Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 5241–5263 | Cite as

Earthquake damage assessment of 1-story precast industrial buildings using damage probability matrices

  • Mehmet PalanciEmail author
  • Sevket Murat Senel
Original Research


In this study, risk assessment of 1-story precast building is conducted in probabilistic manner by using damage probability matrices (DPMs). Peak ground velocity (PGV) is used as reference ground motion parameter to associate with structural damages and more than three hundred real earthquake records is used for nonlinear dynamic analysis of precast buildings. Three different probabilistic calculation approaches mainly based on analytical methods have been used to obtain DPMs and utilized methods are compared. Comparisons have shown that analytical methods presented herein can be used to describe the upper and lower bound of damage probabilities of precast buildings, respectively. Evaluations on the damage probabilities have also pointed out that the structural differences among the buildings, use of different probabilistic approaches and damage ratios related with structural damage costs cause remarkable differences between the damage predictions and they can be considered as primary sources of uncertainties. Logic tree method, which has ability to gather involved uncertainties, is used to carry out reliable damage assessment. Results have shown that damage ratios of precast buildings determined after logic tree analysis have a good agreement with site investigation studies of 1999 Kocaeli earthquake occurred in Turkey and presented methods can be used in risk assessment of precast industrial buildings.


Damage probability matrices Precast buildings Nonlinear dynamic analysis Risk assessment Fragility curve Logic tree 



The authors acknowledge support provided by Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under Project No: 110M255. The authors wish to express their gratitude to directorate of DOIZ) for providing design projects of precast buildings. Ground motion records used in this study are downloaded from the PEER web site. The authors also acknowledge the PEER for providing the processed data.


  1. Akkar S, Ozen O (2005) Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands for SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct D 37:1411–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applied Technology Council (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. ATC-13, Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  3. Applied Technology Council (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  4. Arslan MH, Korkmaz HH, Gulay FG (2006) Damage and failure pattern of prefabricated structures after major earthquakes in Turkey and shortfalls of the Turkish Earthquake Code. Eng Fail Anal 13(4):537–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Askan A, Yucemen MS (2010) Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Struct Saf 32(4):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atakoy H (2000) The August 17th earthquake and the prefabricated structures built by the members of the prefabric union. Concr Prefabr 52–53(3):5–14 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  7. Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baltzopoulou AD, Eleftheriadou AK, Karabinis AI (2012) Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of the building stock of Attica (Greece) and correlation to the actual repair cost. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  9. Bournas DA, Negro P, Taucer FF (2014) Performance of industrial buildings during the Emilia earthquakes in Northern Italy and recommendations for their strengthening. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2383–2404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing review of the M.S.K.–76 scale. In: 7th European conference on earthquake engineering, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  11. Bulak BS (1997) A stochastic model for the assessment of earthquake insurance premiums, M.Sc. Thesis, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Casotto C, Silva V, Crowley H, Nascimbene R, Pinho R (2015) Seismic fragility of Italian RC precast industrial structures. Eng Struct 94:122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz AM, Steinberg LJ (2005) Industry preparedness for earthquakes and earthquake-triggered hazmat accidents in the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake. Earthq Spectra 21(2):285–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Matteis G, Criber E, Brando G (2016) Damage probability matrices for three-nave masonry churches in Abruzzi after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Int J Archit Herit 10(2–3):120–145Google Scholar
  15. Deniz A (2006) Estımatıon of earthquake insurance premium rates based on stochastic methods, M.Sc. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Eleftheriadou AK, Karabinis AI (2011) Development of damage probability matrices based on greek earthquake damage data. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib 10:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eleftheriadou AK, Karabinis AI (2012) Correlation of structural seismic damage with fundamental period of RC buildings. Open J Civ Eng 3:45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eleftheriadou AK, Karabinis AI (2013) Evaluation of damage probability matrices from observational seismic damage data. Earthq Struct 4:299–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eleftheriadou AK, Baltzopoulou AD, Karabinis AI (2014) Seismic risk assessment of buildings in the extended urban region of Athens and comparison with the repair cost. Open J Civ Eng 3:115–134Google Scholar
  20. Erberik MA (2008) Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 30:1360–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ersoy U, Ozcebe G, Tankut T (2000) Observed precast building damages in 1999 Marmara and Duzce earthquakes. In: Proceedings of 10th prefabrication symposium, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  22. Eurocode-8 (2004) Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. FEMA 273 (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. FEMA P-695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. FEMA P-750 (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. GB (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings. China Architecture and Building Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  27. Gurpinar A, Abalı M, Yucemen MS, Yesilcay Y (1978) Feasibility of mandatory earthquake insurance in Turkey. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. 78-05, Middle East Technical University [in Turkish]Google Scholar
  28. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010) REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 8:339–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K (1998) Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards 17(2):177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kappos A, Pitilakis K, Morfidis K, Hatzinikolaou N (2002) Vulnerability and risk study of Volos (Greece) metropolitan area. In: Procedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. Karaesmen E (2001) Prefabrication in Turkey: facts and figures. Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  32. Karimi K, Bakhshi A (2006) Development of fragility curves for unreinforced masonry buildings before and after upgrading using analytical method. In: Proceedings of first European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  33. Katsanos EI, Sextos AG (2013) ISSARS: an integrated software environment for structure-specific earthquake ground motion selection. Adv Eng Softw 58:70–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kayhan AH (2016) Scaled and unscaled ground motion sets for uni-directional and bi-directional dynamic analysis. Earthq Struct 10(3):563–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kayhan AH, Demir A (2016) Statistical evaluation of drift demands of rc frames using code-compatible real ground motion record sets. Struct Eng Mech 60(6):953–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kircil MS, Polat Z (2006) Fragility analysis of mid-rise rc frame buildings. Eng Struct 28(9):1335–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Technical Chamber of Greece (NTCG) (2001) Vulnerability assessment of buildings (in Greek). Final Report, Technical Team No.I.2, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  38. National Technical Chamber of Greece (NTCG) (2006) Pre-earthquake reinforcement of existing buildings (in Greek). National Programme for Earthquake Management of Existing Buildings, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  39. Ozmen HB, Inel M, Meral E, Bucakli M (2010) Vulnerability of low and mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. In Proceedings of the 14th European conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid, MacedoniaGoogle Scholar
  40. Palanci M (2010) Seismic performance estimation of existing industrial precast structures based on building inventories. M. Sc. Thesis, Pamukkale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  41. Palanci M (2014) Estimation of earthquake insurance rates by using probabilistic methods in existing industrial precast buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Pamukkale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  42. Palanci M, Senel SM, Kalkan A (2017) Assessment of one story existing precast industrial buildings in Turkey based on fragility curves. Bull Earthq Eng 15(1):271–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Palanci M, Kayhan AH, Demir A (2018) A statistical assessment on global drift ratio demands of mid-rise RC buildings using code-compatible real ground motion records. Bull Earthq Eng 16(11):5453–5488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Posada M, Wood SL (2002) Seismic performance of precast industrial buildings in Turkey. In: Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National conference on earthquake engineering, BostonGoogle Scholar
  45. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  46. Senel SM, Palanci M (2013) Structural aspects and seismic performance of 1-story precast buildings in Turkey. J Perform Constr Facil 27(4):437–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Senel SM, Inel M, Kayhan AH, Palanci M, Kalkan A, Yılmaz Y (2013) Türkiye’deki prefabrik sanayi yapılarının deprem performansının belirlenmesi, TUBITAK project no: 110M255, Turkey (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  48. Sextos AG, Katsanos EI, Manolis GD (2011) EC8-based earthquake record selection procedure evaluation: validation study based on observed damage of an irregular R/C building. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:583–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sezen H, Whittaker AS (2006) Seismic performance of industrial facilities affected by the 1999 Turkey earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil 20(1):28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sucuoglu H, Yazgan U (2003) Simple survey procedures for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. In: Wasti ST, Ozcebe G (eds) Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings. NATO Science Series IV Kluwer, Netherlands, pp 97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. TBEC 2018 (2018) Turkish building earthquake code. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement of Turkey, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  52. TEC 2007 (2007) Specification for buildings to be built in seismic zones. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement of Turkey, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  53. Vision 2000 (1995) Performance-based seismic engineering. Report prepared by Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitman RV (1973) Seismic design decision analysis, Report No. 8: damage probability matrices for prototype buildings, R73-57, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Yucemen MS (2005) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake insurance rates for Turkey. Nat Hazards 35:291–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yucemen MS, Yilmaz C, Erdik M (2008) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake insurance rates for important structures: application to Gumusova Gerede Motorway. Struct Saf 30(5):420–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIstanbul Arel UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringPamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey

Personalised recommendations