Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 233–245 | Cite as

Probabilistic seismic loss estimation via endurance time method

  • Ehsan Tafakori
  • Saeid PourzeynaliEmail author
  • Homayoon E. Estekanchi


Probabilistic Seismic Loss Estimation is a methodology used as a quantitative and explicit expression of the performance of buildings using terms that address the interests of both owners and insurance companies. Applying the ATC 58 approach for seismic loss assessment of buildings requires using Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), which needs hundreds of time-consuming analyses, which in turn hinders its wide application. The Endurance Time Method (ETM) is proposed herein as part of a demand propagation prediction procedure and is shown to be an economical alternative to IDA. Various scenarios were considered to achieve this purpose and their appropriateness has been evaluated using statistical methods. The most precise and efficient scenario was validated through comparison against IDA driven response predictions of 34 code conforming benchmark structures and was proven to be sufficiently precise while offering a great deal of efficiency. The loss values were estimated by replacing IDA with the proposed ETM-based procedure in the ATC 58 procedure and it was found that these values suffer from varying inaccuracies, which were attributed to the discretized nature of damage and loss prediction functions provided by ATC 58.


performance-based earthquake engineering probabilistic seismic loss endurance time method uncertainty propagation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ACI (2002), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.Google Scholar
  2. Alembagheri M and Estekanchi H (2011), “Seismic Assessment of Unanchored Steel Storage Tanks by Endurance Time Method,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 10(4): 591–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE/SEI 7 (2002), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-02, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  4. ATC (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC 40, Seismic Safety Commission, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  5. ATC (2009), ATC 58: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1–Methodology, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  6. ATC (2009), ATC 58: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 2–Implementation Guide, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  7. Baker JW and Cornell CA (2008), “Uncertainty Propagation in Probabilistic Seismic Loss Estimation,” Structural Safety, 30(3): 236–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck JL, Porter KA and Shaikhutdinov RV (2003), Simplified Estimation of Seismic Life-cycle Costs, Life-cycle Performance of Deteriorating Structures: Assessment, Design, and Management, ASCE, Reston, Virginia, USA: 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozorgnia Y and Bertero VV (2004), Earthquake Engineering: from Engineering Seismology to Performance-based Engineering, CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley BA and Lee DS (2010), “Accuracy of Approximate Methods of Uncertainty Propagation in Seismic Loss Estimation,” Structural Safety, 32(1): 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang SE and Shinozuka M (1996), “Life-cycle Cost Analysis with Natural Hazard Risk,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2(3): 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erdik M, Aydinoglu N, Fahjan Y, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu M, Siyahi B, Durukal E, Ozbey C, Biro Y, Akman H and Yuzugullu O (2003), “Earthquake Risk Assessment for Istanbul Metropolitan Area,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estekanchi H, Vafai A, and Sadeghazar M (2004), “Endurance Time Method for Seismic Analysis and Design of Structures,” Scientia Iranica, 11(4): 361–370.Google Scholar
  14. FEMA (1997), NEHRP Commentary on The Guidelines For The Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 274, Prepared for the Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  15. FEMA (2009), Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA p695, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  16. Frangopol DM, Lin KY and Estes AC (1997), “Lifecycle Cost Design of Deteriorating Structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(10): 1390–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hariri-Ardebili MA, Sattar S and Estekanchi H (2014), “Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Steel Frames Using Endurance Time Analysis,” Engineering Structures, 69: 216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haselton CB (2006), Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame Buildings, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
  19. Ibarra LF, Medina RA and Krawinkler H (2005), “Hysteretic Models that Incorporate Strength and Stiffness Deterioration,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 34(12): 1489–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu M, Burns SA and Wen YK (2005), “Multiobjective Optimization for Performance-based Seismic Design of Steel Moment Frame Structures,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 34(3): 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu M, Wen Y and Burns SA (2004), “Life Cycle Cost Oriented Seismic Design Optimization of Steel Moment Frame Structures with Risk-taking Preference,” Engineering Structures, 26(10): 1407–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu SC and Neghabat F (1972), “A Cost Optimization Model for Seismic Design of Structures,” Bell System Technical Journal, 51(10): 2209–2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH and Fenves GL (2006), OpenSees Command Language Manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  24. Mirzaee A and Estekanchi H (2013), “Performancebased Seismic Retrofitting of Steel Frames by Endurance Time Method,” Earthquake Spectra, 31(1): 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NIST (2011), Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response History Analysis, NIST/GCR 11-917-15, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.Google Scholar
  26. Nozari, A, and Estekanchi H (2011) “Optimization of Endurance Time Acceleration Functions for Seismic Assessment of Structures,” International Journal of Optimization In Civil Engineering, 2: 257–277.Google Scholar
  27. Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Wesson RL, Zeng Y, Boyd OS and Perkins DM (2008), Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, (No. 2331–1258), US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  28. Tafakori E, Banazadeh M, Jalali SA and Tehranizadeh M (2013), “Risk-based Optimal Retrofit of a Tall Steel Building by Using Friction Dampers,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 22(9): 700–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vamvatsikos D and Cornell CA (2002), “Incremental Dynamic Analysis,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3): 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vamvatsikos D and Cornell CA (2004), “Applied Incremental Dynamic Analysis,” Earthquake Spectra, 20(2): 523–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ehsan Tafakori
    • 1
  • Saeid Pourzeynali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Homayoon E. Estekanchi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of GuilanRashtIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations