Economic Seismic Loss Assessment



Economic seismic loss is one of the most important indices that quantify the seismic resilience of a structural system. This chapter provides further insight into the potential of SMA-based self-centring frames for reducing the economic seismic losses. The assessment is conducted based on three prototype steel building frames, namely, conventional moment resisting frame (MRF), buckling-restrained braced frame (BRB frame) and SMA-based self-centring braced frame. The rationale behind the seismic loss assessment framework is explained, and the FEMA P-58 methodology, a procedure which is now widely adopted in the community of seismic engineers, is particularly elaborated. The basic principles of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and fragility analysis are also clarified. Based on the existing methodology, the seismic losses of the three types of structures under different levels of earthquakes are obtained, and factors that affect the seismic loss performance are discussed. The assessment can offer more quantitative and rational seismic loss predictions for decision makers, especially in the feasibility analysis stage of construction projects.


  1. AISC (2010) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, (ANSI/AISC 341-10). American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. Aslani H, Miranda E (2005) Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings, Report No. 157. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley BA (2011) User manual for SLAT: seismic loss assessment tool, version 1.16. Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2):1–4Google Scholar
  6. Dimopoulos AI, Tzimas AS, Karavasilis TL, Vamvatsikos D (2016) Probabilistic economic seismic loss estimation in steel buildings using post-tensioned moment-resisting frames and viscous dampers. Earthq Eng Struct D 45(11):1725–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. FEMA P695, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings, volume 1—methodology. FEMA P-58-1, prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Gu Q, Zona A, Peng Y, Dall’Asta A (2014) Effect of buckling-restrained brace model parameters on seismic structural response. J Constr Steel Res 98:100–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gunay S, Mosalam KM (2013) PEER performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, revisited. J Earthq Eng 17(6):829–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gupta A, Krawinkler H (1999) Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures, Report No. 132. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Haselton CB, Baker JW (2017) Seismic performance prediction program, 2.6th edn. Haselton Baker Risk Group, ChicoGoogle Scholar
  13. HAZUS99 (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology: user’s manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu S, Wang W, Qu B (2019) Seismic economic losses in mid-rise steel buildings with conventional and emerging lateral force resisting systems. Eng Struct Under RevGoogle Scholar
  15. Ramirez CM, Miranda E (2012) Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation. Earthq Eng Struct D 41(11):1477–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23(2):357–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees), OpenSees Command Language Manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  18. McCormick J, Aburano H, Ikenaga M, Nakashima M (2008) Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements. In: Proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Seismological Press of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  19. Porter KA, Beck JL, Shaikhutdinov RV (2002) Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthq Spectra 18(4):719–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS, LeGrue JS (2001) Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation. Earthq Spectra 17(2):291–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sehhati R, Rodriguez-Marek A, ElGawady M, Cofer WF (2011) Effects of near-fault ground motions and equivalent pulses on multi-story structures. Eng Struct 33(3):767–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct D 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yeow TZ, Orumiyehei A, Sullivan TJ, MacRae GA, Clifton GC, Elwood KJ (2018) Seismic performance of steel friction connections considering direct-repair costs. B Earthq Eng 16(12):5963–5993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zona A, Dall’Asta A (2012) Elastoplastic model for steel buckling-restrained braces. J Constr Steel Res 68:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations