Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Environmental Sciences 38 (2017) 461 – 468

International Conference on Sustainable Synergies from Buildings to the Urban Scale, SBE16

Seismic Vulnerability of RC Buildings under the Effect of Aging

Abstract

The present study aims at the assessment of the seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings considering
performance degradation over time due to aging effects. Chloride induced corrosion is taken into account based on probabilistic
modeling of corrosion initiation time and corrosion rate. Two-dimensional incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is performed to
assess the seismic performance of the initial uncorroded (t=0 years) and corroded (t= 25, 50, 75 years) RC fixed base frame
structures designed based on different seismic code levels. The time-dependent fragility functions are derived at the various time
periods in terms of spectral acceleration corresponding to the fundamental mode of the structure Sa(T 1,5%) for the immediate
occupancy (IO) and collapse prevention (CP) limit states. Results show an overall increase in seismic vulnerability over time due
to corrosion indicating the significant effect of deterioration due to aging effects on structural behavior.
© 2017©Published
2017 ThebyAuthors. Published
Elsevier B.V. This isby
an Elsevier B.V.
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility ofthe organizing committee of SBE16.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SBE16.
Keywords: RC buildings; seismic vulnerability; time-dependent fragility curves; aging effects; IDA

1. Introduction

In order to design efficient assessment tools that could be utilized by civil protection authorities, decision makers
and end users, a reliable risk model for a region or for a specific structure under consideration needs to be compiled
in order to predict future losses due to seismic events with a high accuracy level. In this context, the reliable
vulnerability assessment of existing structures and infrastructures is a prerequisite for seismic loss estimation, risk
mitigation and management. Vulnerability is commonly expressed through fragility functions representing the
probability of exceeding a prescribed level of damage for a wide range of ground motion intensities. Traditionally, it
is implicitly assumed that the structures are optimally maintained during their lifetime and the impact of the
progressive deterioration due to various time-dependent mechanisms on structural performance is commonly

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310 994208; fax: +30 2310 994208.
E-mail address:[email protected]

1878-0296 © 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SBE16.
doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.137
462 S.T. Karapetrou et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 38 (2017) 461 – 468

neglected. Two different sources of deterioration, which cause damage to accumulate with time are generally
recognized (e.g. [1]): one has substantially slow, progressive effects and is usually linked to environmental and
operating conditions (e.g. aging); the other has effects that are superposed occasionally to the first effects, and are
usually related to external sudden changes in the structural capacity (e.g. due to cumulative earthquake damage, e.g.
[2]).Owing to deterioration, the physical vulnerability of the system, as may be estimated at the time of construction
and at different points in time, is actually time-dependent, and may increase with time, thus causing the risk of
structural failure to accelerate.
On this basis deterioration of the material properties caused by aggressive environmental attack is not accounted
for. One of the primary sources of structural degradation is the corrosion of reinforced concrete (RC) members,
generally associated to carbonation process and chloride penetration, leading to the variation of the mechanical
properties of steel and concrete over time. In the case of significant loss of ductility due to high corrosion levels, a
reduction in the load-carrying capacity of the structure, as well as a shift to more brittle failure mechanisms is
expected. Consequently, both safety and serviceability of RC structures may be affected under the action of seismic
(or even static) loading, compromising the capability of the structures to withstand the loads for which they are
designed. This study aims to highlight the effects of chloride induced reinforcement corrosion on the response and
vulnerability of structures subjected to seismic excitation and to derive time-dependent fragility functions for
different time-scenarios and building typologies. Different corrosion effects are considered in the analysis including
the loss of reinforcement cross-sectional area, the degradation of concrete cover and the reduction of steel ultimate
deformation.

2. Aging effects: Corrosion of reinforcement

Aging of structures can be defined as partial or total loss of their capacity via a slow, progressive and irreversible
process that occurs over a period of time. The effects caused by aging processes lead to the degradation of
engineering properties, affecting the static and dynamic response of the structures, their resistance/capacity and
failure mode as well as the location of failure initiation. Thus, the ability of the structural system to withstand
various challenges from operation, environment and natural events may be reduced. Once the structural capacity
falls below a given performance threshold, the structure may be intervened, leading to a new initial capacity,
diminishing progressively over time the ability to withstand future operating conditions.
Aging processes decrease the reliability of the structural systems over time, accelerating the risk of structural
failure. Since the time-dependent changes are random in nature, the safety evaluation of the existing structures can
be conducted rationally within a probabilistic framework [3], taking into account various sources of uncertainty with
respect to the deterioration process and rate. The rate of degradation of the structural components generally depends
on the age of the structure as well as on the exposure conditions, and for its efficient determination stochastic
approaches are possible. Overall, the identification of aging structural components and their probabilistic modeling
over time may play a significant role in mitigating structural risk.
Among the most common environmental deterioration factors, reinforcement corrosion, generally associated to
carbonation and chloride ingress, is considered the most significant degradation mechanism, leading to the adverse
variation of the mechanical properties of steel and concrete over time [4]. Corrosion is a complex process that may
affect a RC structure in a variety of ways, including, among others, cover spalling, loss of steel-concrete bond
strength and loss of reinforcement cross sectional area, potentially resulting to the reduction of the resistance and
load bearing capacity of the structure and to the variation of the failure mechanism from ductile to fragile type (e.g.
[5-7]).The corrosion mechanism is a time-dependent process leading progressively to reduction of the strength and
serviceability of structures in relation to their as-built state.
The deterioration related to the corrosion of reinforcement steel bars in concrete structures, called hereafter
“aging effect”, is basically a two-phase process consisting of the initiation and the propagation phase. As soon as the
concentration of chlorides or carbon dioxides exceeds a critical value, the so called “passive layer” protecting the
outer reinforcement is destroyed signifying the initiation of corrosion. Then the corrosion is gradually propagating
causing the formation of corrosion products (rust), leading progressively to concrete cracking and spalling as the
volume of rust increases and finally resulting to significant structural damage. The parameters that affect the
corrosion initiation and its progress in time may be categorized based on whether they are associated with the design
 S.T. Karapetrou et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 38 (2017) 461 – 468 463

and execution phase (e.g. concrete cover depth, water/cement ratio) or with the environmental exposure (humidity,
temperature, carbon dioxide or chlorides concentration) (e.g. [8]). Several models have been proposed to quantify
and account for corrosion in the design, construction, fragility analysis and maintenance of RC structures. A
summary of these models can be found e.g. in DuraCrete [9].

2.1. Corrosion modeling

Under the aforementioned considerations, the uncertainties involved in corrosion phenomena point out the need
for a probabilistic approach to predict the level and effects of degradation [10]. Recognizing the importance of this
issue, several probabilistic models have recently been introduced into the time-variant vulnerability assessment of
corroded RC structures (e.g.[11], [12]).
In the present study the corrosion of reinforcing bars due to the ingress of chlorides is considered, as it is
reportedly one of the most serious and widespread deterioration mechanisms of RC structures. The probabilistic
model proposed by FIB- CEB Task Group 5.6 [13] is adopted to model corrosion initiation time due to chloride
ingress that is expressed as:
§ 1 ·
2 ¨© 1n ¸¹
§ D2 § § C ·· ·
Tini ¨ ˜ erf 1 ¨1  crit
n ¨ ¸ ¸¸ ¸ (1)
¨ 4 ˜ ke ˜ kt ˜ DRCM ,0 ˜ t0 ¨ ¸
© © © Cs ¹¹ ¹
where Tini=corrosion initiation time (years); α=cover depth (mm) ; Ccrit.=critical chloride content expressed as a
percentage by weight of cement (wt % cement); Cs = the equilibrium chloride concentration at the concrete surface
expressed as a percentage by weight of cement (wt % cement); t0= reference point of time (years); DRCM,0=Chloride
migration Coefficient (m2/s); ke=environmental function; kt=transfer variable defined deterministically according to
Choe et al. [14] equal to 0.832; erf=Gaussian error function and n=aging exponent.
The statistical quantification of the model parameters describing the chloride induced corrosion adopted for the
study is presented in detail in Karapetrou [1]. It is noted that the adopted corrosion rate implies a relatively high
corrosion level [15].
Once the protective passive film around the reinforcement dissolves due to continued chloride ingress, corrosion
initiates and loss of reinforcement cross-sectional area is observed with time. Moreover due to the radial pressure
developed along the steel bar surfaces, caused by the increasing volume of the corrosion products, the tensile
stresses in the concrete surrounding the rebars may exceed the tensile strength leading thus to the cracking of the
concrete cover. Thus, the chloride induced corrosion effects that can be taken into account are the section area loss
of reinforced bars (Ghosh and Padgett [11]), the concrete cover strength reduction (Coronelli and Gambarova [16];
Simioni [17]) and the loss of steel ductility (Rodriguez and Andrade [18]).

3. Application study

3.1. Prototype structural models

Three moment resisting frames have been selected in the frame of this study to highlight the effects of corrosion
reinforcement in the response and vulnerability of RC buildings. They have been designed according to different
seismic code levels (Fig. 1) in order to capture the different periods of construction. The SYNER-G (www.syner-
g.eu) taxonomy for RC structures is used to describe the different building typologies (e.g. [19]). The first one is a
three storey-three bay frame model originally designed for the purpose of an experimental study (Bracci et al. [20],
total mass m=207t, initial fundamental period T 1=0.98sec, concrete strength fc=24MPa, steel strength fy=276MPa)
that is representative of low rise buildings designed for gravity loads only with no seismic provisions (Low rise-No
code MRF). The second is a nine storey-three bay frame model (Kappos et al. [21], m=334t, T1=0.89sec, fc=14MPa,
fy=400MPa) that is considered typical of high rise buildings with low level of seismic design according to the 1959
Greek seismic code (‘Royal Decree’ of 1959) (High rise-Low code MRF). In the latter regulations, the ductility and
the dynamic features of the constructions are completely ignored. Finally, the third one is a four storey-three bay
464 S.T. Karapetrou et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 38 (2017) 461 – 468

frame structure (Kappos et al. [21], m=130t, T1=0.66sec, fc=20MPa, fy=400MPa) that represents mid rise buildings
designed following the provisions of the Greek modern seismic code (EAK 2000) (Mid rise-High code MRF). This
code is characterized by enhanced level of seismic design and ductile seismic detailing of RC members according to
the new generation of seismic codes (similar to Eurocode 8).
The numerical modeling of the structure is conducted using OpenSees finite element platform (Mazzoni et al.
[22]). Inelastic force-based formulations are employed for the simulation of the nonlinear beam-column frame
elements. Distributed material plasticity along the element length is considered based on the fiber approach to
represent the cross-sectional behavior. The modified Kent and Park model [23] is used to define the behavior of the
concrete fibers, yet different material parameters are adopted for the confined (core) and the unconfined (cover)
concrete. The uniaxial ‘Concrete01’ material is used to construct a uniaxial Kent-Scott-Park concrete material object
with degraded linear unloading/reloading stiffness according to the work of Karsan-Jirsa [24] with zero tensile
strength. The steel reinforcement is modeled using the uniaxial ‘Steel01’ material to represent a uniaxial bilinear
steel material with kinematic hardening described by a nonlinear evolution equation.
The three models are analyzed assuming fixed base conditions for their un-corroded (t=0 years) and corroded
state (t=25, 50, 75 years). The methodology presented in section 2.1 was applied to take into account the effects of
corrosion. Based on the probabilistic model proposed by FIB- CEB Task Group 5.6 [13] (Eq. 1), mean values for
Tini are estimated as 7.01for the structural models designed with no and low seismic provisions and 14.11 years for
the one designed with modern seismic code. The effects of corrosion are assumed to be distributed uniformly around
the perimeter and along the concrete members. The distribution of the loss of reinforcement area as well as the
reduction in concrete cover strength due to corrosion of the RC elements for the considered corrosion scenarios
(t=25, 50, 75 years) are calculated as a function of the corrosion rate and the corrosion initiation time variables.

Fig. 1. Reference MRF models used for time – dependent vulnerability assessment: (a) Low rise-No code, (b) High rise-Low code, (c) Mid
rise-High code.
Table 1 summarizes the mean percentages (%) of reinforcement area loss, cover concrete strength and steel
ultimate deformation reduction due to corrosion within the elapsed time (t-Tini). Overall, for a given corrosion
scenario, it was observed that beams are more affected compared to columns. Furthermore, an increase of the initial
fundamental period of the fixed base structures is expected since corrosion effects cause progressive stiffness
 S.T. Karapetrou et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 38 (2017) 461 – 468 465

degradation. The structural models under study present a percentage increase in the natural period that varies
between 4-17 % for the transition from 0 years to 25 years, 6-9% from 25 to 50 years and 3-5% from 50 to 75 years,
depending on the characteristics of the initial and corroded structures.

Table 1. Loss in reinforcement area (%), cover concrete strength (%) and steel ultimate deformation (%) for the considered
corrosion scenarios.
Steel area loss (%) / Cover concrete strength reduction (%) / Steel ultimate deformation reduction (%)
t (years) Low rise -No code High rise-Low code Mid rise-High code
25 5 / 47 / 9 6 / 43 / 10 4 / 35 / 6
50 12 / 68 / 20 13 / 64 / 24 10 / 63 / 20
75 17 / 77 / 33 20 / 73 / 35 17 / 74 / 33

3.2. Seismic input motion

The selected scenario earthquake consists of a set of 15 real ground motion records obtained from the European
Strong-Motion Database (http://www.isesd.hi.is). They are all referring to outcrop conditions recorded at sites
classified as rock according to EC8 (soil type A) with moment magnitude (M w) and epicentral distance (R) that
range between 5.8<Mw<7.2 and 0<R<45km respectively. Outcropping records are selected to avoid uncertainties
related to soil effects. Additionally in order to eliminate potential source of bias in structural response, the selection
of pulse-like records has been avoided. The primary selection criterion is the average acceleration spectra of the set
to be of minimal “epsilon” [25] at the period range of 0.00<T<2.00sec with respect to a reference spectra defined
based on the ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) proposed by Ambraseys et al. [26] corresponding to the
median of the Mw and R selection bin. The optimization procedure is performed by making use of the REXEL
software [27]. Fig. 2 depicts the mean normalized elastic response spectrum of the records in comparison with the
corresponding median predicted spectrum of Ambraseys et al. [26]. As shown in the figure, a good match between
the two spectra is achieved. The detailed characteristics of the selected seismic records may be found in Karapetrou
[1].

3.3. Derivation of time-dependent fragility functions

Two-dimensional incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) of the different building types has been performed to
derive the time-dependent probabilistic fragility functions for the Immediate Occupancy (IO) and the Collapse
Prevention (CP) limit states and different periods in time (i.e. t=0, 25, 50, 75 years) in terms of spectral acceleration
corresponding to the fundamental period Sa(T 1,5%). The first limit state (IO) is defined at 0.5% according to
HAZUS prescriptions [28] for RC moment resisting frame structures, whereas the second (CP) is assigned on the
median (50%-fractile) IDA curve derived in terms of Sa(T1, 5%) (Fig. 3). The main idea is to place the CP limit
state at a point where the IDA curve is softening towards the flat line but at low enough values of maxISD so that
we still trust the structural model [29]. Different CP limit state values are thus chosen on the IDA curve for the same
structure depending on the considered time-dependent corrosion scenario (Table 3). The results of the IDA
(Sa(T1,5%)- maxISD) are used to derive time-dependent (or aging-dependent) fragility curves expressed as the two-
parameter time-variant lognormal distribution function expressing the probability of exceeding a damage state DS
conditioned on a measure of intensity IM:

§ ln IM  ln IM t ·
P>DS / IM @ )¨¨ ¸
¸ (2)
© E t ¹
466 S.T. Karapetrou et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 38 (2017) 461 – 468

Fig. 2. Normalized average elastic response spectrum of the input motions in comparison with the corresponding reference spectrum proposed by
Ambraseys et al. (1996).

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Indicative IDA curves for a). the initial (t=0 years) and b). the 50-year corroded structures with low seismic code provisions.

Table 3. CP limit state maxISD values defined on the IDA curve for the RC bare frame structures over time.
Time scenario (years) Low rise – No code High rise – Low code Mid rise – High code
0 0.028 0.0225 0.039
25 0.025 0.021 0.037
50 0.024 0.02 0.033
75 0.021 0.017 0.03

where the median values (in units of g) IM t and log-standard deviations β(t) of the fragility functions are the
time-varying parameters which are defined at different points in time along the buildings’ lifetime. Φ is the standard
normal cumulative distribution function.
The median values of Sa(T1,5%) corresponding to the prescribed performance levels are determined based on a
regression analysis of the nonlinear IDA results (Sa(T 1,5%) – maxISD) for each structural model and time scenario.
A linear regression fit of the logarithms of the Sa(T 1,5%) - maxISD data which minimizes the regression residuals is
adopted in all analysis cases. The various uncertainties are taken into account through the log-standard deviation
parameter β(t), which describes the total dispersion related to each fragility curve. Three primary sources of
uncertainty contribute to the total variability for any given damage state [28], namely the variability associated with
the definition of the limit state value (βLS=0.4), the capacity of each structural type (βC=0.25 for high code and 0.3
for no or low code structures) and the seismic demand (βD). The latter is calculated based on the dispersion of the
logarithms of Sa(T1,5%) - maxISD simulated data with respect to the regression fit [1]. As shown in Fig. 4, a
significant increase in the seismic fragility of the structures is observed over time due to corrosion, highlighting the
importance of considering the deterioration effects due to aging on the seismic vulnerability of structures.
 S.T. Karapetrou et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 38 (2017) 461 – 468 467

a). b).

c).
Fig. 4. Time-dependent fragility curves in terms of Sa(T1, 5%) for the analyzed fixed base frame structures under study: a). low rise MRF with no
seismic code provisions, b). high rise MRF with low seismic code provisions and c). mid rise MRF with high seismic code provisions.

4. Conclusion

Time-dependent probabilistic fragility functions have been derived for the IO and CP limit states and different
periods in time in terms of Sa(T 1,5%). It was observed that for the given corrosion scenario, beams were more
affected compared to the columns as their reinforcement layout included steel bars of lower diameters. In general the
consideration of corrosion effects lead to an increase of the fundamental period of the structures with time due to the
progressive stiffness decrease of the systems. Furthermore, the definition of the collapse prevention limit state based
on the IDA results for the considered time scenarios revealed a decrease of the CP limit values over time as well.
Overall, a significant increase in the seismic fragility of the structures was observed over time due to corrosion,
highlighting the importance of considering the deterioration effects due to aging on the seismic vulnerability of
structures. Results show that the increase in the structures’ fragility is much more pronounced for the CP limit state
resulting to an average decrease of the corresponding median intensity measure value (Sa(T 1, ξ%)) up to 40% after
75 years due to corrosion. Buildings designed only for gravity loads are expected to experience greater increase in
fragility over time in comparison to the structures that have been designed according to seismic code provisions. It
should be stressed however that the results have been produced under the assumption of uniform corrosion effects
for all structural elements (external and internal) adopting external environmental conditions. The potential of
pitting corrosion or the consideration of a different corrosion scenario for the internal and external structural
elements was not investigated in the context of the present study.
468 S.T. Karapetrou et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 38 (2017) 461 – 468

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this paper was carried out in the framework of the REAKT project
(http://www.reaktproject.eu/) , funded by the European Commission, FP7-282862.

References

1. Karapetrou S. Seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings considering aging and soil-structure interaction effects, Doctoral
Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki;2005
2. Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Chioccarelli E. Closed-form aftershock reliability of damage-cumulating elastic-perfectly-plastic systems.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013; 43(4): 613-625.
3. Shinozuka M. Basic analysis of structural safety. J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE) 1983; 109 (3), 721–740.
4. Saetta A, Simioni P, Berto L, Vitaliani R. Seismic response of corroded RC structures. International fib Symposium, May 19th - 22nd,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2008.
5. Berto L, Vitaliani R, Saetta A, Simioni P (2009). Seismic assessment of existing RC structures affected by degradation phenomena.
Structural Safety 2009; 31: 284-297.
6. Mohammed AM, Almansour HH, Martín-Pérez B. Combined effect of reinforcement corrosion and seismic loads on RC bridge columns :
modeling. 2nd International Engineering Mechanics and Materials Specialty Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, June 14-17; 2011: p. 1-10.
7. Yalciner H, Sensoy S, Eren O. Time-dependent seismic performance assessment of a single-degree-of-freedom frame subject to corrosion.
Engineering Failure Analysis 2012; 19: 109–122
8. Malioka V. Condition indicators for the assessment of local and spatial deterioration of concrete structures Swiss federal institute of
technology. PhD thesis, Zurich; 2009.
9. DuraCrete. Modeling of degradation. DuraCrete—probabilistic performance based durability design of concrete structures. EU—
briteEuRam III. Contract BRPR-CT95-0132. Project BE95-1347/R4-5; 1998 p. 174.
10. DuraCrete. Probabilistic Performance Based Durability Design of Concrete Structures: Statistical Quantification of the Variables in the
Limit State Functions. Report No.: BE 95-1347; 2000.
11. Ghosh J, Padgett JE (2010), Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent seismic fragility curves, Journal of Structural
Engineering 2010;136(12): 1497-1511.
12. Choe DE, Gardoni P, Rosowsky D. Fragility Increment Functions for Deteriorating Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns”, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 2010; 136(8): 969- 978.
13. FIB-CEB Task Group 5.6. Model for Service Life Design, fédérationinternationale du béton (fib); 2006.
14. Choe DE, Gardoni P, Rosowsky D, Haukaas T. Probabilistic capacity models and seismic fragility estimates for RC columns subject to
corrosion. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2008; 93(3): 383-393.
15. Stewart M. Spatial variability of pitting corrosion and its influence on structural fragility and reliability of RC beams in flexure.
Structural Safety 2004; 26: 453-470.
16. Coronelli D, Gambarova P . Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concrete beams: modeling guidelines. Journal of Structural
Engineering 2004;130(8): 1214-1224.
17. Simioni P. Seismic response of reinforced concrete structures affected by reinforcement corrosion. PhD thesis. Faculty of Architecture,
Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences University of Braunschweig—Institute of Technology and the Faculty of Engineering
University of Florence; 2009.
18. Rodriguez J, Andrade C. CONTECVET - A validated users manual for assessing the residual service life of concrete structures”, DG
Enterprise, CEC, GEOCISA, Madrid; 2001.
19. Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia A (Eds.). SYNER-G: Typology Definition and Fragility Functions for Physical Elements at Seismic Risk.
Buildings, Lifelines, Transportation Networks and Critical Facilities. Series title: Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering,
series vol. 27. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7872-6; 2014.
20. Bracci JM, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB. Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete frame structures designed only for gravity-loads: Part I –
Design and properties of a third-scale model structure. NCEER Technical Report 92-0027, State University of New-York, Buffalo, NY,
1992.
21. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G. A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2006; 4(4):391-413.
22. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation User Command-Language
Manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California; 2009.
23. Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN (1982). Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates."
Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1982; 79:13-27.
24. Karsan I, Jirsa J. Behavior of Concrete under Compressive Loadings. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1969; 95: 2543-2563.
25. Baker JW, Cornell CA. A Vector-Valued Ground Motion Intensity Measure Consisting of Spectral Acceleration and Epsilon. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(10): 1193-1217.
26. Ambrasseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ. Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1996; 25:371-400.
27. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E. REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering 2010; 8(2): 339-362.
28. National Institute of Building Science (NIBS). Direct physical damage—general building stock, HAZUS-MH Technical manual, Chapter
5. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC; 2004.
29. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(2): 523–553.