Performance Based Seismic Assessment of

Performance based seismic assessment of buildings for evaluation of retrofitting systems efficiency
“Politehnica” University Timisoara

Civil Engineering Faculty
Department of Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics
Research Centre for Materials Mechanics

and Structural Safety
http://cemsig.ct.upt.ro/cemsig/
STEEL SOLUTIONS FOR THE SEISMIC RETROFIT AND UPGRADE OF

EXISTING CONSTRUCTIONS
PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS

FOR EVALUATION OF RETROFITTING SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY
- Review Report –
1st Draft
Authors Dan Dubina, Adrian Dogariu, Aurel Stratan, Sorin Bordea
Timisoara, 15 February, 2008
1-56
Table of contents
1 Introduction 4
2 Basics of performance based evaluation and retrofit objectives 6

2.1 Phase of Performance Based Evaluation and Retrofit 6
2.2 Building performance objectives 8
2.3 Earthquake hazard level 10
2.4 Building, structural and nonstructural performance level and 12
description
2.4.1 Structural performance level 12
2.4.2 Nonstructural performance level 13
2.4.3 Building performance level 14
2.5 Selection of building performance objectives 16
2.6 Concluding remarks 17
3 Description of analysis methods and acceptance criteria 19

3.1 Introduction 19
3.2 Global analysis and modeling requirements 19
3.2.1 General considerations 19
3.2.2 Acceptance criteria 22
3.2.3 Linear – Elastic Analysis 23
3.2.3.1 Lateral force method 23
3.2.3.2 Modal response spectrum and modal linear time-history 24
3.2.3.3 Acceptance criteria for linear analysis 25
3.2.4 Non-linear Analysis 25
3.2.4.1 Static – Pushover 25
3.2.4.2 Dynamic – Time-history 26
3.2.4.3 Acceptance criteria for nonlinear analysis 26
3.3 Choice of analysis procedure 26
3.3.1 Knowledge factor 26
3.3.2 Requirements for analysis procedure selection 26
3.3.2.1 Lateral force method 26
3.3.2.2 Response spectrum and linear time-history analysis 27
3.3.2.3 Nonlinear static procedure 27
3.3.2.4 Nonlinear time-history analysis 28
3.4 Structural typologies 28
4 Structural validation of retrofitting techniques 29

4.1 Technical aspects 30
4.1.1 Reversibility 30
4.1.2 Compatibility 30
4.1.2.1 Material 30
4.1.2.2 Structural 31
4.1.3 Durability 31
4.1.4 Local conditions 32
4.1.5 Quality control 32
4.2 Structural aspects 32
4.2.1 Accompanying measures 32
2-56
4.2.2 Technical support 32

4.2.3 Installation/Erection 32
4.3 Economical aspects 32
4.4 Retrofitting technologies efficiency – some examples 33
5 Evaluation Methodologies and examples 34

5.1 Review of the main evaluation methods 34
5.2 Vulnerability Analysis 38
5.3 Examples 40
5.3.1 Reinforced concrete frame retrofitted with metallic shear 40
panel
5.3.2 Direct Displacement Procedure for Performance-Based 45
Seismic Evaluation of wood shear panels
5.3.3 Seismic upgrade of non seismic reinforced concrete frames 46
5.3.4 Simple experimental based procedure to evaluate shear 51
walls
6 Bibliography 53
3-56
1 INTRODUCTION
The need to assure a satisfactory behaviour under seismic action of old buildings
designed prior appearance of engineering rules or according to poor seismic
provisions, have become an important task of the civil engineering community. In the
light of recent knowledge regarding seismic motion and structural behaviour many of
existing buildings are obviously substandard and deficient. Older hazardous
buildings are responsible for the thousands of life loss and significant damage. The
existing substandard buildings perhaps are outnumbering the safe building.
Therefore the attention in earthquake engineering should be focus more on existing
buildings than on new ones, in order to provide advanced methodologies for building
assessment. After disastrous hazard event the engineering community silent consent
to upgrade existing buildings at the safety of level new buildings, according to the
limit state procedure provide by standards. The implications of this concept were not
at all rational, first from the technical point of view and second the cost and length of
time. So, a new approach has arisen based on multi-level evaluation together with
differentiate targets [21].
Modern Design Recommendations, like SEAOC's Vision 2000 project and BSSC's
NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings have developed a new
concept in building evaluation and design by introducing design performance
objectives, acceptance criteria tied to performance level, and the use of alternative
analytical techniques for performance evaluation. The proposed 1997 NEHRP
Provisions for Seismic Regulation of Buildings and Other Structures also make an
important contribution, by attempting for the first time to define the margin of safety
inherent in buildings conforming to these provisions, and in the sense of Ultimate
Limits States design philosophy, by directly incorporating this presumed margin in
the definition of the loading function [25].
Key areas of development, required to provide true performance-based capability
in future design and evaluation provisions include the incorporation of a specific
serviceability level performance procedure, verification of the reliability actually
inherent in buildings of different structural systems conforming to the provisions and
the development and refinement of new analytical evaluation (acceptability)
procedures capable of predicting building performance with reduced uncertainty [25].
Retrofitting of all the vulnerable buildings before the next big earthquake is also not a
realistic solution. The highest priority should be on identifying the buildings which
have a high possibility of collapse and identifying those which can ensure life safety
despite being substandard. Seismic rehabilitation of large stocks of buildings
requires engineering approaches different from the traditional approaches of civil
engineering. Methodologies to evaluate the seismic risk of high urbanized area are
emphasis. In last year’s have made important steps in development of quick
methods to establish buildings vulnerability, assess seismic fragility [21].
The Figure 1 presents the relation between Evaluation, Design and Construction
within Conceptual framework of Performance Based Seismic Retrofit (PBSR). It is
important to underline the iterative design process in order to achieve or respect the
desire performance level. In every phase of the rehabilitation process acceptability
criteria plays the decisional role, from the initial evaluation, to design process and
quality assurance of the erection process.
4-56
Evaluation
Performance evaluation
of existing building
Design
Preliminary design
Evaluation of potential
strenghtening solutions
(via conceptual design) NO
NO Acceptability of
preliminay design
(retrofitted building
Acceptability criteria evaluation)
YES
YES Construction
Final design
Selected technique Design review
(preliminary level)
NO
Acceptability of
preliminay design Quality assurance
(detailing impact on YES
fabrication and erection
* Adapted from SEAOC Vision 2000 technology, cost)
Commitee (1995). Performance - based Building maintenance
seismic engineering of building. Report. and function
Figure 1 Conceptual framework for Performance Based Seismic Evaluation
5-56
2 BASICS OF PERFORMANCE BASED EVALUATION AND RETROFIT

OBJECTIVES
The intent of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) is to provide
methods for designing, constructing, evaluating and maintaining buildings, such that
they are capable of providing predictable performance when affected by
earthquakes. As used here, performance is measured in terms of the amount of
damage sustained by a building, when affected by earthquake ground motion, and
the impacts of this damage on post-earthquake disposition of the building [25].
Inherently, the performance-based design concept implies the definition of multiple
target performance (damage) levels which are expected to be achieved, or at least
not exceeded, when the structure is subjected to earthquake ground motion of
specified intensity. Much of the early development effort has taken place in the
preparation of the NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC,
1996), intended as a resource document for use in upgrading the performance of
existing buildings [25].
Though the name performance-based engineering is new, the basic concept of
developing buildings and structures that will meet expected performance levels
under different ground motion scenarios is certainly not. Design codes from all over
the world were indicated that structures designed in accordance with their provisions
would be able to meet a number of specific performance objectives, i.e. to resist:
• Minor earthquakes without damage;
• Moderate earthquakes with limited structural and nonstructural damage;
• Major earthquakes with significant damage to structural and non-structural
elements, but with limited risk to life safety
• Most severe levels of earthquake ground motion ever likely to affect a site,
without collapse.
These same basic performance objectives, though more precisely and quantitatively
defined, are being adopted by most performance-based engineering guidelines
today. In traditional practice, earthquake design has been explicitly performed for
only a single design event level, at which a level of performance generally termed
"life safety" has been targeted without providing any other specific procedures to
allow evaluation of the ability of a structure to actually meet other objectives.
Contemporary efforts at performance-based engineering are seeking to provide
reliable methods of meeting multiple performance goals through explicit design
procedures [25].
2.1 Phase of Performance Based Evaluation and Retrofit

The Performance Based Seismic Assessment (PBSA) or Evaluation (PBSE) involves
the follow steps (
Table 1) from strategy, to the concept and detail of the building retrofit work (ATC-
40).
6-56
Table 1 Phases in PBSA process [4]

Initiate the process • Jurisdictional requirements
STRATEGY
• Architectural changes
• Voluntary upgrade
Select qualified professionals • Structural Engineer
• Architect
Establish performance objectives • Structural Stability, Limited Safety, Life
Safety, Damage Control, Immediate
Occupancy
Review building conditions • Review Drawings
• Visual Inspection
• Preliminary Calculation
Formulate a strategy • Simplified Procedures
• Inelastic Capacity Methods
• Complex Analyses
Begin the approval process • Building Official
CONCEPT
• Review
Conduct detailed Investigations • Site Analysis
• Material Properties
• Construction Details
Characterize seismic capacity • Modeling Rules
• Force and Displacement
Determinate seismic demand • Seismic Hazard
• Interdependence with Capacity
• Target Displacement
Verify performance • Global Response Limits
• Component Acceptability
• Conceptual Approval
Prepare construction documents • Similarity to New Construction
DETAIL
• Plan Check
• Form of Construction Contract
Monitor construction quality • Submittals, Tests and Inspection
• Verification of Existing Conditions
• Construction Observation by Designer
7-56
A PSBA procedure supposes the collaboration of all the involved parts with a specific
implication in different phase of the process (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 Audience interest spectrum (ATC-40)
2.2 Building performance objectives

A Rehabilitation Objective consists of one or more rehabilitation goals, each goal
consisting of the selection of a target Building Performance Level and an Earthquake
Hazard Level [18] (see Figure 3). So, association of a performance level (damage
state) to a hazard level is called a performance-objective [2]. Rehabilitation
Objectives should be selected based on the building’s occupancy, the importance of
8-56
the functions occurring within the building, economic considerations including costs
related to building damage repair and business interruption, and consideration of the
potential importance of the building as a historical or cultural resource.
Building Performance Level
Rehabilitation objective
Earthquake Hazard Level
Figure 3 Establish Rehabilitation Objective Principles
The building owner, in consultation with the designer, shall select a seismic
Rehabilitation Objective but never bellow the code official provision. The selection of
a Rehabilitation Objective shall consist of the selection of a target Building
Performance Level, which intended to represent goals of structural behaviours, from
a range of performance levels and on the selection of an anticipated Earthquake
Hazard Level from a range of seismic hazards [18].
Difficulties in establish performance could be associated with unknown geometry and
member sizes in existing buildings, deterioration of materials, incomplete site data,
variation of ground motion that can occur within a small area, and incomplete
knowledge and simplifications related to modeling and analysis.
Building performance should be described qualitatively in terms of the safety
afforded building occupants during and after the earthquake; the cost and feasibility
of restoring the building to pre-earthquake condition; the length of time the building is
removed from service to effect repairs and economic, architectural or historic
impacts on the larger community.
Different national’s codes establish various Rehabilitation Objectives. These
Standards treated more or less the same issues and establish Objectives that can be
summarizes according to FEMA 356 [18] as:
• Basic Safety Objective (BSO)
• Enhanced Rehabilitation Objectives (BSE-1, BSE-2)
• Limited Rehabilitation Objectives
o Reduced Rehabilitation Objective
o Partial Rehabilitation Objective
Basic Safety Objective (BSO) is intended to approximate the earthquake risk to life
safety traditionally considered. Buildings meeting the BSO are expected to
experience little damage from relatively frequent, moderate earthquakes, but
significantly more damage and potential economic loss from the most severe and
infrequent earthquakes that could affect them. The level of damage and potential
economic loss experienced by buildings rehabilitated to the BSO may be greater
than that expected in properly designed [18].
Enhanced Rehabilitation Objectives (BSE-1, BSE-2) can be obtained by
designing for higher target Building Performance Levels (method 1), at important
building and facilities, or by designing using higher Earthquake Hazard Levels
(method 2), in case of vital building and facilities, or any combination of these two
methods.
9-56
Limited Rehabilitation Objectives

Rehabilitation that addresses the entire building structural and nonstructural
systems, but uses a lower seismic hazard or lower target Building Performance
Level than the BSO, is termed Reduced Rehabilitation Objective.
Rehabilitation that addresses a portion of the building without rehabilitating the
complete lateral-force resisting system is termed Partial Rehabilitation. A Partial
Rehabilitation shall be designed and constructed considering future completion of a
Rehabilitation Objective intended to improve the performance of the entire structure.
EC8 part 3 [16] doesn’t directly specify performance objectives, just stick at specify
three limits states LS (related to the building behaviour), associated with three
recommended seismic hazard levels. This code gives the freedom to the national
authorities to decide whenever all three, two or just one of LS must be checked and
also leave them the possibility to establish the earthquake hazard associated.
2.3 Earthquake hazard level
Figure 4 Earthquake ground motion [4]
Seismic hazard due to ground shaking shall be based on the location of the building
with respect to causative faults, the regional and site-specific geologic
characteristics, and a selected Earthquake Hazard Level [18].
Seismic hazard due to ground shaking shall be defined as acceleration response
spectra or acceleration time-histories on either a probabilistic or deterministic basis.
The analysis and evaluation procedures of FEMA 356 are primarily aimed at
improving performance of buildings under loads and deformations imposed by
seismic shaking. However, other seismic hazards could exist at the building site that
could damage the building regardless of its ability to resist ground shaking. This
standard requires hazards due to earthquake shaking to be defined on either a
probabilistic or deterministic basis [18].
Probabilistic hazards are defined in terms of the probability that more severe
demands will be experienced (probability of exceedance) in a 50 year period (see
Table 2) [18].
Deterministic demands are defined within a level of confidence in terms of a specific
magnitude event on a particular major active fault [18].
FEMA 356 defines two basic Earthquake Hazard Levels [18]:
• Basic Safety Earthquake 1 (BSE-1);
• Basic Safety Earthquake 2 (BSE-2).
In addition to the BSE-1 and BSE-2 Earthquake Hazard Levels, Rehabilitation
Objectives may be formed considering ground shaking due to Earthquake Hazard
10-56
Levels with any defined probability of exceedance, or based on any deterministic

event on a specific fault [18].
There appears to be a widespread perception that uniform hazard spectra, derived
from probabilistic seismic hazard curves, will provide adequate information for
performance based design and evaluation. These spectra, which account for the
contributions of all seismic sources that may affect the site, are usually not
representative of any one earthquake. In many cases spectral accelerations (or
displacements) obtained from these spectra provide adequate information to
describe the seismic demands imposed on structures, in many other cases they do
not. Actual time history records show significant variations in spectral ordinates, and
the frequency characteristics of time history records, which control higher mode
effects and to some extent inelastic response of structures, are masked by period
specific spectral hazard analysis [32].
Perhaps most important, the effects of pulse-type near-fault ground motions are
hidden away in a uniform hazard spectrum. By now it is widely acknowledged that
spectra of these ground motions look very different from uniform hazard spectra and
that the effects of these motions on the inelastic response of multi-degree of freedom
structures cannot be deduced from an elastic response spectrum [32].
Thus, in addition to further refinements in uniform hazard spectra the need exists to
consider separately the effects of near-fault ground motions. This requires the
generation of magnitude, distance and directivity dependent near-fault ground
motions that can be used for performance evaluation. This, as well as the
development of procedures for generating soft-soil ground motions, should be short-
range research objectives for PBEE. A long-range research objective should be the
development of source mechanism, magnitude, and distance dependent bins of
ground motions that will, ultimately, replace the use of spectra for performance
evaluation – at least at low performance levels at which significant inelastic response
is anticipated. Uniform hazard spectra will then still be useful for conceptual design,
but their use for performance evaluation should be phased out with time [32].
The structural engineering contribution to this research needs to focus on the issue
of the most appropriate representation of ground motion for performance evaluation.
This issue deserves much attention because performance evaluation is an
engineering issue and every effort needs to be made to reduce the uncertainties
caused by simplifications in the hazard description. There are many other seismic
hazard related issues that contribute to uncertainty and need to be evaluated more
accurately, including ground motion duration effects that affect cumulative damage,
basin effects that may be critical for long period structures, and the existence of
collateral hazards [32].
Table 2 Earthquake hazard level

SEAOC
Earthquake Hazard
FEMA 356 [18] EC8-3 [16] P100-3 [35]

Frequency Vision 2000 [42]
MRI PE MRI PE MRI PE MRI PE
Level
Frequent 72 50%/50 43 50%/30 - - 30 63%/50

Occasional 225 20%/50 72 50%/50 225 20%/50 100 40%/50
Rare 474 10%/50 475 10%/50 475 10%/50 475 10%/50
Very Rare 2475 2%/50 970 10%/100 2475 2%/50 975 5%/50
PE - Probability to exceed; MRI - Medium recurrence interval
11-56
In Table 2 are given the medium recurrence interval for frequent, occasional, rare
and very rare according to FEMA 356 356 [18], SEAOC [42], EC8 [16] (only suggest
value for the return period) and P100-3/2003 [35].
2.4 Building, structural and nonstructural performance level and description

The seismic rehabilitation dedicated standards details Target Building Performance
Levels like a combination of the performance of both structural and nonstructural
components describing the approximate limiting levels of structural and nonstructural
damage that may be expected of buildings rehabilitated to the levels defined in the
standard. On average, the expected damage would be less [18].
2.4.1 Structural performance level

According to FEMA 356 [18] and ATC40 [4] the Structural Performance Level of a
building shall be selected from four discrete Structural Performance Levels and two
intermediate Structural Performance Ranges defined in this section.
The discrete Structural Performance Levels are [18]:
• Immediate Occupancy (S-1);
• Life Safety (S-3);
• Collapse Prevention or Structural Stability (ATC) (S-5) ;
• Not Considered (S-6).
Design procedures and acceptance criteria corresponding to these Structural
Performance Levels are specified in dedicated standards.
The intermediate Structural Performance Ranges are the [18]:
• Damage Control Range (S-2);
• Limited Safety Range (S-4).
Acceptance criteria for performance within the Damage Control Structural
Performance Range shall be obtained by interpolating the acceptance criteria
provided for the Immediate Occupancy and Life Safety Structural Performance
Levels. Acceptance criteria for performance within the Limited Safety Structural
Performance Range shall be obtained by interpolating the acceptance criteria
provided for the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention Structural Performance Levels
[18].
Structural Performance Level S-1, Immediate Occupancy, means the post-
earthquake damage state in which only very limited structural damage has occurred.
The basic vertical- and lateral-force-resisting systems of the building retain nearly all
of their preearthquake strength and stiffness. The risk of life threatening injury as a
result of structural damage is very low, and although some minor structural repairs
may be appropriate, these would generally not be required prior to reoccupancy [18].
Design for the Damage Control Structural Performance Range (S-2) may be
desirable to minimize repair time and operation interruption, as a partial means of
protecting valuable equipment and contents, or to preserve important historic
features when the cost of design for immediate occupancy is excessive [18].
Structural Performance Level, Life Safety (S-3), means the post-earthquake
damage state in which significant damage to the structure has occurred, but some
margin against either partial or total structural collapse remains. Some structural
elements and components are severely damaged, but this has not resulted in large
falling debris hazards, either within or outside the building. Injuries may occur during
the earthquake; however, the overall risk of life-threatening injury as a result of
structural damage is expected to be low. It should be possible to repair the structure;
12-56
however, for economic reasons this may not be practical. While the damaged
structure is not an imminent collapse risk, it would be prudent to implement structural
repairs or install temporary bracing prior to reoccupancy [18].
Structural Performance, Limited Safety (S-4), shall be defined as the continuous
range of damage states between the Life Safety Structural Performance Level (S-3)
and the Collapse Prevention Structural Performance Level (S-5) [18].
Structural Performance Level Collapse Prevention (S-5), means the post-
earthquake damage state in which the building is on the verge of partial or total
collapse. Substantial damage to the structure has occurred, potentially including
significant degradation in the stiffness and strength of the lateral-force resisting
system, large permanent lateral deformation of the structure, and — to a more
limited extent — degradation in vertical-load-carrying capacity. However, all
significant components of the gravity load-resisting system must continue to carry
their gravity load demands. Significant risk of injury due to falling hazards from
structural debris may exist. The structure may not be technically practical to repair
and is not safe for reoccupancy, as aftershock activity could induce collapse [18].
A building rehabilitation that does not address the performance of the structure shall
be classified as Structural Performance Not Considered (S-6) [18].
2.4.2 Nonstructural performance level

FEMA 356 [18] and ATC 40 [4], associate to performance level standards, offer
detailed condition for accomplish the Nonstructural Performance Level of a building.
These levels shall be selected from following discrete Nonstructural Performance
Levels (N), consisting of: [18]:
• Operational (N-A);
• Immediate Occupancy (N-B);
• Life Safety (N-C);
• Hazards Reduced (N-D);
• Not Considered (N-E).
Standards offer Non-structural Performance Levels and Damage for [18]:
• Architectural Components (cladding, glazing, partitions, ceilings, parapets and
ornamentation, canopies and marquees, chimneys and stacks, stairs and fire
escapes, doors);
• Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Systems/Components (elevators, HVAC
equipment, manufacturing equipment, ducts, piping, fire sprinkler system, fire
alarm system, emergency lighting, electrical distribution equipment, light
fixtures, plumbing);
• Contents (computer systems, desktop equipment, fire cabinets, book shelves,
hazardous materials, art objects).
13-56
2.4.3 Building performance level
Figure 5 Building performance level [4]

Ones that the performance level for structural and non-structural elements
have been establish the designer could decide the target building performance level
(see Figure 5). Table 3 present the building performance levels and the relation
between them according with different standards.
Table 3 Building performance level

NEHRP / FEMA 356
Standard Vision 2000 EC8 -3 limit state P100 - 3
356
Fully Functional Operational
Limited
Immediate Limited Damage
Building Operational Damage
Occupancy
performance
Life Safety Life Safety Severe Damage Life Safety
level
Collapse
Near Collapse Collapse Prevention Near Collapse
Prevention
Several common target Building

Performance Levels described in this
chapter are shown in Figure 6. Many
combinations are possible as structural
performance can be selected at any level in
the two Structural Performance Ranges.
Table 4 indicates, by FEMA 356 356, the
possible combinations of target Building
Performance Levels and provides names
for those most likely to be selected as the
basis for design [18].
Operational Building Performance Level

(1-A) Buildings meeting this target Building
Performance Level are expected to sustain
minimal or no damage to their structural
and nonstructural components. The
building is suitable for its normal occupancy
and use, although possibly in a slightly
impaired mode, with power, water, and
other required utilities provided from
emergency sources, and possibly with
some nonessential systems not functioning.
Buildings meeting this target Building
Performance Level pose an extremely low
14-56
risk to life safety [18]. Figure 6 Target Building

Performance Levels and Ranges
[18]
Immediate Occupancy Building Performance Level (1-B)

Buildings meeting this target Building Performance Level are expected to sustain
minimal or no damage to their structural elements and only minor damage to their
nonstructural components. While it would be safe to reoccupy a building meeting this
target Building Performance Level immediately following a major earthquake,
nonstructural systems may not function, either because of the lack of electrical
power or internal damage to equipment. Therefore, although immediate reoccupancy
of the building is possible, it may be necessary to perform some cleanup and repair
and await the restoration of utility service before the building can function in a normal
mode. The risk to life safety at this target Building Performance Level is very low
[18].
Life Safety Building Performance Level (3-C)
Buildings meeting this level may experience extensive damage to structural and
nonstructural components. Repairs may be required before reoccupancy of the
building occurs, and repair may be deemed economically impractical. The risk to life
safety in buildings meeting this target Building Performance Level is low [18].
Collapse Prevention Building Performance Level (5-E)
Buildings meeting this target Building Performance Level may pose a significant
hazard to life safety resulting from failure of non-structural components. However,
because the building itself does not collapse, gross loss of life may well be avoided.
Many buildings meeting this level will be complete economic losses [18].
Table 4 Target Building Performance Levels and Ranges [18]

Structural Performance Levels and Ranges
S-2 S-4
Non-structural S-1 S-3 S-5
Damage Limited S-6 Not
Performance Immediate Life Collapse
Control Safety Considered
Levels Occupancy Safety Prevention
Range Range
N-A Operational
2-A
Operational 1-A
N-B Immediate
Immediate Occupancy 2-B 3-B
Occupancy 1-B
Life
N-C
1-C 2-C Safety 4-C 5-C 6-C
Life Safety
3-C
N-D
Hazards 2-D 3-D 4-D 5-D 6-D
Reduced
N-E Collapse
No
Not 4-E Prevention
rehabilitation
Considered 5-E
For all this Building Performance Levels referred in standards are associate Damage
Control levels regarding to structural typology and bearing elements.
The following table (see Table 5) presents a qualitative general overview of the
damage, valid for all types of structures, elements and materials, structural and non-
structural [18]:
15-56
Table 5 Damage Control and Building Performance Levels [18]

Target Building Performance Levels
Collapse Immediate
Life Safety Level Operational Level
Prevention Level Occupancy Level
(3-C) (1-A)
(5-E) (1-B)
Overall
Severe Moderate Light Very Light
Damage
Some residual
Little residual No permanent drift.
strength and No permanent drift.
stiffness and Structure
stiffness left in all Structure
strength, but load substantially retains
stories. Gravity-load substantially retains
bearing columns original strength
bearing elements original strength and
and walls function. and stiffness. Minor
function. No out-of stiffness. Minor
Large permanent cracking of facades,
plane failure of walls cracking of facades,
General drifts. Some exits partitions, and
or tipping of partitions, and
blocked. Infill and ceilings as well as
parapets. Some ceilings as well as
unbraced parapets structural elements.
permanent drift. structural elements.
failed or at All systems
Damage to Elevators can be
incipient failure. important to normal
partitions. Building restarted. Fire
Building is near operation are
may be beyond protection operable.
collapse. functional.
economical repair.
Falling hazards Equipment and Negligible damage
Non- mitigated but many contents are occurs. Power and
structural architectural, generally secure, but other utilities are
Extensive damage.
compone mechanical, and may not operate due available, possibly
nts electrical systems to mechanical failure from standby
are damaged. or lack of utilities. sources.
2.5 Selection of building performance objectives

The Rehabilitation Objective selected as a basis for design or evaluation will
determine, to a great extent, the cost and feasibility of any rehabilitation project, as
well as the benefit to be obtained in terms of improved safety, reduction in property
damage, and interruption of use in the event of future earthquakes. Table 6 indicates
the range of Rehabilitation Objectives that may be used in accordance with FEMA
356 356 [18] linked to the Earthquake Hazard Level. For comparison is presented in
Table 7 the selection of building performance objectives matrix, provided by
Romanian Seismic rehabilitation Standard P100-3/2003 [35].
Table 6 Rehabilitation Objectives (FEMA 356) [18]

Target Building Performance Levels
Immediate Collapse
Operational Life Safety
Occupancy Prevention
Performance Performance
Performance Performance
50%/50 year a B c D
Earthquake
20%/50 year e F g H
Hazard
10%/50 year i J k L
Level
2%/50 year m N o P
Notes:
1. Each cell in the above matrix represents a discrete Rehabilitation Objective.
2. The Rehabilitation Objectives in the matrix above may be used to represent
the three specific Rehabilitation Objectives, as follows:
• k + p = Basic Safety Objective (BSO);
• k + p + any of a, e, i, b, f, j, or n = Enhanced Objectives;
• o alone or n alone or m alone = Enhanced Objective;
16-56
• k alone or p alone = Limited Objectives;

• c, g, d, h, l = Limited Objectives.
Table 7 Rehabilitation Objectives (P100-3) [35]

Earthquake Hazard Target Building Performance Levels
Level Limited Damage Life Safety Collapse Prevention
30 year BSO
50 year BSE-1 BSE-2 LRO
100 year BSO
225 year BSE-2
475 year BSE-1
975 year BSE-1
A series of standard performance objectives, appropriate for the design of different

classes of buildings are needed. Such standards would relieve unsophisticated users
of the need to make a difficult selection for which they are unprepared [24].
Such a series of standard performance objectives, recommended by Vision 2000,
are indicated in the Figure 7. Each diagonal line in the figure indicates design
performance levels and earthquakes recommended for the design of buildings of
different occupancies and uses. Individual, informed building users, of course, could
select more stringent performance objectives, if desired. Adoption of such a standard
would relieve the design engineer and building user from having to select such a
basis [24].
Earthquake Performance Objective

Probability Fully Operational Operational Life Safe Near Collapse
Frequent Unacceptable
Occasional O Performance
Rare O
Very Rare O
Basic Facilities; O Essential/Hazardous Emergency Response Facilities; Safety Critical Facilities
Figure 7. SEAOC Vision 2000 Performance Objective [42]
2.6 Concluding remarks

The innovation bring by the new generation of seismic evaluation standards is the
introduction of a clear basis for establish the expected behaviour of the building
submitted at an earthquake motion. By meaning of Performance Objectives designer
can chose the structural and nonstructural members damage expectation at a certain
level of seismic motion or seismic hazard. The follow flow-chart (see Figure 8) try to
explicit the way the procedure and the interrelations between Building Performance
Objective and Seismic Hazard and Building Performance Level.
It is presented an example according to FEMA 356 356 [18] (see Table 8). Having a
non seismic residential reinforced concrete frame, a Basic Safety Objective has been
established by the owner together with the designer. To accomplish this
Performance Objective, using Table 6, are determinate two needed checks situation
k + p. This mean that at a rare earthquake (10%/50 year) the building performance
level should be in Life Safety range and for a very rare earthquake the building
17-56
performance should be Collapse Prevention. Once that we have decide Building

Performance Level we should decide on Performance Levels for Structural and
Nonstructural members (see Table 4).
Table 8 Performance Objective accomplish

Earthquake Building Structural Nonstructural
Objective Verification hazard Performance Performance Performance
(MRI) Level Level Level
Life Safety Life Safety Life Safety
K 474
Basic (3-C) (S-3) (N-C)
Safety Collapse Collapse Hazards
Objective P 2 475 Prevention Prevention Reduced
(5-D) (S-5) (N-4)
In first situation Life Safety have been chose Life Safety Level for structural and
nonstructural elements. In second situation Collapse Prevention have been chose
Collapse Prevention Level for structural and Hazards Reduced Level for
nonstructural elements in order to avoid large or heavy items that pose a high risk of
falling hazard to a large number of people — such as parapets, cladding panels,
heavy plaster ceilings are prevented from falling [18].
Basic Safety Objective (BSO)

BUILDING Enhanced Rehabilitation Objectives (BSE-1, BSE-2)
PERFORMANCE Limited Rehabilitation Objectives (Reduced Rehabilitation
OBJECTIVE Objective or Partial Rehabilitation Objective)
Frecvent
SEISMIC Occasional
HAZARD Rare
Very rare
Operational Building Performance Level (1-A)

SELECTION OF Immediate Occupancy Building Performance Level (1-B)
BUILDING Life Safety Building Performance Level (3-C)
PERFORMANCE LEVEL Collapse Prevention Building Performance Level (5-E)
SELECTION OF SELECTION OF
STRUCTURAL NONSTRUCTURAL
PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE
LEVEL LEVEL
Immediate Occupancy (S-1)

Damage Control Range (S-2) Operational (N-A);
Life Safety (S-3) Immediate Occupancy (N-B)
Limited Safety Range (S-4) Life Safety (N-C)
Collapse Prevention (S-5) Hazards Reduced (N-D)
Not Considered (S-6) Not Considered (N-E)
Figure 8 Selection of seismic hazard and performance levels for structural and
nonstructural members
18-56
3 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS METHODS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
3.1 Introduction
The most important effect of earthquakes on building structures is the inertia forces
produced in the building due to ground shaking. Being a rare event, structures are
usually designed to resist earthquake action in the inelastic range of response. Most
of the existing structures were not designed for seismic action at all, and are
therefore expected to respond beyond the elastic limit under a major earthquake.
The dynamic nature of earthquake action, which has components along the two
horizontal directions as well as the vertical one, and the possible inelastic structural
response, implies a nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure on a three-dimensional
model of the building structure. Though this type of analysis provides the most
"exact" modelling of structural response under earthquake action, it requires a high
degree of expertise, and can be very time-consuming. In many cases it possible to
adopt more simple analysis procedures. The simplifications may involve the model of
the structure (two plane models instead of a three-dimensional one), time-history
response (static analysis instead of dynamic one), and inelastic structural response
(linear elastic analysis instead of nonlinear analysis) [44].
There are five generally adopted analysis procedures used for seismic analysis of
structures (FEMA 356 356, 2000 [18]; Eurocode 8-1, 2003 [15]) presented bellow in
a hierarchical order:
• lateral force method (linear static procedure);
• response spectrum analysis;
• linear time-history analysis;
• nonlinear static procedure (pushover analysis);
• nonlinear time-history analysis.
The linear procedures maintain the traditional use of a linear stress-strain
relationship, but incorporate adjustments to overall building deformations and
material acceptance criteria to permit better consideration of the probable nonlinear
characteristics of seismic response. The Nonlinear Static Procedure, often called
“pushover analysis,” uses simplified nonlinear techniques to estimate seismic
structural deformations. The Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure, commonly known as
nonlinear time history analysis, requires considerable judgment and experience to
perform [44].
The acceptance criteria for the various performance objectives are prescribed for
each of the analytical procedures and numerical values of the acceptance criteria for
various structural and nonstructural systems are provided in standards.
Guidance on the global model of the structure and criteria for selection of analysis
procedure are available in seismic design codes (FEMA 356 356, 2000[18];
Eurocode 8-1, 2003 [15]; Eurocode 8-3, 2003 [16]). A synthesis of their requirements
is presented hereafter.
3.2 Global analysis and modeling requirements
3.2.1 General considerations

Due to the dynamic nature of seismic action, the structural model should adequately
represent not only the distribution of stiffness, but also the distribution of mass within
the structure. When nonlinear analysis methods are used, in addition to stiffness and
mass, the global structural model should include the distribution of strength within
the structure. When structural elements expected to respond in the inelastic range of
19-56
response, their stiffness should be based on the secant stiffness to yield force.
Special attention should be addressed to joints between structural elements, which
need explicit modelling when their stiffness differ significantly from the fully rigid or
pinned assumptions, or when their strength is lower than the one of connected
elements [44].
Horizontal torsion
Horizontal torsion of floor diaphragms is generated by the eccentricity between the
centre of mass and the centre of stiffness. It is not needed to be considered in
structures with flexible floor diaphragms. Beside the actual eccentricity, an accidental
eccentricity of about 5% of building horizontal dimension measured perpendicular to
the direction of lateral load is required by seismic design codes. The accidental
eccentricity is intended to account for uncertainties in the distribution of stiffness and
mass, as well as for the rotational components of the ground motion [44].
A three-dimensional model of the structure accounts directly for torsion due to
eccentricity between the centre’s of mass and stiffness, and need an explicit
consideration of accidental eccentricity only. Effects of torsion can be considered
only approximately in the case of planar structural models. Therefore, planar models
are restricted to structures regular in plan, when the effect o torsion is reduced [44].
Primary and secondary elements

Seismic design codes classify structural elements as primary and secondary.
Primary elements are the ones that provide a significant contribution to the capacity
of the structure to resist seismic action. They should be assessed for the forces and
deformations imposed in the seismic design situation. Secondary elements are the
ones that provide resistance to gravity loads mainly, and whose lateral strength and
stiffness can be neglected. Secondary elements need to be designed for the gravity
loads when subjected to the lateral deformations caused by seismic action [44].
Elements are classified as secondary based on their stiffness. The total lateral
stiffness of secondary elements needs to be lower than 15% (Eurocode 8-1, 2003
[15]) or 25% (FEMA 356356, 2000 [18]).
When linear analysis procedures are used, the global structural model can consist of
primary elements only. However, both primary and secondary elements need to be
included in the structural model when a nonlinear analysis procedure is performed
[44].
Diaphragms
It is generally preferred that floor diaphragms be rigid in their plane. Rigid
diaphragms provide a connection between lateral force resisting systems and the
gravity load resisting systems within a building, and enable for the different lateral
load resisting systems in the building to contribute to the global lateral resistance of
the structure. When horizontal diaphragms can be considered rigid in their plane, the
masses and mass moment of inertia of each floor can be lumped in the centre of
mass of the diaphragm. Structures with rigid diaphragms should account for the
effect of torsion when determining seismic demands in individual lateral force
resisting systems [44].
When diaphragms cannot be considered rigid, structural models should account
explicitly for the in-plane stiffness of the floor diaphragms. Alternatively, for very
flexible diaphragms, lateral force resisting systems can be modelled independently,
with seismic masses determined on the basis of tributary area [44].
20-56
FEMA 356 356 [18] classifies a floor diaphragm as rigid when the maximum
horizontal deformation of the diaphragm along its length is more than twice the
average interstorey drift of the vertical lateral force resisting elements of the storey
immediately below the diaphragm. Accordingly, a floor diaphragm is classified as
rigid when the maximum horizontal deformation of the diaphragm is less than half
the average interstorey drift of the vertical lateral force resisting elements of the
storey immediately below the diaphragm. Floor diaphragms that do not fit into the
above two categories are classified as stiff [44].
According to Eurocode 8-1 [15], a diaphragm can be considered as being rigid, if,
when it is modelled with its actual in-plane flexibility, its horizontal displacements
nowhere exceed those resulting from the rigid diaphragm assumption by more than
10% of the corresponding absolute horizontal displacements in the seismic design
situation [44].
It is proposed to apply acceptance criteria for horizontal diaphragms also. Because
of unknown assessment of performance levels in case of this type of elements and in
order that horizontal diaphragms to be able to perform they role to take and distribute
the horizontal loads to the lateral resisting system, vertical elements, this elements
must be designed to behave in elastic range at the desire building performance level.
With other words, horizontal diaphragm must have a higher capacity than lateral
resisting elements.
Second-order effects
When a structure is very flexible under lateral loads, a first-order analysis may
underestimate substantially forces and deformation. A second-order analysis is
necessary in this case. When a non-linear analysis is used, second-order effects
should be considered directly in the formulation of force-deformation relationships for
all elements subjected to axial forces [44].
When a linear analysis procedure is used, second order effects can be considered
Pδ
by evaluating the stability coefficient θi = i i , where Pi is the total gravity loading
Vi hi
acting at and above storey i in the seismic design situation; Vi is total seismic storey
shear; δi is the interstorey drift at storey i, and hi is the height of storey i. Second
order effects can be neglected when θi ≤ 0.1 in all stories. When the stability
coefficient is between 0.1 and 0.3, second order effects can be considered
approximately by multiplying forces and deformations by in storey i by 1/ (1 − θi ) .
When the stability coefficient is larger than 0.3, the structure is considered unstable,
and measures should be taken to increase the lateral stiffness of the structure [44].
Displacement analysis
If the structure responds mainly in the elastic range under the design seismic action,
lateral displacements can be estimated reliably based on a linear analysis (static or
dynamic). However, if the structure is expected to experience significant yielding
under the design seismic action, lateral deformations can be significantly larger than
the ones estimated based on a linear analysis. The effects that can contribute to
inelastic deformations larger than the elastic ones are: (1) frequency content of the
ground motion, in relation to the fundamental period of vibration of the building, (2)
duration of the ground motion, (3) hysteretic load deformation characteristics of
structural elements, including strength and stiffness degradation [44].
21-56
These effects are accounted directly by a nonlinear dynamic analysis. In the case of
linear analysis procedures, the possibility of inelastic deformation being larger than
the elastic ones can be considered only approximately, by using amplification
coefficients. This strategy is adopted by FEMA 356 356 [18], Eurocode 8-1 [15]
displacement analysis for linear analysis is based on the "equal displacement" rule,
neglecting the effects of frequency content and duration of ground motion, as well as
hysteretic characteristics of the structural elements [44].
Soil-structure interaction
The most important effect of soil-structure interaction is the elongation of period of
vibration of the structure due to flexibility of the foundation-soil interface. Soil-
structure interaction affects mainly rigid structures located on soft soils. It needs to
be considered when the increased period of vibration of the building increases
spectral accelerations [44].
3.2.2 Acceptance criteria

The acceptability of force and deformation actions shall be evaluated for each
component of building. Prior to selecting component acceptance criteria, each
component shall be classified as primary or secondary and each action shall be
classified as deformation-controlled (ductile) or force-controlled (nonductile).
Component strengths, material properties, and component capacities shall be
determined. Component acceptance criteria not presented in standards shall be
determined by qualification testing [18].
All primary and secondary components shall be capable of resisting force and
deformation actions within the applicable acceptance criteria of the selected
performance level [18].
All actions shall be classified as either deformation-controlled or force-controlled
using the component force versus deformation curves shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9 Component Force versus Deformation Curves (FEMA 356 356) [18]
The Type 1 curve depicted in Figure 9 is representative of ductile behaviour where

there is an elastic range (point 0 to point 1 on the curve) followed by a plastic range
(points 1 to 3) with non-negligible residual strength and ability to support gravity
loads at point 3. The plastic range includes a strain hardening or softening range
(points 1 to 2) and a strength-degraded range (points 2 to 3). Primary component
actions exhibiting this behaviour shall be classified as deformation-controlled if the
strain-hardening or strain softening range is such that e > 2g; otherwise, they shall
be classified as force-controlled. Secondary component actions exhibiting Type 1
behaviour shall be classified as deformation-controlled for any e/g ratio [18].
The Type 2 curve depicted in Figure 9 is representative of ductile behaviour where
there is an elastic range (point 0 to point 1 on the curve) and a plastic range (points 1
to 2) followed by loss of strength and loss of ability to support gravity loads beyond
22-56
point 2. Primary and secondary component actions exhibiting this type of behaviour
shall be classified as deformation-controlled if the plastic range is such that e > 2g;
otherwise, they shall be classified as force controlled [18].
The Type 3 curve depicted in Figure 9 is representative of a brittle or nonductile
behaviour where there is an elastic range (point 0 to point 1 on the curve) followed
by loss of strength and loss of ability to support gravity loads beyond point 1. Primary
and secondary component actions displaying Type 3 behaviour shall be classified as
–controlled [18].
Figure 10 Generalized Component Force-Deformation Relations for Depicting

Modeling and Acceptance Criteria [18]
For some components it is convenient to prescribe acceptance criteria in terms of

deformation (e.g., or ), while for others it is more convenient to give criteria in
terms of deformation ratios. To accommodate this, two types of idealized force vs.
deformation curves are used in Figure 10 (a) and (b) [18].
Figure 10 (a) shows normalized force (Q/QCE) versus deformation ( or ) and the
parameters a, b, and c. Figure 10 (b) shows normalized force (Q/QCE) versus
deformation ratio ( / y, / y, or /h) and the parameters d, e, and c [18].
Elastic stiffness and values for the parameters a, b, c, d, and e that can be used for
modeling components are given. Acceptance criteria for deformation or deformation
ratios for primary members (P) and secondary members (S) corresponding to the
target Building Performance Levels of Collapse Prevention (CP), Life Safety (LS),
and Immediate Occupancy (IO) as shown in Figure 10 (c) are given in specific
chapters of standards [18].
3.2.3 Linear – Elastic Analysis
3.2.3.1 Lateral force method

When lateral force method is used, the structural elements are modelled with linearly
elastic stiffness and equivalent viscous damping corresponding to components
responding at or near yield level (unless the structure is shown to respond in the
elastic range under the design seismic action) [44].
23-56
The lateral force method is based on the assumption that seismic response of the
structure is governed by the fundamental mode of vibration. First the base shear
force is determined based on the total mass of the structure, response spectrum
ordinate corresponding to the fundamental period of vibration, and (eventually)
correction coefficients accounting for higher-mode effects, frequency content of the
ground motion and hysteretic characteristics of structural elements. In a second step,
the base shear force is distributed along the height of the structure, according to the
assumed or computed fundamental period of vibration of the structure [44].
In the case of assessment of existing structure (FEMA 356, [18]; Eurocode 8-3, [16]),
the lateral forces are determined based on the elastic response spectrum, and not
on the design one (reduced by the behaviour factor q). This procedure intends to
estimate the design lateral displacements of the structure rather than the design
forces in structural elements, because displacements are better indicator of damage
to the structure in the inelastic range than forces. If the building responds essentially
in the elastic range, the forces estimated using the lateral force method will
approximate reasonable those expected during the seismic event. However, if the
building responds in the inelastic range, actual internal forces that would develop in
the building will be lower than the ones estimated using the lateral force method [44].
3.2.3.2 Modal response spectrum and modal linear time-history

As in the case of lateral force method, when response spectrum analysis and linear
dynamic analysis is used, structural elements are modelled with linearly elastic
stiffness and equivalent viscous damping corresponding to components responding
at or near yield level (unless the structure is shown to respond in the elastic range
under the design seismic action). When used for assessment of existing structures,
both procedures are intended to provide an estimate of design displacements rather
than design forces (FEMA 356, [18]; Eurocode 8-3, [16]) [44].
Response spectrum procedure is a generalization of the lateral force method,
accounting for more than one mode of vibration in determining seismic response of
the structure. Total response of the structure is obtained by combination of individual
response in several modes of vibration. It provides a reliable estimation of elastic
seismic demands when response of the structure is not governed by the
fundamental mode of vibration. Being based on superposition, it is restricted to
elastic analysis only. The number of modes of vibration that need to be included in
analysis is usually determined so that the sum of effective modal masses of modes
considered in analysis amounts to at least 90% of the total mass of the building.
When response spectrum procedure is used, seismic action is characterized by the
elastic response spectrum [44].
Response spectrum analysis provides an envelope of displacements and internal
forces. When the time-history response is of interest, linear time-history analysis is
employed. It is based on direct numerical integration of the equation of motion, and
provides the most comprehensive and detailed information of seismic response of a
structure as long as it responds in the elastic range. Seismic action is represented by
recorded or synthetic ground motion time histories, representative for the building
site. Due to variability of individual records, when linear time history analysis is used,
structural response should be determined based on several ground motion records.
If three or more accelerograms are used, the maximum response of the parameter of
interest should be used for design. If seven or more accelerograms are used, the
design can be based on the average of all response parameters [44].
24-56
3.2.3.3 Acceptance criteria for linear analysis

If linear procedures are used, capacities for deformation-controlled actions shall be
defined as the product of m-factors (Modification factor used in the acceptance
criteria of deformation-controlled components or elements, indicating the available
ductility of a component action), and expected strengths, QCE. Capacities for force-
controlled actions shall be defined as lower-bound strengths, QCL [18].
Deformation-controlled design actions shall be calculated in accordance with [18]:
QUD = QG ± QE (1)
Where QE = action due to design earthquake loads calculated using forces and
analysis; QG = Action due to design gravity loads [18]:.
Deformation-controlled actions in primary and secondary components and elements
shall satisfy following equation [18]:
m ⋅ κ ⋅ QCE > QUD (2)
Where m = component or element demand modifier (factor) to account for expected
ductility associated with this action at the selected Structural Performance Level. M-
factors are specified in dedicated chapters; QCE = expected strength of the
component or element at the deformation level under consideration for deformation-
controlled actions; κ = knowledge factor taken according to knowledge level [18]:.
Force-controlled actions in primary and secondary components and elements shall
satisfy the following equation [18]::
κ ⋅ QCL > QUF (3)
QCL = lower-bound strength of a component or element at the deformation level
under consideration for force-controlled actions.
Force-controlled design actions QUF shall be taken as the maximum action that can
be developed in a component based on a limit-state analysis considering the
expected strength of the components delivering load to the component under
consideration, or the maximum action developed in the component as limited by the
nonlinear response of the building. Alternatively QUF can be use [18]::
QE
QUF = QG ± (4)
C1C2C3 J
Displacement amplifiers, C1, C2, and C3 are divided out when seeking an estimate
of the force level present in a component when the building is responding
inelastically. J = a coefficient used in linear procedures to estimate the actual forces
delivered to force-controlled components by other (yielding) components [18].
3.2.4 Non-linear Analysis
3.2.4.1 Static – Pushover

Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is performed by applying constant gravity
loading and monotonically increasing lateral loading to the structure. Model of
structural elements should incorporate directly the non-linear load-deformation
behaviour. Nonlinear static analysis is usually used together with different
procedures (e.g. coefficient method, capacity spectrum method - FEMA 356 [18]; or
the N2 method - Eurocode 8-1, [15]) in order to estimate the target displacement
under the design seismic action [44].
Considering that target displacement is intended to represent the maximum
displacement experienced during seismic action, and that element inelastic response
25-56
is modelled directly, nonlinear static procedure will provide reasonable estimates of

both displacements and internal forces [44].
3.2.4.2 Dynamic – Time-history

Nonlinear time-history analysis represents the most advanced method of analysis for
evaluation of seismic response of structures. Element model should incorporate the
nonlinear force-deformation relationships under cyclic loading. Seismic action is
represented by recorded or synthetic ground motion records. Structural response is
obtained by direct integration of the equation of motion. Nonlinear time-history
analysis provides reasonable estimates of both displacements and internal forces in
structural elements [44].
As calculated response can be highly sensitive to individual ground motion records,
more than one accelerogram should be used in analysis. If three or more
accelerograms are used, the maximum response of the parameter of interest should
be used for design. If seven or more accelerograms are used, the design can be
based on the average of all response parameters [44].
3.2.4.3 Acceptance criteria for nonlinear analysis

If nonlinear procedures are used, component capacities for deformation-controlled
actions shall be taken as permissible inelastic deformation limits, and component
capacities for force-controlled actions shall be taken as lower-bound strengths, QCL
[18].
3.3 Choice of analysis procedure
3.3.1 Knowledge factor

Data on the as-built condition of the structure, components, site, and adjacent
buildings shall be collected in sufficient detail to perform the selected analysis
procedure. The extent of data collected (material properties, initial project drawings,
condition assessment and addition information obtained by testing) shall be
consistent with minimum, usual, or comprehensive levels of knowledge. Depending
of the level of knowledge shall be determined the selected Rehabilitation Objective
and analysis procedure in accordance with Table 9 [18].
Table 9 Data Collection Requirements (FEMA 356) [18]

Level of knowledge
Minimum Usual Comprehensive
Rehabilitation Objective BSO or Lower BSO or Enhanced Enhanced
Analysis Procedures LSP, LDP All All
3.3.2 Requirements for analysis procedure selection
3.3.2.1 Lateral force method

The formulation of lateral force method is based on a linear (elastic) structural
response and assumes that response is governed by the fundamental mode shape.
These two assumptions dictate the conditions in which the lateral force method can
be used for evaluation of seismic response of structures [44].
In the elastic range, dynamic response is governed by the fundamental mode of
vibration if the structure is regular in elevation and it is not very flexible. The second
26-56
requirement is expressed in Eurocode 8-1 (2003) by limitation of the fundamental

period of vibration of structures that can be analyzed using the lateral force method
to the lesser of 4TC and 2 seconds (where TC is the limit between the constant
acceleration and constant velocity region of the spectrum) [44].
Further limitations on the use of the lateral force method arise due to deviation of the
structural response form the fundamental period of vibration following inelastic
deformations in the structure. Thus, Eurocode 8-3 [16] requires that ratio between
the largest and the smallest demand to capacity ratio over all primary elements to be
smaller than the value of 2. This requirement intends to eliminate cases when
inelastic deformations can concentrate in isolated regions of the structure (e.g. soft-
storey effect), changing substantially the deformed shape from the assumed
fundamental mode shape. Additionally, when the structure experiences large
inelastic deformations, the elastic analysis becomes a poor evaluation of the inelastic
response, preventing application of the lateral force method. Large inelastic
demands are indicated by large demand to capacity ratios in primary structural
elements (Eurocode 8-3, [16]) [44].
3.3.2.2 Response spectrum and linear time-history analysis

Response spectrum and linear time-history analysis have the advantage over the
lateral force method of not relying on a single mode of vibration for the determination
of the seismic response of the structure. Therefore, it can be applied to structures
that are both regular and irregular in elevation [44].
However, response spectrum and linear time-history analyses suffer from the
drawbacks of linear (elastic) analysis, when applied to highly inelastic structural
response. Therefore, these analysis procedures are still not adequate when inelastic
demands are non-uniform within the structure and when the structural response is
expected to be highly inelastic [44].
3.3.2.3 Nonlinear static procedure

Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis provides generally a better estimates of the
inelastic response of a structure that the linear procedures. However, it is subjected
to several limitations, due to the fact that it relies on the assumption that structural
response is governed by the fundamental mode shape, and that this shape does not
change when the structure yields under increasing lateral loading. Pushover analysis
is mainly applicable to estimating seismic demands on low-rise and medium rise
structures in which inelastic demands are uniformly distributed along the height of
the structure [11]. In order to compensate for limitations of the single and invariant
lateral load distribution, seismic demands can be obtained on the envelope of
demands obtained under several lateral force distributions. For example, Eurocode
8-1 [15] requires at least two lateral force distributions ("modal" and uniform). An
alternative is to supplement the nonlinear static analysis with a linear dynamic
procedure (response spectrum or time-history), approach suggested by FEMA
356356 [18] [44].
Several improved procedures based on pushover analysis were proposed by
different researchers, in order to account for influence of higher modes of vibration
and change in distribution of lateral forces as a result of change in dynamic
properties of the structure as a result of yielding. A review of different enhanced
pushover procedures developed recently is available in Chopra [11] and Kalkan and
Kunnath [29]. One group of procedures is based on adaptive load patterns, which
change at each step of pushover analysis in order to reflect changing in dynamic
27-56
properties of the structure as a result of yielding. A second group of enhanced

procedures is based on modal combination of several pushover analyses with
invariant lateral force distributions. While these enhanced procedures eliminate
drawbacks of standard pushover procedure, and represent significant advancements
of the pushover analysis, their complexity makes it difficult to be implemented in
practice [44].
3.3.2.4 Nonlinear time-history analysis

Nonlinear dynamic analysis offers the most "correct" evaluation of seismic response
of a structure, and can be applied in all cases. However, it requires the greatest
degree of expertise of the engineer and the most comprehensive degree of
knowledge on the properties of materials and elements. Recognizing this fact, FEMA
356 [18] requires that nonlinear time-history analysis be reviewed by a third-party
engineer experienced in seismic design and nonlinear analysis procedures. Also, it
can be very time-consuming, due to model development, large analysis time and
result interpretation [44].
3.4 Structural typologies

P-BSA of building it is treated separately regarding to the structural typologies.
Material selection of FEMA 356 [18] provides in the general chapter qualitative
definition and in the dedicated chapters provide quantitative acceptance criteria for
ensure that a specific level of performance is achieved.
Detailed criteria for calculation of individual component force and deformation
capacities shall comply with the requirements in individual materials chapters as
follows [18]:
1. Foundations;
2. Elements and components composed of steel or cast iron:
a. Steel Moment Frame;
b. Steel Braced Frame;
c. Steel Plate Shear Walls;
d. Steel Frame with Infills;
e. Diaphragm.
3. Elements and components composed of reinforced concrete:
a. Concrete Moment Frames;
b. Precast Concrete Frames;
c. Concrete Frames with Infills;
d. Concrete Shear Walls;
e. Concrete Braced Frames;
f. Cast-in-place Concrete Diaphragms;
g. Precast Concrete Diaphragms.
4. Elements and components composed of reinforced or unreinforced
masonry:
a. Masonry Walls;
b. Masonry Infills.
5. Elements and components composed of timber, light metal studs,
gypsum, or plaster products:
a. Wood and Light Frame Shear Walls;
b. Wood Diaphragms.
6. Seismic isolation systems and energy dissipation systems;
7. Nonstructural (architectural, mechanical, and electrical) components;
28-56
8. Elements and components comprising combinations of materials are covered

in the Chapters associated with each material.
4 STRUCTURAL VALIDATION OF RETROFITTING TECHNIQUES

Every rehabilitation program of buildings aims at [47].
1. The removal of the causes of the continuing deterioration;
2. The better conservation of the building after the work is completed;
3. The improvement of the value.
Alternative solutions shall be finally validated in terms of several criteria of different
nature (value, technical, structural economical) as listed in following table [47] and
discussed in par [47].
The artistic value (aesthetics)

The architectural rarity
The material value
The historical value
Cultural values The sacred value (religion)
The value as a memorial or a symbol
The usage value (function)
The scientific value (archaeological, structural, etc)
The educational value
Reversibility of intervention
Compatibility
Durability
Corrosion
UV resistance
Aging
Technical aspects
Creep
Local conditions
Availability of material/device
Familiarity/experience with method
Technical aspects
Quality control
Structural performance
• Strength
• Stiffness
• Ductility
• Fatigue
Response to fire
Sensitivity to changes of actions/resistances e.g. seismic action,
Structural aspects
temperature, fire, soil conditions etc.
Accompanying measures e.g. modification of foundation
Technical support
• Codification
• Recommendations
• Technical rules
Installation/Erection e.g. availability/necessity for lifting equipment
Costs
Design
Material/Fabrication
Economical aspects Transportation
Erection/Installation
Approval methodology
Preparatory works
29-56
4.1 Technical aspects

Technical aspects refer to decisions covering the overall design and the selection of
materials and techniques [47].
4.1.1 Reversibility
Reversibility is a basic requirement for any type of intervention. Reversible in general
is what can be removed without harming the existing structure. However, it is
generally recognized that full reversibility can never be obtained. A typical example
are holes that are driven in existing elements for placing fasteners, anchors or ties,
which will remain, even if the connection elements are removed. Accordingly, the
use of fasteners is partially a reversible technique, since the fasteners can be
removed, but the holes not without additional measures. Consequently, reference
should be made preferably to the degree of reversibility [47].
Examples for high reversible techniques are [47]:
• Interventions that do not cut walls, but take place below foundation level.
• Use of un-bonded mechanical fasteners
• Use of pre-stress with external tendons, hoops etc.
• Use of additional elements that are mechanically connected to the existing
structure
Examples of low reversible techniques are [47]:
• Use of welding or other monolithic connection
• Use of additional elements that are bonded with the existing structure (FRP’s,
internal tendons etc.)
• Encasing in concrete
4.1.2 Compatibility
4.1.2.1 Material
It is evidently not always possible to find or produce exactly the same materials as
the authentic ones for restorations in historical buildings and monuments. Examples
are old mortars, bricks or metals that cannot be exactly reproduced. Very often,
failures in buildings after restorations are due to lack of knowledge of materials and
construction details that cause a wrong choice of the repair technique and the poor
application of it. Examples are given below [47].
Grout injection in old masonry: Such injections shall fill voids and cracks, as well as
the gaps between two parts of the walls, in order to increase the continuity and
therefore the strength. For that reason, the materials constituting the walls, the crack
distribution, as well as the size, percentage and distribution of voids must be well
documented. Grouts shall be chemically and physically compatible with the existing
material. Walls with low void rations (<4%) or internal fillings with loose materials are
difficult to be injected [47].
FRP composites: Research results and in-situ applications have shown that FRP
composites can be effectively and efficiently used for repair and upgrade of historical
structures. However, this application of FRP composites presents some critical
issues still not sufficiently investigated, like physical and chemical compatibility of the
FRP system with the parent material, which is a key issue for both short- and long-
term performance of the upgraded structure [47].
For the above reasons, the debate on optimal material selection is being opened on
whether inorganic materials could represent a better alternative to organic polymers
30-56
as matrix of advanced composites. Inorganic composites are relatively inexpensive,

non-combustible, and non-hazardous/non-toxic, and they might offer better
compatibility with masonry substrates, although at the expenses of mechanical
properties and durability [47].
4.1.2.2 Structural
Compatibility problems may arise not only at material, but also at structural level. In
case that the intervention creates stiffness or strength discontinuities, local failures
may result in [47].
Examples are given below.
Wall jacketing: Mesh reinforcement is placed at both sides of the walls and concrete
is injected or grouted subsequently. Incompatibilities may arise from the following: i)
lack of connection between meshes in transverse walls and the floors, ii) insufficient
overlapping between meshes, iii) insufficient transverse connectors between the
mesh and the wall, as well as the two sides of the wall, iv) non-uniform distribution of
the repaired areas over the building. The above incompatibilities result in
discontinuities in the repaired structures that may cause damage after a future
earthquake [47].
Concrete ring beams: They are placed in floors and the roof in order to improve the
diaphragm action. Such ring beams are easier to apply in roofs, after possible
removal of the old roof, but difficult to install in floors due to the fact that the wall
must be partly demolished. For that reason, ring beams do not extend over the
whole width of the wall with the consequence that the walls are eccentrically loaded
and not well tied with the floor beams [47].
The above indicate that any of the aforementioned issues requires an
interdisciplinary effort [47].
In particular, researchers with material-oriented and structural-oriented backgrounds
need to strictly interact with each other for a full understanding of the problems.
While a material knowledge is essential to deal with the topics of durability at the
material level, physical and chemical compatibility, reversibility and optimal selection
of materials, the structural expertise is needed to focus on the macro-scale
behaviour of the strengthened member and structure, and to understand the
structural implications of different material behaviours and micro-scale phenomena.
Moreover, when dealing with historical structures, a third expertise on architectural
restoration will contribute on the issue on minimal invasiveness and reversibility [47].
4.1.3 Durability
Durability is a key issue to all interventions [47]. Examples are given below.
Metals: Metals are subjected to different degrees of corrosion. Lead, aluminium,
stainless steel, or galvanized steel are less prone to corrosion [47].
Timber: The durability of timber is affected by humidity. Best protection is given when
humidity levels are kept constant, or when the material is treated by appropriate
impregnations [47].
Rubber: Rubber is subjected to aging, especially when exhibited to UV-radiation.
FRP composites: This global issue involves durability of FRP and parent material
(concrete, masonry, wood or metal) as stand-alone materials, durability of their
mutual interface, and possibly durability of the devices used for implementation of
the strengthening technology (e.g. anchors, post-tensioning devices, etc.). The
interaction of all these factors affects the durability and structural behaviour of the
upgraded structure as a whole [47].
31-56
4.1.4 Local conditions

Important technical aspects on the selection of the appropriate intervention
technique are the local conditions. They mainly refer to the availability of the
material/devices in the specific site and the experience with the proposed
intervention. Advanced techniques may not be applied when the local expertise is
completely absent. Well established methods, where significant experience, exists
are preferable and better scored [47].
4.1.5 Quality control

A quality control plan has to be laid down and evaluated. This refers not only to the
installation phase, but also for the design life. An observation and maintenance plan,
including any non-destructive testing, have to be proposed and scored [47].
4.2 Structural aspects
4.2.1 Accompanying measures

Any accompanying measures that lead to modifications of the existing structure and
implications to its original performance have to be considered and scored. Examples:
Base isolation: The instalment of base isolation systems possibly requires
modifications in the foundation. It is to be decided at which level any isolators are
going to be introduced and what implications are associated with it [47].
FRP: When FRP’s are wrapped in columns, the columns have to be freed from any
adjacent elements. That means that any non-bearing walls in contact with columns
have to be partly demolished at a certain distance from the columns, with all the
consequences for electrical wires or any other items within the wall [47].
4.2.2 Technical support

Technical support, in the form of Codification, Recommendations or Technical rule,
may be positively scored in the evaluation. If a national or international Code
provides data on the design or good practice of an intervention method, or if a
material and technology are covered by appropriate Certificates, a positive score
may be employed [47].
4.2.3 Installation/Erection
The design has to consider the way on how to apply for the specific object the
proposed method of intervention. Intermediate states and construction phases have
to be taken into account. The availability of any lifting equipment, if required, has to
be regarded [47].
4.3 Economical aspects

All type of costs, including Design, Material/Fabrication, Transportation,
Erection/Installation, Approval methodology and any Preparatory works have to be
regarded and evaluated. The approval methodology refers to innovative
interventions, not covered by normative documents, where preliminary tests and
special investigations are required. The scores for the costs have to be weighted vs.
the importance of the object. For monuments, the costs play a minor role in the
evaluation. However, costs are important for any intervention [47].
32-56
4.4 Retrofitting technologies efficiency – some examples

In scientific literature papers can be found briefly presentations of advantage and
disadvantage of conventional retrofitting techniques (see Figure 11).
A very important task of the designer is to decide the retrofitting strategy (see Figure
12) and indirectly to establish the desired effects of seismic retrofitting on structural
performance. Conventional strengthening applications generally lead to an increase
in both the stiffness and the lateral load capacity of the structure. This is shown by
the capacity curve of the strengthened structure, Cs, which has a higher slope and
peak compared to the capacity curve before strengthening, Cu. Due to the increased
stiffness, which translates into a decreased fundamental period, the seismic demand
on the structure is also increased, as shown by the demand curve for the
strengthened structure, Ds, compared to that for the unstrengthened structure, Du.
Although the capacity increase is partly alleviated by the increase in seismic
demand, the overall performance of the structure is improved as shown by the
locations of the performance points on the spectral displacement axis for before and
after strengthening [7].
Figure 11 Effectiveness of conventional strengthening methods: structural walls and

bracings in seismic (CEB – Fastenings for seismic retrofitting [8]; Sugano 1989)
33-56
Figure 12 Concept of seismic rehabilitation [4][34]
5 EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES
5.1 Review of the main evaluation methods

The structural engineering community has developed a new generation of design
and seismic evaluation procedures that incorporates performance-based engineering
concepts. In a short term, the most appropriate approach seems to be a combination
of the nonlinear static (pushover) analysis and the response spectrum approach [48].
Examples of such an approach are:
• Capacity spectrum method (CSM), applied in
o ATC 40 (Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, 1996)
o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Manuals (Seismic Design for
Buildings and Seismic Design Guidelines for Upgrading Existing
Buildings, 1998)
o Japanese Building Standard Law (BSL 2000)
• Nonlinear static procedure, applied in
o FEMA 356 (Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, 2000),
o N2 method developed at the University of Ljubljana (Fajfar) and
implemented in the draft Eurocode 8 (Design of structures for
earthquake resistance, 2001),
o Modal Pushover Analysis (Chopra and Goel)
All methods combine the pushover analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
model with the response spectrum analysis of an equivalent single-degree-of-
34-56
freedom (SDOF) system. Inelastic spectra or elastic spectra with equivalent damping
and period are applied. As an alternative representation of inelastic spectrum the
Yield Point Spectrum has been proposed (Aschheim and Black). Some other
simplified procedures based on deformation-controlled design have been developed,
e.g. the approaches developed by Priestley and by Panagiotakos and Fardis.
The essential difference is related to the determination of the displacement demand
(target displacement). If an equivalent elastic spectrum is used, displacement
demand is determined based on equivalent stiffness and equivalent damping, that
depend on the target displacement and, consequently, iteration is needed. The
quantitative values of equivalent damping, suggested by different authors, differ
considerably. On the other side, for the methods using inelastic spectra, bilinear
idealization of the pushover curve is required. If the bilinear idealization depends on
the displacement demand, then the computational procedure becomes iterative,
also. The procedures differ also in the assumed lateral load pattern, used in
pushover analysis, and in the displacement shape, used for the transformation from
the MDOF to the SDOF system (and vice versa). Only if the two vectors are related,
i.e. if the lateral load pattern is determined from the assumed displacement shape,
the transformation from the MDOF to the SDOF system is based on a mathematical
derivation [48].
Related to the organization of evaluation procedure or design of the retrofitted
structure some criteria can be notice [20]:
o Role of the displacement in the design process
o Deformation – calculation based (DCB)
o Iterative deformation – specification based (IDSB)
o Direct deformation – specification based (DDSB)
o Type of analysis used in the design process
o Response spectra – initial stiffness based
o Response spectra – secant stiffness based
o Time history analysis based
o Structural type limitations
o Limit-state or performance objectives limitations
The following matrix (see Table 10) presents a visual representation of various
design procedures, combining the first two criteria.
Table 10 Matrix of design procedures [20]

Iterative
Deformation – Direct deformation –
deformation –
calculation based specification based
specification
(DCB) (DDSB)
based (IDSB)
Moehle [33]
FEMA 356 [18]
Response SEAOC [41]
UBC [46]
spectra – initial Browning [6] Aschheim & Black [3]
Panagiotakos & Fardis [36]
stiffness Chopra & Goel [10]
Albanesi [1]
Fajfar [17]
Freeman [22]
Response Kowalsky [31]
ATC [5]
spectra – secant Gulkan & Sozen [23] SEAOC [41]
Paret [38]
stiffness Priestley & Kowalsky [39]
Chopra & Goel [9]
Time history
Kappos & Manafpour [30] N/A N/A
analysis
35-56
Approximate analysis requires basic structural information in addition to visual

screening methodology such as the dimensions of columns, beams and shear walls,
which can be determined from building drawings or measurements, usually on the
ground floor. Where building drawings are not available, minimum reinforcement is
assumed in the structural elements. Concrete strength is usually assumed a
conservative value, however, on site (e.g. Windsor probe) or laboratory
measurement of concrete strength is more appropriate for buildings in areas known
for variability in material properties. The lateral seismic design loads on the building
are calculated using the static equivalent load method and distributed to the floors
according to seismic codes [34]. The calculated load demand is compared with the
lateral load capacity of the floor determined either individually for each member, or
as a whole by simplifying the building system to one of the forms shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13 Simplified equivalent building systems for approximate analysis [34]
The former requires distribution of the floor load to members according to their
rigidities. Evaluation of the building is performed by means of a seismic index, Is,
determined by a ratio between the total allowable lateral load and the probable
lateral seismic load demand, given by
V
I s = all (5)
V
This evaluation is generally performed for ground floor only for savings in time and
labour. In case it is performed for each floor, the most critical index is assigned for
the building. A significant advantage of approximate structural evaluation
methodologies, other than considerable time savings compared to detailed analysis
methods, is the ability to perform a first level prioritization, based on the level of
lateral load resistance, for a detailed analysis or retrofit application [34].
Detailed evaluation through linear analysis methods is the most commonly used
approach since most seismic codes (e.g. [45], [28]) require use of these methods.
Based on detailed structural information, member forces under design loads are
determined and compared with their ultimate strength. With this methodology, it is
possible to accurately determine the overstressed members under design loads;
however, it is difficult to assess the seismic risk of the building at the system level.
Thus, although this method is useful in prioritizing deficient structures, it may not
yield sufficient information needed for determining the optimum retrofit strategies.
The current trend is to use the nonlinear analysis techniques, which require
approximately the same amount of data, but more engineering effort and expertise
compared to the approaches based on linear analysis techniques [34].
36-56
Detailed evaluation using nonlinear analysis provides the most accurate and reliable
risk assessment, loss estimation, and retrofit optimization practices at the expense of
detailed site, structural, and material information, longer computation times, and a
higher level of technical expertise. The linear analysis methodology described above
is an integral part of this methodology. By considering the nonlinear inelastic
behaviour of structural members under increasing loads, this methodology can
predict the nonlinear behaviour of the structural system much more realistically
compared to linear analysis techniques [34].
Determining the nonlinear structural behaviour allows for performance-based design,
which results in significant savings in seismic retrofit applications ([4], [18]). Figure
14(a) shows the typical roof displacement vs. base shear curve obtained from
nonlinear pushover analysis of buildings. Using this curve alone, one can perform a
preliminary evaluation of the structure’s seismic safety by comparing its capacity with
the seismic demand determined using the equivalent static load method described in
seismic codes. A better performance evaluation can be performed by converting
both the capacity curve and the seismic demand spectrum to the acceleration-
displacement response spectrum (ADRS) format formed as a relationship of spectral
displacement vs. spectral acceleration as shown in Figure 14b. A further improved
evaluation can be achieved by obtaining a reduced inelastic response spectrum for
the seismic demand to consider the increased damping due to inelastic deformations
in the building [4].
Figure 14 Seismic safety evaluation of buildings using nonlinear analysis [34]
The intersection of the capacity and demand curves shown in Figure 14 is called the
performance point of the building. Based on the location of this performance point,
performance level of the building is determined. The intervals of spectral
displacement that correspond to different performance levels are also shown in
Figure 14. The limits of the performance levels are determined by certain interstory
drift values. If the performance point is located in the initial portion of the capacity
curve where the inelastic deformations are not significant, which corresponds to
interstory drift values less than 0.01, the performance level of the building is
immediate occupancy, which is self explanatory.
For interstory drift values between 0.01-0.02, the limits of which are immediate
occupancy and life safety levels, respectively, the performance level of the building is
damage control. In this region, inelastic deformations are expected in the building
37-56
that poses no significant threat to the stability of the building and the safety of its
occupants. Between the life safety and structural stability levels, the building
performance level is described as limited safety. Large inelastic deformations are
expected which may result in excessive cracking and failure of some structural
members, which may pose threat to occupants or result in local failures. Beyond the
structural stability level, the collapse of the building is imminent. From this
discussion, it is apparent that nonlinear analysis is a very convenient methodology
for development of realistic fragility curves [34].
5.2 Vulnerability Analysis

Vulnerability can simply be defined as the sensitivity of the exposure to seismic
hazard(s). The vulnerability of an element is usually expressed as a percentage loss
(or as a value between zero and one) for a given hazard severity level [12]. In a large
number of elements, like building stocks, vulnerability may be defined in terms of the
damage potential to a class of similar structures subjected to a given seismic hazard.
Vulnerability analysis reveals the damageability of the structure(s) under varying
intensity or magnitudes of ground motion. Multiple damage states are typically
considered in the analysis [34].
Figure 15 Structural vulnerability and damage states for various level of seismic
demand [34]
Figure 15(a) shows the damage states of a building based on the applied base
shear, which can be determined as a function of the seismic demand. The roof
displacement – base shear curve, also called the capacity curve, shown in this figure
represents the nonlinear behaviour of a building under increasing load or
displacement demand. The damage state of the building varies between none to
collapse under increasing levels of demand, which is graphically illustrated in Figure
15(a). A relatively more convenient representation of the damage states is provided
in Figure 15(b) by overlaying both building capacity and seismic demand curves on a
different set of axes showing spectral displacement vs. spectral acceleration. Two
different capacity and seismic demand curves are shown in the figure. Intersection of
the capacity and demand curves represents the damage state likely to be
experienced by the structure. As can be seen from the figure, the strong structure is
likely to suffer from light to moderate damage due to the low seismic demand, and
moderate to extensive damage due to the high seismic demand. On the other hand,
the weak structure is expected to suffer from moderate to extensive damage due to
38-56
low seismic demand, and collapse during the high seismic demand due to
insufficient seismic resistance [34].
Methods of vulnerability analysis vary based on the exposure information and the
complexity of the approach. Vulnerability of structures to ground motion effects is
often expressed in terms of fragility curves or damage functions that take into
account the uncertainties in the seismic demand and capacity. Fragility functions can
be developed for buildings or its components depending on how detailed the risk
analysis is performed. Early forms of fragility curves were developed as a function of
qualitative ground motion intensities largely based on expert opinion. Recent
developments in nonlinear structural analysis have enabled development of fragility
curves as a function of spectral parameters quantitatively related to the magnitude of
ground motion. Figure 16(a) shows the typical seismic demand and structural
capacity curves together with their uncertainties expressed in terms of probabilistic
distributions. Based on these curves and the associated uncertainties, the fragility
curves shown in Figure 16(b) can be constructed for various damage states. Since
each damage level is associated with a repair/replacement cost, the probabilistic
estimates of the total cost can be estimated using these curves once the hazard is
known. This can be achieved by use of predefined representative fragility curves
developed for structures in the same class, or custom damage curves developed
through nonlinear analysis of individual structures [34].
Figure 16 Uncertainties in seismic performance and use of fragility curves [34]
Construction of the fragility or damage curves is the key element in estimating the
probability of various damage states in buildings or building components as a
function of the magnitude of a seismic event. Thus, development of realistic fragility
curves for the building stock and lifelines in a seismic region constitutes an essential
part of a meaningful seismic risk analysis [34].
39-56
Figure 17 Steps in evaluate the safety of the building
5.3 Examples
5.3.1 Reinforced concrete frame retrofitted with metallic shear panel

It is presented the seismic upgrading of existing reinforced concrete structures [13]
by means of steel and pure aluminium shear panels. After a preliminary experimental
evaluation of the performance of the bare RC structure, a design procedure based
on the capacity spectrum method has been developed according to the procedure
provided in the ATC 40 [4] American guidelines. The ATC-40 [4] code emphasizes
the use of non-linear static procedure, combined with the employment of the capacity
spectrum method, which provides a graphical representation of the global force-
displacement capacity curve (i.e. pushover) of the structure and then compares it to
the response spectra representations of the earthquakes demand.
The geometrical configuration of both panels has been defined according to
simplified analytical relationships and an appropriate external steel frame has been
designed for allowing their insertion in the existing RC structure.
The use of metal shear panels for retrofitting existing structures is exemplified in
Figure 18, where the capacity and demand curves of a retrofitted structure are
shown.
40-56
Figure 18 Preliminary Design of RC structure endowed with metal shear panel [13]
Based on the evaluation of the damage state of the initial structure as determined by
the examination of the capacity curve, the designer may easily determine the
spectral displacement levels corresponding to the performance levels. For the
examined structures such spectral displacements, corresponding to the Immediate
Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Structural Stability (SS) performance levels,
are indicated in Figure 18.
For the sake of example, the performance point occurs for this structure at a spectral
displacement of about 5 cm, resulting in a Structural Stability (SS) performance level.
Since the structure has to be retrofitted, let us assume that the “Life Safety” is set by
the designer sets as a performance objective for the building. According to the
procedure and based on the “equal displacements” simplifying assumption, the initial
stiffness for the retrofitted structure is defined starting from the knowledge of the
corresponding period, leading to the following relationship:
2
T
K r = Ki i (6)
Tr
Where Ki and Ti are the stiffness and the period of the initial structure, respectively,
and Kr is the stiffness required for the retrofitted one. Therefore, considering that the
retrofitted structure will be able to provide at least the same level of damping of the
initial structure, the “desired performance point” is defined and the required ultimate
base shear capacity for the retrofitted structure can be obtained by the following
equation:
S
Vr = a r Vi (7)
S ai
where Vi is the ultimate base shear capacity of the initial structure, Vr is the required
ultimate shear capacity of the retrofitted structure, Sai and Sar are the ultimate
spectral acceleration for the unretrofitted and retrofitted structures, respectively.
41-56
Therefore, once Vr and Kr have been determined, the contribution provided by shear
panels in terms of both strength and stiffness can be achieved through the following
relationships:
K p = K r − Ki (8)
V p = Vr − Vi (9)
Once the required stiffness and strength of shear panels have been determined, it is
possible to develop a preliminary design for selecting the panel geometry. However,
it should be emphasized, that while the presented approach is suitably accurate to
lead to a preliminary design solution, it is extremely important that the actual demand
and capacity spectra for the retrofitted structure are formally computed as part of the
final design process.
Evaluation of the bare RC structure [13]
In this example, according to the results of the performed preliminary test the
performance point of the bare RC structure subjected to horizontal forces applied in
longitudinal direction to the first storey only has to be evaluated. To this purpose the
pushover curve of the structure must be converted into the capacity spectrum one
(Figure 19).
Figure 19 Capacity spectrum of the base RC structure [13]
According to the seismic classification provided by the new seismic Italian code [2],
the structure under study is located in a second category seismic zone,
characterized by peak ground acceleration equal to 0.25 g. Besides, sub-soil
conditions type B can be assumed. In Figure 20, the design elastic response
spectrum is plotted in the Sa-Sd plane, considering the spectral acceleration
reduction obtained by accounting for different damping ratios (β). As a first step, by
the comparison with the capacity curve of the examined structure, the performance
point can be estimated by means of the equal displacement approximation method,
which provides ai = 0.128 g and di = 0.072 m.
42-56
Figure 20 Estimation of the performance point by means of the equal displacement

approximation method [13]
Then, the effect of a damping modification factor κ can be accounted for, it being
equal to 0.33 according to the ATC-40 provisions for existing structures
characterized by poor dissipative capacity.
Therefore, based on two iteration procedures only, a performance point
characterized by ai = 0.130 g, di = 6.4 cm and βeq = 37% can be determined. Such
performance values are not compatible with the base structure, whose plastic hinges
fail at a displacement of 5.6 cm. Therefore, a seismic retrofitting intervention is
necessary.
In order to evaluate the initial stiffness of the retrofitted structure, the target design
displacement of the first level of the RC structure at collapse (LS) has been fixed
equal to 2.5 cm, corresponding to an inter-storey drift (∆/H) of about 1%. By applying
Equation (1) a stiffness Kr = 15.53 kNmm-1 is obtained, corresponding to a stiffness
contribution provided by shear panels Kp = 11.5 kNmm-1.
By assuming a viscous damping coefficient for the bare RC structure equal to 20%,
the global shear strength of the structure has been determined as Vr = 275.10 kN,
leading to a required shear panel strength Vp = 192 kN.
Finally, the capacity curve of the reinforced structure may be represented in the
spectral acceleration – spectral displacement (ADRS) plane, as shown in Figure 21.
43-56
Figure 21 The design curve representative of the retrofitting intervention [13]
Design of shear panels [13]

Two metal materials have been used for the characterization of shear walls, namely
the DX56D steel, which is characterized by yielding and ultimate stress equal to 305
MPa and 340 MPa, respectively, and the EN AW1050 A aluminium alloy, having a
conventional elastic limit stress and failure stress equal to 21 MPa and 80 MPa,
respectively.
The geometry of the steel shear panels has been determined based on the strength
and stiffness previously evaluated. Once the depth of the panel is fixed (d = 240 cm),
by applying the formulations given in literature, the following panel width can be
calculated, according to strength and stiffness criteria, respectively:
1 2V p
V p = ⋅ f y t ( b ) sin 2α b= = 1095mm (10)
2 f yt
E bt 4dK p
Kp = b= = 536mm (11)
4 d E
where Σb is the sum of the width of the two applied panels (each on one side of the
frame). It should be observed that the panel width is governed by the strength rather
than the stiffness criterion. Therefore, a width of 600 mm has been assumed for
each panel. Since the b/d ratio is equal to 0.25, hence lesser than the lower limit (b/d
= 0.8) intermediate transversal plated stiffeners have been introduced, they having a
depth of 100 mm and a thickness t = 4 mm.
As far as aluminium shear panels are concerned, the same geometry with a different
plate thickness has been applied according to the strength of the adopted material.
In this case, the scope is to realize a system that, besides introducing a good
strength and stiffness, could ensure a larger energy dissipation capacity. In order to
provide the same ultimate shear strength as for the steel plate, the thickness of the
aluminium plate tal has been determined according to the following equation:
f 340
tal = tst u , st = 1.15 = 4.9mm (12)
f u ,al 80
It should be observed that a lower b/t ratio should allow a reduction of the influential
effect of buckling phenomena. In fact, according to previous studies [17], aluminium
44-56
plates characterized by a b/t ratio less than 80 should behave as compact shear
panels. Being the minimum panel dimension (namely the distance between
succeeding stiffeners) equal to 400 mm, a plate thickness of 5 mm ensures the
satisfaction of the above requirement.
The selected panels have been installed in a reaction steel frame composed by
UPN180 members with an intermediate UPN240 beam and positioned on both sides
of the structure at the first floor. At this aim the reinforcing of both the RC beam and
the foundation beam has been carried out by means of UPN220 profiles and M16
threaded bars. A global view of the adopted system is illustrated in Figure 22.
a) b)
Figure 22 Global view of the structure retrofitted by means of steel (a) and aluminium
(b) shear panels [13]
5.3.2 Direct Displacement Procedure for Performance-Based Seismic

Evaluation of wood shear panels
The proposed DDD procedure in [37] is tailored specifically for multistory wood frame
structures with the purpose of addressing the drawbacks of current force-based
procedures. As previously mentioned, damage in wood structures can be directly
related to displacement demand. In multistory DDD, inter-story drift is considered
explicitly as a seismic design parameter at the beginning of the design process. The
general steps for the multistory DDD procedure (shown in Figure 23) are as follows
[37]:
1. Define multiple performance levels in terms of limiting inter-story drifts for
given seismic hazard levels.
2. Calculate or estimate the mass and stiffness ratios (relative to first floor) for
each floor.
3. Perform normalized modal analysis on the equivalent linear MDOF system to
obtain inter-story drift factors and natural frequency parameters.
4. Construct inter-story drift spectra for the most severe hazard level and
determine the required equivalent stiffness for each floor.
5. Select lateral force resisting system from wood shear wall design tables
(based on experimental test) which include information on shear wall
backbone response and equivalent stiffness at various drift levels.
6. Check the design using the actual stiffness ratios (based on the shear walls
selected in step 5). Revise the shear wall selection if necessary.
45-56
7. Repeat steps 2 - 6 for each performance level using the actual stiffness ratios
of the selected shear walls. Revise the design if drift limits are exceeded at
any performance levels.
8. Compute design base shear, story shear and uplift force using the actual
nonlinear backbone curves of shear walls.
Figure 23 Global view of the structure retrofitted by means of steel (a) and aluminium
(b) shear panels [37]
5.3.3 Seismic upgrade of non seismic reinforced concrete frames

It is presented a gravity load design reinforced concrete frame according to the old
Romanian codes [43].The frame geometry is presented in Figure 24.
3.0 [m] B B B B
B B B B
3.0 [m]
A B C D E D C B A
A B C D E D C B A
]
3.0 [m] A B B A [m
6
3.
4.0 [m] 4.0 [m] 4.0 [m]

Figure 24 Frame geometry [43]
46-56
Strengthening solutions [43]

The different strengthening solutions were considered for seismic upgrade i.e. steel
BRB’s only; confinement of the first and second story columns using fiber reinforced
polymers (FRP); and the combination of the previous two solutions.
The BRB’s were introduced only in the middle span, as an inverted V braces, pinned
at the ends. The design of the BRB’s was accomplished according to Eurocode 3,
following the procedure de-scribed in AISC 2005. Design seismic forces were
obtained using spectral analysis with a reduction factor q equal to 6. BRB frames
and eccentrically braced frames are expected to possess similar structural ductility
and they are assigned same values of force reduction factor R in AISC 2005.
Therefore behaviour factor q to be used for BRB system was considered equal to the
one assigned by Eurocode 8 for eccentrically braced frames (q=6).
The core of the buckling restrained brace was considered to be of rectangular shape.
Cross-section areas of braces resulted from design are:
 the ground floor story’s area A=250 mm2
 the first story’s area A=250 mm2
 the second story’s area A=250 mm2
Evaluation procedure [43]

Pushover analysis was applied in order to evaluate the differences between the
original frame (MRF) and the retrofit ones. Displacement demand was estimated
according to the N2 method implemented in Eurocode 8. Seismic action is
characterised by the elastic response spectrum, shown in Figure 25 (peak ground
acceleration ag=0.24g, control period Tc=1.6s). Performance of the structure was
evaluated in terms of inelastic deformation capacities corresponding to Collapse
Prevention (CP) limit state. Development of plastic mechanism was also observed.
Bucha rest Spectrum - (ag= 0.24g; T c=1.6 s)
7.0
6.0
Acceleration Se(T) [m/s2]
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Period T [s]
Figure 25 Elastic response spectrum for Bucharest (P100-1/2006) [43]
Inelastic deformations corresponding to collapse prevention limit state for structural

elements were defined in terms of:
• moment – rotation values for beams and columns;
• axial force – displacement for buckling restrained braces.
Performance assessment
• Moment resisting frame (MRF) [43]
Analysis of the original MRF showed an unsatisfactory seismic response. First
plastic hinge appears in the column. Plastic mechanism involves mostly columns
47-56
from the first and second floors (Figure 26 a), but also some beams from the first
storey. Lateral drifts at the ultimate limit state also indicate concentration of damage
in first two storeys (Figure 28). Ultimate rotations in plastic hinges corresponding to
collapse prevention limit state are first reached in columns (Figure 18). It can be
observed the structure has a limited global ductility, because columns attain collapse
prevention limits state at a top displacement roughly four times smaller than the top
displacement demand due to design earthquake action. Fundamental period of
vibration and target displacements at the ultimate limit state for the original
reinforced concrete frame and several alternative strengthening solutions are
presented in Table 11.
Table 11 Fundamental period of vibration and target displacements for the

considered structures [43]
__________________________________________________________________
Structure Period Target displacement
T [s] dt [m]
__________________________________________________________________
MRF + FRP + BRB (q=3) 0.54 0.164
MRF + FRP + BRB (q=6) 0.64 0.222
MRF + BRB (q=6) 0.64 0.224
MRF+FRP 1.0 0.395
MRF 1.0 0.39
__________________________________________________________________
• Strengthening with buckling restrained braces [43]

Strengthening by buckling-restrained braces in-creased considerably the strength
and stiffness of the frame (Figure 27), decreasing by almost 50% the top
displacement demand at the ultimate limit state. The first plastic hinges formed in
column, followed by the ones in braces and beams. The plastic mechanism involved
also the first two storeys (Figure 26 b) and (Figure 27). This strengthening solution
reduced the overall damage in the structure, as less plastic hinges formed in
reinforced concrete elements at the target displacement (Figure 26 b). However,
seismic performance is still unsatisfactory, as inelastic de-formations corresponding
to collapse prevention limit state are recorded in columns, braces and beams before
reaching the target displacement.
• Strengthening by fiber reinforced polymers [43]

As an alternative to strengthening by buckling re-strained braces, the possibility to
improve seismic performance by confining the columns with FRP was investigated.
The FRP fabric was considered applied in horizontal direction only, which ensures a
confinement of concrete, but does not act supplement reinforcement. The effect of
application of FRP was an increase of axial force capacity of the columns and
ductility, but just a slight increase of bending moment capacity.
The overall structural response did not change significantly due to application of FRP
(Figure 27) but, the ultimate deformation in columns (corresponding to collapse
prevention limit state) was reduced. Consequently the first plastic hinge form in
beam element and concerning the column the ultimate deformation is attained at
larger top displacement demands than in the case of the original frame (Figure 26 c
and Figure 27). Also, the top displacement and interstory drift demands at the
ultimate limit state do not change significantly compared to initial frame.
• BRB and FRP strengthening
48-56
Strengthening of the reinforced concrete frame by means of BRB only did not
eliminated failure of reinforced concrete members. Therefore, a consolidation by
both FRP and BRB systems was considered.
a) MRF
b) MRF+BRB(q=6) c)MRF+FRP
d) MRF+FRP+BRB (q=6) e) MRF+FRP+BRB (q=3)

Figure 26 Plastic hinge distribution at the collapse prevention limit state
The main effect of the BRB system is improvement of global force-deformation

characteristics (increased strength and stiffness), which results in de-creased top
displacement demands at the ultimate limit state (Figure 27). On the other hand,
FRP technique enhances the local behaviour of columns by increasing their ductility,
this being the reason of attaining ultimate deformation after the demand
displacement. Also, it must be specified that the first plastic hinge from the column
elements is attained in the unconfined column from the second story. Consequently,
less damage is observed in columns (Figure 26d and Figure 27). Inelastic demands
in beams and buckling restrained braces are still large. Collapse prevention ultimate
deformations in bracings and beams are attained at top displacements lower than
the displacement demand at the ultimate limit state.
49-56
Pushover Curves
MRF+FRP+BRB(q=3)
250
200
Shear Base Force [KN]

MRF+FRP+BRB(q=6)
150
MRF+BRB
..
MRF+FRP
100
MRF
50
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
BRB-CP Beam-CP Top Displacement
Column-CP [m]
N2-Target Displacement
Figure 27 Pushover curves for the analyzed frame
• BRB and FRP strengthening using low-dissipative design

Large inelastic deformation demands in dissipative elements (buckling restrained
braces) and in existing reinforced concrete elements is partially caused by the shape
of the response spectrum in Bucharest. It is characterised by large value of the
control period TC and is attributed to soft soil conditions in Bucharest. Inelastic
demands are larger when the fundamental period of the structure is smaller than the
control period TC. Consequently, it may be appropriate to design the dissipative
system (buckling restrained braces) using a lower behaviour factor q. Following this
reasoning, a new system was considered, composed of FRP strengthening of
columns and BRB system, where braces were designed based on earthquake forces
corresponding to a behaviour factor equal to 3. Practically, cross-section area of the
buckling restrained braces was doubled with respect to the ones determined in
previous section.
As can be observed from Figure 27, the global strength of the system is increased in
comparison to the system designed with q=6. However, the stiffness increases only
slightly. Interstorey drift demands concentrate in the lower two storeys (Figure 28),
but are much lower than for the other strengthening solutions.
Though overall structural response is improved, inelastic deformations in braces and
beams are still smaller than displacement demand.
3
Story number
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070

Interstory Drift [rad]
MRF MRF+FRP MRF+BRB (q=6)

MRF+FRP+BRB (q=6) MRF+FRP+BRB (q=3)
Figure 28. Interstorey drift demands at the target displacement.
50-56
5.3.4 Simple experimental based procedure to evaluate shear walls

The presented method is applicable both for pure masonry wall and for strengthen
walls. Here can be mentioned almost all type of masonry walls reinforcing
techniques like surface treatments, external reinforcement, FPR based or other
innovative solution.
In some cases there are no analytical calculation procedures and numerical
simulation is either difficult due to the scatter of real material properties or does not
offer accurate results. Experimental test can solve the problem. This kind of
approach is based on experimental determination of a characteristic strength of the
shear wall Rk . This strength Rk is used further in order to evaluate the necessary
length of the walls on a direction “i” and at storey “j” to resist the corresponding
seismic shear force. The solution may be applied in case of a lateral force method.
The principle of the method is presented below:
Es ,i , j - total shear force induced by seismic action in “i”
direction and “j” storey;
Es ,i , j < Rs ,i , j
Rs ,i , j - total shear wall resistance in “i” direction and “j” storey;
Rs ,i , j = Rk ⋅ Li , j
Rk - characteristic strength of shear wall experimental
(13) determined;
Li , j - length of shear wall in “i” direction and “j” storey;
This approach is suitable to be applying for the innovative strengthening solution

proposes in the frame of FP6 PROHITECH by “Politehnica” University of Timisoara.
Two innovative strengthening solutions for masonry walls were proposed. First one
consists in sheeting some steel or aluminium plates either on both sides or on one
side of the masonry wall. Metallic plates are fixed either with prestressed steel ties,
or using chemical anchors (see Figure 29a). The second one is derived from the
FRP technique, but applies a steel wire mesh bonded with epoxy resin to the
masonry wall (see Figure 29b).
a) b)
Figure 29 Strengthening solutions proposed in frame of FP6 PROHITECH
For the experimental tests was chosen a 25x1500x1500 mm masonry panel in order
represent an entire wall or a critical pier zone between openings. The Figure 30
shows the way to determinate the characteristic strength of the tested shear wall Rk .
51-56
SSP_PT_1
500.00
400.00
FORCE [kN]
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
DISPLACEMENTS [mm]
Figure 30 Experimental result and characteristic strength determination
52-56
6 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Albanesi T., Nuti C., Vanzi I. – A simplified procedure to assess the seismic
response of nonlinear structures, Earthquake Spectra 16(4), 2000
[2] Arzhang Alimoradi, Performance Performance-Based Seismic Design
Application of New Developments, West Tennessee Structural Engineers
Meeting, May 27, 2004
[3] Aschheim M.A., Black E.F. – Yield point spectra for seismic design and
rehabilitation, Earthquake Spectra, vol.16, no.2, 2000
[4] ATC 40 – Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings – volume 1,
November 1996
[5] ATC, Development of Performance-based Earthquake Design Guidelines,
ATC-58, Redwood City, 2002.
[6] Browning J.P. – Proportioning of Earthquake-Resistant RC Building
Structures, Journal of the structural division AISC, vol. 127, no.2, 2001
[7] Buyukozturk O., Gunes O., Karaca E. – Advances in Earthquake Risk
Assessment and Hazard Reduction for Large Inventory of Structures with
High Characteristic Variability, MIT - IST – Infrastructure Science and
Technology Group – Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
[8] CEB Fastenings for Seismic Retrofitting - State-of-the-art Report (Bulletin 226
part 2, Telford, London, 1996)
[9] Chopra A.K., Goel R.K. – Capacity Demand Diagram Methods based on
Inelastic design spectrum, Earthquake Spectra 15(4), 1999
[10] Chopra A.K., Goel R.K. – Direct-displacement based design: Use of inelastic
vs. elastic design spectra, Earthquake Spectra, vol.17 no.1, 2001
[11] Chopra, A.K. "Estimating seismic demands for performance-based
engineering of buildings". 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper no. 5007, 2004
[12] Coburn A.W., Spence R.J.S. and Pomonis A. – Vulnerability Risk
Assessment, DMTP of UNDP, Cambridge 1994
[13] De Matteis G., Formisano A., Mazzolani F.M. - SEISMIC RETROFITTING
METHODOLOGY OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS BASED ON METAL
SHEAR PANELS, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (in print)
[14] Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Performance-based Seismic
Design of Buildings: An Action Plan, U.C., Berkeley, 1995.
[15] Eurocode 8-1/2003 "Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings".
CEN - European Committee for Standardization.
[16] Eurocode 8-3/2003. "Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 3: Strengthening and repair of buildings". CEN - European
Committee for Standardization.
[17] Fajfar P. – A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic
design, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 16, no. 3, 2000
[18] FEMA 356, Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Vol. 1:
Guidelines, FEMA 356, Washington DC, 2002 (formerly FEMA 273).
[19] FEMA 356/EERI, Action Plan for Performance-Based Seismic Design, FEMA
349, Washington DC, 2000.
53-56
[20] FIB (CEB-FIP) Displacement-based seismic design of reinforced concrete

buildings – state-of-art report – bulletin 25
[21] FIB (CEB-FIP) Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete
buildings – state-of-art report – bulletin 24
[22] Freeman S.A. – The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design,
Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Sep. 6-11, Paris, 1998
[23] Gulkan P., Sozen M. – Inelastic Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures
to Earthquake Motions, ACI Journal 71(12)
[24] Hamburger R. - Performance-Based Seismic Engineering: The Next
Generation of Structural Engineering Practice
(http://www.propertyrisk.com/refcentr/revf96-1.htm)
[25] Hamburger R.O, A Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Resistive
Design - EERC-CURE Symposium in Honour of Vitelmo V. Bertero, January
31 - February 1, 1997, Berkeley, California, 1997
[26] Hamburger, R.O., Performance-Based Analysis and Design Procedure for
Moment Resisting Steel Frames, Background Document, SAC Steel Project,
Sept. 1998.
[27] Howe R.W., Performance-based design seen as future wave in building
codes, Memphis Business Journal, Friday, August 11, 2000
[28] IBC, Int. Code Council, Falls Church (VA, 2000)
[29] Kalkan, S.M. and Kunnath, S.K. "Adaptive modal combination procedure for
nonlinear static analysis of building structure". Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 11, pages 1721-1731, 2006
[30] Kappos A.J., Manafpour A. – Seismic Design of R/C buildings with the aid of
advanced analytical techniques, Engineering Structure, vol.23, 2001
[31] Kowalsky M.J. Priestley M.J.N., MacRae G.A. – Displacement-based design
of RC bridge column in seismic regions, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, December 1995
[32] Krawinkler H., Challenges and progress in performance-based earthquake
engineering, International Seminar on Seismic Engineering for Tomorrow – In
Honour of Professor Hiroshi Akiyama, Tokyo, Japan, November 26, 1999
[33] Moehle JP – Displacement-Based Design of RC Structure Subject to
Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 8(3), 1992
[34] O. Buyukozturk and O. Gunes – Advances in earthquake risk assessment and
hazard reduction for large inventory of structures with high characteristic
variability – ARI volume 53, number 2
[35] P100 part 3 volume 1 - COD DE EVALUARE SI PROIECTARE A
LUCR RILOR DE CONSOLIDARE LA CL DIRI EXISTENTE,
VULNERABILE SEISMIC – (Standard for evaluation and retrofitting of existing
building), 2003
[36] Panagiotakis T.B., Fardis M.N. – Deformation-Controlled Earthquake-
Resistant Design of RC Building, Journal of Earthquake Engineering vol. 3 no.
4, 1999
[37] Pang W., Rosowsky D., Direct Displacement Procedure for Performance-
Based Seismic Design of Multistory Wood frame Structures
[38] Paret T.F et all – Approximate inelastic procedures to identify failure
mechanisms from higher mode effects, 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996
54-56
[39] Priestley M.J.N., Kowalsky M.J. – Direct displacement-based design of

concrete buildings, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering 33(4), 2000
[40] Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment- Frame
Buildings, FEMA 356 350, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington DC, July 2000
[41] SEAOC – Recommended Lateral Forces Requirements and Commentary,
1999
[42] SEAOC, Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings,
San Francisco, April 1995.
[43] Stratan A., Bordea S., Dogariu A., D. Dubina - Seismic upgrade of non-
seismic reinforced concrete frames using steel dissipative braces – COST
Workshop Prague 2007
[44] Stratan A., Dubina D. – Models and analysis procedure for global analysis –
FP6 PROHITECH, WP9 Calculation Models
[45] TC-BIB , Specification for Structures to be built in disaster area (Ministry of
Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey, 1998)
[46] Uniform Building Code – International Conference of Building Officials, vol2
[47] Vayas Y, Report on WP10 Validation, FP6 PROHITECH
[48] Zamfirescu D., Masayoshi Nakashima - Comparison of simplified procedures
for performance-based seismic evaluation of Structures
55-56
List of figures
Figure 1 Conceptual framework for Performance Based Seismic Evaluation

Figure 2 Audience interest spectrum (ATC-40)Figure 3 Establish Rehabilitation Objective Principles
Figure 4 Earthquake ground motion [4]
Figure 5 Building performance level [4]
Figure 6 Target Building Performance Levels and Ranges [18]
Figure 7. SEAOC Vision 2000 Performance Objective [42]
Figure 8 Selection of seismic hazard and performance levels for structural and nonstructural members
Figure 9 Component Force versus Deformation Curves (FEMA 356 356) [18]
Figure 10 Generalized Component Force-Deformation Relations for Depicting Modeling and
Acceptance Criteria [18]
Figure 11 Effectiveness of conventional strengthening methods: structural walls and bracings in
seismic (CEB – Fastenings for seismic retrofitting [8]; Sugano 1989)
Figure 12 Concept of seismic rehabilitation [4][34]
Figure 13 Simplified equivalent building systems for approximate analysis [34]
Figure 14 Seismic safety evaluation of buildings using nonlinear analysis
Figure 15 Structural vulnerability and damage states for various level of seismic demand
Figure 16 Uncertainties in seismic performance and use of fragility curves
Figure 17 Steps in evaluate the safety of the building
Figure 18 Preliminary Design of RC structure endowed with metal shear panel [13]
Figure 19 Capacity spectrum of the base RC structure [13]
Figure 20 Estimation of the performance point by means of the equal displacement approximation
method [13]
Figure 21 The design curve representative of the retrofitting intervention [13]
Figure 22 Global view of the structure retrofitted by means of steel (a) and aluminium (b) shear panels
[13]
Figure 23 Global view of the structure retrofitted by means of steel (a) and aluminium (b) shear panels
[37]
Figure 24 Frame geometry
Figure 25 Elastic response spectrum for Bucharest (P100-1/2006)
Figure 26 Plastic hinge distribution at the collapse prevention limit state
Figure 27 Pushover curves for the analyzed frame
Figure 28. Interstorey drift demands at the target displacement.
Figure 29 Strengthening solutions proposed in frame of FP6 PROHITECH
Figure 30 Experimental result and characteristic strength determination
List of tables
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
Table 1 Phases in PBSA process [4]
Table 2 Earthquake hazard level
Table 3 Building performance level
Table 4 Target Building Performance Levels and Ranges [18]
Table 5 Damage Control and Building Performance Levels [18]
Table 6 Rehabilitation Objectives (FEMA 356) [18]
Table 7 Rehabilitation Objectives (P100-3) [35]
Table 8 Performance Objective accomplish
Table 9 Data Collection Requirements (FEMA 356) [18]
Table 10 Matrix of design procedures [20]
Table 11 Fundamental period of vibration and target displacements for the considered structures
56-56

Performance Based Seismic Assessment of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Based Seismic Assessment of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance based seismic assessment of buildings for evaluation of retrofitting systems efficiency

“Politehnica” University Timisoara

Research Centre for Materials Mechanics

STEEL SOLUTIONS FOR THE SEISMIC RETROFIT AND UPGRADE OF

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS

Authors Dan Dubina, Adrian Dogariu, Aurel Stratan, Sorin Bordea

Timisoara, 15 February, 2008

2 Basics of performance based evaluation and retrofit objectives 6

3 Description of analysis methods and acceptance criteria 19

4 Structural validation of retrofitting techniques 29

4.2.2 Technical support 32

5 Evaluation Methodologies and examples 34

Figure 1 Conceptual framework for Performance Based Seismic Evaluation

2 BASICS OF PERFORMANCE BASED EVALUATION AND RETROFIT

2.1 Phase of Performance Based Evaluation and Retrofit

Table 1 Phases in PBSA process [4]

Figure 2 Audience interest spectrum (ATC-40)

2.2 Building performance objectives

Building Performance Level

Earthquake Hazard Level

Figure 3 Establish Rehabilitation Objective Principles

Limited Rehabilitation Objectives

2.3 Earthquake hazard level

Figure 4 Earthquake ground motion [4]

Levels with any defined probability of exceedance, or based on any deterministic

Table 2 Earthquake hazard level

FEMA 356 [18] EC8-3 [16] P100-3 [35]

Frequent 72 50%/50 43 50%/30 - - 30 63%/50

2.4 Building, structural and nonstructural performance level and description

2.4.1 Structural performance level

2.4.2 Nonstructural performance level

2.4.3 Building performance level

Figure 5 Building performance level [4]

Table 3 Building performance level

Several common target Building

Operational Building Performance Level

risk to life safety [18]. Figure 6 Target Building

Immediate Occupancy Building Performance Level (1-B)

Table 4 Target Building Performance Levels and Ranges [18]

Table 5 Damage Control and Building Performance Levels [18]

2.5 Selection of building performance objectives

Table 6 Rehabilitation Objectives (FEMA 356) [18]

• k alone or p alone = Limited Objectives;

Table 7 Rehabilitation Objectives (P100-3) [35]

A series of standard performance objectives, appropriate for the design of different

Earthquake Performance Objective

2.6 Concluding remarks

performance should be Collapse Prevention. Once that we have decide Building

Table 8 Performance Objective accomplish

Basic Safety Objective (BSO)

Operational Building Performance Level (1-A)

Immediate Occupancy (S-1)

3 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS METHODS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

3.2 Global analysis and modeling requirements

3.2.1 General considerations

Primary and secondary elements

3.2.2 Acceptance criteria

The Type 1 curve depicted in Figure 9 is representative of ductile behaviour where

Figure 10 Generalized Component Force-Deformation Relations for Depicting

For some components it is convenient to prescribe acceptance criteria in terms of

3.2.3 Linear – Elastic Analysis

3.2.3.1 Lateral force method