Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Reliability Assessment, Alternative Methods for

  • Hossein EbrahimianEmail author
  • Raffaele De Risi
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_245


Bayesian method; Fragility curve; Limit state; Mean annual frequency of exceedance; Monte Carlo simulation; PEER performance-based approach; Reliability assessment; Second-moment reliability methods; Simulation-based reliability; System reliability

A Perspective into the Seismic Reliability Assessment

The treatment of structural behavior under seismic actions can be considered as one of the most challenging aspects of structural performance assessment and design. It encompasses numerous sources of uncertainty associated with the seismic action, structural response, and structural capacities. The various parameters involved in the seismic performance assessment problem can be generically designated in terms of seismic demand (D) and capacity (C) of the structure. The seismic demand and capacity can be characterized as a functional (i.e., function of function) of a set of uncertain parameters(also denoted as “random variables”). Hence, probabilistic methods are necessary in...

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


  1. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York, 710 ppzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambartzumian R, Der Kiureghian A, Ohanian V, Sukiasian H (1998) Multinormal probability by sequential conditioned importance sampling: theory and application. Probab Eng Mech 13(4):299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers (2010) ASCE/SEI 7–10, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, New-YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson G, Silva W (2000) Stochastic modelling of California ground motions. Bull Seismic Soc Am 90(2):255–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Au SK, Beck JL (1999) A new adaptive importance sampling scheme for reliability calculations. Struct Saf 21(2):135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Au SK, Beck JL (2001a) Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probab Eng Mech 16(4):263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Au SK, Beck JL (2001b) First excursion probabilities for linear systems by very efficient importance sampling. Probab Eng Mech 16(3):193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Au SK, Beck JL (2003a) Important sampling in high dimensions. Struct Saf 25(2):139–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Au SK, Beck JL (2003b) Subset simulation and its application to seismic risk based on dynamic analysis. J Eng Mech 129(8):901–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker JW (2014) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025MGoogle Scholar
  11. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Report No. 150, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford, 321 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Beck JL, Au SK (2002) Bayesian updating of structural models and reliability using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. J Eng Mech 128(4):380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Box GEP, Tiao GC (1973) Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV (2004) Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press, ISBN 0-8493-1349-9Google Scholar
  15. Breitung K (1984) Asymptotic approximations for multinormal integrals. J Eng Mech 110(3):357–366MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Celarec D, Dolšek M (2013) The impact of modelling uncertainties on the seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete frame buildings. Eng Struct 52:340–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. CEN (2002) European Committee for Standardisation, Eurocode-Basis of Structural Design, EN 1990:2002Google Scholar
  18. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  19. Cornell CA (1969) A Probability-based structural code. ACI J 66(12):974–985Google Scholar
  20. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Cent News 3(2):1–3Google Scholar
  21. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128(4):526–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cox RT (1961) The algebra of probable inference. Johns Hopkins Press, BaltimorezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Der Kiureghian A (1996) Structural reliability methods for seismic safety assessment: a review. Eng Struct 18(6):412–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Der Kiureghian A (2005) Non-ergodicity and PEER’s framework formula. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(13):1643–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Der Kiureghian A, Dakessian T (1998) Multiple design points in first and second-order reliability. Struct Saf 20(1):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31(2):105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Der Kiureghian A, Haukaas T, Fujimura K (2006) Structural reliability software at the University of California, Berkeley. Struct Saf 28(1):44–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Det Norske Veritas (1992) Structural reliability analysis of marine structures, classification notes no 30.6Google Scholar
  29. Ditlevsen O (1973) Structural reliability and the invariance problem. Research report no 22, Solid Mechanics Division, University of Waterloo, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  30. Ditlevsen O, Madsen HO (1996) Structural reliability methods. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  31. Dolšek M (2009) Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(6):805–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ebrahimian H (2012) Assessment of existing offshore platforms in Persian Gulf region for life extension or operative conditions. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, 363 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Elefante L, Jalayer F, Iervolino I, Manfredi G (2010) Disaggregation-based response weighting scheme for seismic risk assessment of structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(12):1513–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ellingwood BR (2001) Earthquake risk assessment of building structures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 74(3):251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ellingwood BR, Kinali K (2009) Quantifying and communicating uncertainty in seismic risk assessment. Struct Saf 31(2):179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Faber MH (2012) Statistics and probability theory: in pursuit of engineering decision support, vol 18. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Fishman GS (1996) Monte Carlo: concepts, algorithms, and applications. Springer, New YorkzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Galambos TV, Ellingwood B, MacGregor JG, Cornell CA (1982) Probability based load criteria: assessment of current design practice. J Struct Div 108(5):959–977Google Scholar
  39. Golafshani AA, Ebrahimian H, Bagheri V, Holmas T (2011) Assessment of offshore platforms under extreme waves by probabilistic incremental wave analysis. J Constr Steel Res 67(5):759–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grêt-Regamey A, Straub D (2006) Spatially explicit avalanche risk assessment linking Bayesian networks to a GIS. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6(6):911–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2007) Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment-Frame Buildings, PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific Engineering Research Center. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  42. Hasofer AM, Lind NC (1974) Exact and invariant second-moment code format. J Eng Mech Div 100(1):111–121Google Scholar
  43. Hastings WK (1970) Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57(1):97–109MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Helton JC, Davis FJ (2003) Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 81(1):23–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hohenbichler M, Rackwitz R (1983) First-order concepts in system reliability. Struct Saf 1(3):177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huntington DE, Lyrintzis CS (1998) Improvements to and limitations of Latin hypercube sampling. Probab Eng Mech 13(4):245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report no 152, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, 324 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. Jalayer F (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, 244 ppGoogle Scholar
  49. Jalayer F, Beck JL (2008) Effects of two alternative representations of ground-motion uncertainty on probabilistic seismic demand assessment of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(1):61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2003) A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity factor design (DCFD) seismic formats. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) 2003/08Google Scholar
  51. Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(8):951–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jalayer F, Franchin P, Pinto PE (2007a) A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability analysis of RC frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):2059–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jalayer F, Franchin P, Pinto PE (2007b) Considering structural modelling uncertainty in seismic reliability analysis of RC frames: use of advanced simulation methods. In: Proceedings of the conference: COMPDYN 2007, paper ID: 1218, Crete, Greece, 13–16 June 2007Google Scholar
  54. Jalayer F, Iervolino I, Manfredi G (2010) Structural modeling uncertainties and their influence on seismic assessment of existing RC structures. Struct Saf 32(3):220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jalayer F, De Risi R, Elefante L, Manfredi G (2013) Robust fragility assessment using Bayesian parameter estimation. Paper presented at the Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013 (VEESD 2013), Vienna, 28–30 AugGoogle Scholar
  56. Jaynes ET (2003) Probability theory: the logic of science. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Liel AB, Haselton CB, Deierlein GG, Baker JW (2009) Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Struct Saf 31(2):197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Liu P-L, Der Kiureghian A (1991) Optimization algorithms for structural reliability. Struct Saf 9(3):161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Luco N (2002) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, 260 ppGoogle Scholar
  60. McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, 240 ppGoogle Scholar
  61. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E (1953) Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 21:1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moehle J, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, 1–6 Aug 2004, 13 ppGoogle Scholar
  63. Novák D, Teplý B, Keršner Z (1998) The role of Latin Hypercube Sampling method in reliability engineering. In: Shiraishi N, Shinozuka M, Wen YK (eds) The 7th international conference on structural safety and reliability, ICOSSAR 97, vol 2. Balkema, Rotterdam (Kyoto, Japan)Google Scholar
  64. Olsson A, Sandberg G, Dahlblom O (2003) On Latin hypercube sampling for structural reliability analysis. Struct Saf 25(1):47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Papadimitriou C, Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS (1997) Asymptotic expansions for reliability and moments of uncertain systems. J Eng Mech 123(12):1219–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Papadimitriou C, Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS (2001) Updating robust reliability using structural test data. Probab Eng Mech 16(2):103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pinto PE, Giannini R, Franchin P (2007) Seismic reliability of structures. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  68. Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R (2007) Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 23(2):471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rackwitz R, Flessler B (1978) Structural reliability under combined random load sequences. Comput Struct 9(5):489–494zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rezaeian S, Der Kiureghian A (2010) Simulation of synthetic ground motions for specified earthquake and site characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(10):1155–1180Google Scholar
  71. Rubinstein RY (1981) Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Russell SJ, Norvig P (2003) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. Schuëller GI, Stix R (1987) A critical appraisal of methods to determine failure probabilities. Struct Saf 4(4):293–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shinozuka M (1983) Basic analysis of structural safety. J Struct Eng 109(3):721–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shome N, Cornell CA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Report no RMS-35, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, 320 ppGoogle Scholar
  76. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE (1998) Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 14(3):469–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stein M (1987) Large sample properties of simulations using Latin hypercube sampling. Technometrics 29(2):143–151MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Straub D, Der Kiureghian A (2010) Bayesian network enhanced with structural reliability methods: methodology. J Eng Mech 136(10):1248–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tvedt L (1990) Distribution of quadratic forms in normal space-application to structural reliability. J Eng Mech 116(6):1183–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20(2):523–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vamvatsikos D, Fragiadakis M (2010) Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):141–163Google Scholar
  82. Vořechovský M, Novák D (2009) Correlation control in small-sample Monte Carlo type simulations I: a simulated annealing approach. Probab Eng Mech 24(3):452–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2007) Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):1901–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhao Y-G, Ono T (2001) Moment methods for structural reliability. Struct Saf 23(1):47–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zuev KM, Beck JL, Au S-K, Katafygiotis LS (2012) Bayesian post-processor and other enhancements of Subset Simulation for estimating failure probabilities in high dimensions. Comput Struct 92:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly