Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are seismic losses affected by the angle of seismic incidence?

  • S.I. : Recent Advances in Seismic Fragility and Vulnerability
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The proposed study examines the propagation of uncertainty associated with the angle of seismic incidence of a group of ground motions, as well as to that of the ground motion group size, to the expected seismic loss estimates of reinforced concrete buildings. Six buildings with infilled frame systems are studied, representative of non-seismically designed structures typical of southern European practice. Their monetary losses are computed using a performance-based earthquake engineering framework, which integrates the site-specific seismic hazard, structural response, damage to building components and contents, and the resulting costs (repair, demolition, reconstruction). To estimate monetary losses, an inventory of the structural and non-structural elements is compiled and existing damage and cost data/functions are employed. Seismic loss estimates account for both the probability of collapse and the probability of demolition as a result of excessive residual storey drifts. Multiple stripe analysis is performed for this purpose using numerical models capable of simulating the relevant limit states up to collapse. Results are presented in terms of expected losses conditional on the ground motion intensity and expected annual losses, which are determined by integrating the former with the seismic hazard curve of the site. Results show that the comparative effect of the ground motion group size in the expected annual losses is much more important when compared to that of the angle of seismic incidence, whose influence is shown to be less significant and mostly concentrated on the variability of the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Adapted from Skoulidou et al. (2019)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Adapted from Skoulidou et al. (2019)

Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the middle east. Seismol Res Lett 81(2):195–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE/SEI 41-17 (2017). Seismic rehabilitation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA

  • Aslani H, Miranda E (2005) Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings, Report 157 (Doctoral dissertation. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, United States), John A

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(6):2181–2205

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2010) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW, Jayaram N (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthq Spectra 24(1):299–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvi GM, Sullivan TJ, Welch DP (2014) A seismic performance classification framework to provide increased seismic resilience. In Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology, Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardone D, Perrone G (2017) Damage and loss assessment of pre-70 RC frame buildings with FEMA P-58. J Earthquake Eng 21(1):23–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardone D, Flora A, Picione MDL, Martoccia A (2019) Estimating direct and indirect losses due to earthquake damage in residential RC buildings. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 126:105801

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso C, Bento R, Castro JM (2019) A contribution to the seismic performance and loss assessment of old RC wall-frame buildings. Eng Struct 197:109369

    Google Scholar 

  • Christovasilis IP, Cimellaro GP, Barani S and Foti S (2014). On the selection and scaling of ground motions for fragility analysis of structures. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (pp. 24–29). Istanbul, Turkey

  • Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2008) The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame - a deterministic assessment. Eng Struct 30(7):1991–2001

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (2012) Next-Generation Methodology for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report No. FEMA P-58, Washington, D.C

  • Giannopoulos D, Vamvatsikos D (2018) Ground motion records for seismic performance assessment: To rotate or not to rotate? Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 47(12):2410–2425

    Google Scholar 

  • Günay S, Mosalam KM (2013) PEER performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, revisited. J Earthquake Eng 17(6):829–858

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton CB, Goulet CA, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein GG, Porter KA and Taciroglu E (2008). An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete moment-frame building. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, (2007/1)

  • Hasik V, Chhabra JP, Warn GP, Bilec MM (2018) Review of approaches for integrating loss estimation and life cycle assessment to assess impacts of seismic building damage and repair. Eng Struct 175:123–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang SH, Lignos DG (2017) Earthquake-induced loss assessment of steel frame buildings with special moment frames designed in highly seismic regions. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 46(13):2141–2162

    Google Scholar 

  • Iervolino I (2017) Assessing uncertainty in estimation of seismic response for PBEE. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 46(10):1711–1723

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagaros ND (2010) The impact of the earthquake incident angle on the seismic loss estimation. Eng Struct 32(6):1577–1589

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin T, Harmsen SC, JW and Luco N, (2013) Conditional spectrum computation incorporating multiple causal earthquakes and ground motion prediction models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1103–1116

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthquake Eng Structl Dynam 42:1847–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part II: intensity-based assessments and evaluation of alternative target spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 42:1867–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Macedo L, Castro JM (2017) SelEQ: An advanced ground motion record selection and scaling framework. Adv Eng Softw 114:32–47

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna F (2011) OpenSees: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation. Comput Sci Eng 13(4):58–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda E and Aslani H (2003). Probabilistic response assessment for building-specific loss estimation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report PEER 2003/03

  • Mohamed H, Romão X (2018) Robust calibration of macro-models for the in-plane behavior of masonry infilled RC frames. J Earthquake Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1517703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noh NM, Liberatore L, Mollaioli F, Tesfamariam S (2017) Modelling of masonry infilled RC frames subjected to cyclic loads: State of the art review and modelling with OpenSees. Eng Struct 150:599–621

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly GJ, Perrone D, Fox M, Monteiro R, Filiatrault A (2018) Seismic assessment and loss estimation of existing school buildings in Italy. Eng Struct 168:142–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Simionato M (2014) OpenQuake engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismol Res Lett 85(3):692–702

    Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. Structural Journal 98(2):135–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter KA, Beck JL, Shaikhutdinov RV (2002) Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthq Spectra 18(4):719–743

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez CM, Miranda E (2012) Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 41(11):1477–1493

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano F, Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Zucconi M, Ferracuti B (2018) Comparative seismic loss analysis of an existing non-ductile RC building based on element fragility functions proposals. Eng Struct 177:707–723

    Google Scholar 

  • Romão X, Delgado R, Costa A (2014) Probabilistic performance analysis of existing buildings under earthquake loading. J Earthquake Eng 18(8):1241–1265

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahi SK, Baker JW (2014) NGA-West2 models for ground motion directionality. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1285–1300

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoulidou D, Romão X (2019) Uncertainty quantification of fragility and risk estimates due to seismic input variability and capacity model uncertainty. Eng Struct 195:425–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoulidou D, Romão X (2020) The significance of considering multiple angles of seismic incidence for estimating engineering demand parameters. Bull Earthq Eng 18(1):139–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoulidou D, Romão X, Franchin P (2019) How is collapse risk of RC buildings affected by the angle of seismic incidence? Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 48(14):1575–1594

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa L, Monteiro R (2018) Seismic retrofit options for non-structural building partition walls: Impact on loss estimation and cost-benefit analysis. Eng Struct 161:8–27

    Google Scholar 

  • SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee (1995). Performance-based seismic engineering. SEAOC, Sacramento, CA

  • Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, Valensine G, Arvidsson R, Basili R, Demircioglu MB, Hiemen S, Meletti C, Musson RW, Rovida AN, Sesetyan K, Stucchi M (2015) The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng 13(12):3553–3596

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon YH, Ataya S, Mahan M, Malek A, Saiidi MS, Zokaie T (2019) Probabilistic damage control application: implementation of performance-based earthquake engineering in seismic design of highway bridge columns. J Bridg Eng 24(7):04019068

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanini MA, Faleschini F, Pellegrino C (2017) Probabilistic seismic risk forecasting of aging bridge networks. Eng Struct 136:219–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Zareian F, Medina RA (2010) A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems. Comput Struct 88(1):45–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Žarnić R, Gostič S (1997) Masonry infilled frames as an effective structural sub-assemblage. In: Fajfar K (ed) Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 335–346

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Αcknowledgements

The authors would like to thank José Paupério, civil engineer at Pemi–Engenharia & Construção, Lda, and Miguel Santos, civil engineer and general manager at Cacao Civil Engineering, Lda, for providing the detailed component cost data that were used for the loss analysis.

Funding

Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) (Award number: PhD grant PD/BD/113681/2015, Recipient: Despoina Skoulidou). FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC) (Award number: Base Funding—UIDB/04708/2020, Recipient: CONSTRUCT—Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal

    Despoina Skoulidou & Xavier Romão

Authors
  1. Despoina Skoulidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xavier Romão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Despoina Skoulidou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1367 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Skoulidou, D., Romão, X. Are seismic losses affected by the angle of seismic incidence?. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 6271–6302 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01121-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01121-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation