Seismic loss estimation for efficient decision making

B.A. Bradley, R.P. Dhakal, M. Cubrinovski, G.A. MacRae

Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

D.S. Lee 2008 NZSEE

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury, Conference
Christchurch, New Zealand.

ABSTRACT: In order to incorporate seismic risk of facilities into a decision making

framework, procedures are needed to quantify such risk for stakeholders. Seismic loss
estimation methods combine seismic hazard, structural response, damage fragility, and
damage consequences to allow quantification of seismic risk. This paper presents a loss
estimation methodology which allows various means of quantifying seismic risk of a
specific facility. The methodology is component-based and can therefore distinguish
between different structural configurations or different facility contents and is consistent
with state-of-the-art loss assessment procedures. Loss is measured in the forms of direct
structural and non-structural repair costs, and although not considered in the example,
business disruption and occupant casualties can also be considered. This framework has
been packaged in a computer code available for future dissemination in the public domain
so that users need only to have a basic understanding of the methodology and the input
data that is required. Discussion is given to the flexibility of the framework in terms of
the rigour which can be employed at each of the main steps in the procedure. Via a case
study of a high-rise office building, the use of the methodology in decision-making is
illustrated. Methodological requirements and further research directions are discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

Current seismic design codes provide guidelines for the design and detailing of structures with the
primary goal of preventing global collapse during strong ground motion shaking. Observations from
worldwide earthquakes in the past two decades have illustrated that with few exceptions, structures
designed to these state-of-practice guidelines are sufficient for providing life safety with a high degree
of confidence. However, these events illustrated the severe economic consequences resulting from
earthquakes in highly developed regions of society. These economic consequences can be primarily
attributed to: (i) direct economic losses associated with repairing damage within a structure; (ii) direct
losses associated with injuries and casualties; and (iii) indirect losses associated with the loss of
income due to business disruption. These three forms of losses (damage, death and downtime) are
known as the 3Ds. Some examples from the United States include the 1994 Northridge ($17-26
billion), and 1989 Loma Prieta ($11 billion) earthquakes (III, 2006). In response to these observed
losses it has become apparent that seismic design of structures should consider all of these potential
consequences and their likelihood of occurrence.
Quantification of seismic risk is a difficult task which is subject to inherent variability. Although it
can be roughly forecasted, it is not known when and where future significant fault ruptures will occur.
Even when an earthquake occurs at a particular location, due to the complex rupture mechanism,
process of seismic wave propagation and site effects, the intensity, frequency content and duration of
ground motions at a particular site are also uncertain. These uncertainties in the strong ground
motions affecting a given site cause corresponding uncertainty in the level of structural response, and
associated damage in the structure. Finally, the cost to repair a damaged structure is also uncertain
and depends on available resources and demand. In order to rigorously assess the seismic risk of a
structure all of the above uncertainties should be accounted for. Thus it becomes necessary that the

Paper Number 32
problem of seismic risk is cast into a probabilistic framework which can propagate such uncertainties
in each of the input variables and give a probabilistic output useful for decision making processes.
These aforementioned uncertainties result from either inherent randomness in a process, or uncertainty
due to the limited knowledge and application of engineering models. These two different types of
uncertainty are referred to as aleatory randomness and epistemic uncertainty, respectively. An
example of aleatory randomness would be the variation in the level of ground motion observed at a
site due to different ground motions resulting from the same rupture magnitude and source-to-site
distance, while epistemic uncertainty would result from the ground motion prediction equation used to
estimate the level of ground motion at the site. As aleatory randomness is deemed as an inherent
property of complex phenomena, it cannot be reduced; epistemic uncertainty being knowledge-based
can be reduced if better knowledge of the phenomena is acquired. As these two different uncertainties
are related to different aspects of the considered problem they deserve separate treatment within a
decision making process.
This paper presents a discussion of the use of seismic loss estimation for decision making at various
stages of design and/or seismic assessment of structures. An outline of the state-of-the-art seismic loss
estimation is given with reference to a specific case study of a 10-storey New Zealand commercial
office building. Using the case study structure a full loss assessment is performed and discussion is
given to each of the possible outputs for decision making. Some simplistic assumptions are made in
the loss assessment in order to accomplish the goal of this manuscript which is to present the
interpretation of loss assessment results for use in decision making. For simplicity, this paper is
primarily concerned with aleatory randomness only. These assumptions are revisited at the end of the
manuscript where further discussion is given to the effects of relaxing such assumptions.

2 CASE STUDY STRUCTURE

The case study structure used herein to illustrate the use of seismic loss estimation tools in decision
making process is based on the Red Book building (Bull and Brunsden, 1998) which acts as a design
example of the New Zealand Concrete Code (NZS3101:1995). Figure 1 illustrates plan and elevation
views of the building layout. The primary lateral load carrying system consists of four one-way
perimeter moment resisting frames which are 3 bays long. Vertical loads are transferred primarily
through interior columns with gravity beams supporting one-way floor units. Although originally
designed for a site in Christchurch, in this study it was assumed that the structure is located at a site in
Wellington. The soil is assumed to be class A (NZS1170.1, 2004) and stiff enough so that local site
effects are not significant in modifying the bedrock ground motion.
A 2D model of perimeter frame was developed using the time-history analysis program Ruaumoko2D
(Carr, 2004). Due to the symmetry of the structure, it was assumed that the 3D response could be
reasonably approximated by separate 2D analyses in each of the two primary directions. A fixed-base
model was used in the analysis and as a result soil-structure-foundation interaction was neglected. The
structure was modelled using a lumped mass model and non-linear (beam) elements based on the
modified Takeda hysteresis, with the appropriate section properties determined using fibre-based
biaxial section modelling. The structural model had a fundamental period of 1.5 seconds. Further
details on the structural response and the effects of the assumptions on the loss estimation outcome are
discussed later in the manuscript.

2
Figure 1: (a) Plan, and (b) elevation of the Red Book building (Bull and Brunsden, 1998).

3 SEISMIC HAZARD

The seismic hazard at the site of the structure can be quantified by performing a probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis (PSHA). PSHA combines the magnitude recurrence relationships of various
earthquake sources, and a ground motion prediction relationship. The ground motion prediction
relationship describes the level of ground motion shaking at a site as a function of the magnitude of the
earthquake and faulting type; source-to-site distance and path effects; local site effects; and soil
amplification. The results of a PSHA is a ground motion hazard curve which gives the annual
frequency of exceeding specific values of ground motion intensity. In this study, the ground motion
hazard for Wellington based on Stirling et al, (2002) was employed. As the fundamental period of the
structure is 1.5 seconds, the 5% damped spectral acceleration at this period, Sa(T=1.5s,5%) (or simply
Sa for brevity) is chosen as the ground motion intensity measure (IM). This selection of ground
motion IM is based on the observation from past researchers (e.g. Shome and Cornell, 1999) that the
spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure is an efficient IM at predicting the
drift demands in the structure. An efficient IM is desired as a reduction in the uncertainty in the
structural response will result in a reduction in the uncertainty in the magnitude of economic losses.
Figure 2 illustrates the seismic hazard curve obtained via PSHA which (in this case) describes the
mean annual frequencies of exceeding various levels of Sa. The two reference lines are indicated in
the plot represent 10% and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return periods of 475 and 2475
years, respectively) which are typical frequencies used when determining forces/displacements for the
design and assessment of structures.

3
 0
10

Annual frequency of exceedance, IM

-2
10
10% in 50 years

2% in 50 years
-4
10

-6
10 -2 -1 0
10 10 10
Spectral Acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%)

Figure 2: Ground motion hazard curve for Wellington, New Zealand, (Stirling et al, 2002).

4 SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Seismic response analysis of the structure was performed using non-linear time history analysis with a
suite of ground motions scaled over a wide range of ground motion intensities to account for the
variability in structural response due to differences in ground motions of the same intensity (termed
record-to-record randomness). A suite of 40 ground motion records complied by Medina and
Krawinkler (2003) were used for conducting the non-linear time history analyses. The suite contains
ground motions recorded on stiff soil with magnitude and distance ranges of 6.5-6.9 and 13.3-39.3 km,
respectively. The suite is termed ordinary by Medina and Krawinkler, as none of the records show
effects of near-fault motions (i.e. directivity or fling effects), and all ground motions were recorded
on stiff soils. As the Wellington seismic hazard will likely have some dominance due to near-fault
records, in a more rigorous assessment the suite of ground motions should incorporate near-fault
ground motions (which more accurately match the likely spectral shapes of future ground motions),
however this is beyond the scope of this paper.
In the example presented herein, the seismic response is evaluated rigorously using time history
analyses with multiple ground motions. In preliminary investigations however, it may not be feasible
to conduct such rigorous analyses. In such cases there are various simplified methods which may be
used to approximate the true seismic response obtained by direct non-linear time-history analysis.
Such methods can be of a pseudo-static nature or modal pushover methods coupled with single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) time history analyses (e.g. Moghadam and Tso, 2000; Fajfar, 2002;
Penelis and Kappos, 2002; and Chopra and Goel, 2004).
The suite of ground motions were scaled to Sa values ranging from 0.1-1.5g in increments of 0.1g.
Thus in total, 600 non-linear time history analyses were completed using 40 different ground motion
records at 15 different intensities. This process of incrementally carrying out time history analysis
using ground motion records to various levels of intensity is termed Incremental Dynamic Analysis
(IDA) (Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002). IDA allows quantification of the seismic demand and
capacity of the structure from initial elastic response through to global collapse. Herein the interstorey
drift (or drift for brevity) between two floors is denoted as the interstorey drift occurring in the lower
of the two floors (i.e. the second floor interstorey drift is the interstorey drift between the second and
third floors). This terminology is adopted to allow clarity in later discussions considering loss due to
both drift and acceleration demands. Figure 3 illustrates two IDA results representing the maximum
interstorey drifts (the Engineering Demand Parameter, EDP) on the second and eighth floors of the

4
 analysed structure as a function of the ground motion IM. Each of the points in the figures is the result
of a single time history analysis when global structural collapse did not occur, while the two lines
indicate the mean response for a given level of intensity with and without consideration of global
collapse, respectively (discussion on computing these two quantities is given further in the
manuscript). The fewer number of analysis points in the figure at higher levels of ground motion
intensity is due to the fact that a larger proportion of ground motions cause collapse (and are therefore
not displayed).
Second floor peak interstorey drift, 2,max

0.06 0.06

Eighth floor peak interstorey drift,8,max

EDP|IM,NC
0.05 0.05 EDP|IM
individual
0.04 0.04 analyses

0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

(b)
0.01 (a) 0.01

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%)

1 1
Dispersion in 8,max
Dispersion in 2,max

0.5 0.5

(c) (d)
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%)

Figure 3: Examples of IDA plots of maximum interstorey drift for the (a) second-third storey; (b) seventh-eighth
story; (c) dispersion in second-third storey drift response; and (d) dispersion in seventh-eighth storey drift
response.

As is evident in Figures 3a and 3b there exists a significant amount of variation in the seismic response
of the structure for various levels of ground motion, with the variation increasing as the level of
intensity increases (primarily due to significant non-linear response of the structure). This uncertainty
can be quantified by computing the dispersion (standard deviation of the logarithm of the analysis data
where collapse does not occur) of the responses as a function of intensity which is shown in Figures 3c
and 3d. Dispersion is used as the measure of variation as it has been shown by various researchers that
this variation can be well approximated by the lognormal distribution (e.g. Aslani and Miranda, 2005;
Mander et al. 2006). The dispersion, , is related to the non-log moments of the variable by (Ang and
Tang, 1975):

2 (1)
=
2 2
= ln X + 1
ln X
X

5
 where X and X are the mean and standard deviation of the variable X. For reference, it can be
shown that a first order (Taylor series) approximation of Equation 1 is , where = is
the coefficient of variation (cov).
With the mean and dispersion of the seismic response (given no collapse) known, for a given level of
intensity, the probability of exceeding some level of demand can be obtained from:
G (EDP IM ) = G (EDP IM , NC )[1 P (C | IM )] + P (C | IM ) (2)

where G ( x | y ) is given as shorthand notation for the complementary cumulative distribution function
(CCDF) of x given y, G ( X > x | Y = y ) (Ang and Tang, 1975); G (EDP IM , NC ) gives the
probability of exceeding EDP given IM and no collapse, and P (C | IM ) is the probability of collapse
given IM (defined in the subsequent section). The mean demand considering both collapse and non-
collapse cases (shown in Figures 3a and 3b) can be computed indirectly from Equation 2. Specific
details on this computation can be found in Jalayer (2003).
The variation in the seismic demand through different elevations is illustrated in Figure 4 which shows
the (mean) peak interstorey drifts and (mean) peak floor accelerations as a function of the elevation in
the building. Note that the values in the figure represent the mean of many ground motion records and
each of the different values will not likely occur at the same time (i.e. these are not profiles at a
specific step in time). As is typical for a multi-storey frame structure the drift demands are observed
to be the most severe in the lower half of the structure, while the (total as opposed to relative)
acceleration demands are approximately constant over the height of the structure for low levels of
shaking, but become larger in the lower stories for higher levels of ground motion when significant
damage in the lower floors occurs (i.e. the damaged floors begin to isolate the upper region of the
structure). It will be shown later in the manuscript that this localization of drift and acceleration
demands at high levels of ground motion (without the occurrence of global collapse) in the lower
stories of the structure prevents significant damage to components in the upper stories.
roof roof
10 Sa=0.1g 10
Sa=0.1g
9 8,max Sa=0.2g 9 Sa=0.2g
Sa=0.5g Sa=0.5g
8 8
7 7
Floor
Floor

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 2,max 3
2 (a) 2 (b)
ground ground
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0 0.5 1 1.5
Peak interstorey drift,max Peak floor acceleration, acci,max

Figure 4: Variation in (a) mean drift and (b) mean acceleration demands over the height of the structure.

5 OCCURRENCE OF GLOBAL COLLAPSE

In loss assessments as well as for decision making purposes it is beneficial to consider separately
global collapse cases and non-collapse cases (Shome and Cornell, 2000). From a loss assessment
perspective, this is done as the loss due to global collapse can not simply be obtained by summing the
losses for each component within the structure (which is the case when global collapse does not

6
occur). This is because post-earthquake reconstruction for a structure which has sustained global
collapse generally involves demolition of the structure and replacement by a new one, and thus some
components which may not be damaged are nevertheless replaced. From a seismic response
viewpoint, if global collapse is not considered separately then the assumption of the EDP|IM
relationship having a lognormal distribution is likely to be violated (Aslani, 2005). Finally, by
separately considering global collapse it is possible to determine the likelihood of global collapse for a
given earthquake scenario or as a probability over the lifetime of the structure, which is an important
measure in assessing seismic performance (Zarein and Krawinkler, 2007).
Traditionally, the occurrence of structural collapse has been associated with some prescribed level of
seismic demand, such as interstorey drift or component plastic deformation. This however does not
account for the redundancy of structural systems which allows for redistribution of damage and global
stability despite local failures (Zarein and Krawinkler, 2007). Here collapse is defined as the state in
which sidesway instability occurs in one or more storeys. Collapse due to loss of vertical carrying
capacity (LVCC) (due to axial and critical shear failures) is not considered due to a lack of structural
analysis tools which can reliably capture these phenomena, although work is progressing rapidly in
this area (e.g. Elwood and Moehle, 2008). From IDA results a collapse fragility curve can be
constructed by first determining the probability of collapse for various levels of ground motion
intensity (based on the proportion of records which cause structural collapse), and then typically fitting
these raw data points with a lognormal distribution. Figure 5 illustrates the collapse fragility curve for
the case study structure. Note that analyses were only conducted up to 1.5g Sa, and thus extrapolation
is needed to describe the probability of collapse at higher intensity levels. As will be shown later, the
infrequent occurrence of such events (larger than 1.5g Sa) means that these levels of intensity do not
significantly affect the results in the loss analyses. It is also noted that the hysteresis used for the
structural elements in the Ruaumoko2D structural model considers strength and stiffness degradation
but not cyclic degradation which can be significant for responses to ground motions of significant
duration. It is also possible to account for collapse due to LVCC based on a weakest-link concept
using the collapse fragilities of all structural components within the structure (Aslani, 2005), but is not
done so in this example. The two aforementioned points result in a collapse fragility curve shown in
Figure 5 to be unconservatively biased, however it is used here for the purposes of illustration.
In conceptual design phases it is not feasible to obtain the collapse fragility curves from time-history
analysis. In such cases, it is recommended to use the results of Medina and Krawinkler, (2003) and
Ibarra and Krawinkler, (2005) who have conducted extensive analysis on the collapse capacity of
frame and wall systems of various geometry and hysteretic behaviour, and provide simple estimates of
the median level of intensity causing global collapse.
1
Probability of Collapse, P(C|IM)

0.8

0.6

From structural
0.4
analysis
Fitted lognormal
0.2 distribution

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%)

Figure 5: Collapse fragility curve for case study structure

7
6 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE AND COLLAPSE HAZARDS

The results of the seismic response analysis can be combined with the ground motion hazard to
provide the rates of exceedance for various levels of seismic demand on the structure. For example,
by combing the collapse fragility curve and the ground motion hazard, it is possible to compute the
annual rate of global collapse by:
d IM (3)
C = P (C IM ) dIM
dIM

where C is the annual rate of structural collapse; P (C | IM ) is the probability of collapse for a given
level of IM obtained from the collapse fragility curve (Fig. 5) and IM is the ground motion hazard
curve (Fig. 2). Equation 3 is simply an application of the total probability theorem and indicates that
the annual rate of structural collapse can be obtained by multiplying the probability of collapse for a
given IM with the likelihood of that level of IM occurring, and then summing over all the possible
values of IM. As historical and recent earthquake reconnaissance indicate that structural collapse is
the primary source of casualties and loss of life caused by earthquakes, then the annual rate of
structural collapse is a key performance criterion for use in seismic assessment of structures. Also,
since the primary purpose of current standards is to implicitly design structures that will provide life
safety by maintaining structural integrity, then Equation 3 provides an explicit method for assessment
of this implicit objective of code-designed structures. For the case study structure considered in this
paper it was found that the annual rate of collapse is 2.15x10-4, which (based on the Poisson
assumption) corresponds to a 1.1% probability of global collapse of the structure over a service life of
50 years. As previously mentioned, the collapse fragility curve was unconservatively biased since
LVCC and cyclic deterioration were ignored, and accounting for these two effects is likely to slightly
increase the annual rate of collapse.
Similar to the annual rate of collapse, the seismic response for a particular EDP can be combined with
the ground motion hazard curve to obtain the annual rate of exceeding various levels of EDP (herein
referred to as an EDP hazard curve) by:
d IM (4)
EDP = G (EDP IM ) dIM
dIM

where EDP is the annual rate of exceeding the prescribed level of EDP.
Figures 6a and 6b illustrate the EDP hazard curves for interstorey drifts and accelerations, respectively
for the investigated structure. Several things should be noted from Figure 6 in relation to the results
from the structural analysis (Fig. 3-5) and the ground motion hazard (Fig. 2). Firstly, all of the hazard
curves have an asymptote at = 2.15x10-4 which is the annual rate of global collapse. Secondly, for a
given level of exceedance rate the values for each of the lines (representing different floors) can be
used to create figures similar to that of Figure 4, for different levels of annual rate of exceedance.
Finally, the location of the lines relative to each other therefore describes how the distribution of
seismic demand changes over the height of the structure as a function of ground motion intensity. For
example, since all of the drift EDP hazard curves remain relatively parallel to each other it indicates
that the hierarchy of interstorey drifts over the height of the structure remains relatively unchanged as
the level of IM increases. However, for the acceleration EDP hazard curves it is immediately apparent
that the curve for the roof acceleration crosses over the ground, 2nd and 6th floor acceleration curves as
the rate of exceedance decreases. This indicates that the roof acceleration which is larger than the
maximum acceleration of other floors for small levels of ground shaking gradually becomes less than
the maximum acceleration of several floors as the ground motion level increases (this same
observation can be seen in Figure 4b as Sa increases).

8
 -1 -1
10 10

i,max
i,max

ground
1

Annual rate of exceedance, acc

2
Annual rate of exceedance,

3 6
-2 5 -2 8
10 8 10
roof
10

-3 -3
10 10

-4 -4
10 10
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Peak interstorey drift,i,max Peak floor acceleration, acci,max

Figure 6: EDP hazard curves of (a) peak interstorey drift; and (b) peak floor accelerations for the case study
structure.

7 COMPONENT INVENTORY OF STRUCTURE

In order to carry out loss estimation for a specific structure, an inventory of components and their
location within the structure is required. The level of detail regarding quantity estimates for each of
the components within the structure will depend on the state which the structure is in when the
assessment is carried out. In a retrofit assessment where all of the component quantities are known
exactly is significantly different compared to the preliminary stage of assessing various structural
design configurations. Table 1 gives a list of approximate densities of various non-structural
components and contents in office buildings based on Aslani, (2005); Mitrani-Reiser (2007); and
Buchan (2007) which is likely to be useful in the latter design scenario.
Table 1: Typical densities of non-structural components and contents in office buildings
Component Description Density
Interior partitions, finish, and 16mm 1-side partition on metal 0.8 m Partition / m2 floor area
2

paint stud (same for finish). (FA) (Mitrani-Reiser, 2007)

Exterior glazing 1.5m x 1.8m standard glass 1.3 panes / m floor perimeter
panes (Mitrani-Reiser, 2007)
Acoustical ceiling 0.6m x 1.2m tiles with 0.8 tiles / m2 FA
Aluminium frames (Mitrani-Reiser, 2007)
Automatic sprinklers 3.7m sections of sprinkler 0.08 sections / m2 FA (Mitrani-
piping Reiser, 2007)
Servers and network equip Typical $235 / m2 FA (Buchan, 2007)
Computers and printers Typical $102 / m2 FA (Buchan, 2007)
Bookcases and file cabinets Typical $9 / m2 FA (Buchan, 2007)
Roof mounted equipment Coolers, airconditioning etc. $ 64 / m2 FA (Buchan, 2007)
Workstation desks Typical $24 / m2 FA (Buchan, 2007)
Generic acceleration sensitive fire protection systems, HVAC, $110 / m2 FA (Aslani, 2005)
Heating, cooling, pumps.
Generic drift sensitive vertical piping, bath tubs, $110 / m2 FA (Aslani, 2005)
F.H.C, Ducts

9
When conducting a loss assessment of a structure, it is important to consider all of the components
which have the potential to significantly contribute to the loss due to earthquakes causing a wide range
of shaking intensities. Taghavi and Miranda, (2003) researched typical cost distributions for office,
hotel and hospital buildings. In all three building types they found that each of the different
component types (structural, non-structural and contents) are important. For the office building
considered in this study the components listed in the first column of Table 2 have been considered.
Table 1 was used to determine the quantities for the non-structural and contents components, while
quantities for the structural components were obtained directly from building drawings (Fig. 1). It was
assumed that all of the contents and non-structural components had equal densities over the height of
the building with the exception of the roof mounted equipment (located on the roof only), server and
network equipment (located on the 3rd, 6th, and 10th floors), and elevators (ground floor). All
information regarding the specifications of each of the various components can be found in Bradley
(2008).
Each different component has its own fragility and loss functions which are defined based on the
various damage states requiring repair that the component could be in following the earthquake. In
this example loss was considered as that due to direct repair costs of replacing the structure to its
original state and losses due to deaths and downtime were not considered. Fragility and loss function
for all of the components in Table 2 can be found in Bradley (2008), and therefore only a single
example is outlined here to illustrate the methodology.

Table 2: Quantities used in the case study example

Component Description Quantity
Ductile beam-column joints Post 1960s ductile beam column 24 / floor
joints (2 beams)
Columns Gravity columns (and seismic 20 on 1st floor, 4 on all other
columns on first floor) floors
Slab-beam-column connections Connection of slab to seismic 24 / floor
frame
Partition Drywall partitions and finish 721 m2 / floor
Exterior glazing 1.5m x 1.8m standard glass 99 panes / floor
panes
Acoustical ceiling 0.6m x 1.2m tiles with 693 tiles / floor
Aluminium frames
Automatic sprinklers 3.7m sections of sprinkler 23 sections / floor
piping
Servers and network equip Typical $260,000 on floors 3,6, and 10
Computers and printers Typical $93000 / floor
Bookcases and file cabinets Typical $16200 / floor
Roof mounted equipment Coolers, airconditioning etc. $600,000 on roof
Workstation desks Typical $21600 / floor
Generic acceleration sensitive fire protection systems, HVAC, $100,000 / floor
Heating, cooling, pumps,
plumbing, toilets
Generic drift sensitive vertical piping, bath tubs, $100,000 / floor
F.H.C, Ducts

10
 8 LOSS DEMAND RELATIONSHIP

Figures 7a and 7b illustrate fragility and loss functions for the four damage states used to define the
seismic performance of ductile reinforced concrete beam-column joints. For each of the damage states
there is uncertainty (represented here by cumulative lognormal distributions) due to randomness in the
strengths of the joints and the cost to repair the various levels of damage. Such fragility functions for
structural components are typically obtained from a database of experimental results, although
analytical methods and expert opinion can also be used (Porter et al, 2007), while the loss functions
are typically obtained by employing a professional cost estimator (e.g. Mitrani-Reiser, 2007).

1 1
Cumulative probability of exceedance

Cumulative probability of exceedance

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
DS1: patch cracks
0.4 DS2: epoxy injection
DS1: cracking 0.4
DS3: replace
DS2: yeilding DS4: replace
0.2 DS3: spalling, buckling
0.2
(a) DS4: collapse
(b)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 1200
Peak interstorey drift,i,max
Direct repair cost ($NZ/joint)

14000 2
Dispersion in direct repair cost, L|EDP
Direct repair cost, ($NZ/joint)

12000
1.5
10000

8000
1
6000

4000 L|EDP
0.5
16th, 84th percentiles
2000 (c) (d)
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Peak interstorey drift,i,max Peak interstorey drift,i,max

Figure 7: Illustration of (a) fragility functions; (b) loss functions; (c) mean and one standard deviation
loss|EDP; and (d) dispersion in loss|EDP for a ductile RC beam-column joint.

The fragility and loss functions can be combined to compute the mean and variance of the loss for a
given level of EDP by the following equations:
N DS (5)
L |EDP = L |DS P (DS j | EDP )
i i j
j =1

11
 [ ]
N DS (6)
L2 |EDP = L2 |DS + L2 |DS P (DS j | EDP ) L2 |EDP
i i j i j i
j =1

where L |EDP
i
and L2 |EDP
i
are the mean and variance of the loss for a given level of EDP; L |DS
i j

and 2
Li |DS j are the mean and variance in the loss-damage state (L|DS) relationship (Fig. 7b) ; N DS is
( )
the number of damage states; and P DS j | EDP is the probability of being in damage state DS j
given demand level EDP which can be computed as the vertical distance between the fragility curves
shown in Figure 7a:
G (DS j | EDP ) G (DS j +1 | EDP ) j N DS (7)
P (DS j | EDP ) =
G (DS j | EDP ) j = N DS

( )
where G DS j | EDP is the probability of exceeding DSj given demand level EDP (i.e. from the
fragility curves in Figure 7a). Figure 7c illustrates the mean and mean one standard deviation values
for the L|EDP relationship for the RC joint, while Figure 7d illustrates the dispersion in the loss as a
function of EDP. The large dispersion for small EDP values apparent in Figure 7d is typical of L|EDP
curves for various types of components. This is due to a large standard deviation in the loss and a
small mean loss.

9 LOSS GIVEN INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP

9.1 L|IM for an individual component

The L|EDP relationships previously discussed are useful in observing the seismic performance of
various components, however it is more insightful to combine these L|EDP relationships with the
seismic response (EDP|IM) relationship in order to determine the loss as a function of ground motion
intensity (L|IM relationship), both for individual components, and for the entire structure. The mean
and variance in the loss for an individual component as a function of the ground motion IM can be
obtained from:
(8)
L |IM = L |EDP f EDP|IM dEDP
i i

i
[
L2 |IM = L2 |EDP + Li2 EDP f EDP|IM dEDP L2 |IM
i |
] i
(9)

where L |EDPi
and Li2 |EDP are obtained from Equations 5 and 6, respectively; and f EDP |IM is the
probability density function (pdf) for the EDP|IM relationship, which can be obtained from
dG (EDP | IM , NC ) (10)
f EDP|IM =
dEDP

where G (EDP | IM , NC ) is obtained from seismic response results after removing global collapse
cases (Fig. 3). Hence, the L|IM relationship for a single component does not consider collapse cases
and thus for brevity is not explicitly given in some mathematical notations (i.e. f EDP|IM , Li | IM and
L2 |IM ).
i

Figure 8 illustrates the L|IM relationships for two different components in the case study structure.
The first (Fig. 8a) is an RC joint which was located in the second floor of the structure (e.g. EDP|IM

12
 relationship given in Figure 3a and 3c and L|EDP relationship in Figure 7), while the second (Fig. 8b)
is a drywall partition located in the 8th storey of the structure (e.g. EDP|IM relationship given in Figure
3b and 3d). For both components, as would be expected, the loss due to direct damage increases as the
ground motion shaking increases. For spectral acceleration levels in excess of 0.5g the drywall
partition is likely to be completely damaged, while the damage continues to increase in the RC joint
(indicated by an increase in the mean repair cost) up to Sa levels of 0.8g. As the seismic drift demand
on the 8th floor is significantly smaller than that on the lower half of the floors in the structure, a
partition located on floors with higher seismic demand (for a given level of Sa) would sustain complete
damage at significantly lower levels of spectral acceleration.

9.2 L|IM for the entire structure

The L|IM relationship for the entire structure given no-collapse can be obtained as the summation of
the L|IM relationships for all of the components comprising the structure:
Nc (11)
L |IM , NC = L |IM
T i
i =1

Nc Nc i 1 (12)
L2 |IM , NC = L2 |IM + 2 L ,L |IM L |IM L |IM
T i i j i j
i =1 i =1 j =1

where NC is the number of components in the structure; L |IM , NC

T
and L2 |IM , NC
T
are the mean and
variance in the total loss given IM and no collapse; and Li , L j |IM is the correlation coefficient between
the losses in various components. The correlation coefficient defines the linear dependency between
the variances of different components within the structure and depends on the location within the
structure (i.e. the correlation between different seismic demands within the structure) and the type of
component (i.e. the correlation between damage fragility and repair actions of different components).
Determination of the correlation matrix (comprised of the correlation coefficients) is a difficult task
plagued by a lack of data, and is beyond the scope of this paper where it is simply assumed that all
components are uncorrelated (a lower bound on the true uncertainty in the L|IM relationship).

6000 250
Direct repair cost ($NZ/ m partition)

L |IM
Direct repair cost ($NZ/ joint)

i
5000
th th
16 , 84 percentile 200
2

4000
150
3000
100
2000

50
1000 (b)
(a)
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g) Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g)
Figure 8: Loss given intensity relationships for (a) RC beam-column joint and (b) drywall partition.

The loss|IM relationship for the entire structure considering both collapse and non-collapse cases can
be obtained from:

13
 L |IM = L |IM , NC [1 P (C | IM )] + L |C P (C | IM )
T T T
(13)

L2 |IM = L2 |IM , NC [1 P (C | IM )] + L2 |C P (C | IM )
T T T
(14)

( )
+ LT |IM , NC LT |C P (C | IM )[1 P (C | IM )]
2

where LT |C and L2T |C are the mean and variance of the loss given global collapse and LT |IM and
L2 |IM are the mean and variance of the total loss once conditioning on collapse (and no collapse) has
T

been removed. Figure 9 illustrates the loss|IM relationship for the entire structure for: (a) loss given
IM and no collapse; (b) loss given collapse; and (c) loss given IM with no conditioning on collapse or
no collapse. The expected loss and dispersion in the loss given collapse were computed based on the
replacement cost of the structure plus an additional 8% to account for demolition and re-design
(Aslani, 2005). The relatively small dispersion in the loss given no collapse case is due to the lower-
bound assumption made here that losses between components are uncorrelated. Figure 9c illustrates
the total loss given IM for the structure once both collapse and non-collapse cases are considered. As
Equation 13 is simply the loss due to collapse and non-collapse weighted by the probability of each of
the two mutually exclusive events occurring then it is clear that the L|IM relationship is similar to the
L|IM,NC relationship for small levels of ground motion intensity (where P(C|IM) is small), and is
similar to the L|C relationship for large levels of ground motion (where P(C|IM) is large).
10 20
Direct repair loss given no collapse ($M)

Direct repair loss given collapse ($M)

L |IM,NC
T
8 th th
16 , 84 percentile 15

6
10
4

L |C
5 T
2
(a) th th
16 , 84 percentiles

0 0 (b)
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g) Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g)
20
L |IM
T
th th
16 , 84 percentile
Direct repair loss ($M)

15

10

(c)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g)

Figure 9: Loss given intensity for the entire structure given: (a) collapse does not occur; (b) collapse occurs; and
(c) both collapse and non-collapse cases considered.

14
 9.3 Deaggregation of L|IM by collapse

Since the total loss given IM is an accumulation of damage to many different components on various
floors of the structure it is insightful to deaggregate the loss to investigate key contributors (and
therefore how the loss can be reduced most effectively) (Aslani, 2005). Figure 10a illustrates the
deaggregation of the total loss by collapse and non-collapse cases for the analysed structure (Equation
13). As one would expect, for small levels of ground motion the probability of collapse is very small
and therefore the majority of the loss is due to damage to individual components when the structure
does not collapse. As the level of ground motion intensity increases the contribution of losses due to
collapse increases. For example, if a ground motion observed during the 1995 Kobe earthquake
occurred at the site of the structure it would be expected that 74% of the total loss in the structure
would be due to the possibility of structural collapse. Figure 10b illustrates the effect on the L|IM
collapse deaggregation for the same structure with a structural system assumed to be of a pre-1970s
design (e.g. non-ductile, axial/shear critical RC frames). In this case it was assumed that the non-
ductile structure had a collapse fragility with mean 0.5g and dispersion of 0.48. This gives an annual
rate of collapse of 1.0x10-3 (4.9% probability of occurrence in 50 years), which is a representative
collapse rate for such structures (Aslani, 2005). Comparing Figures 10a and 10b indicates that as the
structure becomes more vulnerable to global collapse, the loss is further dominated by the collapse
losses, and also the total loss for a given level of intensity also increases.
Direct loss deaggregated by collapse ($M)
Direct loss deaggregated by collapse ($M)

14 14
Kobe (1995)
(a) Kobe (1995) (b) 2% in
12 12 50 years

10 2% in 10
50 years
Loss due to Loss due to
8 8 collapse
collapse
6 6

Gisborne 4 Gisborne
4 (2007)
(2007)

2 Loss due to 2
non-collapse Loss due to
0 0 non-collapse
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g) Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g)
Figure 10: Deaggregation of the mean loss given intensity to collapse and non-collapse losses for (a) the case
study structure and (b) for a similar structure with poor detailing.

9.4 Deaggregation of L|IM by component type and location in building

Figure 10 illustrates that for small levels of ground motion shaking a large portion of the total loss in
structures is due to that which occurs in the absence of global collapse (this is particularly true for
modern ductile designed structural systems as shown in the comparison of Figures 10a and 10b). Thus
in the case of no-structural collapse, further insight can be obtained by deaggregation of the expected
loss given no collapse (Equation 11). Figure 11 illustrates the deaggregation of the L|IM,NC
relationship by different component types. It is immediately apparent that over all the observed ranges
of ground motion considered here, loss due to damage in structural components (i.e. RC beam-column
joints and Slab-beam-column connections) make up a very minor proportion of the total loss in the
structure. Non-structural components such as drywall partitions and acoustical ceilings (as well as
generic components) comprise a significant proportion of the total loss. Contents such as Server and
Network equipment and Computers are also significant contributors toward the total loss in the
structure.

15
 6
x 10

L|IM,NC deaggregated by component ($M)

6
Kobe (1995)
2% in
50 years Generic acc sens
5 Generic drift sens
Interior paint
Elevators
4
Server + network
Computer
3
Acoustical ceiling

2
Gisborne
Drywall partition
(2007)
1 Slab-frame connection

RC beam-column joints
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g)
Figure 11: Deaggregation of the mean loss given no collapse relationship to contributions from different
components.

As all of the different components within the structure have different fragilities and are subjected to
different seismic demands (i.e. due to different locations in the structure) then further information can
be obtained by looking at the loss deaggregation for a single level of ground motion shaking. Figure
12 illustrates the deaggregation of the loss given no collapse for a ground motion shaking of IM=0.15g
Sa which is approximately that observed in the recent Gisborne earthquake (Cousins and McVerry,
2008). For this level of ground motion shaking the expected direct loss was $0.23 M for the case
study structure. Figure 12a illustrates that for this relatively small level of shaking the total loss is
dominated by that due to non-structural and contents damage and little loss is incurred due to
structural damage (24%). As noted by Mitrani-Reiser (2007) for this low level of ground shaking a
large portion of the loss results from replacement and re-painting of damaged partitions and acoustical
ceilings (28%). Servers and computer equipment also have a significant contribution to the total loss
(20%), and generic acceleration sensitive components (16%). Note that Figure 12a and 13a do not
show components which contribute less than 1% to the total loss (e.g. exterior glazing, automatic
sprinklers). Figure 12b illustrates the contribution of the total loss as a function of the different storey
numbers. Recall that most of the components were assumed to have the same quantity for each floor
in the structure, with the exception of the server and network equipment, roof mounted equipment and
elevators. The server and network equipment is the primary reason for the relatively large levels of
loss on the 3rd, 6th and 10th floors, while the elevator damage also makes a significant contribution to
the loss on the ground floor.

16
 (a) roof
Beams/Columns 14%
Generic acc sens 16% (b)
10
9
Generic drift
Slab-frame conn 10% 8
sens 4%
7

Floor
Paint 10%
6
5
Partitions 11% 4
Elevator 6% 3
Acoustical ceiling 7% 2
Computers 5%
ground
Servers/network 15%
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
L T | IM , NC = $0.23M % Contribution to loss
Figure 12: Deaggregation of the expected loss given no collapse for IM=0.15g Sa (Gisborne, 2007) by: (a)
component type and (b) by floor.

Figure 13 illustrates the L|IM,NC deaggregation for IM = 0.5g Sa which is the level of ground motion
shaking with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period approximately 2475 years) at
the site. For this level of shaking the expected loss was estimated to be $4.2 M. Trends observed in
Figure 12a in regard to the loss being dominated by non-structural and contents damage are also
evident at this higher level of ground shaking. Notable changes from Figure 12 however are the
reduction in the proportion of damage due to re-painting of interior walls; damage to elevators, and an
increase in the proportion of loss due to damage of the partitions and acoustical ceilings. The
deaggregation of damage over the height of the structure is also significantly different from that at the
lower level of ground motion shaking. The effect of the server and network equipment in the
distribution of loss over the height of the structure is very evident, while the reduction in proportion of
damage due to the elevator reduces the contribution of loss in the ground floor. Despite the significant
increase in drift demands (Fig. 4a) on the lower floors of the structure for this level of shaking relative
to the results in the previous figure (Sa = 0.15g), a significant portion of the loss still originates from
the upper floors. This is due to an increase in the acceleration demands on the upper floors which are
of a large enough magnitude to damage a large proportion of fragile acceleration-sensitive
components. Figure 3 illustrated that as the ground motion shaking increases, both acceleration and
drift demands become largest in the lower floors of the structure (illustrated by the domination of
losses in these floors in Figures 12a and 13a). This localisation of demand in the lower stories
prevents components in the upper stories sustaining total damage, and thus the reason why the total
loss given no collapse (Fig. 9a) even at large IM levels, is still well below the total loss given collapse
occurs.

17
 Beams/Columns 14%
Generic acc sens 6% (a) roof
Generic drift sens 6% (b)
Paint 2% 10
Elevator2% 9
Slab-frame 8
conn 11%
7

Floor
Servers/network 6
19%
5
4
3
Partitions 20% 2
Computers 6%
ground
Acoustical ceiling 14%
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
L T | IM , NC = $4.2M % Contribution to loss

Figure 13: Deaggregation of the expected loss given no collapse for IM=0.50g Sa (2% in 50 year probability of
exceedance) by: (a) component type and (b) by floor.

10 EXPECTED ANNUAL LOSS

The above L|IM relationships are useful in determining the variation in loss as the ground motion
increases. However, the ground motion hazard is needed in conjunction with the L|IM results in order
to appreciate the frequency of exceedance for each of the ground motion IM levels. The L|IM
relationship can be combined directly with the ground motion hazard to get the moments of annual
loss that occurs on a per annum basis by:
dIM (15)
L = L | IM dIM
T T
dIM

L2 = [ L2 ] ddIM
(16)
T T | IM
+ L2T | IM IM
dIM 2
LT

where LT and L2T are the mean and variance of the annual loss.

Expected Annual Loss (EAL = L ) is a seismic performance measure which is particularly useful for
T

decision makers as it contains information on the seismic performance of a structure over a range of
different levels of ground motion intensity within a single number. EAL has been used extensively by
Porter and co-workers (e.g. Porter and Kiremidjian, 2001; Mitrani-Reiser, 2007) as well as others in
risk management decision making. For the case study structure in was found that the EAL was
$11,700 which relates to approximately 0.08% of the replacement cost of the structure. Figure 14a
illustrates the net present value (NPV) of the expected loss over time for the structure based on a
discount rate of 6%. The discount rate is used to account for the time value of money and represents
the difference between interest and inflation rates. Figure 14b illustrates the deaggregation of the EAL
as a function of ground motion intensity. It indicates that the majority of the EAL is attributed to the
occurrence of ground motions between 0.25-0.75g Sa (with smaller ground motions not causing
significant damage, and larger ground motions occurring very infrequently). Although not presented
here there are several other possible ways to deaggregate the EAL such as by components, collapse,
and location in the structure (as for the L|IM deaggregations shown in Figures 10-13).

18
 200 1

(a) (b)
0.8
150
Expected loss ($k)

Normalised pdf
0.6
EAL = $11,700
100 (0.08% of replacement
cost) 0.4
Discount rate, = 6%
50
0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1 1.5
Time from present (years) Spectral acceleration, Sa(1.5s,5%) (g)
Figure 14: Expected loss results for case study structure: (a) over time considering net discount rate; and (b)
deaggregation of EAL by intensity measure.

As an indication of the seismic performance of non code-complying structures, the case study
structure with modified collapse capacity which was discussed in Figure 10b was found to have an
EAL of $20,500, with a large proportional of the EAL due to collapse events. Despite the
significantly poor seismic performance such a structural system, the EAL is still only 75% larger than
that of the case study structure considered here. This is due to the aforementioned observation that
economic loss in structures during small to moderate ground motions is dominated by damage to non-
structural components and contents rather than structural components.

10.1 Application of EAL for retrofit decision making

Figure 15 illustrates an example of how EAL can be used as a method for determining the viability of
different design alternatives or retrofit solutions. In this case the current structure is the case study
structure with an EAL of $11,700. A retrofit solution based on the installation of viscous dampers is
used to primarily reduce acceleration demands in the structure due to ground motion shaking and has
an assumed cost of $40,000. The retrofit will reduce the EAL to $8,000. As the NPV of expected loss
over time accounting for the discount rate is computed by:

(1 e t ) (17)
EL = EAL + C R

where is the discount rate; t is the time in years; and CR is the retrofit cost. Then by equating
Equation 17 for the as-is structure (CR = 0) and retrofitted structure the time after which the retrofit is
economically feasible can be found by:

1 CR (18)
t cr = ln1
(1 ) EAL
where is a parameter indicating the reduction in the EAL due to the retrofit (i.e.
= 8,000/11,700 = 0.68). Using Equation 18 it is found that this critical time for retrofit viability is
17 years (Fig. 15). Thus the service life of the structure should be greater than 17 years in order for
the retrofit to be beneficial. The example above is based on decision-making for a client who is risk
neutral. When risk attitude is taken into account (decision makers are typically risk averse toward low
probability high consequence events such as earthquakes) then measures such as the Certainty
Equivalent (CE) should be used (Porter and Kiremidjian, 2001).
In the example presented above EAL was used as the performance measure of interest. In certain

19
cases the specific performance measure used will depend on the perspective from which the decision
making is made. For example, performance measures for an owner and an occupant will be different,
with the owner principally interested in minimising damage and business downtime, while the client is
interested in minimising human loss and contents damage.

200

150
Expected loss, ($k)

EAL = $11,700
= 6%
CR = $40,000
100 = 0.68
Time until tcr = 17 years
retrofit feasible

50

Retrofit cost

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (years)

Figure 15: Use of EAL in determine effective retrofitting solutions

11 LOSS HAZARD

In a similar manner to the computation of the EDP hazard curves presented earlier, the L|IM
relationship can be combined with the ground motion hazard curve to obtain a loss hazard curve for
the structure:
dIM (19)
L = G (LT | IM ) dIM
T
dIM
Where G (LT | IM ) is the CCDF of the L|IM relationship which can be obtained by:

G (LT | IM ) = G (LT | IM , NC )[1 P (C | IM )] + G (LT | C )P (C | IM ) (20)

where G (LT | IM , NC ) and G (LT | C ) are the CCDFs of the L|IM,NC and L|C relationships,
respectively. The L|IM,NC distribution is assumed to have a normal distribution based on the central
limit theorem, while the L|C distribution is assumed to be lognormal based on past research (Aslani,
2005). Figure 16 illustrates the loss hazard curve for the case study structure. The loss hazard curve
gives the annual frequency of exceeding various levels of economic loss in the structure. For
reference, the 10% and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 year curves are shown which have loss
values of approximately $1.5 M and $4.5 M, respectively. The loss-hazard curve is another figure (in
addition to the expected loss) which can be useful in loss-based decision making, particularly for risk-
averse decision makers who are concerned with the frequency of various economic losses as opposed
to just the expected annual loss.

20
 -1
10

T
Annual rate of exceedance, L
-2
10

10% in 50 years
-3
10
2% in 50 years

-4
10

-5
10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Direct repair loss, ($M)

Figure 16: Loss hazard curve for the case study structure.

12 LIMITATIONS OF LOSS ASSESSMENT

Throughout this manuscript various assumptions have been made regarding the loss assessment in
order to focus its use in the decision making process without attending significantly to many technical
details. Some of the simplifying assumptions made could cause significant error in the outputs of the
loss-assessment (and the resulting decisions made) and therefore should be appropriately considered.
An outline of considerations not made in the presented example is given below, along with recent
research in each of these areas where appropriate.
Economic losses due to human causality and injury and business disruption/downtime were not
included in the example presented in this manuscript, but both have been shown to be significant in
previous earthquakes (in many cases more than loss due to direct damage). Models for considering
both of these losses are still in their infancy and an early attempt within this loss-assessment
methodology can be found in Mitrani-Reiser, (2007).
The direct repair cost estimates used in this example did not consider the effects of demand surge.
Demand surge refers to the observed increase in the unit cost of labour and materials when demand for
resources far exceeds the resource supply. Preliminary work on quantifying demand surge effects can
be found in Boissonnade (2007).
The seismic hazard used for the site considers only the likely occurrence of ground motions due to
mainshocks. It is typical following a mainshock ground motion that multiple aftershock ground
motions will also occur. Yeo and Cornell (2005) provide recent work illustrating how aftershock
considerations can be modelled within loss estimation procedures.
Stiff soil at the site of the structure was assumed and therefore it was a valid assumption that the
effects of ground motion modification due to soil non-linearities and damage to the foundation was not
significant. Many structures (particularly lifelines such as bridges) are founded on pile foundations
which are located on loose sands susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spreading. In such cases,
ground motion modification and foundation damage may contribute significantly toward the total loss
in the structure during strong ground motion shaking.

13 DISCUSSION: IMPROVING STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE

Figures 12a and 13a illustrate that for a code-conforming structural system, economic loss due to both
moderate and large ground motion shaking is mostly caused by damage to non-structural components

21
and contents and not due to structural damage or global collapse. This indicates that the improvement
of seismic performance of structural systems requires a focus on improving the performance of the
entire structure and not just the structural system specifically. As an example, based on the results
presented in this manuscript, emerging jointed precast concrete systems (Priestley, et al, 1999; Mander
and Cheng 1997) which are designed to undergo the same levels of seismic demand as that of
conventionally designed ductile structures with minimal structural damage will only mildly improve
the performance of the entire system (an ambitious estimate could be made by assuming that all
structural damage was avoided thus reducing the losses by approximately 25%). It should be noted
however, that downtime (business disruption) losses have not been considered here and in some cases
downtime due to structural damage may be excessive. Therefore significantly improved seismic
performance of buildings can be obtained either by: (i) improving component fragilities via modifying
connection details on non-structural components connected to the structural frame; fastening
acceleration sensitive components which topple, base isolating expensive components (e.g. servers,
electrical equipment); or (ii) by reducing seismic demands throughout the structure for the same level
of ground shaking via increased viscous and hysteretic damping using dissipation devices or base
isolation devices.

14 DISCUSSION: SLAT OVERVIEW

All of the loss-based computations performed in this manuscript have used the specially developed
software SLAT (Seismic Loss Assessment Tool) (Bradley, 2008). SLAT has been developed as a
general-purpose loss assessment tool which is capable of performing various loss assessment
procedures with various types of input data (in regard to complexity). Although SLAT is still only
currently in an alpha version it is intended to make the tool available in the public domain in order to
allow the seismic design of structures to be based on more rational measures of seismic performance.

15 CONCLUSIONS

A seismic loss estimation methodology has been presented and applied for the seismic
assessment of a 10 storey reinforced concrete moment frame structure. The seismic loss estimation
methodology enables quantification of the seismic risk of engineered structures thus allowing
consistent communication and rational decision making regarding the acceptance or mitigation of the
seismic risk. It was illustrated how the seismic loss estimation methodology can be used to interpret
seismic performance in terms of seismic demand and associated economic loss as a function of the
ground motion intensity. Economic loss due to non-structural components and contents was shown to
be significant over a large range of ground motion shaking intensities. The wealth of information
regarding system performance that is possible using deaggregation within seismic loss estimation
methods can be used to target areas of seismic vulnerability and therefore efficiently improve seismic
performance. In particular, deaggregation illustrated that economic loss due to non-structural
components and contents was significant over a large range of ground motion shaking intensities, as
well as how the distribution of losses over the height of the structure can be related to seismic response
of the structure. A retrofit example was used to illustrate how expected annual loss (EAL) can be used
within a decision making framework to make rational loss-based decisions.

16 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support of the first author from the New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission Bright
Futures scheme is appreciated. The authors also thank Mr John Buchan of the Christchurch City
Council for providing building inventory information.

REFERENCES:

Ang A.H.S., Tang W.H. 1975. Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design: Volume I Basic
Principles. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

22
Aslani H. 2005. Probabilistic Earthquake Loss Estimation and Loss Disaggregation in Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis,
John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Centre, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA. 382 pages.
Aslani H., Miranda E. 2005. Probability-based Seismic Response Analysis. Engineering Structures; 27 (8).
1151-1163.
Boissonnade A. 2007. Modelling demand surge. Workshop on Risk Acceptance and Risk Communication.
Stanford University. http://www.ripid.ethz.ch/
Bradley B.A. 2008. SLAT: Seismic Loss Assessment Tool, version 1.12 user manual. Computer Program
Library, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Buchan J. 2007. Internal report of non-structural and contents inventories for the Christchurch Council
Chambers building, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Bull D. and Brunsdon, D. 1998. Examples of Concrete Structural Design to New Zealand Standards 3101,
Cement and Concrete Association, New Zealand
Carr A.J. 2004. RUAUMOKO: Inelastic Dynamic Computer Program. Computer Program Library, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Chopra A.K., and Goel R. 2004. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for
unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthquake. Engineering and Structural. Dynamics. 33. 903927.
Cousins J. and McVerry G. 2007 Ground motion spectra for the 2007 Gisborne earthquake. Internal preliminary
report. GNS science.
Elwood K.J., and Moehle J.P. 2008. Dynamic Collapse Analysis for a Reinforced Concrete Frame Sustaining
Shear and Axial Failures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (In Press).
Fajfar P. 2002. Structuralth analysis in earthquake engineering A breakthrough of simplified nonlinear methods.
Proceedings of the 12 European Conf. on Earthquake Engng, London, UK.
Ibarra L.F., Krawinkler H. 2005. Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Report No. PEER
2005/06, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
CA.
Insurance Information Institute, 2006. Earthquakes: Facts and Statistics.
http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/earthquakes/
Jalayer F. 2003. Direct Probabilistic Seismic Analysis: Implementing Non-linear Dynamic Assessments. PhD
Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University. 272pages.
Mander J.B., Cheng C.T. 1997. Seismic Resistance of Bridge Piers Based on Damage Avoidance Design,
Technical Report NCEER-97-0014. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research: Buffalo, NY.
Mander J.B., Dhakal R.P., Mashiko N., Solberg K.M. 2006. Incremental dynamic analysis applied to seismic
financial risk assessment of bridges. Engineering Structures. 29 (10). 2662-2672.
Medina R.A, and Krawinkler H. 2003. Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their
dependence on ground motions. Report No. 144, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA..
http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/TRList.htm
Mitrani-Reiser J. 2007. An Ounce of Prevention: Probabilistic Loss Estimation for Performance-based
Earthquake Engineering. PhD Thesis. California Institute of technology, CA 173pp.
Moghadam A.S., and Tso th W.K. 2000. Pushover analysis for asymmetric and set-back multi-story buildings.
Proceedings of the 12 World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. Paper No. 1093.
NZS3101-95. 1995. Concrete Structures Standard: NZS3101. Standards New Zealand. Wellington, New
Zealand.
NZS1170. 2004. NZS 1170.5:2004. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
th
Penelis G.G, and Kappos A.J. 2002. 3D pushover analysis: The issue of torsion. Proceedings of the 12
European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK.
Porter K.A., and Kiremidjian A.S. 2001. Assembly-based Vulnerability of Buidlings and its uses in Seismic
Performance Evaluation and Risk Management Decision-making. Report 139-. John A Blume Earthquake
Engineering Centre. Stanford University.
Porter K., Kennedy R., Bachman R. 2007. Creating Fragility Functions for Performance-based Earthquake

23
 Engineering. Earthquake Spectra; 23 (2). 471-489.
Priestley M.J.N., Sritharan S., Conley J.R., Pampanin S. 1999. Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the
PRESSS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building, PCI Journal; 44 (6). 42-67.
Shome N., Cornell C.A. 2000. Structural Seismic Demand Analysis: Consideration of Collapse. 8th ASCE
Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability. University of Notre Dame, South
Bend, Indiana.
Shome, N., and Cornell, C.A., 1999. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Report No.
RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Stirling M.W., McVerry G.H., Berryman K.R. 2002. A New Seismic Hazard Model for New Zealand, Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America. 92 (5). 1878-1903.
Taghavi S., and Miranda E. 2005. Response assessment of non-structural building elements. Peer Report No
2003/05. http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports.html
Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A. 2002. Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics. 31. 491514.
Yeo G.L., and Cornell C.A. 2005. Stochastic Characterisation and Decision Bases under Time-Dependent
Aftershock Risk in Performance-based Earthquake Engineering. Report 149. John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Centre. Stanford University.
Zareian F., Krawinkler H., 2007. Assessment of probability and design for collapse safety. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36 (13).1901-1914.

24