Alternative Choices and Criteria

for Seismic Strengthening

G. M. Calvi
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS), Pavia

SUMMARY:
Risk assessment is affected by large uncertainties, depending on hazard, structure and damage analysis. Crucial
problems and choices may refer to: (i) hazard parameters, (ii) level of knowledge about materials, geometry,
detailing, (iii) assessed damage and failure modes (iv) resulting potential for step changes in performances.
The cost of attaining a high level of knowledge may significantly reduce the remaining resources, it is therefore
important to favour resilient solutions with a creative adoption of appropriate strengthening strategies.
In this framework, this paper discusses the possible criteria for the mitigation of seismic risk and some of the
alternative choices that may be adopted for strengthening, with reference to:
(a) the modification of damage and collapse modes strengthening individual elements or locally increasing
the deformation capacity;
(b) the insertion of additional systems resisting to horizontal actions;
(c) the introduction of base isolation, with the objective of capacity-protecting the existing structure;
(d) the reduction of displacement demand by added damping or introducing tuned mass systems.
Alternative strengthening choices lead to different protection levels and imply different performances, that are in
general represented by non linear or step functions. From these considerations, conceptual structure driven
strengthening criteria, based on a logical use of resources, are discussed.

Keywords: Risk, assessment, strengthening, isolation, damping, resilience, resources

1. MITIGATION OF SEISMIC RISK

1.1. Optimum use of the available resources

The objective of this paper is to review the present criteria and effective tools to reduce seismic risk by
improving the structural response, i.e. by increasing constructions resilience, and shall thus face the
impossible problem of comparing needs and resources.
Resources are actually the absent guest in all tables where the issue is to define the safety level to be
met when designing and constructing new structures, and much more so when the issue is reducing
vulnerability in existing constructions.
Even today, several codes of practice are simply stating that existing constructions should attain the
same level of safety prescribed for new buildings, thus evidently affirming an impossible
philosophical concept, not applicable to reality. As often happens when common sense is lacking, this
actually results in relevant negative consequences, since those responsible for the safety of a structure
prefer not to know the risk level than being informed without having the resources to reach the
required performances and facing the problem of adopting less effective measures or dismissing the
use of the facility (that may be a hospital or a school).
Ignorance becomes a desirable state of mind.
Alternative, sounder approaches have been adopted in several countries, defining possible
prioritization schemes that somehow associate the target performances and time window to reach
them to some risk rating (e.g.: Grant et al. (2007)).
Any prioritization scheme obviously implies the possibility of correcting performance level and time
constraints to available resource, thus in principle giving an answer to the problem of comparing
resources and needs. However, it is still not considered that the cost to reach a given performance will
differ from case to case, even for the same risk rating, depending on possible strengthening measures.
In addition, since the correlation between cost of intervention and performance level is in general
represented by step functions, as discussed in the what follows, the obstinate pursuing of a determinate
level of performance may result in irrational cost benefit ratios.

1.2. Design earthquake and performance levels

Most approaches to the definition of design earthquakes and related performance levels are derived
from the scheme originally proposed for new constructions in the Vision 2000 document (SEAOC
(1995)). This document was first introducing the concept of varying the expected performance for
different return period earthquakes as a function of the relevance of the facility. The resulting matrix is
well known and not essential in this context, while the numerical definition of four intensity levels in
terms of their return period or probability of exceedence (frequent (50% in 30 years), occasional (50%
in 50 years), rare (10% in 50 years), and very rare (5% in 50 years) is still used as a possible
reference. Even more relevant is the attempt of numerically defining the expected performance as a
function of a single parameter, the inter-storey drift, as shown in table 1.

Table 1. Definition of performance levels from Vision-2000 (SEAOC (1995))

Performance Level Performance Description Storey
Drift (%)
Fully Operational Continuous service, negligible damage 0.2 %
Operational Safe for occupancy, light damage, repairs for non-essential operations 0.5 %
Life Safety Moderate damage, life safety protected, repair possible but may be 1.5 %
impractical
Near Collapse Severe damage, collapse prevented, falling of non-structural elements 2.5 %

The concepts presented in the Vision 2000 document were elaborated and extended in the FEMA 356
(2000), but the next conceptual step was essentially due to the SAC project (Cornell (2002), where the
modelling of uncertainties was proposed), that inspired the development of a series of ATC documents
culminated with the ATC (2011), still in a draft form.

1.3. Assessment parameters

As pointed out, the inter-storey drift was identified as a potential fundamental parameter in a early
stage. However, in the first studies a clear distinction between the effects of structural and non
structural damage on performance was not discussed in detail. With reference to table 1 it appears that
for most buildings the first two performance levels refer to non structural problems, while the third
and fourth refer to structural problems. As such, the first two numerical values are likely to be more
reliable (or characterized by a lower dispersion) than the other two, since the prevention of brittle
failure modes and the structural design and detailing can affect very significantly these last two figure.
Note, too, that an increment of the level of knowledge (or a reduction of the epistemic uncertainties)
may have a much more relevant effect on them.
An in-depth study on the effects of different assessment parameters on the damage, and consequently
on the expected repair cost, of different construction elements is found in the ph. d. thesis of J.
Mitrani-Reiser (2007). In an extreme summary, it is there found that the structural damage for R.C.
frames can be correlated to a deformation damage index, which is essentially a function of inter-storey
drift demand versus capacity, while non structural damage can be related again to peak transient drift
(partitions, glazing), to peak floor diaphragm acceleration (acoustical ceilings, sprinklers), peak
ground acceleration (elevators), ratio of damaged area (paint).
The major relevance of displacement, drift and strain seems to be essentially confirmed.
1.4. Expected loss estimation

According to the Mitrani-Reiser approach, a loss estimate could be performed considering each
component-based fragility function and assuming a replacement cost equal to the total repair cost of
all damageable components considered.
A more complex approach has been proposed by Ramirez and Miranda (2009). Here, the component
inventory is still associated to damage fragility functions, but these are associated to a probability of
exceedence and to a probability of implying a repair cost level, according to a scheme developed at the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER, see Haselton et al. 2007).
It is interesting to note that the application of the two methods to the same sample reinforced concrete
frame building, designed confirming to the applicable codes, predict an expected annual loss
respectively equal to 0.55 and 0.9 % of the replacement cost.
A simplified approach based on direct displacement based assessment concepts, developed with the
aim of making it more applicable in the common practice, gave similar results (Sullivan and Calvi
(2011), Welch et al.(2012)).
It has to be underlined, however, that the main interest is here focused on buildings that do not
conform to applicable codes, where much larger uncertainties (and much larger annual expected loss)
have to be expected.

2. UNCERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT

2.1. Probability in performance-based assessment

As anticipated, a commonly accepted framework to include uncertainties in risk assessment has been
derived from the SAC project and included in different forms in FEMA and ATC documents. The
basic formulation can be represented as a triple integral, as follows:

This formulation can appear quite difficult and inapplicable to practical problems, it is instead a
convenient formal expression of the need of combining four steps of analysis (hazard, structural,
damage and loss), each one characterized by epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties, as described in
figure 1.

Figure 1. PEER methodology to estimate losses in a probabilistic framework (Haselton et al. 2007)
2.2. Hazard reference parameters and analysis

The aim of hazard analysis is to estimate an intensity measure of an earthquake expected with a given
occurrence, i.e. with a given yearly probability of exceedence or average return period. The traditional
parameter to represent the seismic hazard has been the peak ground acceleration (PGA), possibly
associated with a spectral shape to immediately estimate a structure acceleration.
Once made clear that displacements are more relevant than accelerations, it may appear rational to
shift to a displacement response spectrum as key intensity parameter. Someone may state that there is
no difference, since a displacement spectrum can be derived from an acceleration spectrum as:
(T)=(T/2)2SA(T). This is a misleading observation, since peak displacement and corner period are
essentially affected by the long period part of the acceleration spectrum, where accelerations are low
and consequently little attention is paid.
The discussion becomes more complex when the problem to be addressed is how to define the seismic
intensity parameter based on seismic sources and their assessed potential to induce given magnitude
earthquakes with specific recurrence intervals.
The standard approach is a site specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), based on
hazard disaggregation, i.e. on the separate consideration of all possible earthquakes that could occur
within a given region, their frequency of occurrence and the levels of ground motion they could
produce at a given site.
Often a PSHA is only carried out to calculate the PGA at a given return period and this is used to
anchor a spectral shape provided in a code. It is obvious that in this way the resulting spectrum is not
of uniform hazard, as the shape of a response spectrum in the code is fixed regardless of the return
period or location, instead of changing its shape with these two parameters, influenced by the
associated changing magnitude of the earthquakes which contribute most to the hazard.
Regardless of the procedure used to calculate PGA and spectral shape for a given return period at a
given site, structures will eventually be subjected to a single damaging earthquake event and thus,
considering the geographical variation of the ground shaking and the different response of each
building to its specific action, a variation of performance and damage has to be expected. However,
the magnitude and location of the next earthquake being unknown, it may seem rational to design all
structures to ground motions which should have the same probability of exceedence.
From a logical point of view, it appears that there are some potential flaws in the way of reasoning
briefly described above. Since low magnitude earthquakes, say, e.g., M5, which have perhaps a low
damage potential, are much more frequent than high magnitude ones, say M7, the uniform hazard
spectrum may be unrealistically dominated by small earthquakes. In general, close events are
dominating the hazard and a large magnitude earthquake is normally probabilistically relevant only as
a far distance event. However, it is unquestionable that in case of a M7 event it is likely that some
structure will be close to the epicenter. The case of a strong, close event seems in general to be of little
interest to a PSHA, unless extremely large return periods are considered. A structure is not likely to be
subjected to a large number of events during its life, thus responding with different performances to
each one of them. If a large magnitude earthquake should occur some structures close to the epicentre
are likely to be hit by actions much larger than those expected with a given return period and used for
design.
A possible (theoretical) solution to solve this problem has been proposed by Malhotra (2008), who
suggested to adopt an aggregate criterion, rather than a site specific one, thus imposing that the design
action should not be simultaneously exceeded over a given area more than a given number of times
per year.
Other, more radical, solutions are based on a combination of hazard and cost-benefit analyses to assign
directly the seismic strength to be provided to each building (Crowley et al. (2012)). This concept is
still at a development stage, but appears to be promising and presents some conceptual similarities to
the strengthening philosophy discussed later in this paper.
Since the main objective of this study is to propose alternative strengthening criteria, in the following
it will be assumed that the intensity parameters will be PGA and spectral displacement at 10 s period
(D10), their median will be obtained as a function of earthquake return period, and to each value will
be associated a spectral shape and a dispersion measure. The shape of the displacement spectra will be
assumed to be bilinear, being thus characterized by the value of the corner period only.
 PGA (g) D10 (mm)
500
0.45

0.35 300

0.10
50
50y 475y 2475y TR 50y 475y 2475y TR
Figure 2. Example of schematic representation of the median PGA (left) and D10 (right) expected at a given site
as a function of the earthquake return period. Note that in general D10 varies more than the PGA.

2.3. Structural analysis

2.3.1 Objectives and choices

In this framework, the objective of structural analysis is to obtain some engineering demand and
capacity parameters as a function of hazard parameters.
As discussed in section 1.3, the most relevant parameter to assess damage (the next step) can be
assumed to be the value of the inter-storey drift, either to estimate the non structural damage (in a
direct way) and the structural damage (estimating the elements curvature, or strain, demand and the
possible attainment of brittle failure modes). Less important parameters are the PGA, already
available, and an estimate of the floor accelerations (on which quite inadequate models are currently
recommended in most codes, see Sullivan et al., 2012).
While it is essentially accepted that a capacity curve and the associated displacement shapes can be
obtained through non linear static pushover analyses, different opinions exist on the best procedures to
assess the demands corresponding to different return period earthquakes.

2.3.2. Force-based assessment

Traditional seismic assessment has been based on a comparison between base shear capacity and base
shear demand, deducted from the acceleration spectrum assuming a period of vibration and a force
reduction factor. Both parameters can be calculated applying more or less sophisticated approaches,
i.e., using empirical equations to determine the period of vibration and evaluating the applicable force
reduction factor on the base of building typology or, at the other extreme, deriving both factors from a
pushover analysis, possibly including an assessment of possible brittle failures of elements that should
terminate the analysis.
In this last case a force based assessment procedure can provide accurate results, however essentially
limited to one single performance, i.e. the probability of reaching a collapse limit state. The
implication is that complex analysis tools may be applied without exploiting the potential of the results
obtained.
This applies to a larger extent to the possibility of performing a non linear time history analysis, in
which case to assess different performances it will be necessary to produce sets of accelerograms for
each one of the return period earthquakes of interest, essentially obtaining for each return period a
pass/fail result.
This is not surprising, once it has been accepted that drifts and strains are the key parameters for
damage assessment.

2.3.3. Displacement-based assessment

Considerations to apply direct displacement based concepts to practical building assessment were
published in the nineties (Priestley and Calvi (1991), Priestley (1997), Calvi (1999)) while a more
systematic and comprehensive presentation is much more recent (Priestley et al. (2007). The inclusion
of probabilistic concepts in direct displacement based assessment is the subject of present studies
(Sullivan and Calvi (2011), Welch et al. (2012)).
A deterministic prediction of the expected performance can be done as follows:
(1) Perform a capacity assessment of the building, producing a pushover curve and a series of
displacement profiles, possibly expressed as storey drifts, associated to specific performance
displacements pn (see figure 3). To each performance displacement associate an estimated
equivalent stiffness (Kpn) and viscous damping of the structure as a function of the corresponding
ductility (e,pn 0.05+0.5(1)/).
(2) Perform a demand assessment (fig. 4) producing a series of displacement spectra as a function of
D10 (and consequently of the return period) and of different displacement correction factors
(R=(7/2+)0.5). Clearly, the local soil amplification should be included in the spectra.
(3) Select the spectrum characterized by the assessed equivalent damping on which lies the point
corresponding to pn and Kpn. Each performance is thus associated to a specific return period.
Note that in case of brittle failures several performance levels will collapse into the same return
period earthquake.
Vbase Storey
(kN) p3 p1 p2 p3
p2 4
p1
3 P1
P2
P3
2
Ke,p3 e,p3
Ke,p2 e,p2
1
Ke,p1 e,p1

Displacement () Inter-storey Drift ()

Figure 3. Capacity assessment: pushover curve (left) and associated storey drifts (right).
?= 5% ?= 20%
0.50 0.50
TR=2475y TR=2475y
0.45 0.45
TR=975y TR=975y
0.40 0.40
TR=475y TR=475y
)
(m 0.35 ) 0.35
TR=50y
t
n TR=50y (m
e t 0.30
m 0.30 n
e
e
acl m
e
p 0.25 0.25
is acl
lD p
ar 0.20
tc
is 0.20
D
la
e
p
S 0.15 rt 0.15
c
e
0.10 p 0.10
S
0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (s) Period (s)

Figure 4. Demand assessment: samples of displacement spectra as a function of earthquake return period for
different values of equivalent damping (coherent with the current Italian code, note the different D10 values and
corresponding corner period).

2.3.4. Potential for step changes in safety

It is interesting to note that a displacement based seismic assessment, as presented here, is
conceptually driven by the structure response. In other words while the more traditional question to
answer is what will be the response of the structure to a given input ground motion in this
framework the proper question is what will be the earthquake that will induce a given performance.
This may appear an academic distinction, on the contrary it is a very practical and effective change.
Actually the characterization of hazard is normally represented with somehow smooth functions, while
abrupt changes may characterize any kind of performance function, for example in the form of points
where a significant change in stiffness is expected or, more dramatically, where some sort of local or
global failure is predicted. The implication is that imposing a given return period to design
strengthening may imply that an inconvenient point in the performance function will result.
Essentially, while the definition of a given return period or a given yearly probability of exceedence is
totally conventional, and consequently irrelevant, the association of a performance to physical events
is possible and desirable.
This concept applies to the choices related to a strengthening intervention to a much larger extent,
since the economical resources required to reach a given performance are normally changing with
finite steps. As discussed later, the selection of the strengthened structure performance cannot be
rationally defined without considering the discontinuity in some cost benefit function.

2.3.5. Level of knowledge about materials, geometry, detailing

In modern codes, an association between level of knowledge about the structure to be assessed and the
protection factors to be applied to obtain a certain level of protection is often explicitly defined. From
a conceptual point of view this is clear and rational: if one is more confident on the predicted response
can apply smaller protection factors.
This is exactly the point: the confidence about the predicted response in not necessarily a function of
the number of physical tests on structural materials and soil.
Again, the selection of quality and number of investigations to be performed should be driven and
justified by the preliminary assessed response and possible strengthening choices rather than
generically imposed in a document. As discussed later, note for example that when considering the
possibility of adding a shear wall system to a frame building the focus should probably be on
displacement compatibility and diaphragm action capacity of the floor, while in case of a possible
insertion of a base isolation system the level of shear capacity to be checked for the structure is limited
by the shear transmitted by the isolation devices.
A special case to be briefly addressed is that of structures that have been shaken by a known
earthquake. There is no doubt that in this case the best possible global test results are available to
understand the assessed response, those produced by the earthquake action itself. For example, a
minimum shear capacity of the soil foundation system can be immediately derived by an assessment
of the past earthquake demand.
The use of some sort of back analysis is not limited to recent, known events and can be a powerful tool
to design strengthening interventions.

2.4. Damage analysis

The objective of damage analysis is to associate response parameters (e.g., as discussed above, inter
storey drift or floor acceleration) and expected damage. Detailed discussions on this issue can be find
in Mitrani-Reiser (2007) and Ramirez and Miranda (2009). Since the purpose of this paper is to
discuss strengthening choices and criteria, it will be simply assumed to separate non structural and
structural damage, to associate the first one to inter-storey drift, for a share of 80%, and to floor
accelerations, for a share of 20% and to associate structural damage to inter-storey drift alone,
including the assessment of elements brittle failures.
As shown in figure 5, the drift part of non structural damage will be assumed to start at 0.2% drift, to
reach 50 % at 0.5 % drift and to be complete (100%) at 1 % drift. The floor acceleration (Saf) part of
non structural damage will be assumed to start at a Saf of 0.4 g and to be complete at a Saf of 2 g.
The structural damage will be assumed to vary as shown in figure 5, up to 5% inter-storey if no failure
is assessed at lower drift values, at to reach 100% at any drift value at which a brittle failure is
expected.
These assumptions are essentially consistent with what available in the literature, it is however clear
that all of them can be easily modified without loosing generality and probabilistic evaluations can be
included. Note that a value of non structural damage equal to 1 does not necessarily imply the
complete collapse of all non structural elements, but rather that the cost of non structural repair will be
similar to that of a complete replacement (or that a complete replacement is necessary).
100% 100% 100%
2, 1 0.01, 1 0.05, 1
80% e 80% e 80%
e ga ga 0.02, 0.8
g
a
m m
a m
a
a D 60% D
D 60% f f 60%
f o o
o
e e
ga e
ga
g
at 40% t40% t 40%
n n 0.003, 0.4 n
e
cr
e
cr e
cr
NS Acceleration NS Drift Sensitive 0.015, 0.3 Structural Damage
e
P
e e 0.005, 0
Sensitive Damage P20% Damage P20%
20%
0.4, 0 0.002, 0.1
0.01, 0.1
0% 0% 0%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
PeakFloorAcceleration(g) 0.001, 0 Inter-StoreyDriftRatio Inter-StoreyDriftRatio

Figure 5. Assumptions on floor accelerationassociated non structural damage (left, weight 20%), drift
associated non structural damage (centre, weight 80%), and driftassociated structural damage (right, note that
this plot can terminate at any drift value if a brittle failure is assessed).

2.5. Loss analysis

In the framework of performance based assessment, the objective of loss analysis is to calculate the
probable repair cost for each level of damage state defined in the previous step. In its extreme
simplification, this could be done assuming that the cost of repair will be proportional to damage, for
example associating 75% of the value of the building to non structural content and 25 % to structures.
Again, this can modified and elaborated and probabilistic aspects can be included without loosing
generality.
In this framework the attention will be focused on cost of different strengthening measures and on
their comparison with a reduction in the expected repair costs, to obtain some cost-benefit evaluation
to drive the strengthening choices.

3. PRESENT CRITERIA FOR SEISMIC STRENGTHENING

3.1. Use of strength verifications

Similarly to what has been discussed with reference to assessment, strengthening interventions have
been traditionally designed verifying that the strength capacity of each structural element was larger
than the force resulting on that element applying the design earthquake.
The typical procedure was thus based on the following steps:
(1) define the design earthquake, often considering the same event used to design new buildings;
(2) analyse the structure, obtaining for each structural member demand and capacity in terms of
strength;
(3) design a strengthening intervention for each member for which the demand is larger than the
capacity;
(4) analyse again the structure, to check that now all members strengths are larger than the actions;
(5) if this is not the case go back to step (3).
It is evident that this may be a very ineffective procedure. Consider for example the case in which a
soft storey response is predicted at the ground floor, thus limiting the shear force to the ground floor
capacity. Strengthening all columns at the ground floor may induce a soft storey in the second storey,
that will have to be strengthened, and so on.
Clearly, there is no reason why a good designer should not conceive a more comprehensive
intervention based on the results of the assessment, after step (2), applying intuition and experience,
then simply showing that all members are now verified. This, however, cannot be considered a
procedure. Note as well that this procedure is oriented to structural response, and does not pay any
attention to the reduction of non structural damage, even if this is implicitly reduced increasing
structural strength. Since it is recognized that non structural damage is essentially related to drift
demand, a verification of performance will imply a check that a drift limit is met at all floors by the
strengthened structure, possibly requiring further strengthening measures and iteration checks.

3.2. Use of displacement verifications

At the present state of practice, the application of displacement based approach to seismic
strengthening will require as a first step the definition of a series of displacement spectra as shown in
figure 4, and the definition of some required performance in terms of accepted displacement (normally
derived from accepted drift values) for each earthquake return period of interest.
The building to be strengthened should have been preliminary assessed, and consequently a pushover
curve and the associated drift or displacement profiles will be known, as shown in figure 3.
At this stage, engineering judgement and ingenuity should be applied to define a strengthening
intervention that will then be assessed producing a new series of capacity curves.
Clearly this approach is more comprehensive and desirable, essentially because of the immediate
determination of potential damage and failure modes and the estimate of the global response and the
global effect of the strengthening choices. However, also in this case there are at least two aspects that
are not satisfying: (i) the objectives of the intervention are still based on conventional, code assigned
performances, that do not take into consideration any sort of cost/benefit analysis, and (ii) no guidance
is provided on the optimal combination of measures to modify the expected response.

4. ALTERNATIVE CHOICES FOR ACTUAL STRENGTHENING

4.1. Introduction

In this section a very brief overview of possible strengthening measures will be discussed.
The purpose is to highlight relative effects, with no attempt to depict a complete and thorough
presentation, impossible within the space constraints of a paper.
A second important issue is an attempt of roughly indicating the relative costs of each possible choice,
to have later a frame that will allow the conceptual discussion of a rational approach to seismic
strengthening. All costs indicated have to be regarded as a reasonable academic exercise, whose
purpose is simply to allow a discussion of the procedure.

4.2. Modification of damage and collapse modes

4.2.1. Strengthening elements

A basic strategy to improve the seismic response of a building counts on the application of capacity
design principle to eliminate all possible sources of brittle failures. In this context it is thus possibly
required to increase some element strength in a selected way, to favour ductile damage modes. For
example, it is typical to increase the shear strength of columns and beams to obtain flexural failure
modes, to increase the strength of external joints, to increase the flexural strength of columns to shift
the formation of plastic hinges to the beams. This last example does not aim to avoid a brittle collapse,
but to prevent the formation of a soft storey. In some case (possibly academic) weakening ductile
modes has been considered instead of strengthening brittle ones.
These kinds of intervention tend to modify in a significant way the last part of the pushover curve (and
possibly the associated vertical deflected shape), increasing the displacement capacity of the structure,
but may have a negligible effect on the first part of the curve (the modification of stiffness up to
yielding is not significantly affected) and on the yield strength (since, in general, shear and flexural
failure modes have similar strengths).
Typical interventions are based on an external wrapping of an element or part of it, using carbon or
glass fibres, steel plates or thin layers of reinforced concrete (see, for example, figures 6).
It is obvious that the cost of strengthening an element will vary significantly, as a function of its
geometry and of the applied technique, however, analysing a large number of case, it has been
estimated that a reasonable average cost, that could be used for a rough first estimate, is about 200
per meter of beam or column.
 Figure 6. Examples of carbon fibres wrapping to increase the shear strength in a column (left, cost about 810
per element), steel encasing for the same purpose (centre, cost about 650 /el.), concrete casting to increase shear
and flexural strength (right, cost about 400 /el.).

It is also assumed that the average amount of linear elements in a reinforced concrete frame structure
is around 0.14 m per cubic meter of building (this derives from the assumption of 6 m spans beams in
both directions and 3 m tall columns: 6+6+3/663=0.14).
Clearly both values have to be considered as first estimate mean values, to which some measure of
dispersion could be associated to operate in a probabilistic environment.
If it is guessed or calculated the fraction of the total number of elements to be strengthened, it is thus
possible to estimate the total cost of the structural intervention:
Cost of Percentage of Cost of strengthening Element length per cubic Volume of building
intervention = elements to be per unit length [200 meter of building [0.14 [m3]
[] strengthened [%] /m] m/m3]

As shown in the photographs, heavy nonstructural interventions may have to be considered around
the elements to be strengthened. The related cost is assumed to be in the range of 100 /m3, weighted
by the per cent fraction of the elements to be strengthened.

4.2.2. Locally increasing the deformation capacity

If it is assumed that all the possible brittle failure modes have been eliminated by a proper application
of capacity design principles, i.e. by an appropriately selected local element strengthening, the
displacement capacity of the structure can be limited by insufficient curvature (and consequently
rotation) capacity in critical section of columns and beams.
An insufficient rotation capacity of columns can only be detected in case of a soft storey formation, or
exclusively at the column base. Note that a soft storey mechanism is not always unacceptable, it
depends on the associated storey rotation capacity (including second order effects) and the associated
global displacement capacity.
These kinds of intervention are normally bases on confining measures, to avoid bar bucking and to
increase the compression deformation capacity of concrete. Fibres wrapping and steel encasing are
thus again the typical choices, that however can be limited to the critical zones of the elements.
The effects on strength and stiffness will be even more negligible than in the previous case and the
effects will be still limited to the last part of the pushover curve.
The cost per structural member is therefore lower, but of the same order of magnitude, of that
discussed at the previous point. In the discussion of relative merits of different strengthening choices
no distinction will be made about these two kinds of strengthening for what concerns costs.

4.2.3. Inserting additional elements

A conceptually different approach to seismic strengthening relies on the insertion of additional
elements reacting to horizontal actions. This is normally based on steel braced frames (figure 7) or
concrete walls (possibly obtained strengthening masonry panels, figure 8), that could be inserted in the
interior of a building or outside it.
If the primary reaction system of the original building was already made by walls the purpose could be
to increase strength and stiffness and to regularize the torsional response, thus reducing the expected
damage even at relatively low displacement demand.
If the original structural system was based on frames, the introduction of much stiffer elements may
completely change the response, arriving at the limit that the original frame can give a negligible
contribution to the response, and the only fundamental requirement will be that its displacement
capacity will be larger than the displacement demand associated with the response of the new shear
wall system.
In all cases two issues will have to be carefully considered: the capacity of the foundations
corresponding to the new shear walls and the capacity of the horizontal diaphragm to transmit the
action, globally and locally. These issues will be addressed later.

Figure 7. Examples of insertion of steel bracings, internally or externally.

Figure 8. Examples of strengthening existing masonry walls (left) or inserting new concrete walls (right).

To estimate the potential average cost of this kind of intervention, it will be assumed to start with a
very weak structure and to take all the loads on the new system. Assuming to need a total length of 6
m of shear walls (250/300 mm thick) for a building area of 100 m2 and that the total cost of concrete,
including reinforcement and scaffolding, will be 600 /m3, the total cost per cubic meter of building
will result to be around 10 /m3.
To this cost it may be necessary to add the sum required to strengthen the floor diaphragms, if needed,
that will be of the same order of magnitude (35 /m2, or 10 /m3) and the cost of removal and
replacement of non structural finishing material, that may be extensively required when the walls will
be added internally or when an extensive floor strengthening will be required. This cost may be in the
range of 100 /m2 or 30 /m3.
The structural cost of steel braced frames is similar to that of concrete walls.

4.3. Introduction of isolation systems

4.3.1. Capacity protecting the existing structures

The insertion of an isolation system, at the base or at some height of the building, can often be a
ultimate and decisive intervention to improve the seismic performance of the building. The essence is
that in this way the maximum shear that will pass through the system is governed by the system
capacity. As an example, imagine to use friction pendulum devices: the maximum shear is essentially
governed by the stick-slip value, which is typically in the range of two times the dynamic friction
(Calvi et al. 2010). Using devices with a dynamic friction in the range of 3 to 5 %, it is likely that the
maximum base shear force on the building will be in the range of 6 to 10 % of gravity.
For earthquake events, or portions of events, that will not induce this level of acceleration, the
structure is responding like a fixed base structure, while for any value of acceleration exceeding this
value the difference in base shear, and consequently in structural drift demand, will be marginal.
The consequence is that for very frequent events the effects of the isolation system will be negligible,
but the damage minor, while for a large variation of demand, provided that the displacement capacity
of the isolation system is not reached, the damage will still be minor.

4.3.2. Procedures for devices introduction

The key issue with existing structure is the possible technique to insert the isolation system and,
consequently, the problems related to the relative movement between isolated part and original part of
the building, i.e. how to create the necessary gap, and the interaction between installations connected
to the two sides.
There are cases where the presence of some distance between inground structure and external
retaining walls allows a relative simple cut of the columns and the insertion of the isolators (figure 9)
in other cases it has been possible to create an independent foundation, possibly on piles, and to uplift
the whole building to insert the isolation devices between the now existing double foundation system
(figure 10).

Figure 9. Examples of introduction of an isolator: column cutting, temporary support, final configuration (cost
around 150 per square meter of building plan for the structural intervention, that could double to about 300 /
m2 considering the additionally required measures).

Figure 10. Building uplifting on new foundations and insertion of isolation devices (cost about 1,200 per
square meter of building plan).

The cost required for this type of strengthening measure may thus vary very significantly as a function
of the actual situation and obviously of the ingenuity of the solution.
Consider for example that cutting a column at the base, at the middle or at the top, will completely
change the bending moment diagram generated by the same shear force, and consequently induce the
need of strengthening the column itself or other parts of the structure. Consider as well that using a
single or double sliding surface device and positioning the concavity upward or downward may
change the elements on which the relative movement will induce a bending moment due to the
eccentricity of the vertical reaction.
In general, the global cost is proportional to the plan area of the building, rather than to its volume, and
may be as high as about 1,200 /m2 for the most complex cases, including uplifting.
A reasonable average estimate of cost per cubic meter of construction might be in the range of about
80 /m3, with a large coefficient of variation.
The design of this kind of strengthening should in general include the procedures for substituting a
device, to recentre the building after a strong event, possibly to test the response of the upgraded
system.

4.4. Reduction of displacement demand

4.4.1. Adding damping

It is obvious that a strengthening intervention may operate reducing the demand rather than increasing
the capacity.
Typically this may be obtained increasing the dissipation capacity of the building, i.e. increasing the
equivalent viscous damping level to be used to correct the acceleration and displacement spectra.
Normally this kind of provision is not adopted as a single measure, but is coupled with other
interventions, possibly strengthening some member to avoid brittle failure, or inserting new steel
braced frames, or in connection with the creation of an isolation system, to reduce the displacement
demand (figure 11). In this last case the problem of locally adsorbing a large fraction of the total shear
may require a local intervention on the foundation or on the upper structure, normally a shear wall.
In the case of a damped steel braced frame the devices can be inserted in the diagonal bracings, not
only to add damping, but also to keep the maximum shear force under control.
The cost associated with the introduction of dampers is extremely variable; a very crude estimate
could be in the range of 30,000 per damper, including all related costs.

Figure 11. Examples of introduction of a damper, with additional piles to strengthen the foundation, in
combination with the creation of an isolation system.

4.4.2. Introducing tuned masses

Another example of intervention oriented to the reduction of demand is the introduction of a tuned
mass. The general concept is simple: if the building can be regarded essentially as a single degree of
freedom system, with most of its mass associated to the first mode of vibration, adding a tuned mass
that vibrates with a similar period of vibration, but in the opposite phase, induce a favourable
reduction of shear force at all instants. This of course applies when the system responds essentially
elastically. A complete description of the approach for seismic application (Sadek, 1997) is obviously
more complex, and it can be shown that the maximum efficacy can be obtained when the ratio
(f=TS/TTM) between the first period of vibration of the building (TS) and the period of vibration of the
tuned mass (TTM) is equal to :
1
f = 1 S
1+ 1+
Where is the tuned mass divided by the mass of the first mode of vibration of the building and s is
the damping ratio of the building. Normally is less than 0.1 and consequently the periods of
vibration of mass and building are similar.
Again, it is difficult to give reliable figures of cost; considering that the mass of a building could be in
the range of 0.3 t/m3, the added tuned masses may be in the range of 0.03 t per cubic meter of building,
or, equivalently, of about 0.012 m3 of concrete. Including some estimate of a rubber bearing isolation
system, a rough estimate of a mean cost may be around 15 per cubic meter of building.
In favourable cases it is possible to have a reduction of shear forces and displacement demand of the
order of 50 %.

4.5. Local problems in force transfer

As anticipated, the introduction of additional reaction systems, of any sort, may induce problems of
force transfer, typically in the horizontal diaphragm and at the foundation level. The consequent need
of additional intervention implies higher costs, in the structure and in the non structural elements.
Examples of floor strengthening and introduction of additional diaphragm systems are shown in figure
12. A mean cost estimate for intervention of this type is in the range of 35 /m2, which corresponds
roughly to a cost of 10 /m3 considering the building volume.
This obviously excludes the cost related to removal and replacement of non structural elements, that
could be roughly estimated in 100 /m2 or 30 /m3, when a heavy intervention on the floors is
required, which may be the case either when a new reaction wall system is inserted inside the building
or when the existing floors are in general not adequate to transmit the floor forces.

Figure 12. Examples of strengthening the diaphragm action capacity: application of carbon fibres on the lower
side of a floor (left), insertion of a steel braced truss (centre), concrete casting at the foundation level (right). The
cost of these kinds of intervention is around 35/m2, plus the replacement of non structural elements.

Foundation problems may arise when additional shear walls or large size damping devices are added.
This may be emphasized by the possibly low knowledge about the real capacity of the soil-foundation
system and by the general tendency of adopting large protection factors on the foundations.
While on one side this approach is today questioned, since it is felt that the soil-foundation system
may often provide a convenient post elastic response (e.g.: Gazetas (2012)), on another side this is a
typical situation in which the application of back analysis principles can prove to be quite effective,
particularly when the strengthening intervention comes after a known earthquake event.
This aspect is discussed further in the next section.

4.6. Combination of different strengthening approaches: two examples

It is obvious that all the above indications have a conceptual nature and the separation between them is
artificial. In real practice it is common to combine different approaches to obtain a better intervention,
with greater benefits and smaller costs.
A first example to illustrate this statement is a strengthening project on a building in LAquila, Italy,
severely damaged, mainly in the two upper storeys, by the 2009 earthquake. It is a four storey
reinforced concrete frame building, with a plan area of about 4,500 m2 and a total volume of about
60,000 m3.
The repair and strengthening intervention included the demolition and reconstruction of the two upper
stories, the introduction of an isolation system at mid height of the lower, in ground, storey, the
addition of a damping system and the selected strengthening of a few weak columns (the photos in
figures 9 and 11 are related to this job).
The isolation devices adopted were double curvature friction pendulum ones, with radius of 6 m and
dynamic friction of 2.5 %. The additional damping system was constituted by eight viscous dampers,
with a constitutive law in terms of force (F, in kN) versus velocity (v, in m/s) of the type:
F = 1,900 v 0.1
The damping system was designed to adsorb a significant fraction (about 30 %) of the total base shear,
reducing the shear forces at the column foundations. The total maximum base shear was assessed as
about 7 % of the building weight. The fraction of the base shear taken by the damping system was
transmitted to new foundations, while the existing ones were verified applying back analysis
principles. The effects of isolation and damping system on force and displacement demand are shown
in figure 13: the total shear action is limited to less than 7.5 % of the weight of the building,
Again applying back analysis principles, it was decided that about 10 % of the existing beams and 20
% of the columns and 5 % of the walls had to be strengthened by carbon fibres wrapping, considering
the actual forces transmitted through the isolation system.
The total cost of the structural intervention is about 4 M, including the reconstruction of the upper
stories. The cost of isolation, member strengthening and additional damping is about 1 M (i.e. about
70 per cubic meter of building). The cost associated to non structural elements is irrelevant,
considering the damage level induced by the earthquake.

Figure 13. Effects of the isolation and damping system shown on a forcedisplacement diagram.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 14. Base shear adsorbed during the 2009 earthquake ((a), estimated through back analysis, the grey lines
show a limit of 7.5 % of the building weight), base shear transmitted by the isolation devices (b), base shear
transmitted by the damping devices (c), total base shear after strengthening (d).
A second example is a seven storey reinforced concrete building, again in LAquila, completed in
1943 and considered to be relevant from an architectural point of view.
The building is L shaped, has an area of about 1,100 m2 per storey, with the exception of the last one,
whose area is 450 m2. The total volume is about 28,000 m3, two storeys are below the ground level.
The 2009 earthquake induced some significant damage, with the exclusion of the very stiff and strong
underground part, essentially limited to the non structural elements.
Considering the effect of the real earthquake, a possible strengthening strategy (suggested, but not
adopted by the owner) included the insertion of steel bracings endowed with dampers and the addition
of two tuned masses, each one located at the extremities of the L, constituted by a concrete slab resting
on low damping rubber bearings.
The total mass of the building was about 15,000 t, but only about one third of it was associated to the
first mode of vibration, that was essentially related to the part of the building elevated out of the
ground.
Considering the insertion of the damped bracings, the participating mass was estimated as 5,400 t,
with a period of vibration of about 0.4 s and a total damping of 6.5 % (1.5 % due to the dampers,
considering their contribution to the total shear strength, see Priestley et al., 2007).
Applying the concepts discussed in section 4.4.2 the added tuned mass was designed to be of
approximately 500 t, with a period of vibration TTM = 0.42 s and consequently a resulting stiffness
KTMeq = 112 MN/m.
The benefit obtained in terms of reduction of interstorey drift prediction for a 475 y return period
event is shown in figure 13 and ranges between 30 and 65 % . The obtained drift values are clearly
compatible with an essentially elastic response.
The total cost estimated for the structural intervention is about 2 M (i.e. about 70 per cubic meter of
building), while the cost associated to non structural elements, including the required after earthquake
repair, was estimated as about 3 M (i.e. about 100 per cubic meter of building, excluding
installations).

Figure 14. Predicted interstorey drift for a 475 year return period event with (black line) and without (grey line)
the addition of a tuned mass

5. TOWARDS A RATIONAL APPROACH BASED ON COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

5.1. Introduction

All the concepts, comments and data previously addressed will be now combined to try to develop a
rational approach to guide strengthening, making constant reference to a sample real building
structure, a six storey reinforced concrete residential building damaged by the LAquila earthquake
(Calvi, 2009) and later repaired and strengthened.
Though all the analysis have been performed in both directions and attempts of combination to assess
a 3D response have been made, here only one direction will be considered, for the sake of simplicity.

5.2. Response assessment

The site seismicity has been assessed and a complete adaptive pushover analysis has been run.
The spectral acceleration and displacement demand are reported in table 2 for different performances,
indicating for each of them the corresponding return period (RP) event (as pointed out, it is more
sensible to perform these predictions for different performances, rather than to predict the performance
for given, discrete return period, events). The assessed pushover response and the storey drift demands
for the same events are shown in figure 15, where for each performance it is also indicated the value of
equivalent displacement demand and viscous damping.
It may be noted that a response approximately corresponding to a fully operational performance (FO),
with maximum drifts of the order of 0.2 %, corresponds to a very short RP of 20 years RP; a damage
controlled (DC) performance, with drifts lower than 0.5 %, is well approximated by an event with 72
years RP, while the life safety (LS) and near collapse (NC) performances would be attained for RP
approximately corresponding to 975 and 2475 years, if a brittle failure should not have been assessed
for an RP of about 275 years, at an equivalent displacement of approximately 0.15 m.
Clearly, a basic strengthening intervention on the building could simply consider the possibility of
eliminating the potential for brittle failures, to attain the complete pushover curve shown in the figure.

Table 2. Spectral acceleration (Sa) and spectral displacement (Sd), calculated using secant stiffness
(corresponding period Te) and appropriately estimated damping for different return period (RP) events for the
sample building and the local seismicity in LAquila.

Performance FO DC LS NC
RP (y) 20 72 975 2475
Te (s) 1.55 1.55 2.35 2.86
eq 5% 5% 12% 18%
Sa(Teff, eq) (g) 0.041 0.093 0.138 0.132
Sd(Teff, eq) (m) 0.024 0.054 0.189 0.269

Existing Element Strengthening O DC LS NC

5000 6
O DC LS NC Operational
4500 (O)
? O,DC = 5% ? LS = 12% ? NC = 18%
5
4000 KLS Damage
KO,DC KNC
Control
3500 (DC)
4 Life Safety
)
N3000 (LS)
k( ye
r
ae r3
h 2500 o
t Near
S S Collapse
e
sa 2000 (NC)
B
2
1500
Brittle failure is expected
1000 prior to reaching the 1
Life Safety limit state
500 in the existing building

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Displacement (m) Inter-storey Drift Ratio

Figure 15. Capacity assessment: pushover curve (left) and associated storey drifts (right).

5.3. Loss assessment

For each RP, drift and floor acceleration have been computed, considering each floor, and the
corresponding damage has been calculated with reference to figure 5. The damage value has been
attributed 25 % to the structure and 75 % to nonstructural elements; the non structural part has been
considered 80 % drift sensitive, 20 % acceleration sensitive, each storey has been assumed of equal
value.
The results are reported in table 3, as percentage of total replacement cost, assumed as 400 /m3 of
building. Conventionally, the table shows a 100 % damage assessment for all cases after the
assessment of a brittle failure.
The estimate of the expected annual loss has been performed approximating the curve that expresses
the annual probability of exceedence considering a multilinear functions, with straight segments
between the assessed performances (see figure 16, Sullivan et al. (2011), Welch et al. (2012)). A
zero loss point has been arbitrarily assumed at an annual probability equal to 10 % (this assumption
can have significant effects on the loss values). As anticipated, in this specific case a total loss is
assumed at a RP equal to 275 years, for which a brittle failure is expected.

Table 3. Assessed damage cost, expressed as a percentage of the cost of replacement of the building. The
predicted brittle failure before reaching a life safe performance is strongly conditioning the results

Limit State DMstruct (%RC) DMNS-Drift (%RC) DMstruct (%RC) LOSStot (%RC)
FO 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 4.0%
DC 0.00% 41.21% 0.00% 24.7%
LS 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
NC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
*Dashed line indicates that brittle collapse is expected before reaching the life safety limit state

Figure 16. Loss assessment: example of annual probability of exceedence versus estimated direct loss; the
expected annual loss can be estimated calculating the grey area.

5.4. Assessment of strengthening cost

5.4.1. Member strengthening

As discussed, a member by member strengthening could be considered, with the purpose of avoiding
brittle failures and increasing the local deformation capacity to improve the overall response,
particularly for strong events.
The volume of the building is approximately 9,700 m3, the total number of elements in the building is
548, with a linear density per cubic meter of building volume similar to that assumed as 0.14 m/m3.
From the pushover analysis it is estimated that the number of brittle elements to be strengthened is
197, while the ductile damage modes to be improved to increase the displacement capacity is 89. The
total number of elements to be strengthened is 266, i.e. approximately 50 % of the total number of
elements.
The cost of structural strengthening is thus estimated as discussed at point 4.2.1 as:
50% 28 [/m3] 9,700 [m3] = 135,800
The cost related to nonstructural elements is estimated as
50 % 100 [/m3] 9,700 [m3] = 485,000
The total cost of the intervention is thus estimated as 620,800 , i.e. about 16 % of the replacement
cost (RC), assumed to be 400 per cubic meter, i.e.: 400 [/m3] 9,700 [m3] = 3,880,000 .

5.4.2. Addition of shear walls

Applying the assumption discussed in section 4.2.3, it results that the cost associated to the new
structural system is about 10 /m3, i.e. a total of 97,000 (2.5 % of RC).
It is likely that the existing 197 brittle elements still have to be strengthened, with an associated
structural cost around 98,000 (i.e.: 197/548 28 [/m3] 9700 [m3]), or 2.5 % of RC and that the
floor diaphragm have also to be strengthened, with a related cost around 97,000 (10 [/m3] 9,700
[m3], again 2.5 % of RC).
The cost related to nonstructural elements may be around 291,000 (i.e.: 30 [/m3] 9700 [m3]), or
7.5 % of RC, for the floors, and around 348,700 (i.e.: 197/548 100 [/m3] 9700 [m3]), or 9 % of
RC for the brittle elements.
The total cost is thus assumed to be around 931,700 , or about 24 % of RC.

5.4.3. Isolation with uplifting

A friction isolation system has been assumed, with a stick slip activation at a base shear force equal to
7 % of the building weight. As discussed in section 4.3 it is assumed that the total cost will be 1,200
per unit of plan area, i.e. around 756,000 (1,200 [/m2] 630 [m2]), or 19.5 % of RC.
Minor additional interventions on the existing structure may be required, depending on its capacity of
sustaining the shear force transmitted at stick slip, a lump associated cost of 10 /m3 will be assumed
(97,000 , 2.5 % of RC).
The total cost is thus assumed to be 853,000 , or 22 % of RC.

5.4.4. Additional damping

As discussed at point 4.4, the aim of adding some damping system is essentially to reduce the
displacement demand, and can be effectively considered in combination with some other
strengthening measure. Depending on the strengthening approach adopted the damping system can be
different and result in different costs (see section 4.6 for examples).
In the present case, as an example, it is assumed that the total structural cost of an additional damping
system is 240,000 (6 % of RC), that it will increase the equivalent viscous damping from 5% to
20/30% and that it may be adopted in association with the member strengthening, raising the total cost
from 620,800 to 860,800 (22 % of RC).

5.4.5. Comments on strengthening costs

From the discussion above it results that the costs required by different strengthening strategies are
quite similar: 16% of the replacement cost for member strengthening, 24 % for wall addition, 22 % for
isolation with uplifting. The cost of a significant damping increase, that in principle could be coupled
with any of the strategies, implies an additional cost of 6 %. It is important to note that this results are
specifically valid for the example considered and cannot be generalized. However, in this specific
case, and possibly often, it may be difficult to make a choice between the strategies on the base of
their cost.

5.5. Cost benefit analysis

5.5.1 Direct loss versus return period

For each one of the four strengthening strategies, a pushover curve has been re-calculated, as shown in
figure 17, obtaining the following essential effects:
For the case of member strengthening the curve does not vary in the first part, but a large
displacement capacity is now attained;
Adding a shear wall system the base shear capacity increases significantly, but the
displacement capacity is not as large as in the previous case;
Inserting a base isolation system the first part of the curve again does not change but the
limitation of the structure base shear protects the brittle failure modes.
The additional damping case is not shown here, since its effect is considered on the demand side,
reducing it, rather than modifying the capacity.
In figure 17 the expected direct loss, expressed as a fraction of the replacement cost, is also depicted as
a function of the return period, for the original building and for each one of the strengthening
interventions considered. The response assessed for the original structure, with a 100 % loss at 275
year RP, results to be modified in different ways, with a step function for the base isolated case (100
% loss assumed at the attainment of the isolation system capacity) and a more progressive damage
assessment for the other cases. Note the relevant effect of the added damping system, that
considerably reduces the expected loss (the comparison should be made with the case of member
strengthening only).

8000 Walls 100%

Existing
Element/Dampers
7000
FPS-Iso
80%
6000
t)
n
e
Element/ Damper retrofits m
) 5000 Brittle failure expected assume continued pushover e
ca 60%
N
k( in existing structure l
p
ar 4000 e
R
e Existing
h
S (% 40%
e
s 3000 ss
a o Elem-50%
B L
cte FPS-Iso
2000 ri
D 20%
Vbase and ? roof Walls
Design capacity
1000 at stick-slip of FPS
activation of FPS Dampers

0 0%
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Displacement (m) Return Period (years)

Figure 17. Modified pushover curve (left) and estimate of direct loss versus return period (right) for each
strengthening strategy considered.

5.5.2. A simple way to estimate residential indirect losses

In the recent past, the problem of assessing indirect loss has been the subject of endless discussions,
which have in general shown how difficult is to treat this matter.
However, if the problem is limited to residential buildings, a simple way to estimate values is to
consider the cost of relocating the inhabitants for the downtime required to repair the building. As an
example, it is here assumed that each person occupies a building area of 25 m2 and that the cost (to
society or to an insurance company) to relocate him in another structure will be 50 per day.
Considering, as before, a building cost of 1,200 /m2, it results that the value of the area occupied by
each person can be assumed to be 30,000 (1,200 [/m2] 25 [m2]) and consequently the indirect loss
due to downtime, expressed in terms of building replacement is 0.17 %/day (50 [/day] / 30,000 []).
The downtime duration is assumed to depend on the attainment of each performance, as shown in
table 4, where the resulting expected indirect loss is also indicated.
Once again, these figures have a demonstrative nature, and could be very simply modified without
loosing generality.

Table 4. Assessed damage cost, expressed as a percentage of the cost of replacement of the building
Performance Interruption Time (days) Lossindirect (% of RC)
Fully Operational 1 week 7 1.2 %
Damage Control 4 weeks 30 5.0%
Life Safety 6 months 180 30.0%
Near Collapse 1.5 years 540 90.0%

5.4.4. Expected annual losses for the strengthened structures

The same exercise done at point 5.3 for the original building, can now be repeated for each one of the
strengthened case, considering direct and indirect losses, obtaining the results summarized in table 5.
The figures shown in this table induce to some thoughts observing how relevant could be elongation of
the near collapse return period on the modification of the estimation on annual loss. A similar
comment applies on the return period corresponding to a fully operational performance.
Since these two performances may be affected by high uncertainties, the consideration of uncertainties
in a probabilistic framework may significantly change the overall picture.
In this preliminary study it is noted that the estimated annual loss may be roughly reduced to one half
with any of the examined strengthening strategies.

Table 5. Expected annual loss for the strengthened buildings

Strengthening Strategy
LIMIT *
STATE Existing Element FPS Shear Added
(do-nothing ) (50%) Isolation** Walls Damping
RP (y) 20 20 20 30 30
Fully
LossDirect | O (%) 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 4.00%
Operational
LossIndirect | O (%) 1.17% 1.17% 1.17% 1.17% 1.17%
RP (y) 72 72 72 140 200
Damage
LossDirect | DC (%) 28.27% 28.27% 28.27% 24.73% 28.27%
Control
LossIndirect | DC (%) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
RP (y) 273 975 3400 2000 3200
Life
LossDirect | LS (%) 100% 66.50% 39.8% 62.53% 66.50%
Safety
LossIndirect | LS (%) 90.00% 30.00% 5.00% 30.00% 30.00%
RP (y) 2475 2475 3400 4400 4300
Near
LossDirect | NC (%) 100% 81.38% 39.8% 81.17% 81.38%
Collapse
LossIndirect | NC (%) 90.00% 90.00% 5.00% 90.00% 90.00%
Expected EALDirect (%) 1.70% 1.37% 1.20% 0.79% 0.84%
Annual Loss EALDirect+Indirect (%) 2.66% 1.81% 1.41% 1.06% 1.07%
*Brittle collapse is expected at a 273 year return period for the existing building and near collapse downtime is
assumed
**The FPS Isolation case assumes only damage control level of downtime beyond the stick-slip activation of
bearings
Expected Annual Loss
3.0%
EAL- Direct Loss
2.5% EAL Direct + Indirect

)t 2.0%
n
e
m
e
c
al 1.5%
p
e
r
f
o
%
( 1.0%
L
A
E % % % % %
6 1 1 6 7
6
. .8 .4 0
. .0
0.5% 2 1 1 1 1
% % % % %
0 7 0 9 4
7
. 3
. 2
. 7
. .8
1 1 1 0 0
0.0%
Existing
1 Elem-50%
2 FPS3Iso Walls
4 Dampers
5

Figure 18. Histogram showing the summary of expected annual loss

5.4.5. Cost benefit analysis: breakeven point
In order to evaluate the actual convenience in choosing one of the examined strengthening strategies,
cost and benefit are compared, in terms of a cost benefit ratio and calculating the time to reach break
even considering the cost of the intervention and the theoretical year benefit in terms of reduction of
average loss.
The benefitcost ratios shown in table 6 are calculated by dividing the change in near present value
(NPV) of expected annual loss (EAL) by the total cost of the retrofit. The NPV is here calculated
assuming a design life of 50 years, a totally arbitrary and conventional value, however again easy to
be changed.
The equation to be used is thus as follows:
50 EAL 50 EAL

Existing Re trofit

Benefit NPV NPV (1 r ) t

t =1 (1 r )
t
= = t =1
Existing Re trofit

Cost CostRe trofit CostRe trofit

The factor r represents the discount rate which assumes a value of zero for this example study. The
application of may change significantly the results, but in this case it would make sense to consider as
well an inflation rate, that could influence the results in an opposite way).
Neglecting the discount rate the NPV calculation essentially takes the EAL and multiplies it by 50 to
sum the losses over a 50 year period (or over any conventionally assumed different period).
A break even analysis may produce results more immediately appreciated. This analysis determines
the time (years) for the upfront cost to equal the expected annual reduction in loss (also in this case the
discount rate is here not included):
Value CostRe trofit
tBreakEven = =
Value / time EALExisting EALRe trofit

It may be noted that in this exercise the break even point results to be in the range of 15 to 20 years if
indirect loss is taken into account.

Table 6. Benefit/cost ratios and break even times for each one of the strengthening strategies

Strengthening Strategy
Existing Element FPS Shear Added
(do-nothing ) (50%) Isolation Walls Damping
Cost (%RC) - 16.0% 22.0% 24.0% 22.2%
EALDirect (%RC) 1.70% 1.37% 1.20% 0.79% 0.84%
NPVEAL (%RC) 85.24% 68.55% 59.81% 39.32% 41.87%
Direct
Losses Benefit (%RC) - 16.69% 25.43% 45.92% 43.37%
Benefit-Cost Ratio - 1.043 1.157 1.913 1.955
tbreak even (y) - 47.9 43.2 26.1 25.6
EALDirect+Indirect (%RC) 2.66% 1.81% 1.41% 1.06% 1.07%
Direct + NPVEAL (%RC) 133.04% 90.52% 70.31% 52.95% 53.57%
Indirect Benefit (%RC) - 42.52% 62.73% 80.08% 79.46%
Losses Benefit-Cost Ratio - 2.658 2.853 3.336 3.582
tbreak even (y) - 18.8 17.5 15.0 14.0

5.4.6.Use of cost benefit analysis

Even if the exercise presented here still has a conceptual and academic nature, it appears that a rational
approach to seismic strengthening may be based on some sort of cost benefit analysis. This may apply
to the choice of the more convenient combination of strengthening measure, but as well to the
selection of the more convenient performance levels to be adopted. It may result that a limited
improvement in a single performance may imply a large additional cost. In this case the cost benefit
ratio or the breakeven time will show that this choice is not rational.
In this framework, it may be considered that instead of imposing in a code the performance level to be
reached for different conventional return period events, it is left to the owner or to the designer to
indicate in the project which return period event will induce a given performance, thus somehow
grading the building global seismic resilience.

Benefit-Cost Analysis for Considered Retrofit Options Break-Even Analysis for Considered Retrofit Options
4.0 60.0
B/C Direct Losses Direct Losses
3.5 B/C Direct + Indirect Direct + Indirect
50.0
3.0 s)r
io a
e
at y( 40.0
R 2.5 n
ts e
o vE
C
ti 2.0 ka 30.0
f e
e r
n B
e r
B 1.5
6 fo
5 4 8 e 20.0
.6 .8 .3 5
. m
2 2 3 3 iT
1.0
10.0 .9 2
. 1
0.5 7 3 . .6
1 5 4 4 5 6 0 5 0
4 6 .8 . 2 . .
0
. 1
. .9 9
. 8 7 5 2 4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.0 0.0
Elem-50%
1 FPS2- Iso Walls
3 Dampers
4 Elem-50%
1 FPS -2Iso Walls
3 Dampers
4

Figure 19. Histogram showing the summary of benefit/cost ratios and break even times for each one of the
strengthening strategies

5.6. A parameter for seismic classification of buildings

It is interesting to observe that the expected annual loss (EAL) should be appropriately used as the
base to calculate insurance premia, considering or not the indirect loss part depending on whether
indirect losses are or not covered in the contract.
As such, the reduction in EAL could be immediately transformed into an annual economic return
wherever an insurance contract is actually issued.
Note, as well, that the EAL could be appropriately used as a global evaluation parameter of the
seismic quality or, maybe better, of the seismic resilience of a building, much more than any
single protection factor towards collapse or a specific conventional performance.
If used in this context, it appears more reasonable to adopt the EAL referred to direct loss only, since
the downtime value may easily change whenever a building is used for a different purpose.
It may also be consider to impose by code that specific strategic functions (also in economical terms)
should only be possible in buildings that met a minimum threshold of seismic resilience.
Similarly to what is done to evaluate the energy and environmental performance of a building, discrete
classes of earthquake resilience might be defined, for example saying that a building has a seismic
resilience A (or SR-A) if the EALdirect is lower than, say, 0.5 %, a SP-B if EALdirect < 1.0 %, a SP-C if
EALdirect < 2.0 %, etc.
If the expected seismic resilience will be certified, insurance companies should have no reason not to
accept it as a base to define the annual premium, the value of a building may increase as a
consequence of a strengthening intervention, unsafe buildings will soon be difficult (or impossible) to
be sold and, in general, a positive spiral may be favoured.
Finally, governments may consider to subsidize strengthening intervention on sounder basis,
considering that there will be an actual and measurable benefit for the society if the damage in case of
earthquake should be reduced.
6. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper a quick state of the art/practice in seismic assessment is used as a sort of introduction to a
discussion on criteria and choices to actually reduce risk through seismic strengthening. A number of
conclusions are drawn throughout the paper and summarized here.
(a) The target performances to be met in strengthening are normally based on academic decisions and
conventional values, without considering that available resources and the capacity of using them
are the only reasonable parameter to scale relative evaluations.
(b) It is common to assess the expected performances for conventional return period earthquakes,
rather than to assess the expected return period event that will induce a given performance. This
second option has to be preferred for several reason, including the smooth nature of a hazard
curve versus the step nature of a performance function. While the definition of a given return
period or a given yearly probability of exceedence is totally conventional, and consequently
irrelevant, the association of a performance to physical events is possible and desirable.
(c) This concept applies to the choices related to a strengthening intervention to a much larger extent,
since the economical resources required to reach a given performance are normally changing with
finite steps.
(d) Studies to improve the level of knowledge about materials and geometry are often wasted to
assess useless parameters, while should be associated with progressive analysis and choices
oriented to the most efficient strengthening intervention.
(e) The potential of back analysis concepts in the evaluation of dependable levels of members and
structures capacity is often underestimated and neglected.
(f) Damage and loss analysis shows that performances are essentially related to drift and strain
demand and that the major part of the economical losses are associated to non structural elements
and to relatively low displacement demands.
(g) A number of strengthening approaches are discussed, showing that it is possible to associate a
cost to each one of them at a preliminary design stage, improving the reliability of the estimate
with the progress of design and analysis.
(h) A simple conceptual way of calculating indirect losses for residential buildings is presented and
discussed. This approach could be easily applied to loss estimation and possibly extended to other
kinds of use.
(i) It is shown that it is possible to associate a loss analysis to different strengthening strategies, in
turn associated to a cost of intervention. This allows the definition of a costbenefit parameter for
each strategy, possibly expressed in terms of time to breakeven.
(j) It is shown that for any designed, existing or strengthened building it is possible to calculate the
expected annual loss, a parameter that could be used to grade the seismic global performance or
seismic resilience of the building. This parameter may refer to direct loss only or include
indirect losses and could be used for several purposes, including the evaluation of insurance
premia.
(k) All the evaluations and numerical exercises presented in this paper have a conceptual nature,
should be refined and weighed in a more proper and extended way, uncertainties related to
epistemic and aleatory knowledge should be considered, in a general probabilistic framework.

AKCNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to recognize that without thorough discussions with Nigel Priestley and Tim Sullivan,
practical design experiences with Matteo Moratti and intelligent work and support by David Welch this paper
would not have been written.

REFERENCES

ATC (2011). Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings, (uncompleted draft). Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
Calvi, G. M. (1999). A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes of buildings. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering. 3:4. 411-438.
Calvi, G.M. Editor (2009). LAquila, April 6th 2009, 3.32 am. Progettazione Sismica. 03:03.
Calvi, G.M., Pietra D. and e Moratti M. (2010). Criteri per la progettazione di dispositivi di isolamento a pendolo
scorrevole. Progettazione Sismica. 04:03. 7-30
Cornell, C.A., Jaylayer, F., Hamburger, R.O., Foutch, D.A. (2002). Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal
Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering.
128:4. 526-553.
Crowley, H, Silva, V., Bal, I.E. and Pinho, R. (2012). Calibration of seismic design codes using loss estimation.
15 WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.
FEMA 356 (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Gazetas, G. (2012). Nonlinear soil-foundation-structure interaction. 2nd Int. Conf. on performance-based design
in earthquake geotechnical engineering. Taormina, Italy.
Grant, D.N., Bommer, J.J., Pinho, R., Calvi, G.M., Goretti, A. and Meroni, M. (2007). A prioritization scheme
for seismic intervention in school buildings in Italy. Earthquake Spectra. 23:2. 291-314.
Haselton, C.B., Goulet, C. A., Beck, J. L., Deierlein, G. G., Porter, K.A., Stewart, J. P., Taciroglu, E. (2007). An
assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced concrete moment-frame
building. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Berkeley, CA.
Malhotra, P.K. (2008). Seismic design loads from site-specific and aggregate hazard analyses. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America. 98:4. 1849-1862.
Mitrani-Reiser, J. (2007). An ounce of prevention: probabilistic loss estimation for performance-based
earthquake engineering. PhD Dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement-based seismic design of structures.
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N. (1997). Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering. 1:1. 201-241.
Priestley M.J.N. and Calvi, G.M. (1991). Towards a capacity design assessment procedure for reinforced
concrete frames. Earthquake Spectra. 7:3. 413-437.
Ramirez, C. M. and Miranda, E. (2009). Building specific loss estimation methods and tools for simplified
performance-based earthquake engineering. Report 171. John A. Blume Center, Stanford University, CA.
Sadek, F., Mohraz, B., Taylor, A. W. and Chung, R. M. (1997). Method of estimating the parameters of tuned
mass dampers for seismic applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 26. 617-635.
SEAOC (1995). Vision 2000, A framework for performance-based engineering. Structural Engineers
Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
Sullivan, T.J., Calvi, G.M. (2011). Considerations for the seismic assessment of buildings using the direct
displacement-based assessment approach. 2011 ANIDIS Conference, Bari, Italy.
Sullivan, T.J., Calvi, P.M. and Nascimbene R. (2012). Towards improved floor spectra estimates for seismic
design. Earthquake and Structures. Accepted for publication.
Welch, D.P., Sullivan, T.J and Calvi G.M. (2012). Towards a direct displacement-based loss assessment
methodology for RC frame buildings. 15 WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.