability of

seismic demand (D) being greater than capacity (C) of the structure. The
relationship between the EDP and intensity measure (IM), probabilistic
seismic demand model (PSDM), can be quantified through multiple-
stripe analysis (MSA, [34]) and cloud analysis [35].
The ground motions selected at the three return period levels (500,
1000, and 2500 years, Fig. 5) are used for the MSA. Thus, the MSA
required a total of 90 (3 × 30) simulations. On the other hand, for the Fig. 7. Inter-story drift ratio for Z direction a) 500, b) 1000 and c) 2500 return
cloud analysis, unscaled GMs are selected. The number of GMs selected period ground motions due to MS records.
for the cloud analysis is less, and similar PSDM can be obtained as in
MSA. Selecting the unscaled GM records for the cloud analysis, however, ISDR and IM (e.g. spectral acceleration at the fundamental period
can be challenging. The IMs at the desired period should have enough Sa(T1)) can be represented by a power function as [37]:
distribution on the MaxISDR EDP [36]; for example, used
̂ = a⋅Sa (T1 )b
D (1)
static-pushover to incremental dynamic analysis results to estimate the
median collapse IMs, and subsequently, the unscaled ground motions
where a and b = regression coefficients. The standard deviation, i.e.,
are selected with this in consideration. For the cloud analysis, 12 crustal,
measuring the second statistical moment of demand data points around
15 interface and 14 inslab unscaled records are selected. Since the
the predicted value, can be used to estimate dispersion βD|Sa (T1 ) .
MaxISDR of the unscaled inslab records are small, the 14 records are
The MaxISDR square root of the sum of the squares SRSS(X,Z) and
multiplied by a scale factor of 2, and additional 14 simulations are
Sa(T1) relation for the MSA and cloud analysis are plotted in Fig. 9. The
carried out. Thus, the total simulation considered is 60 (for a total of 45
responses of the different earthquake events are color-coded in the
+ 15).
figure. The PSDM parameters a, b and βD|Sa (T1 ) of MSA and cloud analysis
The relationship between estimated median demand D ̂ of the Max­

6
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240

Sa (T1 , T2 ) = Sa (T1 )β × Sa (T2 )1− β

(2)
β = regression coefficient obtained by minimizing βD|Sa (T1 ,T2 ) .
Results of the probabilistic demand models for the different IM
[Sa(T1 = 2.0s), Sa(T2 = 1.5s), Sa(T3 = 1.0s)], and MaxISDR EDPs (SRSS
(X,Z) and geomean(X,Z)) are summarized in Table 2. For MaxISDR in X
direction, there is no appreciable difference in βD|Sa (T) for the three IMs.
For MaxISDR in Z direction, however, the Sa(T1 = 2.0s) has the smallest

Table 1
PSDM parameters for different source of GM analysis type and MaxISDR of SRSS
(X,Y).
PSDM parameters-MSA

MS MSAS

Source of a b βD|Sa (T1 ) a b βD|Sa (T1 )

earthquake
Crustal events 14.393 1.193 0.295 14.314 1.165 0.251
Interface events 12.463 1.104 0.244 11.181 1.027 0.255
Inslab events 14.141 1.151 0.181 14.298 1.154 0.181
Combined events 13.391 1.137 0.231 12.954 1.106 0.223
PSDM parameters-cloud analysis
MS MSAS
Source of a b βD|Sa (T1 ) a b βD|Sa (T1 )
earthquake
Crustal events 18.306 1.330 0.392 19.240 1.334 0.376
Fig. 8. Multiple stripe analysis results for MaxISDR in X and Z directions Interface events 15.012 1.194 0.279 13.767 1.130 0.283
considering MS and MSAS sequences. Inslab events 17.377 1.282 0.184 16.818 1.259 0.198
Combined events 17.377 1.280 0.256 17.066 1.265 0.259

are computed and summarized in Table 1. From Table 1, it is interesting

to note that the dispersion for the inslab event is the lowest as it is also
reflected with less variability of the selected ground motion around the Table 2
Sa(T1). PSDM parameters for different IMs and EDPs (MS records and cloud analysis).
Selection of desirable EDP and intensity measure are of interest in the PSDM parameters
risk analysis. The MaxISDR in the X and Z directions is often considered MaxISDR X direction MaxISDR Z direction
for vulnerability assessment (e.g. Refs. [6,7]. However, as the primary
IM a b a b
mode of vibration of the structure is torsion, with the bidirectional loads
βD|Sa (T) βD|Sa (T)

and responses, two alternative EDPs are considered; geometric mean Sa (T1 = 2.0s) 10.407 1.401 0.42 12.925 1.240 0.33
geomean (X,Z) and SRSS(X,Z) MaxISDRs (e.g. Ref. [4]. Sa (T2 = 1.5s) 7.138 1.387 0.39 7.478 1.095 0.41
Sa (T3 = 1.0s) 3.537 1.193 0.40 3.866 0.861 0.47
Besides the EDP, selecting an efficient IM is of interest for risk
MaxISDR SRSS(X,Z) MaxISDR geomean(X,Z)
assessment. Efficient IM results in a relatively small dispersion of a b βD|Sa (T) a b βD|Sa (T)
structural responses [3]. IMs that accounts for the first and second mode Sa (T1 = 2.0s) 17.212 1.28 0.25 11.624 1.322 0.24
effects can be considered (Eq. (2), [38]). Sa (T2 = 1.5s) 10.937 1.199 0.29 7.305 1.241 0.28
Sa (T3 = 1.0s) 5.321 0.945 0.39 3.695 1.027 0.34

Fig. 9. Probabilistic seismic demand model for MaxISDR of SRSS(X, Z) and Sa(T1 = 2.0s) a) MSA and b) cloud analysis.

7
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240

Table 3 ⎛ ( )⎞
PSDM parameters for combined IM and different EDPs (MS records and cloud ̂ b
⎜ln( C) − ln a⋅Sa (T) ⎟
analysis). P(D > C|Sa (T)) = 1 − Φ⎝ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⎠ (3)
β2D|Sa (T) + β2C + β2M
PSDM parameters

EDP a b β
where Ĉ = median structural capacity associated with the limit state,
βD|Sa (T1 ,T2 )

MaxISDR X direction 9.496 1.471 0.36 0.40 and βC = 0.2 and βM = 0.2 denote the aleatoric uncertainty in capacity C
MaxISDR Z direction 12.726 1.252 0.33 0.88 and epistemic uncertainty in modelling, respectively [39].
MaxISDR SRSS(X,Z) 16.368 1.318 0.23 0.63
MaxISDR geomean (X,Z) 11.023 1.363 0.21 0.63
The relationships between different earthquake return periods and
acceptable performance limit states are shown in Fig. 10. For frequent
(166 years return period), occasional (100 years return period), rare
βD|Sa (T1 ) = 0.33. Similarly, for MaxISDR SRSS(X,Z) and geomean(X,Z) (500 years return period), and very rare (2500 years return period)
EDPs, the Sa(T1 = 2.0s) has the smallest βD|Sa (T1 ) values of 0.25 and 0.24, earthquake levels, the basic objective LSs are Immediate Occupancy (IO,
respectively. Indeed, this is a 27% improvement in βD|Sa (T1 ) from the MaxISDR = 0.5%), Damage Control (DC, MaxISDR = 0.5%), Life Safety
MaxISDR in Z direction. (LS, MaxISDR = 1.5%), and Collapse Prevention (CP, MaxISDR = 2.5%),
Results of the PSDM for the IM that accounts for the first and second respectively.
mode effect (Eq. (2)) are shown in Table 3. The MaxISDR geomean(X,Z) Fig. 11 depicts the fragility curves of MSA and cloud analysis
and SRSS(X,Z) at Sa(T1 = 2.0s, T2 = 1.5s) show the overall lowest computed for the different limit states and MSAS earthquake events.
βD|Sa (T1 ,T2 ) = 0.21 and 0.23 values, respectively. For both cases, the From Fig. 11, it is apparent that the earthquake type has limited influ­
ence on the IO performance limit states. For the LS and CP limit states,
optimal β values are 0.63. The higher β value shows the Sa(T1 = 2.0s) is
the probability of inslab events is higher crustal and interface events.
assigned a higher weight. This is consistent with single IM where Sa(T1
However, as the inslab has higher dispersion, the crustal and interface
= 2.0s) is efficient. However, with the introduction of the Sa(T2 = 1.5s),
events have higher probabilities after IM = 0.35 g. A similar conclusion
the βD|Sa (T1 ,T2 ) is improved by 12%. From this results, it can be concluded
is made for crustal events after IM = 0.45 g. The results shown in Fig. 11
that IMs that accounts for the first two periods and EDP that accounts for
confirm that ground motion characteristics of different earthquake types
the two orthogonal directions are efficient measures.
are important in characterizing LS and CP limit states. For the LS and CP
The fragility, the probability of D exceeding C at a given Sa(T), P(D >
limit states, after the median probability, the probability of inslab events
C|Sa(T)), can be computed as:

Fig. 10. Vision 2000 recommended seismic performance objectives for buildings (SEAOC, 1995).

Fig. 11. Fragility curves for crustal, interface and inslab MSAS event a) MSA and b) cloud analysis.

8
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240

Fig. 12. Fragility curves of MSA for MS and MSAS earthquakes by considering
Fig. 13. Fragility curves of cloud analysis for MS and MSAS earthquakes by
a) crustal, b) interface and c) inslab events.
considering a) crustal, b) interface and c) inslab events.

is slightly higher.
exceedance is computed. The MAF of limit state exceedance λ(LS) is
To compare the impact of MS and MSAS earthquake sequences, for
computed by convolution of the fragility functions with site-specific
crustal, interface, and inslab events, are further plotted separately for
hazard level as [40]:
MSA and cloud analysis in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. For crustal ∫
events, the impact of aftershock on the fragility is apparent. There is no
λ(LS) = G(LS|IM)|dλ(IM)| (4)
impact of the inslab events on the fragilities. The interface events show
slight change on the IO limit state.
IM

where G(LS|IM) = P(LS > ls|IM = im) is the conditional complementary

4.3. Risk evaluation cumulative distribution function of a random variable LS given IM = im.
Using the in-house PSHA tool, a stochastic event catalog is generated
Without consideration of loss, the mean annual rate (MAF) of LS by sampling occurrence times, locations, and magnitudes of earthquakes

9
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240

Fig. 14. Hazard (a) and risk (b) curves.

according to the source models and by taking into account logic-tree
weights for epistemic random variables. Subsequently, for all events in
the stochastic event catalog, Sa(T1 = 2.0s) is evaluated (Fig. 14a) and
seismic fragility functions of the CLT-RC hybrid building are applied to
assess damage extent of the building by considering earthquake types.
Mean damage ratios are chosen based on the central damage factors
as suggested by FEMA 227/228 [8] and Goda and Hong [41]; whereas
the chosen values of the coefficient of variation of the damage ratios are
assumed. The damage ratios are modelled as lognormal variate with
mean = 0.05, 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0, and coefficient of variation = 0.3, 0.3,
0.3, and 0.5 for the damage states slight, moderate, extensive, and
complete, respectively. The results are processed to generate the ex­
ceedance probability curve (Fig. 14b) and to calculate the relevant risk
metrics, such as annual expected damage ratio and probability of
experiencing seismic damage exceeding a certain extent.
Taking 500 years and 2500 years as some key reference points, the
expected damage levels correspond to slight-moderate and extensive
damage states. These do meet the objectives set for design. The risk
curve does indicate that the building may pick up more risks for rare
situations and for rare situations, the expected damage could be signif­
icant. Thus a careful structural design is important and further damage
control/mitigation may be important for future considerations.
5. Conclusions
Tall-timber buildings using cross-laminated timber (CLT) have
become a viable sustainable solution. In this paper, vulnerability and
risk assessment of a 10-story reinforced concrete and CLT hybrid
building is presented. The building was designed for the seismicity of
Vancouver, and detailed 3D finite element model was developed in
OpenSees. The study was undertaken through a detailed probabilistic
model considering site-specific seismic hazard and MSAS earthquake
sequences. With the bi-directional loading and first mode being torsional
sensitive, different combination of MaxISDRs as EDP were considered.
These are MaxISDR in the X and Z directions, geometric mean geomean
(X,Z) and square root of the sum of the squares SRSS(X,Z). In addition,
site specific three earthquake types, i.e. shallow crustal, interface, and
deep inslab, were considered. The three earthquake types have different
with the considered NBC 2015 CP design MaxISDR limit of 2.5%, both in
frequency content and duration, their impact on the seismic perfor­
terms of MaxISDR limit and risk values. The expected damage levels
mance were evaluated.
correspond to slight-moderate and extensive damage states for 500 and
The following summary and conclusions are drawn from this study.
2500 years return period, respectively. This does indeed meet the ob­
jectives set for design. The risk curve does indicate that the building may
• From the three earthquake types considered, the inslab earthquakes
showed higher probability of failure for the CP limit state.
• In the NBC 2015, the design earthquake level is specified as 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years. At this level, the collapse
prevention (CP) limit state, specified as MaxISDR <2.5%, is selected.
From the MSA NLTHA, the MaxISDR for crustal, interface and inslab
events are 2.56%, 2.47%, and 2.64%, respectively. Indeed, the
crustal and inslab events exceed the 2.5% limit by 2% and 6%. If
desired the design can be iterated and the weaker direction can be
strengthened. In addition, in the scaling of the GM selection, the
inslab events have richer spectral acceleration values in the lower
period, and as the structure is scaled, the scaling factor used is higher
(e.g. Fig. 6). This results also highlight the importance of considering
different sources of earthquake and not averaging the MaxISDR from
different sources of GMs.
• For the MS and MSAS earthquake records, the MaxISDR showed no
appreciable difference. The structural response has recentering
capability as a result, there was no appreciable degradation from the
MS earthquake, and the aftershock, with smaller magnitudes did not
cause further damage.
• In addition, for each MaxISDR, four IMs, i.e. Sa(T1), Sa(T2), Sa(T3),
and Sa(T1)β × Sa(T2)1− β, were considered. Their efficiency was
measured through residuals of the fitted prediction equations.
• For MaxISDR in X direction, there is no appreciable difference in
βD|Sa (T) for the three IMs (Sa(T1 = 2.0s), Sa(T2 = 1.5s) and Sa(T3 =
1.0s)). For MaxISDR in Z direction, however, the Sa(T1 = 2.0s) has
the smallest βD|Sa (T1 ) = 0.33. Similarly, for MaxISDR SRSS(X,Z) and
geomean(X,Z) EDPs, the Sa(T1 = 2.0s) has the smallest βD|Sa (T1 ) values
of 0.25 and 0.24, respectively. Indeed, this is a 27% improvement in
βD|Sa (T1 ) from the MaxISDR in Z direction.
• For composite IM, Sa (T1)β × SA (T2)1− β, the MaxISDR geomean(X,Z)
and SRSS(X,Z) at Sa(T1 = 2.0s, T2 = 1.5s) showed the overall lowest
βD|Sa (T1 ,T2 ) = 0.21 and 0.23 values, respectively, with optimal β =
0.63. For torsional sensitive structures, IM and EDPs that accounts
for both directions showed better performance.
The overall performance of the building deemed to be acceptable

10
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda
pick up more risks for rare situations and for rare situations, the ex­
pected damage could be significant. Thus a careful structural design is
important and further damage control/mitigation may be important for
future considerations. This performance comes with the added benefit of
having a resilient and sustainable construction material.
6. CRediT authorship contribution statement
Solomon Tesfamariam: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing. Katsuichiro
Goda: Methodology, Investigation, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the British Columbia
Forestry Innovation Investment’s (FII) Wood First Program and the
Natural Science Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery
Grant (RGPIN-2019-05013).
References
[1] NRC (National Research Council of Canada). National Building Code of Canada.
Ottawa: Associate Committee on the National Building Code, National Research
Council of Canada; 2020.
[2] NRCan (Natural Resources Canada). 2019. “Canada investing to grow markets for
B.C. wood products.” Accessed September 8, 2020. https://www.canada.ca/en/nat
ural-resources-canada/news/2019/07/canada-investing-to-grow-markets-for-bc
-wood-products.html.
[3] Tothong P, Cornell CA. Structural performance assessment under near-source
pulse-like ground motions using advanced ground motion intensity measures.
Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2008;37(7):1013–37.
[4] Tesfamariam S, Goda K. Impact of earthquake types and aftershocks on loss
assessment of non-code-conforming buildings: case study with Victoria, British
Columbia. Earthq Spectra 2017;33(2):551–79.
[5] Tesfamariam S, Stiemer SF, Dickof C, Bezabeh MA. Seismic vulnerability
assessment of hybrid steel-timber structure: steel moment-resisting frames with
CLT infill. J Earthq Eng 2014;18(6):929–44.
[6] Tesfamariam S, Skandalos K, Goda K, Bezabeh MA, Bitsuamlak G, Popovski M.
Quantifying the ductility-related force modification factor for 10-storey timber-RC
hybrid building using FEMA P695 procedure and considering the 2015 NBC
seismic hazard. J Struct Eng 2021;147(5):3007.
[7] Tesfamariam S, Goda K. Loss estimation for non-ductile reinforced concrete
building in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: effects of mega-thrust Mw9-class
subduction earthquakes and aftershocks. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2015;44(13):
2303–20.
[8] FEMA. A benefit-cost model for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings: a users
manual and supporting document – FEMA 227 & 228. Washington DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency; 1992.
[9] Halchuk SC, Adams JE, Allen TI. Fifth generation seismic hazard model for Canada:
grid values of mean hazard to be used with the 2015 National Building Code of
Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 2015;7893:22.
[10] Tesfamariam S, Goda K. Energy-based seismic risk evaluation of tall reinforced
concrete building in Vancouver, BC, Canada, under Mw9 megathrust subduction
earthquakes and aftershocks. Frontiers in Built Environment: Earthquake
Engineering 2017;1(3):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2017.00029.
[11] SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). Vision 2000: Performance-
Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Sacramento, CA: Structural Engineers
Association of California; 1995.
[12] Cornell CA, Krawinkler H. Progress and challenges in seismic performance
assessment. PEER Center News 2000;3(2):1–4.
[13] Bakalis K, Vamvatsikos D. Seismic fragility functions via nonlinear response history
analysis. J Struct Eng 2018;144(10):04018181.
[14] Silva V, Akkar S, Baker J, Bazzurro P, Castro JM, Crowley H, Dolsek M, Galasso C,
Lagomarsino S, Monteiro R, Perrone D. Current challenges and future trends in
analytical fragility and vulnerability modeling. Earthq Spectra 2019;35(4):
1927–52.
[15] Altieri D, Patelli E. An efficient approach for computing analytical non-parametric
fragility curves. Struct Saf 2020;85:101956.
[16] Bezabeh MA, Tesfamariam S, Popovski M, Goda K, Stiemer SF. Seismic base shear
modification factors for timber-steel hybrid structure: collapse risk assessment
approach. J Struct Eng 2017;143(10):04017136.
11
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240
[17] Sun X, He M, Li Z, Lam F. Seismic performance assessment of conventional CLT
shear wall structures and post-tensioned CLT shear wall structures. Eng Struct
2019;196:109285.
[18] Shahnewaz M, Pan Y, Shahria Alam M, Tannert T. Seismic fragility estimates for
cross-laminated timber platform building. J Struct Eng 2020;146(12):04020256.
[19] Hong HP, Yang SC. Reliability and fragility assessment of the mid-and high-rise
wood buildings subjected to bidirectional seismic excitation. Eng Struct 2019;201:
109734.
[20] Miller S, Woods JE, Erochko J, Lau DT, Gilbert CF. Experimental and analytical
fragility assessment of a combined heavy timber–steel-braced frame through
hybrid simulation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics; 2020.
[21] Aloisio A, Alaggio R, Fragiacomo M. Fragility functions and behavior factors
estimation of multi-story cross-laminated timber structures characterized by an
energy-dependent hysteretic model. Earthq Spectra 2021;37(1):134–59.
[22] Wilson AW, Phillips AR, Motter CJ, Lee JY, Dolan JD. Seismic loss analysis of
buildings with post-tensioned cross-laminated timber walls. Earthq Spectra 2021;
37(1):324–45.
[23] Luo Q, He M, Chen F, Li Z. Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of timber-
steel hybrid structures subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences. Soil Dynam
Earthq Eng 2021;141:106532.
[24] Goda K, Atkinson GM. Seismic performance of wood-frame houses in south-
western British Columbia. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2011;40(8):903–24.
[25] SOM (Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill) LLP. Timber tower research project. Final
report. Chicago: Report Prepared for the WoodWorks Education Lab; 2013.
[26] McKenna, F., G. L. Fenves, and M. H. Scott. 2000. Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, Berkeley.
[27] APA (The EngineeredWood Association). Standard for performancerated cross-
laminated timber. ANSI/APA PRG 2012;320.
[28] CSA (Canadian Standards Association). Supplement: Engineering design in wood.
Standard CSA 2016;086-14.
[29] CSA (Canadian Standard Association). 2019. Engineering design in wood. CSA
O86. Toronto: CSA.
[30] Halchuk S, Allen TI, Adams J, Rogers GC. Fifth generation seismic hazard model
input files as proposed to produce values for the 2015 National Building Code of
Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 2014;7576:15.
[31] Atkinson GM, Goda K, editors. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of civil
infrastructure: Chapter 1. In Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of
Civil Infrastructure Systems. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2013. p. 23–8.
[32] DeVall RH. Background information for some of the proposed earthquake design
provisions for the 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Can. J.
Civ. Eng. 2003;30(2):279–86.
[33] Goda K. Record selection for aftershock incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng
Struct Dynam 2015;44(7):1157–62.
[34] Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Shome N, Carballo JE. Three proposals for characterizing
MDOF nonlinear seismic response. J. Struct. Eng. 1998;124(11):1281–9.
[35] Jalayer F, De Risi R, Manfredi G. Bayesian cloud analysis: efficient structural
fragility assessment using linear regression. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13(4):1183–203.
[36] Rajeev P, Franchin P, Tesfamariam S. Probabilistic seismic demand model for RC
frame buildings using cloud analysis and incremental dynamic analysis. In: Tenth
US national conference on earthquake engineering (NCEE), anchorage, Alaska, 21
jul 2014; 2014.
[37] Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC
federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J. Struct.
Eng. 2002;128(4):526–33.
[38] Lin L, Naumoski N, Saatcioglu M, Foo S. Improved intensity measures for
probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Part 1: development of improved intensity
measures. Can J Civ Eng 2011;38(1):79–88.
[39] Li Y, Ellingwood BR. Reliability of woodframe residential construction subjected to
earthquakes. Struct Saf 2007;29(4):294–307.
[40] Jalayer F, Cornell CA. Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for
probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2009;38(8):
951–72.
[41] Goda K, Hong HP. Optimal seismic design for limited planning time horizon with
detailed seismic hazard information. Struct Saf 2006;28(3):247–60.
Further reading
[42] De Risi R, Goda K, Tesfamariam S. Multi-dimensional damage measure for seismic
reliability analysis. Struct Saf 2019;78:1–11.
[43] Allan K, Phillips AR. Comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of low and
mid-rise mass timber buildings with equivalent structural steel alternatives.
Sustainability 2021;13(6):3401.
[44] Amini MO, van de Lindt JW, Rammer D, Pei S, Line P, Popovski M. Systematic
experimental investigation to support the development of seismic performance
factors for cross laminated timber shear wall systems. Eng Struct 2018;172:
392–404.
[45] Ellingwood BR, Rosowsky DV, Li Y, Kim JH. Fragility assessment of light-frame
wood construction subjected to wind and earthquake hazards. J Struct Eng 2004;
130(12):1921–30.
[46] Gallo PQ, Carradine DM, Bazaez R. State of the art and practice of seismic-resistant
hybrid timber structures. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 2020:
1–24.
[47] Granello G, Broccardo M, Palermo A, Pampanin S. Fragility-based methodology for
evaluating the time-dependent seismic performance of post-tensioned timber
frames. Earthq Spectra 2020;36(1):322–52.
S. Tesfamariam and K. Goda
[48] Grigoriu M, Radu A. Are seismic fragility curves fragile? Probabilist Eng Mech
2021;63:103115.
[49] Hummel J, Seim W. Displacement-based design approach to evaluate the
behaviour factor for multi-storey CLT buildings. Eng Struct 2019;201:109711.
[50] Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source
and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 2007;23:357–92.
[51] Noh NM, Tesfamariam S. Seismic collapse risk assessment of code-conforming RC
moment resisting frame buildings designed with 2014 Canadian standard
association standard A23. 3. Frontiers in Built Environment 2018;4(53):1–14.
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 156 (2022) 107240
[52] Pan Y, Ventura CE, Tannert T. Damage index fragility assessment of low-rise light-
frame wood buildings under long duration subduction earthquakes. Struct Saf
2020;84:101940.
[53] Rodrigues LG, Branco JM, Neves LA, Barbosa AR. Seismic assessment of a heavy-
timber frame structure with ring-doweled moment-resisting connections. Bull
Earthq Eng 2018;16(3):1341–71.
[54] Yang S, Hong HP. Reliability and fragility assessment of mid-and high-rise wood
buildings subjected to seismic excitation. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
2020;16(12):1683–97.