The Effect of Alternative Retrofit Strategies on Reduction of Expected Losses: Evaluation with Detailed and Simplified Approach

  • M. Gaetani d’Aragona
  • M. Polese
  • M. Di Ludovico
  • A. Prota
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 10)


Limitation of monetary losses due to earthquakes can improve resilience in developed countries. Computation of losses with the PEER performance-based earthquake engineering framework (Porter 2003) normally entails performing a number of Non-linear Response History analyses as a basis for assessment of expected Engineering Demand Parameters and associated losses, that is an elaborate and time-consuming task. In (ATC 2012) an alternative quicker approach relying on simplified modeling and analysis with SPO2IDA is also envisaged. This paper tests the applicability of simplified method using pushover based analysis and CSM method. In particular, it compares the losses obtained for a non-conforming reinforced concrete moment frame building starting from the classical approach, i.e. based on Non-linear Response History analyses, with the one computed with pushover-based assessment. Moreover, it evaluates the reduction of losses after building retrofit with the pushover-based analysis.


Economic losses Pushover Retrofit 



This study was performed within the framework of the PON METROPOLIS “Metodologie e tecnologie integrate e sostenibili per l’adattamento e la sicurezza di sistemi urbani” grant n. PON03PE_00093_4 and the joint program DPC-Reluis 2014-2016 Task 3.3: Reparability limit state and damage cumulated effects. The S.Co.P.E. computing infrastructure at the University of Naples Federico II was used for the parallel computing.


  1. ACI 440.2R-08 (2008) Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures. Report by ACI Committee 440.2R-08. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  2. ACI 369R-11 (2011) Guide for seismic rehabilitation of existing concrete frame buildings and commentary. Report by ACI committee 369. American Concrete InstituteGoogle Scholar
  3. Alath S, Kunnath SK (1995) Modeling inelastic shear deformation in RC beam-column joints. In: Proceedings of 10th conference on engineering mechanics, Boulder, CO, USA, 21–24 May. ASCE, pp 822–825Google Scholar
  4. Aslani H, Miranda E (2009) Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings, Report No. 157. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  5. ATC (2012) FEMA P-58-1: Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Volume 1–methodologyGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, pp 361–400 Google Scholar
  7. Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2005) Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 34(1):49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elwood KJ (2004) Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Can J Civ Eng 31:846–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 28:979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaetani d’Aragona M, Polese M, Di Ludovico M (2017) Building retrofit prior to damaging earthquakes: reduction of residual capacity and repair costs. In: 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January 2017Google Scholar
  11. Hassan WM, Moehle JP (2012) A cyclic nonlinear macro model for numerical simulation of beam-column joints in existing concrete buildings. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference of earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  12. Kosič M, Fajfar P, Dolšek M (2014) Approximate seismic risk assessment of building structures with explicit consideration of uncertainties. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 43(10):1483–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krawinkler H (2005) Van Nuys hotel building testbed report: exercising seismic performance assessment, PEER 2005/11, University of California, Berkeley, October 2005Google Scholar
  14. Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2013) Cost-benefit evaluation of seismic risk mitigation alternatives for older concrete frame buildings. Earthq Spectra 29(4):1391–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. OpenSees (2016) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation OpenSees framework-Version 2.5.0. Univ. of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Petrone C, Magliulo G, Manfredi G (2015) Seismic demand on light acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components in European reinforced concrete buildings. Earth Eng Struct Dyn 44(8):1203–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Polese M, Gaetani d’Aragona M, Prota A, Manfredi G (2013) Seismic behavior of damaged buildings: a comparison of static and dynamic nonlinear approach, paper # 1134. In: Proceedings of COMPDYN 2013 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Kos Island, Greece, 12–14 June 2013Google Scholar
  18. Polese M, Marcolini M, Gaetani d’Aragona M, Cosenza E (2017) Reconstruction policies: explicitating the link of decisions thresholds to safety level and costs for RC buildings. Bull Earthquake Eng 15(2):759–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Porter KA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineeringGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramirez CM, Miranda E (2009) Building-specific loss estimation methods & tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering report no. 171, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramirez CM, Liel AB, Mitrani-Reiser J, Haselton CB, Spear AD, Steiner J et al (2012) Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 41(11):1455–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spacone E, Ciampi V, Filippou FC (1992) A beam element for seismic damage analysis. Report No. UCB/EERC-92/07. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  23. Sullivan TJ, Calvi PM, Nascimbene R (2013) Towards improved floor spectra estimates for seismic design. Earthq Struct 4(1):109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell A (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell A (2005) Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis. Report no. 151, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell A (2006) Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 35:1097–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vukobratović V, Fajfar P (2016) A method for the direct estimation of floor acceleration spectra for elastic and inelastic MDOF structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 45(15):2495–2511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yang TY, Moehle J, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A (2009) Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: methodology and implementation. J Struct Eng 135(10):1146–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Gaetani d’Aragona
    • 1
  • M. Polese
    • 1
  • M. Di Ludovico
    • 1
  • A. Prota
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations