Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Use of residual drift for post-earthquake damage assessment of RC

buildings
Kaoshan Dai a,b,⇑, Jianze Wang a, Bowei Li a, H.P. Hong c
a
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
State Key Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, Xuzhou 221008, China
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B9, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Large earthquakes cause damage to buildings. The peak nonlinear inelastic responses of a building for
Received 13 April 2016 given seismic ground motions are often used as a proxy for the damage measure. However, the peak
Revised 16 April 2017 responses are rarely recorded or observed for an earthquake event. The residual drift or the permanent
Accepted 1 June 2017
deformation of the building after the seismic event can be measured and may be used to infer the degree
of sustained damage of the building. Although the use of the residual drift to infer the seismic perfor-
mance of buildings under earthquakes was explored in the literature, its validation by using full-scale
Keywords:
experimental data is unavailable. In this study, test results of a full-scale four-story Reinforced
Peak drift
Residual drift
Concrete (RC) building were used as the basis to assess the adequacy of using the residual drift to esti-
Seismic assessment mate the damage sustained by the building subjected to ground motions. The seismic performance
RC building assessment of this tested building was performed with the peak roof drift calculated from the residual
Shaking table test deformation. Analysis results indicated that the approach could be used to infer probabilistically the peak
drift of the building based on its residual drift. The degree of uncertainty in this inference is large and
should be considered as an integral part of this estimation. Additional issues of using the residual drift
as a measure of seismic performance of the building were discussed.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The assessment of the remaining capacity of a building that sus-
tained a large earthquake is important to ensure public safety. It is
also critical for a sound decision-making regarding post-
earthquake serviceability and/or reparability of buildings. The
maximum seismic peak inter-story drift or roof drift of a building
is usually employed as one of the primary indices to assess struc-
tural performances of post-earthquake buildings (e.g., [1–3]). How-
ever, the seismic peak drift sustained by the building can only be
measured if a structural health monitoring system is already
installed in place prior to the earthquake occurrence, which is
not yet a common practice for most buildings. Often the residual
drift or permanent deformation of a building is measured after
strong earthquakes.
Statistical analyses indicated that the residual drift is signifi-
cantly affected by ground motion intensity, site condition, as well
as structural properties, especially the hysteretic behavior [4–8]. In
⇑ Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
E-mail address: kdai@tongji.edu.cn (K. Dai).
general, it is known that the residual drift has a very large scatter
(i.e., large coefficient of variation (CoV)) due to record-to-record
variability [4]. The CoV value of the residual drift that is normal-
ized with respect to the linear elastic peak drift demand is up to
2 [8,9], while the CoV of the peak ductility demand varies from
about 0.3–2.0 for ranges of values of the normalized yielding
strength, damping ratio, and natural vibration period [10,11].
Therefore, the peak drift is widely used in guidelines to evaluate
the damage states sustained by a structure. However, due to the
difficulties in directly obtaining the peak drift as aforementioned,
it is of interest to predict the peak drift based on the measurable
residual drift for a building that sustained an earthquake.
One of the approaches to estimate the peak drift is to use an
empirical relation between the residual drift and the peak drift. A
simple empirical equation to estimate the median residual dis-
placement demand was proposed in [9] by using results of
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) elastoplastic systems subjected
to actual ground motions. By considering nonlinear inelastic
responses of a bilinear SDOF system under 200 selected ground
motion records, a model to predict the peak displacement based
on the residual displacement was also proposed in [12]. This work
was further extended in [13] to multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.001
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255
systems considering the potential influence of higher modes. Fol-
lowing the similar methodology, the empirical equations for SDOF
nonlinear inelastic systems with the Takeda and Kinematic hys-
teresis models were presented in [14] and [15], respectively. More-
over, the study [16] proposed expressions between the residual
and peak drifts for two types of structural systems: the special
moment-resisting frame (SMRF) and the buckling-restrained
braced (BRB) frame. Instead of using empirical relations to predict
a single value of peak displacement based on the observed residual
displacement, assessments of the probability distribution of peak
displacement conditioned on the observed residual displacement
were considered for equivalent SDOF systems [17] and for struc-
tural members that were tested on a shaking table [18].
Investigating the direct use of the residual drift or residual
inter-story drift of structures to quantify and classify seismic dam-
age can be found in the literature [19,20]. A framework of a post-
earthquake performance evaluation based on residual deformation
was presented in [6]. Similarly, a probabilistic framework for seis-
mic assessment by using the combination of the maximum and
residual deformations was developed in [7] to construct fragility
curves and to define various performance levels. Residual drift
demands were estimated in [21] for seismic assessment of multi-
story framed buildings by implementing the probabilistic approach
suggested by [22] that incorporates explicitly the aleatory uncer-
tainty. The levels of residual inter-story drift demands were evalu-
ated in [23,24] for moment-resisting steel buildings designed with
a modern seismic code as they are subjected to narrow-band earth-
quake ground motions. Additionally, an approach to assess collapse
due to the aftershock was considered in [25] by explicitly consid-
ering the amplitude of the maximum residual drift induced by
the mainshock.
The methods in the aforementioned studies can generally be
classified as the empirical relation based (deterministic) method
and the probabilistic inference based method. None of these stud-
ies considered full-scale building test results to confirm the ade-
quacy of these methods. In this paper, the use of available
empirical relations and the probabilistic method for damage
assessment was reviewed. The peak roof drifts of a full-scale build-
ing tested in a shaking table were estimated by applying these
empirical relations and the probabilistic method based on the
observed or calculated residual drifts. The estimated values were
compared with the shaking table test measurements. The paper
further investigated seismic damage evaluation of this test build-
ing by using the peak drifts that were estimated based on the resid-
ual drifts as a case study.
2. Estimating peak displacement based on residual
displacement
2.1. Empirical relations for predicting the peak displacement
Nine existing empirical equations between the peak and resid-
ual displacements found in the literature were summarized in
Table 1. Eqs. (1)–(5) shown in the table are primarily applicable
to the SDOF systems. Among these relations, Eqs. (3) and (4) [15]
were developed for the SDOF systems with Takeda and Kinematic
hysteresis models, respectively. Eq. (2) [12] could be applied to a
multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) system representing a regular
multi-story structure with a symmetrical layout. Eq. (6) [16] was
derived for special moment-resisting frame (SMRFs) and
buckling-restrained braced (BRB) frame structures. Similarly, Eqs.
(7) and (8) were used for moment resisting steel frames (MRF)
and concentrically X-braced steel frames (CBF), respectively. The
regression analyses to determine model coefficients in Eqs. (2),
(7) and (8) were based on the minimization of absolute residual
243
error using ‘‘the Pearson VII limit” (i.e., minimum sum of ln[(1
+ residual2)1/2]); the maximum displacements predicted by using
these empirical equations were significantly scattered [12,13].
The rest of equations, which were established from extensive
numerical analyses, intended to consider the uncertainties associ-
ated with structural properties and seismic inputs.
2.2. Inference based on the probabilistic framework
By considering the uncertainty in the structural responses
caused by ground motions, a procedure based on the Bayesian the-
orem to estimate the damage probability using the post-
earthquake observations was proposed in [18]. In a nutshell, the
procedure for a building that sustained a seismic event can be
described as:
(1) Assigning the prior probability density function of the peak
drift for the building f(hmax). This assignment could be based on the
structural analysis results of the building under the considered
seismic event. The uncertainties associated with structural proper-
ties and modeling errors should be considered. Ideally, actual
ground motion records at the building site should be used. If the
record is unavailable, it is suggested to infer ground motions from
the records at stations close to the building site for the considered
event or, to produce simulated ground motions based on charac-
teristics that are compatible to the considered event. This, how-
ever, increases the uncertainty in the assigned probability
distribution.
(2) Updating the probability distribution of maximum drift,
hmax, based on structural damage observations and residual dis-
placement/drift measurements. This can be expressed as,
f ðhmax jI \ hres Þ / f ðI \ hres jhmax Þf ðhmax Þ ð10Þ
where I denotes all observed structural damage information, hres
denotes the residual drift, and f ðhmax jI \ hres Þ is the updated proba-
bility density function of hmax, and f ðI \ hres jhmax Þ is the probability
density function of the observed information and residual drift con-
ditioned on hmax.
Within the probabilistic framework, the residual drift measure-
ment is used as one of the indications or information used to
update the probability distribution of the maximum displacement.
Unlike the deterministic approaches, Eq. (10) provides a probabilis-
tic estimation of the peak drift which acknowledges the uncertain
relation between the residual and peak drifts.
3. Full-scale shaking table test and numerical simulation
3.1. Shaking table test
A series of shaking table tests were conducted on a full-scale,
four-story building on the National Research Institute for Earth
Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) E-Defense shake table in
December 2010 [27]. This test building and test results were con-
sidered in the present study. The test building was a conventional
reinforced concrete (RC) building. The lateral-force-resisting sys-
tems for the test building consist of two-bay moment frames in
the longitudinal direction (X) and two structural walls, at each
end of the building plan, in the transverse direction (Y) (see
Fig. 1). Story heights for all floors are 3 m and the building height
is 12 m.
The input ground motions during the testing are the JMA-Kobe
ground motions (recorded in 1995) that are scaled with a scaling
factor of 25%, 50%, and 100%. The building was instrumented with
accelerometers, displacement transducers and strain gauges and it
was subjected to ground motions along both X-axis and Y-axis
[27]. The scaled record component along the X-axis was shown
244 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255

Table 1
Empirical relations between the maximum and residual displacements.

Equation References

 
[9,26]
uela ¼ ures = h11 þ 1 h2 ½1  expðh4 ðR  1Þh5 Þh3 ð1aÞ
41T n
n h i o
umax ¼ uela  1 þ a ðT =T Þa2  a3 ðR  1Þ
1 1
ð1bÞ
1 n s

umax ¼ ða1 þ a2 ures þ a3 u2res þ a4 T n ures Þ  ð1 þ a5 r þ a6 r 2 Þ ð2Þ (2) [12]

 n h h ii o [15]
ures ¼ 0:019
1=3 exp 10 1  r  uumax umax þ ðr  1Þumax uy  1 ð3Þ
ag y
 n h h ii o
u
ures ¼ 0:00074
5=6 exp 35 1  r umax umax þ ðr  1Þumax uy  1 ð4Þ
ag y

u u
ures ¼ ½0:069a2 þ1:164a
max y
102 rþ3:58
ð5Þ [14]
g g

ures ¼ ðumax  uela Þ  ð6Þ

DCF
2:5
[16]
jumax j ¼ ð0:053 þ 0:109 lnðNÞ þ 1:61  jures jÞð1 þ 2:0rÞ ð7Þ [13]
jumax j ¼ ð0:071 þ 0:076 lnðNÞ þ 0:865  jures jÞð1 þ 0:04rÞ ð8Þ
8 9
< 0 = umax 6 uy [2]
ures ¼ 0:3ðumax  u y Þ uy < umax 6 4uy ð9Þ
: ;
umax  3uy 4uy < umax

Note: ures and umax are the residual and the peak displacements, respectively; Tn is the fundamental vibration period of the structure; Ts is the
characteristic period of the site; r is the post-yielding stiffness ratio; R is the lateral strength ratio, defined as R = mSa/Fy, where m is the mass of
the system, Sa is the acceleration spectral, and Fy is the lateral yielding strength of the system; a1-a6 and h1-h5 are fitted parameters that depend
on site conditions; and ag is the peak ground acceleration (PGA); uela is the recoverable elastic drift; DCF is the drift concentration factor, defined
as the ratio between the peak inter-story drift and the peak roof drift; N is the number of the story for a structure.

(a) Plan view of test building (b) Frame elevation

Fig. 1. Plan and elevation views of the test building.

in Fig. 2a and the corresponding acceleration spectra for the scaled
record component were presented in Fig. 2b.
Table 2 showed the peak and residual roof displacements and
drifts for each loading scenario. In the JMA-Kobe-100% test case
(i.e., recorded ground motions), 0.08% residual roof drift was
observed for the moment frame in the X direction. Since building
damages were more evident for the JMA-Kobe-100% test case
[28], testing results from this loading scenario were used to assess
the adequacy of the aforementioned empirical relations in predict-
ing the peak roof drift.
It was indicated in [28] that, after the JMA-Kobe-100% test case,
the maximum shear crack width for the interior beam-column
joints reaches 2.5 mm and the maximum shear crack width at
beam ends and the exterior beam-column joints are limited to
1.1 mm. The concrete cover at the base of first story columns par-
tially spalled to a height of 250 mm. According to the performance
level classifications of RC structures defined in FEMA-356 [1] as
shown in Table 3, after the JMA-Kobe-100% test case, the perfor-
mance state of the test building structure was defined between
the ‘‘Collapse Prevention” and ‘‘Life Safety” based on the structural
damage observation and the measured peak roof drift of 2.27%.
However, with the measured residual roof drift of 0.08% and the
maximum residual inter-story drift of 0.16% at the second floor,
the performance state of the test building was close to the descrip-
tion of ‘‘Immediate Occupancy”. This conflict reflects the difficulty
of using the residual drift alone to classify the damage or perfor-
mance level.
3.2. Structural modeling and analysis
In this study, a 3D finite element (FE) model of the test building
was developed with commercial software, Perform-3D [29]. Col-
umns were modeled with inelastic fiber sections. For the material
properties of fibers, unconfined concrete and reinforcing steel
 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255 245

(a) Acceleration time-histories (b) Response spectra

Fig. 2. Time histories and response spectra of the scaled JMA-Kobe record.

Table 2
The maximum and residual roof drifts along the X-direction under each excitation scenario (NEES Project Warehouse, https://nees.org/warehouse/filebrowser/1005).

Case Maximum displacements, umax (mm) Residual displacements, ures (mm) Maximum drift, hmax (%) Residual drift, hres (%)
Kobe-25% 22 0 0.18 0
Kobe-50% 141 3 1.18 0.02
Kobe-100% 272 10 2.27 0.08

Table 3
Performance levels in [1].

Elements Type Structural Performance Levels

Collapse Prevention
Concrete frames Primary Extensive cracking and hinge formation in
ductile elements. Limited cracking and/or
splice failure in some nonductile columns.
Severe damage in short columns
Secondary Extensive spalling in columns and beams.
Severe joint damage. Some reinforcing
buckled.
Drift 4% transient or permanent
Life Safety
Extensive damage to beams. Spalling of cover
and shear cracking (<0.32 mm) for ductile
columns. Minor spalling in nonductile
columns. Joint cracks <0.32 mm wide.
Extensive cracking and hinge formation in
ductile elements. Limited cracking and/or
splice failure in some nonductile columns.
Severe damage in short columns.
2% transient
1% permanent
Immediate Occupancy
Minor hairline cracking. Limited
yielding possible at a few locations.
No crushing (strains below 0.003).
Minor spalling in a few places in
ductile columns and beams. Flexural
cracking in beams and columns. Shear
cracking in joints < 0.16 mm.
1% transient
Negligible permanent

stress-strain relations were defined with trilinear relationships
based on material testing results given in [27]. Parameters for
the confined concrete were defined based on the method proposed
in [30]. Girders and beams were modeled as elastic elements with
rigid end zones and moment-rotation plastic hinges at member
ends. The trilinear backbone curves of plastic hinges for every
beam section were calculated using the XTRACT [31]. The lengths
of plastic hinges were estimated according to the recommenda-
tions given in [32]. The cyclic degradation characteristics of inelas-
tic fibers and plastic hinges were defined based on [33]. The
Rayleigh damping of 2.5% at 0.2 Tn and 1.0 Tn, where Tn is the per-
iod of the first vibration mode, was used for the nonlinear response
history analyses with the recommendation in [34]. The mass,
lumped at every beam-column joint resulting from its tributary
area, was estimated based on the weight of the structures reported
in [27].
Time history analyses were performed for the developed FE
model with the same scaled JMA-Kobe ground motions used for
the full scale test. A 5-s duration zero-amplitude acceleration time
history was added at the end of each time history, allowing the
residual drift to be identified after the actual excitations. Note that
the lateral-force-resisting systems for the building in the orthogo-
nal directions are different. However, the test results did not show
a strong coupling in [35]. Analysis of the structural responses using
the developed FE model under the recorded JMA-Kobe ground
motions in two horizontal orthogonal directions as well as in the
X-direction alone were carried out in this study. The obtained roof
drift for both cases were shown in Fig. 3. The comparison empha-
sized that the roof drift along the X-direction for the considered
building was dominated by the excitations along this direction.
Therefore, only the testing results along the X-direction as well
as the calculated responses subjected to the ground motions along
X-direction were considered in the remaining part of this study.
The calculated roof drift time histories for the scaled JMA-Kobe
ground motions were shown in Fig. 4, and compared to the full-
scale test results. A good agreement between the test and numer-
ical results presented in the figure indicated the adequacy of the FE
model in capturing global responses of the building, especially for
the JMA-Kobe-25% test case and the JMA-Kobe-50% test case. This
validated FE model was used in the following to calculate struc-
tural responses under seismic excitations.
4. Prediction of the peak drift with the residual drift
4.1. Empirical relations
The empirical equations between the peak displacement and
the residual displacement listed in Table 1 were applied to pre-
246 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255

Fig. 3. Roof drift time-history comparison between the unidirectional and bidirectional excitations of the 100% JMA-Kobe ground motion.

(a) JMA-Kobe-25% test

(b) JMA-Kobe-50% test

(c) JMA-Kobe-100% test

Fig. 4. Roof drift time-history comparisons between testing and simulation results.

dict the peak response of the full-scale test building described in
the previous section. Structural properties required in the equa-
tions including the post-yielding stiffness ratio r and the yielding
displacement uy were estimated through the static pushover
analysis by using the developed FE model. The estimation process
was illustrated in Fig. 5. The residual roof drift of 0.08%
(ures = 10 mm) after the JMA-Kobe-100% test case was considered
as the measured value to estimate the peak roof drift by using
the equations shown in Table 1. Only Eqs. (1)–(5) were consid-
ered since they were suitable for RC structures represented as
an equivalent SDOF system, which was mentioned previously.
To calculate the lateral strength ratio R (R ¼ mSa =F y ) in Eq. (1),
the test building was simplified as an equivalent SDOF system
with the equivalent mass m, which was obtained from the modal
mass of the first mode multiplying the modal participation factor
of this mode; the spectral acceleration (Sa) of the JMA-Kobe at the
fundamental period of the test structure (Tn = 0.69 s), Sa, which
equals 1.91 g (g is the gravitational acceleration); and the yield-
ing lateral strength Fy = 1756 kN, which was estimated from
pushover analysis results shown in Fig. 5. Except for Eq. (2), the
horizontal top drift of the equivalent SDOF system for other equa-
tions was obtained by dividing the measured roof displacement
by the height of the building. Eq. (2) was directly applied to
the full-scale test building since it was indicated [12] that Eq.
(2) can be applied to multi-story structures. Note that the param-
eters h1-h5, a1-a3 in Eq. (1) and a1-a6 in Eq. (2) were selected for
the site condition D (stiff soil) in [36], representing the site con-
dition where the Kobe record was obtained.
 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255
Fig. 5. Static pushover curve.
Table 4
Comparison between the test results and the empirical equation estimations.
Empirical Calculated maximum displacement Relative
equation (mm) difference
(1) 18 94%
(2) 72 73%
(3) 227 20%
(4) 218 25%
(5) 250 8%
Note: Relativ e Difference ¼ ðuexact  uevaluated Þ=uexact  100%.
Strictly speaking, a more complete comparison of the perfor-
mance of the empirical equations must be carried out by consider-
ing the uncertainty (e.g., the standard deviation) in the predicted
value. Unfortunately, the statistical characterizations are not
always available for the equations listed in Table 1. Therefore, only
the (mean) peak roof displacements estimated by using Eqs. (1)–
(5) were compared with the test results shown in Table 4. The
comparison indicates that Eqs. (1) and (2) underestimate the peak
roof displacement significantly. The performance of Eq. (3) that is
based on the Takeda model was better than Eq. (4), which is based
on the Kinematic model. For the best prediction of 250 mm given
by Eq. (5), the estimated peak drift was 2.08%. The relative differ-
ence between the estimated and measurement was 8% if Eq. (5)
is used. However, these observations were based on the compar-
isons between calculated and test results for a single test building
under the JMA-Kobe ground motion. Therefore, whether the obser-
vation that Eq. (5) provides a satisfactory estimate of the peak dis-
placement is applicable to other structures or under different
earthquake excitations was unknown. Moreover, it was noted that
although Eq. (2) applied successfully to a RC frame in [12], it did
not provide a reliable estimation for the test building, which may
be attributed to the fact that the pinching-effect or hysteric behav-
ior of the RC structure in [12] are different from those of the test
building. In general, these comparisons indicate that the use of
the predicting models together with observed residual displace-
ment to assess the peak displacement (i.e., the post-earthquake
damage) could be associated with large variability.
4.2. Probabilistic method
Following the steps of the probabilistic method briefly
described in Section 2.2, it was assumed that the peak roof drift
hmax obtained from the testing building is unavailable. A prior
247
probability distribution of hmax for the considered seismic event
was assigned by dividing the drift range from 0 to 4% into bins
or events Mi, i = 1, 2, . . ., 16, with the bin width equal to 0.25%,
where
Mi ¼ fmai < hmax 6 maiþ1 g ð11Þ
in which mai = 0.25%  (i  1), i = 1, 2, . . ., 17. The adoption of the
upper limit of 4% for the peak roof drift is based on the ‘‘Collapse
Prevention” drift limits in [1] (see Table 3). The consideration of
bin width of 0.25% was consistent with the value employed in [18].
Similarly, the residual drift hres was defined using the following
bins or events Rj,
Rj ¼ fraj < hres 6 rajþ1 g ð12Þ
where raj = 0.05%  (j  1), j = 1, 2, . . ., 7. By treating the peak roof
drift and the residual drift as discrete events rather than continuous
random variables, numerical analyses for the probability updating
can be simplified.
For the ground motion uncertainties, Case 1.1 and Case 2.1
described below were investigated. The incorporation of structural
modeling error can be very important. Therefore, the correspond-
ing cases by including structural modeling error, denoted as Case
1.2 and Case 2.2, respectively, were also to be discussed in the
following.
Case 1.1: There are no ground motion time history records
available close to the site of interest after an earthquake. However,
the magnitude or intensity of the seismic event as well as the
design spectrum for the building are available. For the testing
building, as reported in [27], it was designed to be located in a
region where the mapped short period and 1-s-period accelera-
tions are 1.5 g and 0.9 g, respectively, and Ts = 0.6 s for Site Class
B in [36]. The design response spectrum of the maximum consid-
ered earthquake (MCE) for the full-scale test building was con-
structed following the recommendation in [36]. The Sa of the
MCE is 1.32 g at Tn = 0.69 s and the damping ratio of 5%. Ten ground
motion records for the site class B were selected from the PEER
NGA database [37]. Both ground motions with and without the
velocity-pulse characteristics were considered since the former
can increase the residual and peak inelastic drifts [8]. The selected
records were listed in Table 5. Five records with pronounced
velocity-pulse characteristics and the remaining five records with-
out pronounced velocity-pulse characteristics were selected in
order to give the same weight to pulse and non-pulse types of
ground motions. The response spectra of the scaled records with
Sa = 1.32 g at Tn = 0.69 s were presented in Fig. 6a. The Sa is the
main parameter used to define the ground motion measures in this
study. Each of the horizontal components of a record was applied
along the X-direction for the following numerical analysis.
As the Sa at Tn = 0.69 s for the building site was unknown and
uncertain for this case, it was assumed that the occurred event
results in that Sa can be modeled as a lognormal variate with a
median equal to 1.32 g. The assumed excitation level (i.e., design
spectrum level at Tn = 0.69 s) is somewhat arbitrary. It can be con-
sidered adequate for reference purpose, since a much lower excita-
tion level will lead to linear elastic responses, while a significantly
larger excitation level will cause collapse of the structures. In both
cases, they could not be used adequately for comparison purposes.
The standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the Sa at
Tn = 0.69 s was estimated as 0.58 based on the ground motion pre-
diction equation developed in [38]. The value was within the range
suggested in [39] by considering the intraevent variability only and
by considering the overall variability. Based on the above criteria,
for the analysis of this case, 20 samples of Sa values at Tn = 0.69 s
were simulated using the adopted probabilistic model. Each record
component was scaled to match each of the sampled target Sa val-
248 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255

Table 5
Ground motion records used in Case 1.1 and Case 1.2.

No. Earthquake Name Year Station Name Mw Rjb (km) Rrup (km) Vs30 (m/s) ID
1 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #1 6.93 8.84 9.64 1428.14 G01000
2 Northridge-01 1994 LA – Wonderland Ave 6.69 15.11 20.29 1222.52 WON095
3 Northridge-01 1994 Vasquez Rocks Park 6.69 23.1 23.64 996.43 VAS000
4 Kobe Japan 1995 Kobe University 6.9 0.9 0.92 1043 KBU000
5 Tottori Japan 2000 SMNH10 6.61 15.58 15.59 967.27 SMNH10NS
6 Tabas Iran 1978 Tabas 7.35 1.79 2.05 766.77 TAB-L1
7 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.28 2.19 2.19 1369 LCN345
8 Kocaeli Turkey 1999 Gebze 7.51 7.57 10.92 792 GBZ000
9 Kocaeli Turkey 1999 Izmit 7.51 3.62 7.21 811 IZT180
10 Loma Prieta 1989 Los Gatos – Lexington Dam 6.93 3.22 5.02 1070.34 LEX090

(a) Case 1.1 (b) Case 2.1

Fig. 6. Acceleration response spectra (5% damping).

ues. A total of 200 time history analyses were therefore carried out
for this case.
Case 2.1: It was assumed that the ground motions (i.e., the JMA-
Kobe record with the Sa shown in Fig. 2b) for the considered earth-
quake (defined by magnitude and source to site distance) were
recorded at a site close to the building. However, the station is
not exactly installed at the building site. The JMA-Kobe event is
defined by the moment magnitude Mw = 6.9, the Joyner-Boore dis-
tance Rjb = 0.94 km, and the closet distance to rupture Rrup = 0.96 -
km. In the PEER NGA database, besides the JMA-Kobe record, no
other record was found for the same magnitude and distance char-
acteristics. To include more ground motion records that could
resemble the ground motions at the building site for the seismic
event, records were selected from PEER NGA database based on:
(a) Moment magnitude is within 6.0–8.0; and (b) Rjb is less than
5 km, and Rrup ranges 0–4.38 km. This led to a set of 50 ground
motion records listed in Table 6. Time history analyses of the
building were carried out for each of the two horizontal compo-
nents of the selected records, which were scaled to have Sa at
Tn = 0.69 s equal to 1.91 g, representing the Sa at Tn = 0.69 s for
the JMA-Kobe record. The Sa of the scaled records were shown in
Fig. 6b.
For the two cases (i.e., Cases 1.1 and 2.1), the prior probability
distributions of the peak roof drift P(Mi) were assigned based on
the results of nonlinear inelastic time-history analyses by using
the test building FE model. The assigned distributions are shown
in Fig. 7a and b. The distribution modes for the cases are different:
the most likely peak roof drifts fall approximately into in the
ranges of 1.5%–1.75% or 2.25%–2.5% for Cases 1.1 and 2.1, respec-
tively. The peak roof drift for Case 2.1 is closer to the measured
value (2.27%) since the reference ground motion information is
available for this case.
It must be emphasized that in evaluating the prior probability
distributions of the peak roof drift P(Mi) shown in Fig. 7a and b,
the uncertainty in the structural modeling error was not consid-
ered. The incorporation of such an uncertainty is straight forward
if the ratio of full-scale test results to predicted responses of the
building are available. It is noted that although the quantification
of such a ratio has been conducted in the literature for structural
elements or assemblies [40–43], the assessment of the ratio for
the response of entire buildings is missing because of lack of full-
scale test results. To take into account such uncertainty approxi-
mately and as an illustration, it was assumed that the calculated
structural response (i.e. hmax or hres) can be modeled as a lognormal
variate, and the response by including the modeling error can be
represented as the multiplication of the calculated response and
a structural modeling error represented by a lognormal variate
with the mean of 1.0 and a coefficient of variation of 0.40. This
adopted value was within those suggested in [44] but for different
reinforced concrete structures under seismic excitations. The esti-
mated P(Mi) for Case 1.2 and Case 2.2 are shown in Fig. 7c and d. As
expected, the consideration of the modeling error increases vari-
ability of the estimated peak roof drift, illustrating the impact of
the modeling error on P(Mi).
It was noted in [27] that after the JMA-Kobe-100% test case, the
damage state of the 1st and 2nd stories of the testing building is
between ‘‘Life Safety” and ‘‘Collapse Prevention” described in the
FEMA-356 [1] (see also Table 3). The damages of the 3rd and 4th
stories were less severe, which should be classified as ‘‘Life Safety”.
Accordingly, the inter-story drifts of first two stories were assumed
in the range of 2% to 4% and the inter-story drifts of the 3rd and 4th
stories were assumed in the range of 1% to 2%. Therefore, the peak
roof drift of the building subjected to 100% of the JMA Kobe record
was then assumed to be in the range of 1% to 4%.
 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255 249

Table 6
Ground motion records used in Case 2.1 and Case 2.2.

No. Earthquake Name Year Station Name Mw Rjb (km) Rrup (km) Vs30 (m/s) ID
1 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Aeropuerto Mexicali 6.53 0 0.34 259.86 AEP045
2 AEP315
3 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Agrarias 6.53 0 0.65 242.05 AGR003
4 AGR273
5 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro – Meloland Geot. Array 6.53 0.07 0.07 264.57 EM0000
6 EM0270
7 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #6 6.53 0 1.35 203.22 E06140
8 E06230
9 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #7 6.53 0.56 0.56 210.51 E07140
10 E07230
11 N. Palm Springs 1986 North Palm Springs 6.06 0 4.04 344.67 NPS210
12 Superstition Hills-02 1987 Parachute Test Site 6.54 0.95 0.95 348.69 PTS225
13 PTS315
14 Erzican Turkey 1992 Erzincan 6.69 0 4.38 352.05 ERZ-NS
15 ERZ-EW
16 Kobe Japan 1995 Takarazuka 6.9 0 0.27 312 TAZ000
17 TAZ090
18 Kobe Japan 1995 Takatori 6.9 1.46 1.47 256 TAK000
19 TAK090
20 Dinar Turkey 1995 Dinar 6.4 0 3.36 219.75 DIN090
21 DIN180
22 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 TCU065 7.62 0.57 0.57 305.85 TCU065-E
23 TCU065-N
24 Denali Alaska 2002 TAPS Pump Station #10 7.9 0.18 2.74 329.4 PS010-047
25 PS10-317
26 Tottori Japan 2000 TTRH02 6.61 0.83 0.97 310.21 TTRH02NS
27 TTRH02EW
28 Morgan Hill 1984 Halls Valley 6.19 3.45 3.48 281.61 HVR150
29 HVR240
30 Parkfield-02 CA 2004 PARKFIELD – FROELICH 6 1.85 3.19 226.63 FROEL-90
31 FROEL 360
32 Parkfield-02 CA 2004 PARKFIELD – 1-STORY SCHOOL BLDG 6 0.95 2.68 269.55 36531-93
33 36531003
34 Parkfield-02 CA 2004 Parkfield – Cholame 1E 6 1.66 3 326.64 C01090
35 C01360
36 Parkfield-02 CA 2004 Parkfield – Fault Zone 6 6 0.95 2.67 297.46 Z07090
37 Z07360
38 Parkfield-02 CA 2004 Parkfield – Fault Zone 7 6 0.87 2.7 266.65 Z06090
39 Parkfield-02 CA 2004 Parkfield – Fault Zone 12 6 0.88 2.65 265.21 PRK090
40 PRK360
41 Parkfield-02 CA 2004 Parkfield – Fault Zone 15 6 0.8 2.67 307.59 Z15090
42 Z15360
43 Parkfield-02 CA 2004 Parkfield – Vineyard Cany 1W 6 1 2.75 284.21 VC1090
44 VC1360
45 Darfield New Zealand 2010 GDLC 7 1.22 1.22 344.02 GDLCN55W
46 GDLCS35W
47 Darfield New Zealand 2010 ROLC 7 0 1.54 295.74 ROLCS29E
48 ROLCS61W
49 Christchurch New Zealand 2011 Pages Road Pumping Station 6.2 1.92 1.98 206 PRPCS
50 PRPCW

Let the event I1 represent the scenario that the observed dam-
age of each story is more severe than the damage state of ‘‘Imme-
diate Occupancy” defined in [1]. Similarly, let the event I2 represent
the damage state in each story that is in the state or beyond the
state of ‘‘Collapse Prevention”. The peak roof drift distribution con-
ditioned on the observed ‘‘damage state” I, P(Mi|I), can be calcu-
lated by using,
PðI1 jMi ÞPðMi Þ
PðM i jI1 Þ ¼ P ð13aÞ
j PðI1 M j ÞPðM j Þ
interval defining Mi, mci = (mai+1 + mai)/2) and PðI2 jM i \ I1 Þ is a
decreasing function of mci, which represents the probability condi-
tioned on the known peak roof drift and a identified damage sever-
ity beyond ‘‘Immediate Occupancy”. Since there is no widely-
accepted probability model to describe the relations between
structural damages and the peak drift, for simplicity, it was consid-
ered that,

0; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4
PðI1 jM i Þ ¼ ð14aÞ
0:083  i  0:328; i ¼ 5; 6; 7 . . . ; 15; 16

and, and,

1; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4
PðI2 jMi \ I1 ÞPðMi jI1 Þ PðI2 jM i \ I1 Þ ¼ ð14bÞ
PðM i I1 \ I2 Þ ¼ P ð13bÞ 1:415  0:083  i; i ¼ 5; 6; 7 . . . ; 15; 16
j PðI2 M j \ I 1 ÞPðM j jI 1 Þ
Likewise, the residual drift measurement was used in updating
It was reasonable to consider that the damage severity of a
PðM i \ Rj jIÞ based on,
structure is an increasing function of its peak drift. In other words,
for hmax ranging from 1% to 4%, the probability of the damage PðI1 M i \ Rj ÞPðM i \ Rj Þ
PðM i \ Rj jI1 Þ ¼ P P ð15aÞ
severity conditioned on the peak drift PðI1 jM i Þ is an increasing m n PðI 1 jM m \ Rn ÞPðM m \ Rn Þ
function of the peak drift represented by the average value of the
250 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255

Fig. 7. Probability distributions of the peak roof drifts.

X
and, PðRj jIÞ ¼ PðM i \ Rj jIÞ ð17bÞ
i
PðI2 M i \ Rj \ I1 ÞPðM i \ Rj jI1 Þ
PðM i \ Rj I1 \ I2 Þ ¼ P P ð15bÞ where I in the above equation represents the joint event of all
m n PðI2 jM m \ Rn \ I1 ÞPðM m \ Rn jI 1 Þ
inspection results.
Although the probabilistic model of PðI1 M i \ Rj Þ and With these equations and the residual roof drift hres = 0.08%
PðI2 M i \ Rj \ I1 Þ are not well established, the tendency is widely (ures = 10 mm) that was measured for the JMA-Kobe-100% test
case, the calculated PðM i jIÞ and PðM i jI \ hres Þ are shown in Fig. 7,
accepted that a large residual drift usually indicates more severe
structural damages under a condition of a specific peak drift. To where I in these cases represents I1 \ I2 . From the figure, it can
simplify the problem in this study, PðI M i \ Rj Þ is assumed to be be observed that for Case 1.1, after the Bayesian updating, the drift
range associated with the maximum probability (mass) shifted
given by,
X from 1.5%–1.75% to 1.75%–2%. However, the values within this
PðI1 Mi \ Rj Þ ¼PðIjMi Þ  j= j j ¼ 1; 2; :::; 6 ð16aÞ interval are still smaller than the measured peak roof drift, which
is 2.27%. Since the uncertainty in the ground motions was reduced
and, in Case 2.1 as compared to that in Case 1.1, the drift interval asso-
X ciated with the maximum PðM i jI \ hres Þ remained in the interval
PðI2 Mi \ Rj \ I1 Þ ¼PðI2 jMi \ I1 Þ  ð7  jÞ= j j ¼ 1; 2; :::; 6
2.25%–2.5%. Moreover, the mean and median values of
ð16bÞ PðM i jI \ hres Þ for Case 2.1 are 2.54% and 2.52%, respectively. The
median value is 11.0% different from the testing result. The Baye-
This assumption is made to simplify the numerical analysis to
sian updating by considering P(Mi) for Cases 1.2 and 2.2 shown
be carried out, and a better model must be developed based on sta-
in Fig. 7c and d was also carried out. The obtained results were
tistical data obtained from damage surveys for practical
included the figures, indicating again that the updating influences
applications.
the distribution of the maximum roof drift.
In addition, the probability distribution of the peak roof drift
Table 7 summarized the mean and median values of Mi based
conditioned on both the residual roof drift and the observed dam-
on the prior probability PðMi Þ and the updated probability PðM i j:Þ
age, PðM i jI \ hres Þ, can be estimated using Eq. (17) [18]:
for both cases. The difference of mean and median values between
X PðM i \ Rj jIÞ the PðMi Þ and PðM i j:Þ for the considered cases indicated that the
PðM i jI \ hres Þ ¼ PðRj jhres Þ ð17aÞ
j
PðRj jIÞ updating affected the statistics because of the consideration of
the assumptions made in Eqs. (14) and (16). Table 7 shows that,
and, the difference between the mean value of PðM i jI \ hres Þ and the
 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255 251

Table 7
Estimated median and mean of the peak roof drifts by using different probability distributions.

Considerations Distribution used Cases

Without structural modeling error Case 1.1 Case 2.1
Mean Median Mean Median
P(Mi) 1.66 1.66 2.67 2.64
P(Mi|I) 1.94 1.88 2.61 2.58
P(Mi|I \ hres) 1.95 1.89 2.54 2.52
With structural modeling error Case 1.2 Case 2.2
Mean Median Mean Median
P(Mi) 1.62 1.63 1.96 2.62
P(Mi|I) 2.09 2.01 2.44 2.41
P(Mi|I \ hres) 2.07 1.99 2.45 2.42

Fig. 8. Numerical simulation results of peak and residual roof drift results.

measured value for Case 2.1 is slightly smaller than that for Case
1.1 (i.e., 1.95%). Furthermore, in all cases, the considering of struc-
tural modeling error narrowed the differences. However, this
observation should not be generalized for other cases. Since it is
not clear on the adequacy of the adopted probabilistic model of
structural modeling error for this considered test building, unless
otherwise indicated, the effect of the modeling error was not con-
sidered further in the following analyses.
To investigate the correlation between the peak and residual
drifts, results of peak and residual drifts from 250 time history
analysis were plotted on Fig. 8. It can be observed from the figure
that as the peak drift increases, the dispersion of residual drift
increases. For the residual drift equal to 0.08% that corresponds
to the drift ratio obtained from the shaking table test, the peak
drifts obtained from numerical modeling are greater than approx-
imately 1.1%, as shown in Fig. 8. The correlation coefficient q
between peak and residual drifts was computed using the samples
shown in Fig. 8. The estimated q equals 0.41, indicating a weak cor-
relation. The lower correlation coefficient indicates again that the
use of an empirical equation to predict peak drift based on the
residual drift is associated with large uncertainty and this uncer-
tainty increases as the residual drift increases. The empirical joint
probability distribution of peak and residual drifts PðM i \ Rj Þ by
using the samples shown in Fig. 8 is presented in Fig. 9. The results
presented in the figure illustrate that the shape of the marginal dis-
tribution of Mi conditioned on Rj (or Rj conditioned on Mi) changes
with the value of Rj (or Mi), indicating again that Mi and Rj cannot
be treated as independent random variables. This and a non-zero
correlation coefficient support the use of Bayesian approach to
update the probability distribution of peak drift, which was given
in the following section.
5. Post-earthquake fragility assessment
The peak drift is a useful engineering demand parameter (EDP)
for engineers to evaluate the damage state of a building. Based on
the residual drift and other damage observations collected from
field investigations after an earthquake event, the peak drift distri-
bution can be more reliably predicted by following the probabilis-
tic model aforementioned. With an integrated use of the peak drift
and in situ damage observations, engineers can perform post-
earthquake damage assessment following an event. The damage
states reflected from such evaluations are classified as instructed
by codes or guidelines, e.g., FEMA P-58 [45]. As one of useful tools,
fragility curves provide the information about the remaining seis-
mic capacity of a building in terms of the conditional collapse
probability. For instance, given a peak drift value, one is interested
in assessing the probability of collapse of the structure due to an
aftershock or a subsequent earthquake with a specified Sa. The col-
lapse limit state could be defined based on the peak drift. To
explore the feasibility of assessing fragility curve (i.e., failure prob-
252 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255

Fig. 9. Empirical joint probability distribution PðM i \ Rj Þ of the peak and residual roof drifts.

ability conditioned on a given Sa) for a building that already sus-
tained a peak drift, three predicted peak drift values were consid-
ered: the first one was predicted by using Eq. (5) and denoted by
hmax,d, which is 2.08%; the second one is equal to the estimated
median value of h for Case 2.1 and is denoted by hmax,p, which
equals 2.52%; and the third one is the measured maximum roof
drift ratio, denoted as hmax,r, which is 2.27%. These three scenarios
were referred to as DDS, PDS and RDS, respectively. Following the
procedure in [46], the evaluation steps and estimated fragility
curves of the frame system of the test building were described
below.
(1) Perform nonlinear static pushover analyses for the intact
test building. This work was conducted in Section 4.1 as shown
in Fig. 5. According to [1], it was assumed that the collapse occurs
if the roof drift ratio exceeds 4%.
(2) Conduct nonlinear static pushover analyses for the damaged
test building. To obtain the static pushover curve of the damaged
building, the intact structure was first pushed to a certain roof drift
ratio, which equals to hmax,d = 2.08% or hmax,p = 2.52% or hmax,
r = 2.27%, before unloading to the zero base shear. After unloading,
the building was loaded again to the collapse limit of 4% as shown
in Fig. 10a–c. From these pushover curves, the equivalent elastic
stiffness of the damaged building was estimated to be Kd,
d = 12868 kN/m, Kd,p = 11097 kN/m, and Kd,r = 11502 kN/m from
the curves shown in Fig. 10a–c. The fundamental vibration period
of the damaged structure Td was then estimated based on the
equivalent elastic stiffness values and the vibration characteristics
of the intact structure by using,
sffiffiffiffiffiffi
K
Td ¼ Tn ð18Þ
Kd
where K is the elastic stiffness values of the intact structure, Kd is
the equivalent elastic stiffness value of the damaged structure in
a certain damage state obtained directly from the respective push-
over curves, which equals Kd,d, Kd,p, or Kd,r depending on the consid-
ered scenario.
(3) Determine the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) curves of
the building in both estimated and real damaged states. The IDA
curves were obtained in this study by using the SPO2IDA spread-
sheet tool (http://users.ntua.gr/divamva/software.html). To use
the SPO2IDA spreadsheet, the static pushover curves in Fig. 10
were simplified with four straight lines following the principle that
the inside areas covering by these straight lines and those covering
by the static pushover curve are close. Furthermore, to compare
the IDA curves for damage states derived from different methods,
the spectral accelerations at the fundamental vibration period of
the damaged structure, Sa(Td,d), Sa(Td,p) and Sa(Td,r), corresponding

Fig. 10. Static pushover curves: (a) DDS scenario, (b) PDS scenario, (c) RDS scenario.
 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255
Fig. 11. IDA and fragility curves for damaged structure for RDS, DDS, and PDS.
(a) Overall picture of the fragility curves
Fig. 12. Fragility curves for the collapse of the damaged structure considering different scenarios.
to DDS, PDS and RDS, were transformed into the Sa of the intact
building at Tn = 0.69 s, which were estimated to be 1.32 g based
on the design spectrum for the MCE. In other words, the IDA curves
of the damaged building were multiplied by Sa(Tn)/Sa(Td).
(4) Obtain fragility curves of the damaged building for the col-
lapse limit state, which is defined by 4% roof drift in FEMA-356 (See
Table 3). Fragility curves (i.e., probability of collapse conditioned
on Sa (Tn = 0.69 s)) were derived for the building damaged due to
the shaking induced by JMA-Kobe-100% ground motion, by using
the median spectral capacity and standard deviation b = 0.27,
which takes into account the record-to-record variability. The
results are shown in Fig. 11. These fragility curves are close and
the PDS curve has little difference to RDS, which encourages the
use of a reliable estimated peak drift for seismic assessment of
the damaged building with regarding to its post-earthquake
usability and/or reparability.
To incorporate the uncertainty in the predicted peak drift for
assessing the fragility curve, rather than considering a single pre-
dicted drift value as shown in Fig. 11, the use of the estimated pos-
terior distribution of the drift ratio shown in Fig. 7 for Cases 1.1 and
2.1 (i.e., P(Mi|I\hres) was also considered. These two scenarios were
referred to as U1-DS if P(Mi|I\hres) shown in Fig. 7a was used, and
U2-DS if P(Mi|I\hres) shown in Fig. 7b was used. Note that for the
scenarios U1-DS and U2-DS, analysis following the above 4-step
was carried out but considering a range of peak drift values accord-
ing to the assigned P(Mi|I\hres), and the resulting fragility curve
(i.e., the conditional fragility curves weighted by P(Mi|I\hres)) for
253
(b) Details comparison for small Sa(Tn) values
each scenario represented the Bayesian updated fragility curve.
These fragility curves were shown in Fig. 12a and compared to
those obtained for scenarios RDS, DDS and PDS. To better inspect
the capacity curves for small values of Sa(Tn), the results presented
in Fig. 12a is replotted in Fig. 12b in the logarithmic paper. The
plots shown in Fig. 12b indicated that the estimated values of
the fragility curves are insensitive to the selected scenarios. This
implies that under the considered conditions the estimated fragi-
lity curve is not very sensitive to the considered residual drift; it
reflects the large uncertainty in predicting the peak drift based
on the residual drift.
6. Conclusions
A seismic assessment procedure using the residual drift, which
is measurable in the post-earthquake investigation, for damaged
buildings after mainshock was presented in this study. Since the
peak drift is more reliable than the residual drift as an index for
evaluating building performance, this paper investigated the use
of two approaches to assess the damage state of buildings that
experienced a large earthquake: (1) predicting the peak drift from
the residual drift using an empirical model; (2) evaluating the
damage state based on probabilistic inference considering the
measured damage indications.
Results of a full-scale four-story RC building were used as a case
study to assess both approaches. The results showed that, only one
of the five considered empirical equations provided a close predic-
254 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255
tion of the peak roof drift response obtained from laboratory tests.
Whether this observed adequate prediction is applicable to other
buildings and under different earthquake excitations was
unknown. This was partly due to the record-to-record variability.
The probabilistic approach is a logical framework because it can
consider the uncertainties involved in earthquake events since
the residual displacement is sensitive to the model error dispersion
and record-to-record variability. The probabilistic method for the
peak drift estimation with the consideration of visible damages
and measurable residual displacements was used in this study.
This method allowed a joint treatment of subjective and objective
information for damage evaluation. A rational selection of the
probability distribution models was found to be the key to improve
the effectiveness of the probabilistic method.
The fragility curves of the damaged building at the collapse
limit state were estimated for several selected peak drift values
and probability distributions. The results show that if the selected
peak drift value is near its median, the estimated fragility curve
based on a single peak drift value approximates well that esti-
mated based on the probability distribution of the peak drift.
Acknowledgement
The first three authors would like to acknowledge the support
from the State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engi-
neering (Grant No. SLDRCE14-B-02), State Key Laboratory for
GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering (Grant No.
SKLGDUEK1514), Key Laboratory of Energy Engineering Safety
and Disaster Mechanics, Ministry of Education (EES201603), China
National Key R & D Program (Special Key Program for International
Cooperation, 2016YFE0105600), and Science and Technology Com-
mission of Shanghai Municipality International Collaboration Pro-
gram (Grant No. 16510711300). The work of Mr. Kai Lu of Tongji
University in the early stage of this study is also acknowledged.
The fourth author would like to acknowledge the support from
NSERC and UWO.
References
[1] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[2] FEMA P-58. Seismic performance assessment of Buildings. Washington,
DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2012.
[3] FEMA P-750. NEHRP Recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and
other structures. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency;
2009.
[4] Mahin SA, Bertero VV. An evaluation of inelastic seismic design spectra. J Struct
Divis 1981;107(9):1777–95.
[5] Ruiz-García J, Negretemanriquez J. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel
frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock
seismic sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33(2):621–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.engstruct.2010.11.021.
[6] Christopoulos C, Pampanin S, Priestley MJN. Performance-based seismic
response of frame structures including residual deformations, Part I: single-
degree of freedom systems. J Earthq Eng 2003;7(1):97–118. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1142/S1363246903000894.
[7] Uma S, Pampanin S, Christopoulos C. Development of probabilistic framework
for performance-based seismic assessment of structures considering residual
deformations. J Earthq Eng 2010;14(7):1092–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13632460903556509.
[8] Liossatou E, Fardis MN. Residual displacements of RC structures as SDOF
systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2014;44(5):713–34. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/epe.2483.
[9] Ruiz-García J, Miranda E. Residual displacement ratios for assessment of
existing structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2006;35(3):315–36. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.523.
[10] Goda K, Hong HP, Lee CS. Probabilistic characteristics of seismic ductility
demand of SDOF systems with Bouc-Wen hysteretic behavior. J Earthq Eng
2009;13(5):600–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460802645098.
[11] Hong HP, Hong P. Assessment of ductility demand and reliability of bilinear
single-degree-of-freedom systems under earthquake loading. Can J Civil Eng
2007;34(12):1606–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/L07-077.
[12] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Papagiannopoulos GA, Beskos DE. Evaluation of maximum
seismic displacements of SDOF systems from residual deformation. Eng Struct
2011;33(12):3422–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.07.006.
[13] Christidis AA, Dimitroudi EG, Hatzigeorgiou GD, et al. Maximum seismic
displacements evaluation of steel frames from their post-earthquake residual
deformation. Bull Earthq Eng 2013;11(6):2233–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-013-9490-z.
[14] Gong JX, Cheng L, Zhang Q. Statistical relationship between results of static
nonlinear analysis and elasto-plastic time-history and calculation of residual
deformation for structures. J Build Struct 2011;32(12):224–33. http://dx.doi.
org/10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2011.12.026. (in Chinese).
[15] Zhang Q, Zhu J, Gong J. Post-earthquake residual deformation prediction of
SDOF system. J Civil Archit Environ Eng 2013;35(3):32–41. http://dx.doi.org/
10.11835/j. issn. 1674-4764. 2013. 03. 006. (in Chinese).
[16] Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, et al. Residual drift response of SMRFs
and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7–05. J Struct
Eng 2011;137(5):589–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0000296.
[17] Goda K. Statistical modeling of joint probability distribution using copula:
application to peak and permanent displacement seismic demands. Struct Saf
2010;32(2):112–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.09.003.
[18] Yazgan U, Dazio A. Post-earthquake damage assessment using residual
displacements. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2012;41(8):1257–76. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/epe.1184.
[19] Toussi S, Yao JTP. Hysteresis identification of existing structures. J Eng Mech
1983;109(5):1189–203.
[20] Stephens JE, Yao JTP. Damage assessment using response measurements. J
Struct Eng 1987;113(4):787–801.
[21] Ruiz-García J, Miranda E. Probabilistic estimation of residual drift demands for
seismic assessment of multi-story framed buildings. Eng Struct 2010;32
(1):11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.010.
[22] Aslani H, Miranda E. Probability-based seismic response analysis. Eng Struct
2005;27(8):1151–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.015.
[23] Bojórquez E, Ruiz-García J. Residual drift demands in moment-resisting steel
frames subjected to narrow-band earthquake ground motions. Earthq
Eng Struct Dynam 2013;42(11):1583–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe
.2288.
[24] Kumar M, Stafford P, Elghazouli A. Influence of ground motion characteristics
on drift demands in steel moment frames designed to Eurocode 8. Eng Struct
2013;52:502–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.010.
[25] Ruiz-García J, Aguilar JD. Aftershock seismic assessment taking into account
post-mainshock residual drifts. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2014;44
(9):1391–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/epe.2523.
[26] Ruiz-García J, Miranda E. Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of
existing structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2003;32(8):1237–58. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/epe.271.
[27] Nagae T, Tahara K, Taizo M, et al. Design and instrumentation of the 2010 E-
Defense four-story reinforced concrete and post-tensioned concrete
buildings. Berkeley, California: PEER Center; 2011.
[28] Nagae T, Tahara K, Fukuyama K, et al. Test results of four-story reinforced
concrete and post-tensioned concrete buildings: the 2010 E-Defense shaking
table test. In: Proceedings of Fifteenth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal; 2012.
[29] CSI Perform 3D V5. Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D
structures. Berkeley, California: CSI; 2011.
[30] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[31] Chadwell CB, Imbsen Associates. XTRACT – cross section analysis software for
structural and earthquake engineering. Rancho Cordova, CA: TRC; 2002. http://
www.imbsen.com/xtract.htm.
[32] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. New York: Wiley; 1992.
[33] Naish D. Testing and modeling of reinforced concrete coupling beams (PhD
thesis). Los Angeles: Univ. of California; 2010.
[34] ATC-72. Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of
tall buildings. Redwood City, CA, USA: Applied Technology Council; 2010.
[35] Tuna Z, Gavridou S, Wallace JW. 2010 E-Defense four-story reinforced concrete
and post-tensioned buildings – preliminary comparative study of
experimental and analytical results. In: Proceedings of Fifteenth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal; 2012.
[36] ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE
Standard ASCE/SEI 7–10, Reston, VA; 2005.
[37] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, NGA Strong Ground Motion
Database. <http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/>.
[38] Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y. Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA ground motion relations
for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground
motion parameters. Berkeley, California: PEER Center, Univ. of California;
2007. PEER 2007/02.
[39] Hong HP, Goda K. Orientation-dependent ground motion measure for seismic
hazard assessment. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2007;97(5):1525–38. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1785/0120060194.
[40] Zhou W, Hong HP. Modeling error of strength of short reinforced concrete
columns. Struct J 2000;97(3):427–35.
[41] Somo S, Hong HP. Modeling error analysis of shear predicting models for RC
beams. Struct Saf 2006;28(3):217–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
strusafe.2005.06.003.
 K. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 242–255 255

[42] Yazgan U, Dazio A. Simulating maximum and residual displacements of RC
structures: I. Accuracy. Earthquake Spectra 2011;27(4):1187–202. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1193/1.3650479.
[43] Yazgan U, Dazio A. Simulating maximum and residual displacements of RC
structures: II Sensitivity. Earthquake Spectra 2011;27(4):1203–18. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1193/1.3650478.
[44] Gokkaya BU, Baker JW, Deierlein GG. Quantifying the impacts of modeling
uncertainties on the seismic drift demands and collapse risk of buildings with
implications on seismic design checks. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2740.
[45] FEMA P-58. Seismic performance assessment of buildings, vol. 1–
2. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2012.
[46] Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Menun C, et al. Advanced seismic assessment
guidelines. PEER Report Draft. February; 2003.