See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222691493

Earthquake risk assessment of building

structures

Article in Reliability Engineering [?] System Safety · December 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00105-3

CITATIONS READS

129 1,936

1 author:

Bruce Ellingwood
Colorado State University
298 PUBLICATIONS 5,998 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce Ellingwood on 05 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
www.elsevier.com/locate/ress

Earthquake risk assessment of building structures

Bruce R. Ellingwood*
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0355, USA
Accepted 16 August 2001

Abstract
During the past two decades, probabilistic risk analysis tools have been applied to assess the performance of new and existing building
structural systems. Structural design and evaluation of buildings and other facilities with regard to their ability to withstand the effects of
earthquakes requires special considerations that are not normally a part of such evaluations for other occupancy, service and environmental
loads. This paper reviews some of these special considerations, speci®cally as they pertain to probability-based codi®ed design and
reliability-based condition assessment of existing buildings. Dif®culties experienced in implementing probability-based limit states design
criteria for earthquake are summarized. Comparisons of predicted and observed building damage highlight the limitations of using current
deterministic approaches for post-earthquake building condition assessment. The importance of inherent randomness and modeling
uncertainty in forecasting building performance is examined through a building fragility assessment of a steel frame with welded connections
that was damaged during the Northridge Earthquake of 1994. The prospects for future improvements in earthquake-resistant design
procedures based on a more rational probability-based treatment of uncertainty are examined. q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Design (buildings); Deformations; Earthquakes; Limit states; Loads; Probability; Reliability; Risk; Statistics; Structural engineering

1. Introduction building codes. The legislated National Earthquake Hazard

Probability-based limit states design is the basis of most
new structural design standards and speci®cations world-
wide. The use of probabilistic concepts in this context
stems from the recognition that loads arising from occupant
usage and man-made and natural hazards and the strengths
of construction materials are uncertain in nature. These
uncertainties give rise to risk, which is managed by the
provisions in codes and standards. Structural reliability
methods provide tools for quantifying the safety levels
implied by such codes, and have been utilized in setting
the nominal (or characteristic) loads, load factors and load
combinations, and resistance or material factors found in
speci®cations for building design. These code-related activ-
ities re¯ect developments in reliability theory, supporting
databases, and advances in computational methods during
the past 25 years [14].
The management of risk due to earthquakes during this
developmental period of probability-based limit states
design has been problematic. Following the San Fernando
earthquake of 1971, there was a surge of activity in the
United States aimed at improving seismic provisions in
* Tel.: 11-410-516-8443; fax: 11-410-516-7473.
E-mail address: bruce.ellingwood@ce.gatech.edu (B.R. Ellingwood).
0951-8320/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0951-832 0(01)00105-3
Reduction Program (NEHRP) initiated a building industry-
wide activity under the auspices of the Building Seismic
Safety Council (BSSC) to develop the so-called NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings. These recommended provi-
sions have been updated periodically, most recently in 1997
[4]. These advances notwithstanding, more recent earth-
quakes have focused, the attention of the public on apparent
continuing de®ciencies in earthquake-resistant design prac-
tices. In particular, the Northridge Earthquake of January
17, 1994 resulted in weld fractures in the beam-to-column
connections in nearly 200 buildings with moment-resisting
steel frames. This behavior in what was viewed as the
premier structural system for high-seismic regions came
as a surprise to many structural engineers. Subsequent to
this earthquake, a number of research programs were under-
taken to address concerns regarding performance of steel
frames with welded connections and to further improve
earthquake-resistant design practice.
Traditional earthquake-resistant design practice has been
to include the earthquake effect in load combinations, as
with other loads. In the ®rst set of general probability-
based load combinations for buildings and other structures
[13,19], the following load combinations for earthquake-
resistant design were developed using ®rst-order (FO)
252 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
reliability methods:
fRn ˆ 1:2D 1 1:5E 1 0:5L …
fRn ˆ 0:9D 1 1:5E …
in which f is the resistance factor, Rn is the nominal (char-
acteristic) strength, D and L are dead and live loads, and E is
the structural action (moment, shear, etc) due to earthquake.
Eq. (2) governs when the dead load has a stabilizing effect
on the structure. These combinations were incorporated in
ANSI Standard A58.1-1982, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures. The basic approach has
been retained in more recent editions of that standard
[34], the recent NEHRP code recommendations [4], and
the new International Building Code [23]). The load factor
1.5 was reduced to 1.0 in 1993 to be compatible with the
concurrent advances in seismic hazard analysis and changes
in the speci®cation of the design earthquake.
The process leading to the above load combinations for
earthquake-resistant design raised a number of issues that
were not encountered for the other load combinations in
ASCE 7, and that have not been resolved in the intervening
years. First, the earthquake is a base excitation rather than a
clearly de®ned load, such as live, wind or snow. Second, the
structural response is dynamic, and must be related to
damage that occurs under repeated (and usually inelastic)
cycling. Third, the structural actions induced by the earth-
quake are system-wide, whereas the effects of many other
loads are more or less localized. Finally, and perhaps most
important, the philosophy of earthquake-resistant design is
to limit the occurrence of life-threatening damage under the
design earthquake rather than to prevent its occurrence
entirely. With this philosophy, permanent inelastic lateral
deformations and local damage might be severe; however,
the building would retain a substantial margin of safety
against overall collapse so that its occupants would not
become trapped within the building. The limit state for
such a performance requirement (life safety under an earth-
quake with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years
or, equivalently, an earthquake with a 475 year mean recur-
rence interval) is dif®cult to de®ne. The traditional notions
of `strength' used in FO reliability analysis are not entirely
relevant, and the notions of code calibrations based on
member ®rst-order reliability analysis, on which the prob-
ability-based load combinations are based [19], lose some of
their signi®cance. More recent research following the Loma
Prieta Earthquake of 1989 and the Northridge Earthquake of
1994 and the recent move toward performance-based design
in a number of quarters [16] have further highlighted some
of these dif®culties.
This paper surveys recent structural reliability methods
for improving earthquake-resistant structural design and
condition assessment practices. The fundamental issues
center on: (1) the underlying design methodology and
relation between performance requirements, which are
expressed qualitatively, and structural limit states, which
are expressed quantitatively through structural mechanics;
(2) identi®cation and analysis of uncertainties and support-
1†
ing statistical databases; (3) target reliability measures
established through an assessment of existing and presum-
2†
ably acceptable practice; and ®nally (4) practical criteria
that achieve the target reliability measures for design or
condition assessment, in some average sense, for all struc-
tures to which they are applied. The paper is organized
around these issues.
2. Performance requirements and limit states
Modern approaches to earthquake engineering call for a
building structure to remain undamaged during moderate
earthquakes and to dissipate suf®cient energy through cyclic
inelastic deformations to avoid structural collapse during
great earthquakes. Earthquake-resistant design procedures
take this inelastic behavior into account, implicitly through
the speci®cation of the base shear, V, which is computed
from a ground motion parameter (e.g. spectral acceleration
at the fundamental period of the building) and general
dynamic structural characteristics. The (modal) lateral
forces that are statically equivalent to this base shear are
distributed over the height of the building structure in a
manner that is consistent with its mode shapes. In the
NEHRP provisions [4], the base shear is,
V ˆ Cs W …3†
in which Cs is the seismic response coef®cient and W is the
gravity load of the building. The coef®cient Cs is tantamount
to a yield spectrum for an oscillator with 5% damping, and
is a function of period and a response modi®cation factor, R,
which depends on the nature of the structural system and de-
ampli®es the elastic response. The structural action due to V
de®nes the load, E, in Eqs. (1) and (2). The analysis is
performed elastically, and the members are proportioned
by the usual procedure. To account for the non-linear action
in the structure, the lateral de¯ection at story i is computed
as,
ui ˆ Cd uie …4†
in which Cd is the de¯ection ampli®cation factor and uie is
the elastically computed de¯ections. Note that any non-line-
arities in response and energy dissipation must be included
in the factors R and Cd [48].
Since damage rather than strength govern earthquake-
resistant design and evaluation, reliability analysis in this
case requires that a limit state be de®ned to capture the
notion of `damage' The damage done to a structure during
strong earthquake ground motion depends on the energy that
is transmitted to the structure as a whole and is absorbed or
dissipated through cyclic inelastic deformations. The earth-
quake engineering literature is replete with damage models
(reviewed in Refs. [2,9,15,26]. The simplest damage vari-
ables are those based on maximum inelastic deformation.
 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
These include ductility demand, de®ned as the ratio of
the maximum displacement of the system, umax, to its
displacement at yield, uy, and maximum inter-story drift,
which appears to correlate closely to damage to shear
walls, facades and non-structural partitions. Other damage
measures are based on damage accumulation laws similar
to those that are used in low-cycle fatigue analysis [38,45].
For example, the widely used Park/Ang/Wen model (1985)
is:
Z forces indicated that for normal axial forces in columns,
D ˆ umax =uult 1 b‰ dEŠ=Eult …
in which E is the hysteretic energy, uult is the deformation
capacity under monotonic loading, Eult is the hysteretic
energy capacity, and b is the experimental constant.
The ®rst class of damage variables do not distinguish
cases when there is one large excursion into the non-linear
range from cases where there are several such excursions
during a large earthquake with long duration. On the other
hand, the second class of models requires a determination of
the experimental constants in the damage accumulation
model (cf. Eq. (5)) and a time-domain analysis of the
dynamic characteristics of the excitation and structural
response in the time or frequency domain. A review of the
literature reveals no compelling advantage of the more
complex damage accumulation models over the simpler
deformation-based models. In particular, the coef®cient,
b , on the energy dissipation term in the Park/Ang/Wen
model is approximately 0.10 for steel or reinforced concrete,
making this model equivalent, for all practical purposes, to a
deformation-based model. Regardless of the damage
measure selected, one must map the damage measure to
heuristic descriptions of desired (or undesired) perfor-
mance: minor damage, severe damage etc. There are
substantial epistemic uncertainties associated with this
mapping, particularly with damage accumulation models
such as Eq. (5), which are normally calibrated to test data
to yield D ˆ 1:0 at ultimate. When limit states shy of
collapse are of interest, the corresponding D must be arbi-
trarily assigned values less than 1.0 [42].
Accordingly, at the current state-of-the-art, it is believed
to be suf®cient to de®ne the limit states for reliability analy-
sis purposes in terms of the overall inelastic deformation or
the maximum inter-story drift of the structural system.
Table 1 illustrates a possible mapping between performance
requirement and system limit state, expressed in terms of
Table 1
Performance requirements and limit states
Performance requirement Inter-story drift (%)
Serviceability 0.5
Non-structural damage 1.0
Impaired function 2.0
Life safety 5.0
Onset of collapse 8.0
253
inter-story drift, for buildings with special moment-resisting
steel and reinforced concrete frames [16,44]. The limits for
reinforced concrete shear wall buildings would be less by
about a factor of 2.
Similar limits have been suggested by a number of
investigators [6,49,51]. The inter-story drift at failure can
be modeled as a random variable, if such information is
available. For example, a review of the literature on
behavior of reinforced concrete frames subjected to lateral
5† the mean inter-story drift at failure is 0.066 and the COV
is 0.31 Fig. 3 of Ref. [11]. The fact that P 2 D moments in
columns become signi®cant at lateral drifts in excess of
about 0.02 lends additional support to the breakdown in
Table 1.
3. Sources of uncertainty in earthquake risk assessment
Earthquake risk assessment of building structures
requires: (1) identi®cation of the seismic hazard, described
by the annual probabilities of speci®c levels of earthquake
motion, P‰A ˆ aŠ; (2) analysis of response of the structural
system and its components; (3) calculation of limit state
probabilities of attaining a series of (increasingly severe)
limit states, LSi, through the expression:
X
P‰LSi Š ˆ P‰LSi uA ˆ aŠP‰A ˆ aŠ …6†
a
and, Eq. (4) relating these limit state probabilities to
building performance requirements. The conditional prob-
ability, P‰LSi uA ˆ aŠ; is denoted as the seismic fragility.
Uncertainties are associated with each phase of the risk
assessment, and must be displayed for the process to be
transparent.
3.1. Seismic hazard analysis
The seismic hazard at a building site is displayed through
a complimentary cumulative distribution function (CCDF),
which displays the annual frequency of motion intensity at
or above a given level, x, to that intensity. The technology
for performing seismic hazard analysis and developing
ground motions for design probabilistically has stabilized
[7,10,18,25,39]. Although intensity historically has been
de®ned in terms of the maximum ground acceleration
(zero-period acceleration), more recent trends have been
toward using the spectral acceleration at the fundamental
period of the building for this purpose. The process by
which the hazard curves are constructed involves uncertain-
ties that are both aleatory (or inherently random) and
epistemic (or knowledge-based) in nature. The former
category would include the magnitude and location of the
next earthquake in the seismic source zone and character-
istics of ground motion at the site. The latter would include
hypotheses regarding multiple seismic source zones, recur-
rence rates and Richter b-values, upper bound magnitudes,
254 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
attenuation relations, variation of ground response with
depth etc. In the nuclear industry, the practice has been
to display the epistemic uncertainty through a family of
hazard curves. In most other ®elds, including building
code development ([4]; ASCE 7-98), the different sources
of uncertainty are combined to yield one (mean or median)
seismic hazard curve.
Elementary seismic hazard analysis [7] shows that at
moderate to large values of ground acceleration, there is a
logarithmic linear relation between annual maximum
earthquake ground or spectral acceleration, and the prob-
ability, GA(a), that speci®c values of acceleration are
exceeded. This relationship implies that A is described by
a Type II distribution of largest values;
GA …x† ˆ 1 2 exp‰2…x=u†2k Š …
in which u and k are parameters of the distribution. Para-
meter k de®nes the slope of the hazard curve which, in turn,
is related to the coef®cient of variation (COV) in annual
maximum peak acceleration. Earthquake hazards in high-
seismic areas (e.g. California) generally can be associated
with a series of capable faults. Such faults are not apparent
in areas of low seismicity (e.g. eastern United States), and
the larger uncertainty due to the absence of large events
during the historical period of observation causes the hazard
curve for such areas to be relatively ¯at in comparison. The
seismic hazard analyses on which the NEHRP Recom-
mended Provisions [4] are based indicate that k is of the
order of 3±3.5 (COV of 50±70%) in the western US, and
decreases to approximately 2±2.5 (COV in excess of 100%)
in the eastern US. The basic seismic hazard is by far
the largest single source of uncertainty in earthquake risk
analysis.
3.2. Characteristics of ground motion
Earthquake ground motion can be modeled in either time
or frequency domains. A vast number of ground motion
records are maintained by the California strong motion
network, and these have been used in numerous studies
[2,32,35,36,41]. The ability to model earthquake ground
motion stochastically in time and frequency domains has
matured considerably in recent years. In the SAC project,
[41], and in other recent studies [44], ensembles of actual
ground motion records, appropriately scaled to the spectral
acceleration at the fundamental period of the building, have
been used in probabilistic studies of building response. This
approach accounts for non-stationarity in amplitude and
frequency content in acceleration in a natural way, and is
compatible with recent risk analysis approaches that involve
a non-linear structural response analysis performed in the
time domain.
3.3. Structural response
The structural response of a multi-degree of freedom of
system is described by the dynamic equation of equilibrium,
Mx 1 C_x 1 F…x† ˆ 2MIag …8†
in which x is the relative displacement, M and C are mass
and damping matrices, F(x) is the restoring force vector, I is
the identity vector, and ag is the ground acceleration. The
non-linear response of the structural system during large
earthquakes is taken into account through the restoring
force, F(x), modeled by an appropriate hysteresis rule.
With the advances in computational power and ef®ciency
during the past decade, most recent reliability studies of
complex building systems have utilized non-linear ®nite
element computational platforms and time-domain analysis,
with Monte Carlo simulation to manage the uncertainties
in ground motion and response. There appears to be little
7†
need for approximate closed-form random vibration analy-
ses nowadays, other than as an independent check on the
®nite element analysis, as the choice of restoring force and
ground motion model is restricted if the non-linear response
is computed by classical random vibration methods. One
model that can be implemented conveniently in non-linear
random vibration analysis with equivalent linearization is
the Bouc model [1,24,46]. In contrast to many of the hyster-
esis models, alluded to above, the restoring force from this
model is smooth.
In general, current structural response analysis capabil-
ities are suf®cient for risk analysis purposes. One possible
exception is in the area of modeling the change in hysteretic
forces, F(x), in structures that have suffered damage as a
result, of strong ground motion. Experimental data to de®ne
such forces are limited [12] and integrating such models into
®nite element analysis can be problematic [30].
3.4. Structural system capacity±fragility models
A structural fragility represents (probabilistically) the
capability of ground motion to cause structural damage,
and is an essential ingredient of the fully coupled risk
assessment that is summarized by Eq. (6). It can also be
used to determine probabilistic safety margins against
speci®cally identi®ed earthquake events for design, evalua-
tion and regulatory purposes. This latter use of fragility
analysis has a number of advantages: (1) the structural
response and limit state determinations are uncoupled
from the basic seismic hazard analysis. Thus, while knowl-
edge of the hazard is useful in identifying appropriate
review-level events (e.g. an earthquake with a 2% probabil-
ity of being exceeded in 50 years, or 2475 years MRI earth-
quake), such knowledge is not essential. One might, for
example, simply inquire as to the fragility were the maxi-
mum considered earthquake to be exceeded by 50%. (2) The
need to interpret and defend very small limit state probabil-
ities (in the order of 10 23 or less/year), such as might be
computed from the fully coupled risk analysis in Eq. (6), is
avoided. (3) A properly conducted fragility analysis is less
complex, less costly, and involves fewer disciplines than a
 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
Fig. 1. Hazard±fragility interface, identifying dominant contributors to risk.
fully coupled risk analysis, and the results are more easily
explained to a non-specialist decision-maker or regulatory
authority.
The fragility is de®ned as the probability of attaining a
limit state, conditioned on a particular value of a random
demand, X [5,28]. It has been customary to model compo-
nent or system fragility by a lognormal cumulative distribu-
tion function (CDF):
FR …x† ˆ F‰ln…x=m R †=bR Š …9†
in which F [ ] is the standard normal probability integral, mR
is the median (50th percentile) fragility, and the logarithmic
standard deviation, b R, describes the inherent variability in
the capacity of the component subjected to an earthquake
with peak (ground or spectral) acceleration, x. For COV in
capacity, VR, less than about 0.3, b R ˆ VR : The lognormal
model of fragility is relatively convenient to use, and has
some theoretical justi®cation as well [12]. Simulation
studies involving steel moment frames [44] and reinforced
concrete frames [11,22,42] show that the lognormal CDF
provides an acceptable fragility model well into the inelastic
range of response.
As with the seismic hazard analysis, various modeling
assumptions and limitations in the supporting databases
give rise to epistemic uncertainties that affect the fragility
of a structure or component and must be taken into account.
If it is assumed, to ®rst order, that these epistemic uncer-
tainties, b U, affect the estimate of the median capacity, mR,
in Eq. (9), then mR can be thought of as a (Bayesian) random
variable, MR, with median mR and logarithmic standard
deviation, b U. Removing the conditioning on mR in Eq. (9)
leads to,
FR …x† ˆ F‰ln…x=m R †=bC Š …10a†
in which,
q
bC ˆ b2R 1 b2U …10b†
255
It should be noted that a fragility assessment describes the
performance of the system as a whole with respect to some
limit state of performance (here, measured in terms of defor-
mation, as described earlier). A ®nite element analysis that
includes both second-order geometric and material non-
linearities is required to support this assessment.
3.5. Structural system reliability
A point estimate of the limit state probability for state i
can be obtained by convolving the fragility FR(x) with the
derivative of the seismic hazard curve, GA(x), thus removing
the conditioning on acceleration (cf. Eq. (6)):
Z1 dG
P‰LSi Š ˆ FR …x† A dx …11†
0 dx
The parameters at the fragility±hazard interface must be
dimensionally consistent for the probability estimate to be
meaningful.
Additional insight into the sources of earthquake risk can
be gleaned from a close examination of the convolution in
Eq. (11) at the hazard±fragility interface. This behavior is
illustrated conceptually in Fig. 1 The parameters xmin and
xmax in Fig. 1 are de®ned such that 95% of P‰LSi Š is deter-
mined by accelerations within those limits. In words, most
of the limit state probability in Eq. (11) is derived from
earthquakes giving rise to accelerations in this range. One
might say that such earthquakes are `dominant contributors'
to seismic risk. Previous studies of seismic risk have
suggested that such accelerations correspond to 1±2 times
the 475 year mean return period earthquake, which has
been the basis for earthquake-resistant design. It follows
that investments in efforts to better de®ne the nature of
the seismic hazard outside this range will have little return
insofar as risk reduction is concerned.
If FR(x) in Eq. (11) is lognormal and GA(x) has a Type II
distribution of largest values, Eq. (11) can be simpli®ed
256 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
using the observation above that the major contribution to
risk comes from a relatively narrow range [8]. Approxi-
mating GA(x) as log-linear over that range, we ®nd that,
P‰LSi Š ˆ GA …mR †exp‰…kVR †2 =2Š …12†
In words, this says that the limit state probability is equal
to the seismic hazard, evaluated at the median fragility,
multiplied by a correction factor. If VR ˆ 0:15 (a typical
value) and k ˆ 3 (as noted before), this correction factor
equals 1.11; if k ˆ 2; it equals 1.05. For all intents and
purposes, then, the limit state probability can be estimated
by performing a deterministic structural response analysis
with all parameters at their median values, and evaluating
the seismic hazard at the median response value thus
determined. The uncertainty associated with the prediction
of the basic seismic hazard (measured by k) is very large in
comparison with other sources of uncertainty in the relia-
bility evaluation, especially in areas of low seismicity. In
such cases, replacing the fragility in Eq. (11) with a median
value and neglecting VR entirely will have little impact on
calculated risk. It would be more bene®cial to ensure that
the median dynamic structural response is estimated as
accurately as possible.
4. Risk assessment of building structures
4.1. Assessment of traditional design criteria
The ®rst generation of probability-based limit states
design codes are based on a code calibration process, in
which (1) the reliabilities of members designed by existing
conventional earthquake-resistant design practice were
determined, and (2) these reliabilities set the benchmarks
for new criteria. The basic assumption in this process is that
traditional design procedures have provided acceptable
structures (in terms of reliability) for different combination
of loads. For load combinations involving earthquake
forces, this assumption is arguable.
In the ®rst attempt to perform this calibration, [19], the
limit state was de®ned as,
M 2 cV ˆ 0 …13†
in which M is the ¯exural capacity of a beam or column, V is
the base shear determined from Eq. (3), in which all para-
meters are treated as random variables, and c is the struc-
tural analysis factor required to transform base shear to
structural action. Both steel and reinforced concrete beams
and columns were considered. Using advanced FO reliabil-
ity analysis [33], it was found that the reliability index, b
(50 year basis), fell within the range of 1.75±2.25 for struc-
tures with periods between 0.5 and 1.0 s. These values of b
seemed low in comparison with those for structural
members in which the gravity load combinations governed
design, which fell in the range of 2.5±4.0. In a sense, the
comparisons were misleading. The analysis based on Eq.
(13) involved structural system behavior indirectly, in the
determination of both V (through response modi®cation
coef®cient, R) and the lateral de¯ections (through Cd).
Moreover, the limit states differ as well (life safety vs. loca-
lized structural damage from yielding or formation of
plastic hinges). Without suf®cient information to resolve
this issue, however, the new probability-based load combi-
nations (e.g. Eqs. (1) and (2)) were based on these lower
b 's.
More recent studies have utilized non-linear dynamic
analysis tools to include inelastic deformation and energy
dissipation in the system reliability analysis directly, rather
than through coupling R and Cd to a static elastic analysis.
Such studies have been performed on steel portal frames
designed by US or Japanese building codes [31,36,50], rein-
forced concrete frame and shear wall structures designed by
the Uniform Building Code [22] and multistory reinforced
concrete frames designed by the New Zealand and Mexican
codes [17,37]. These studies, without exception, all lead to a
similar conclusion: that the apparent limit state probability
when design is governed by seismic load provisions is less
than when design is governed by one of the gravity load
combinations. Moreover, the b 's obtained from more
complex, dynamic analyses involving limit states that
re¯ect inelastic behavior explicitly are essentially the
same as the b 's obtained from the earlier simple static-
for-dynamic analysis. Thus, the evolution of codes used
for existing earthquake-resistant structural engineering
practice apparently has led to a situation in which the
measures of reliability associated with different controlling
design load combinations are not the same.
4.2. Recent developments in fragility modeling of steel
frames
The Northridge Earthquake of 1994 (Richter Scale ML ˆ
6:4†; resulted in weld fractures in beam-to-column connec-
tions in nearly 200 buildings with special moment-resisting
steel frames. Many of the failures observed in connections
that were inspected following the earthquake involved a
weld fracture that initiated at the root of the groove weld
connecting the bottom ¯ange of the beam to the column
¯ange [21]. To investigate building performance issues
and to support improvements in probability-based limit
states design for steel structures, four welded steel moment
steel frames that suffered connection damage in the
Northridge Earthquake were evaluated using a stochastic
approach [43,44]. The evaluation of one of these building
frames is summarized below. The comparison of predicted
behavior to that observed during inspections following
the earthquake identi®es limitations in current modeling
procedures and the role of uncertainty in forecasting
building performance.
4.2.1. Description of the building frame analyzed
The non-linear action in steel building frames that are
 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
Fig. 2. Hysteresis model for damaged welded connection.
subjected to a number of reversals of inelastic deformation
during a large earthquake is concentrated in the beam-
to-column connections. The analysis must replicate this
moment-rotation behavior in order to model the deteriora-
tion in connection rigidity and the resulting redistribution of
forces and increases in lateral drift within the frame. Fig. 2
illustrates a hysteretic moment-rotation model that was
developed to model the effect of this particular type of
connection damage [21]. This model is based on tests of
structural connections that were conducted as part of the
SAC Joint Venture [40], a large research program initiated
following the Northridge Earthquake to deal with perfor-
mance issues raised. In the undamaged state, the hysteresis
is characterized by a bilinear envelope with a yield capacity
speci®ed as My. The moment at fracture of the groove weld
is denoted Mcr, which is speci®ed as a fraction of My.
Following weld fracture, the primary envelope is replaced
by a degraded bilinear representation with reduced stiff-
ness, reduced capacity, and a modi®ed post-yield slope.
Typical values of the hysteresis parameters are k2 ˆ
0:05k1 ; b1 ˆ 0:4; b2 ˆ 0:2; and b3 ˆ 0:4; with both b 4
and b 5 equal to 1.0 [43]. This moment-rotation model was
incorporated in a program that performs inelastic dynamic
analyses of planar steel frames [30].
The of®ce building analyzed is relatively modern, and its
framing system was designed using the seismic provisions
in Los Angeles in about 1985. The building is located
approximately 10 km from the epicenter on an alluvium
site. Its overall plan dimensions are 45 £ 33 m 2, and the
story heights range from 4 to 4.7 m. The moment frames
in this building are single-bent, and are approximately
12.5 m in span [43]. A typical moment frame from this
building is illustrated in Fig. 3. An explanation of the
symbols on Fig. 3 will be provided as its behavior is
discussed below. The actual strength and stiffness properties
257
of the steel members in the structural system differed
from the values that are assumed for design purposes.
The steel in the beams satis®ed the requirements of
ASTM A36 steel, with speci®ed yield point 248 MPa
(36 ksi), while the columns met the requirements of
ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel, with speci®ed yield point
345 MPa. The mean beam and column yield strengths,
based on tests conducted at Lehigh University [27] were
291 and 393 MPa, respectively.
A 2D non-linear dynamic model of the building frame
was constructed. The fundamental period of the building
was calculated as 1.6 s, and the structural damping was
assumed to be 2%. Ground motions from the Northridge
Earthquake were unavailable at the site of this building.
Thus, an ensemble of nine ground motions developed in
Phase 1 of the SAC Joint Venture [20] for a 1 km grid
surrounding this particular building site were used in its
analysis. The ®rst mode dominated the response of the
frame in the elastic range. The roof displacement angle
(RDA), de®ned as the maximum roof displacement normal-
ized by the building height, often is used as a relative
measure of building response when de®ning deformation-
related limit states in earthquake engineering. The non-
linear response of a frame can be characterized by a
`pushover' analysis, in which the lateral forces (proportional
to the ®rst-mode forces) are applied to the system [29]. The
pushover analysis of this building frame indicated that
non-linear action initiated at an RDA of approximately
1%, which is typical of such structural systems. A detailed
comparison of the predicted and observed dynamic
responses of this building to a suite of ground motion
records is presented elsewhere [43]. Fig. 3 compares the
predicted and observed connection damage patterns in
the frame obtained using one of the nine ground motions
in the ensemble. If connection damage of the type modeled
258 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262

Fig. 3. Surveyed and predicted damage for typical moment-resisting frame.

by Fig. 2 was observed or predicted, that portion of the
circle is darkened. The agreement is reasonable, but
differences are clearly apparent. These differences stem
from the large uncertainties in the ground motion model
and structural response modeling process. The uncertainty
in structural response can be captured by the building frame
fragility.
bility compared to the uncertainty in earthquake ground
motion [36], and are set equal to their mean values.
The stochastic analysis of non-linear building response in
the time domain requires an ensemble of ground motions.
Table 2
Random strength parameters

4.2.2. Structural fragility of steel building frame Parameter Mean COV CDF
The structural parameters that are treated as random Fy (column) (MPa) 393 0.12 Lognormal
variables, and their distributions are listed in Table 2. An Fy (beam) (MPa) 290 0.12 Lognormal
analysis of variance [44] indicated that the most statistically b1 0.40 0.29 Uniform
signi®cant hysteresis parameters were b 1 and b 5; other b5 0.95 0.09 Uniform
E (GPa) 200 0.06 Uniform
hysteresis parameters are treated as deterministic. Gravity
Damping 0.02 0.62 Lognormal
loads and building mass are known to have a small varia-
 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262 259

Fig. 4. Building fragilities for minor and severe damage states.

The ensembles of ground motions simulated for the 1 km
grid surrounding the building can be used for this purpose.
Alternatively, historic earthquake accelerograms with
comparable magnitudes and epicentral distances can be
used [41]. Either way, the peak ground motion intensities
vary from record to record. Fragility and risk analysis
require a common ground motion intensity measure to
which the building resistance can be keyed. The spectral
acceleration, Sa, at the fundamental period of the building
can be used for this purpose (NEHRP, 1997).
The fragility, FR(x), is de®ned by the conditional prob-
ability (cf. Eqs. (6), (9), (10a) and (10b)),
FR …x† ˆ P‰LSuSa ˆ xŠ
in which LS represents the structural limit state correspond-
ing to the performance requirement (cf. Table 1) and the
control variable is the spectral acceleration at the fundamen-
tal period of the building. In this study, limit states are
associated with the RDA, to be consistent with research
conducted elsewhere as part of the SAC Joint Venture
[50]. The fragility is obtained from the cumulative distribu-
tion function of the RDA associated with that particular
limit state. For example, for the RDA ˆ 0:02 associated
with the LS as `minor damage' (cf. Table 1),
FR …x† ˆ P‰minor damageuSa ˆ xŠ …
FR …x† ˆ 1 2 P‰RDA , 0:02uSa ˆ xŠ …
To determine these conditional probabilities, the ground
motion ensembles are scaled to increasing values of Sa at
the fundamental period of the building, the corresponding
dynamic responses of the frames are determined at each
value of Sa, the responses are rank-ordered on lognormal
probability plots, and the fragility is determined from
Eqs. (15a) and (15b). Fig. 4 compares the fragilities for
two limit states: minor damage …RDA ˆ 0:02† and onset
of severe damage …RDA ˆ 0:05†: The variability in perfor-
mance increases substantially as the damage state becomes
more severe. In passing, it is interesting to note that the
fragility for the 0.05 drift limit state in Fig. 4 is similar to
the fragility for the `moderate' damage state in reinforced
concrete frames shown in Fig. 11 of Ref. [42].
5. Condition assessment and probability-based design
Current earthquake-resistant design procedures [23] do
…14†
not relate performance goals to probability. Probability is
however, used to de®ne the return period of the design
earthquake. Thus, in the near future, one might envision a
building safety evaluation process requiring, in part, that an
ordinary building should not suffer `severe damage' with
90% con®dence if subjected to an earthquake with a mean
recurrence interval of 500 years. The 500 year earthquake
might be characterized by a spectral acceleration of approxi-
mately 0.6g in many areas of the Western United States.
Using the building fragility summarized in Fig. 4, the 10-
percentiles for the steel frame considered range between
0.84 and 1.02g, depending on whether simulated or recorded
15a†
ground motions are used. Thus, it is unlikely that building
would be severely damaged. On the other hand, the prob-
15b†
ability of moderate damage …RDA ˆ 0:02† ranges between
27 and 61%. Such analyses could be used as a basis for
public policy and determining the extent of post-disaster
rehabilitation likely to be required following the occurrence
of such an earthquake.
Carrying the analysis one step further to the fully coupled
risk analysis case, the limit state probabilities can be
260 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
estimated from Eq. (8) if the slope, k, of the seismic hazard
curve is known. Assuming, for example, that k ˆ 2:4; the
annual probabilities for moderate and severe damage to this
frame are, respectively, 0.0028 and 0.00034. On a 50 year
basis, the limit state probability for severe damage is
approximately 0.017, which corresponds to a reliability
index of approximately 2.1. These results are similar to
those obtained recently for steel frames by other investiga-
tors [6,49,50], and to values reported during the past two
decades in a variety of studies and contexts.
One of the goals of reliability-based design is to achieve
measures of reliability across competing hazards that are
consistent with the nature of the hazard, its consequences,
and the expectations of the building owner and occupants.
The ®rst generation of probability-based design criteria (e.g.
Eqs. (1) and (2)) were developed in such a way as to be
easily used in the customary manner by engineers who were
not familiar with the underlying probabilistic concepts.
There is only one performance objective (life safety) and
one corresponding safety checking equation for earthquake-
resistant design. The aftermath of several natural disasters in
the United States has made it apparent that this narrow view
of building performance is not socially or economically
acceptable [16]. Performance-based design is a new para-
digm, in which the design objectives are aimed at meeting
the performance expectations of the building occupants and
the public. These expectations often exceed what is implied
by the life-safety requirement in current codes. Most recent
proposals for performance-based codes distinguish the
performance requirements for different building occupan-
cies, depending on what are the consequences of failure.
Moreover, designing to multiple levels of hazard is a
common ingredient of such proposals. Recent advances in
earthquake risk analysis make such an approach feasible,
and a number of investigators [6,47,49] have suggested
design for two levels of earthquake. For example, the
code might require that no structural damage be suffered
during a 100 year mean recurrence interval event (a
`serviceability' requirement of sorts), while no collapse
should occur during a 2500 year event. Questions naturally
arise as to what level of hazard should be speci®ed for
different performance levels, and with what con®dence
should the building survive if such a hazard where to
occur. For example, is the probability 0.017 of severe
damage to a building with a steel moment frame under a
500 year return period event acceptable? It is clear that the
®rst-generation probability-based LRFD criteria, with their
constant load and resistance factors, provide little help in
answering such questions. It is dif®cult to see how perfor-
mance-based design can reach its full potential without an
explicit consideration of the risk levels associated with
different performance objectives for different building
categories.
The probabilities for the life-safety and incipient building
collapse limit states in earthquake structural engineering
are necessarily low. The risk estimates invariably are
based on analytical models, rather than on prototype
experimental data, because of the complexity of building
structural systems. In such circumstances, the credibility
of the computational platforms and supporting databases
becomes a critical issue. While the best way to validate,
an analytical model is through a comparison of calculated
and observed failure rates, such comparisons can be made
in earthquake engineering only for very simple models.
Absent such comparisons, the risk analysis process
must be `transparent', in the sense that the computational
(simulation) model and the supporting databases must be
well-documented, explainable to technically quali®ed non-
specialists, and subject to independent veri®cation and
audit. If quantitative risks and numerical safety goals
(expressed in terms of hazard or limit state probabilities)
are to be used as a basis for codes and public policy, the
calculated risks must be the result of an acceptable and
communicable process to facilitate public and professional
con®dence in the decision. This is particularly important
nowadays, where such decisions are closely scrutinized in
the public arena.
Most structural design and condition assessment pro-
cedures impart some bene®t from redundancy. Conversely,
a `redundancy factor' has been introduced into the earth-
quake provisions in ASCE 7-98 that effectively increases
the member design forces to compensate for lack of
redundancy. The impact of redundancy on performance
and limit state probabilities of buildings subjected to earth-
quakes, where it depends on the framing system and pattern
of lateral load, remains unclear. Recent studies have sug-
gested a statistical approach for dealing with the effect of
system redundancy in the member safety checks as part of
earthquake-resistant design [3]. However, a simple system
reliability analysis of a realistic frame for lateral earthquake
forces shows that the probabilistic effects of redundancy are
negligible because the uncertainty in the earthquake force is
so much larger than the variability in structural member
properties. Moreover, in an era in which static non-linear
pushover analyses to determine inelastic force redistribution
on the frame are becoming feasible in earthquake-resistant
design, such simple redundancy factors appear to have
questionable value and are dif®cult to rationalize [52].
6. Concluding remarks
Recent development in earthquake engineering [6,4,50]
indicate that probabilistic methods will be used increas-
ingly to provide the basis for improvements in earth-
quake-resistant structural design and condition assessment.
Comparisons of predicted and observed building damage
show that despite recent advances in non-linear dynamic
analysis and structural modeling, there are limitations in
using purely deterministic approaches for post-earthquake
building condition assessment. Uncertainties can lead to
signi®cant discrepancies between predicted and observed
 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
behavior, even when state-of-the-art modeling is employed.
A probabilistic analysis of building response is essential in
providing perspective on building behavior that is likely to
occur. The use of fragility models and limit state probabil-
ities can serve as a basis for improvements in structural code
development, condition assessment and performance-based
design. At the same time, there is a need for relatively
simple procedures for evaluating earthquake risk for
purposes of practical design, codi®cation and condition
assessment. Reliability analysis tools have become quite
sophisticated. Advanced computational methods may be
warranted for the evaluation of special structures, but such
methods are not economically feasible for the design and
condition assessment of the vast majority of buildings.
Nowadays, the needs are less for even more advanced,
computational platforms, but rather for a better understand-
ing of risk that are calculated and their implications for
building performance. The stage now has been reached
where it is easier to obtain answers than it is to obtain
good answers.
The process leading to the ®rst-generation probability-
based limit states design criteria sidestepped the important
risk validation issue, and this is an important area for
further research. More accurate probabilistic models of
ground motion or descriptions of response may not enhance
the credibility of provisions for earthquake-resistant
structural design or condition assessment, particularly at
the very low failure rates typical of civil construction.
Failure rates of structures depend not only on stochastic
variability, but also on the adequacy of models of behavior
used in analysis and design, control of design/construction
errors through communication, QA/QC, proper construction
supervision and in-service inspection. Methods for integrat-
ing these factors and communicating the credibility of the
analytical models, data and expert judgement in reducing
earthquake risk should be on the critical path for further
development.
References
[1] Baber TT, Wen YK. Random vibration of hysteretic degrading
systems. J Engng Mech Div ASCE 1981;107(6):1069±89.
[2] Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Shome N, Carballo JE. Three proposals for
characterizing MDOF nonlinear seismic response. J Struct Engng
ASCE 1998;124(11):1281±9.
[3] Bertero R, Bertero VV. Redundancy in earthquake-resistant design. J
Struct Engng ASCE 1999;125(1):81±8.
[4] BSSC (1998). NEHRP recommended provisions for the development
of seismic regulations for new buildings (1997 ed.). FEMA Report
302, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC,
1998.
[5] Casciati F, Faravelli L. Fragility analysis of complex structural
systems. Somerset, UK: Research Studies Press, Wiley, 1991.
[6] Collins KR, Wen YK, Foutch DA. Dual level seismic design: a
reliability-based methodology. Earthq Engng Struct Dynm 1996;25:
1433±67.
[7] Cornell CA. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am
1968;58(5):1583±606.
261
[8] Cornell CA. Risk-based structural design. Proceedings of the Sympo-
sium on Risk Analysis. University of Michigan, 1994. p. 37±48.
[9] Cosenza E, Manfredi G. Damage indices and damage measures. Prog
Struct Engng Mater 2000;2(1):50±9.
[10] Der Kiureghian A. Seismic risk analysis of structural systems. J
Engng Mech Div ASCE 1981;107(6):1133±53.
[11] Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ, Chryssanthopoulos MK. Seismic reliability
of RC frames with uncertain drift and member capacity. J Struct
Engng ASCE 1999;125(9):1038±47.
[12] Ellingwood B. Validation studies of seismic PRAs. Nucl Engng Des
1990;123(2):189±96.
[13] Ellingwood B, MacGregor JG, Galambos TV, Cornell CA. Probabil-
ity-based load criteria: load factors and load combinations. J Struct
Div ASCE 1982;108(5):978±97.
[14] Ellingwood B. Probability-based codi®ed design: past accomplish-
ments and future challenges. Struct Saf 1994;13(3):159±76.
[15] Ellingwood B. Probability-based codi®ed design for earthquakes.
Engng Struct 1994;16(7):498±506.
[16] Ellingwood B. Reliability-based performance concept for building
construction. Structural Engineering Worldwide 1998, Paper T178-
4, Elsevier (CD-ROM), 1998.
[17] Esteva L, Ruiz SE. Seismic failure rates of multistory frames. J Struct
Engng ASCE 1989;115(2):268±84.
[18] Frankel A, Mueller C, Barnhard J, Perkins DM, Leyendecker EV,
Dickman N, Hanson S. National seismic hazard maps: documentation
June 1996. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 96-532, 1996.
p. 110.
[19] Galambos TV, Ellingwood B, MacGregor JG, Cornell CA. Probabil-
ity-based load criteria: assessment of current practice. J Struct Div
ASCE 1982;108(5):959±77.
[20] Graves RW, Somerville PG, McLaren JP. Ground motion time
histories of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake at three sites. Report
prepared for NIST by Woodward-Clyde, National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1995.
[21] Gross JL. A connection model for the seismic analysis of welded steel
moment frames. Engng Struct 1998;20(4±6):390±7.
[22] Hwang H HM, Jaw J-W. Probabilistic damage analysis of structures.
J Struct Engng ASCE 1990;116(7):1992±2007.
[23] International Building Code (IBC) 2000. International Code Council.
Whittier, CA.
[24] Iwan W, Paparizos. Stochastic response of strongly yielding systems.
Probabil Engng Mech 1988;3(2):75±82.
[25] Kanda J, Dan K. Distribution of seismic hazard in Japan based on an
empirical extreme value distribution. Struct Saf 1987;493:229±39.
[26] Kappos AJ. Seismic damage indices for RC buildings: evaluation of
concepts and procedures. Prog Struct Engng Mater 1997;1(1):78±87.
[27] Kaufmann EJ, Fisher JW, DiJulio RM, Gross JL. Failure analysis of
welded steel moment frames damaged in the Northridge Earthquake.
Report NISTIR 5944, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, 1997.
[28] Kennedy RP, Ravindra MK. Seismic fragilities for nuclear power
plant studies. Nucl Engng Des 1984;79:47±68.
[29] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna G. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of
seismic performance evaluation. Engng Struct 1998;20(4):452±64.
[30] Kunnath SK. Enhancements to program IDARC: Modeling inelastic
behavior of welded connections in steem moment-resisting frames.
Report GCR 95-673, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, 1995.
[31] Kuwamura H, Galambos TV. Reliability analysis of steel building
structures under earthquakes. Structural Engineering Report 86-01,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN, 1986.
[32] Lai SP. Statistical characterization of strong ground motions using
power spectral density functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1982;
72(1):259±74.
[33] Melchers RE. Structural reliability: analysis and prediction. Chiche-
ster, UK: Ellis-Horwood Ltd, 1987.
262 B.R. Ellingwood / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (2001) 251±262
[34] Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE
Standard 7-98; formerly ANSI A58.1-1982). American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2000.
[35] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design. Earthq
Engng Res Inst Monogr Ser Berkeley, CA, 1982.
[36] O'Connor J, Ellingwood B. Reliability of nonlinear structures with
seismic loading. J Struct Engng ASCE 1987;113(5):1011±28.
[37] Ogawa S. A simpli®ed procedure for assessing failure probabilities of
reinforced concrete frame buildings under earthquake loading.
Research Report 88-11, Department of Civil Engineering, University
Of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1988.
[38] Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced
concrete buildings. J Struct Engng ASCE 1985;111(4):740±57.
[39] Reiter L. Earthquake hazard analysis: issues and insights. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1990.
[40] SAC Joint Venture. Experimental investigations of beam-column
subassemblages. Report No. SAC-96-01 Parts 1 and 2, SAC Joint
Venture, Sacramento, CA, 1996.
[41] Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records,
and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 1998;14(3):469±500.
[42] Singhal A, Kiremedjian AS. Method for probabilistic evaluation of
seismic structural damage. J Struct Engng ASCE 1996;122(12):
1459±67.
[43] Song J, Ellingwood BR. Seismic reliability of special moment steel
frames with welded connections I. J Struct Engng ASCE 1999;125(4):
357±71.
View publication stats
[44] Song J, Ellingwood BR. Seismic reliability of special moment steel
frames with welded connections II. J Struct Engng ASCE 1999;
125(4):372±84.
[45] Stephens J, Yao JTP. Damage assessment using response measure-
ments. J Struct Engng ASCE 1987;113(4):787±801.
[46] Sues RH, Wen Y-K, Ang AH-S. Stochastic evaluation of seismic
structural performance. J Struct Engng ASCE 1985;111(6):1204±18.
[47] Takeda T. New challenges for probabilistic performance-based
seismic design, Proceedings of the APSSRA'99 (Asian-Paci®c Sym-
posium on Structural Reliability and Applications). Taipei, Taiwan:
National Center for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 1999.
p. 330±41.
[48] Uang C-M. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building seismic
provisions. J Struct Engng ASCE 1991;117(1):19±28.
[49] Wen YK. Building reliability and code calibration. Earthq Spectra
1995;11(2):269±96.
[50] Wen YK, Foutch DA. Proposed statistical and reliability framework
for comparing and evaluating predictive models for evaluation and
design, and critical issues in developing such a framework. Report
No. SAC/BD-97/03, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA, 1997.
[51] Whittaker A, Constantinou M, Tsopelas P. Displacement estimates
for performance-based seismic design. J Struct Engng ASCE 1998;
124(8):905±12.
[52] Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C. Seismic response modi®cation
factors. J Struct Engng ASCE 1999;125(4):438±44.