How to Predict the Probability of Collapse of Non-Ductile Building Structures

Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 10)


This chapter attempts to cover the range from rigorous probabilistic collapse prediction of short period low-ductility buildings to simplified assessment of the collapse potential. The rigorous collapse predictions are based on modeling the deteriorating properties of structural elements with low ductility and predicting the collapse capacity for a given structural configuration and ground motion through incremental dynamic analysis. Consideration is given to the variation in collapse capacity due to randomness of the ground motion. A parameter study is summarized in which the effects of strength and deformation capacity on the collapse potential of frames with infill walls is evaluated. It is found that shear strength has the largest effect on the collapse capacity, and that deformation capacity and residual strength are of less importance.



The development of the collapse prediction methodology for deteriorating systems was supported by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center and the NEESR research project CMS–0421551, both sponsored by the US National Science Foundation, and was carried out at Stanford University’s John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center as part of a comprehensive effort to develop basic concepts for PBEE and supporting data on seismic demands and capacities Additional support was provided by the CUREE-Kajima Phase VI research program. The support of the sponsors is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. 1.
    ATC-63 (2008) Recommended methodology for quantification of building system performance and response parameters; 90% draft, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ATC-72-1 (2008) Interim guidelines on modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings, 90% draft, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4):526–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gatto KS, Uang CM (2002) Effects of loading protocol and rate of loading on woodframe shearwall response. Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibarra L, Medina R and Krawinkler H (2002) Collapse assessment of deteriorating SDOF systems Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, Elsevier Science Ltd, paper # 665Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. International Journal for Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(12):1489–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibarra LF and Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. TR 152, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University and PEER Report 2005/06Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karadogan F (editor) (1998) Repair and strengthening of existing buildings. Proceedings of Second Japan-Turkey Workshop on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, February 1998Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim YY, Fischer G, Lim YM, Li VC (2004) Mechanical performance of sprayed engineered cementitious composite (ECC) using wet-mix shotcreting process for repair applications. ACI Materials Journal, 101(1):42–49Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kyriakides MA, Billington SL (2008) Experimental investigations of engineered cementitious composites as a seismic retrofit for masonry infill walls. Proceedings of the 2008 IABSE Annual Meeting and Congress, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lignos DG (2008) Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Medina R, Krawinkler H (2003) Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground motions. PEER Technical Report #2003-15Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1994) Performance of masonry-infilled R/C frames under in-plane lateral loads. Report No. CU/SR-94-6, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1996) Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(3):228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rahnama M, Krawinkler H (1993) Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic demands. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 108, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vamvatsikos, D, Cornell, CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wasti ST, Ozcebe G (editors) (2003) Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings. NATO Science Series IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences – Vol. 29, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wasti ST, Ozcebe G, (editors) (2006) Advances in earthquake engineering for urban risk reduction. NATO Science Series IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences – Vol. 66, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zareian F (2006) Simplified performance-based earthquake engineering. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford CAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2007) Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(13):1901–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations