CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

5.2 Damage Indices Based on Structural Response

Damage prediction forms the backbone of any vulnerability analysis. However, current
numerical models do not allow us the visualization of structural damage. Therefore the
level of damage must be interpreted from the dynamic response of the structure. In order
to do this, Damage Indices are used.

Various indices based on structural response are proposed in the literature for use in the
prediction of damage. They can be classified as either, energy-based, force-based or
deformation-based damage models, according to the response parameters measured in
their evaluation.

Damage indices in each category, may be further classified as local or global, according
to whether they use member or structure response in their determination. Information on
many existing damage indices can be found in Ghobarah et al. (1999), Williams and
Sexmith (1995) and Banon (1980). Within the following sections, a general overview of
the three damage index categories is presented.

5.2.1 Energy-based Damage Indices

The input energy of an earthquake is transformed by the structure into 4 different types of
energy: Kinetic energy, elastic strain energy, absorbed hysteretic energy and energy
dissipated by viscous damping.

After an earthquake, when all motion of the building has stopped, the total energy input
to the structure equals the sum of the absorbed hysteretic and damping energies, since
the other forms vanish. The value of dissipated energy depends on a combination of the
material characteristics, the soil-structure interaction and the level of damage incurred.
The amount of energy dissipated via damage mechanisms can be found if it is assumed
that no energy is dissipated by soil-structure interaction, and that the material damping
properties are known. Therefore, damage indices based on energy measures are the most
logical choice for damage state representation.

Existing damage models based on energy measures are generally evaluated at a member
level. Weighting procedures are used to combine the indices and obtain an estimate of the
global structural damage. Seismic energy is assumed applied to the structural members in
the form of deformations. Damage in structures is therefore dependent on the maximum
inelastic and cumulative deformations applied under cyclic loading. Only those indices
that include factors to account for maximum and cumulative deformations can claim to
properly represent damage.

The most well-known energy-based damage model is that proposed by Park and Ang
(1985a). It is used by Singhal and Kiremidjian (1997) in the derivation of analytical
vulnerability curves for California, USA. The Park and Ang (1985a) local damage model

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 1

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

linearly combines an index representing the maximum deformation with one representing
the energy dissipated at this deformation. The local damage index is evaluated from:

 max   
D 
 ult Qy ult   u M y u 
dE or equivalently, D  m  dE [5. 1]

Where  max and  max are the maximum deformation and rotation applied during the
earthquake, respectively.  u and  u are the ultimate deformation and rotation under
monotonic loading, respectively. Qy and My are the yield strength and moment,
respectively. Ec() is the hysteretic energy per loading cycle at deformation and dE is
the incremental absorbed hysteretic energy. max and Ec() depend on the loading history,
whereas the other parameters are independent of it and derive from characteristics of the
structure. Difficulties are associated with the evaluation of the latter if the structural
detailing and configuration is not known. Ec() may be derived directly from the response
results or estimated from the following experimentally determined empirical equations,
which assume the maximum response ductility () is known:

Ec() = (0.77 – 0.22 )Qyy for  < 1.5 [5. 2]


     
Ec (  )  Qy y  0.5  2.34 f   1   0.7  1.54 f  for   1.5

[5. 3]
 y   y 
   

The non-negative parameter, , represents the effect of cyclic loading on structural

damage. It and can be evaluated from the following empirical equation (Park and Ang
1985a):

 l 
    0.447  0.073  0.24no  0.314 Pt 0.7  w
[ 5. 4]
 d 

Where (l/d) is the shear span ratio (l/d ≤ 1.7) and no is the normalised axial force (no ≤
0.2). Pt is the longitudinal steel ratio (Pt ≤ 0.75%) and w is the confinement ratio. Other
studies (e.g. Kunnath et al. 1990, Stone and Taylor 1993, Fardis 1995, Chai et al. 1995,
Cosenza and Manfredi 1998), have been carried out to derive expressions for . The fact
that many different equations exist for , raises doubts as to the reliability of the damage
index as a whole. Large uncertainties also enter the equation in the evaluation of the
rotation capacity,  u (Rossetto 2002). This is reflected in the variation between 0.77 and
1.0 of the damage index value defined by different authors as representing member
failure, (e.g. Park et al. 1987, Stone and Taylor 1993).

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 2

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

The Park and Ang (1985a) global damage index is found from the sum of the local
damage indices, weighted according to their energy absorption contributions, (I):

Ei
DT   i Di and i  [5. 5]
i  Ei
Park and Ang (1985a) propose three ranges of their parameter values for defining the
damage limit states of “repairable”, “irreparable” and “collapse”, based on comparison of
analytical structural response with observed building damage. Hwang and Huo (1994)
make a finer distinction between these categories, based on additional observations of
post-earthquake structural damage. It is expected that a damage index takes a value of
zero in the elastic range. The Park and Ang (1985a) index does not, but assumes very
small values in the no damage limit state. Furthermore, even though the index includes an
explicit term for the quantification of cumulative damage, Penelis and Kappos (1997)
have found that the index is dominated by the ductility term. This casts doubt on the
ability of the Park and Ang (1985a) index to take into account damage due to the cyclic
nature of earthquake loading.

Kunnath et al. (1990) propose a variation of the Park and Ang (1985a) damage index
based on curvature values, with different limits applying for the damage limit states. This
index is deemed inferior to that of Park and Ang (1985a), due to the inability of local
curvatures to take into account spread of plasticity in members, strain penetration and
bar-slippage effects. A further variant of the Park and Ang (1985) damage index is
proposed by Fardis (1995), and is presented in Equation 3.6.

D
max E d    dE h  [3. 6]
E du

 and u (ultimate curvature under monotonic loading), are evaluated as per Park et al.
(1987). dEh is the total energy dissipated by hysteresis up to the analysis point. Edu is the
deformation energy in monotonic loading to failure and maxEd is the peak value of
member deformation energy of the response. The use of energy measures to account both
for damage due to maximum and cumulative response, gives this index a theoretical
superiority over Park and Ang (1985a). It is furthermore calibrated with respect to 169
uni-axial or bi-axial member tests. The majority of the tests concern monotonic loading,
with 130 tests reporting value for the collapse limit state only. Calibration to intermediate
damage states is therefore prone to large uncertainties. The evaluation of the index
involves much calculation and requires detailed knowledge of the member and structural
configuration. This is true of all energy-based indices, which makes them unsuitable for
use in the assessment of structure populations. A further disadvantage of energy-based
damage indices is the lack of an energy based concept of design. Hence damage
parameters based on deformations or forces are more suited to incorporation into existing
assessment procedures.

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 3

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

5.2.2 Force-based Damage Indices

A fundamental requirement of a structural response parameter used for damage

evaluation, is that its value increases with observed damage.

In experiments carried out on reinforced concrete members and sub-assemblages, the

member deformation, (and hence overall structure deformation), increases throughout the
inelastic range even when the forces remain constant. Hence, damage indices relying
solely on values of measured force response, are inadequate for use in damage state
characterisation. Most existing force-based damage indices include parameters
representing deformation or energy dissipation. Bracci et al. (1989) propose a local
damage index that attempts to account for the effects of cyclic loading, and hence of
cumulative damage, from consideration of the strength degradation characteristics of the
structure. The damage index is calculated as the difference between the areas under the
monotonic load response curve and the cyclic load response envelope. This difference in
area is denominated Dp. The component of damage due to strength degradation is
denominated Ds, whilst that due to irrecoverable deformations Dd. Assuming the
hysteresis loop shows linear hardening after yield:

M m   y c  dE
DM  ; D  ; M  [5. 7]
My  f  y y

Where, m, y and f are the maximum response, yield and ultimate curvatures,
respectively. c is an empirically determined value. The damage index is given by:

Ds  Dd M ( f   y )  ( M y  M )(m   y )
D   DM  D  DM D [5. 8]
Dp M y ( f   y )

The damage index values characterising different damage limit states are summarised in
the Appendix and are derived from a limited number of tests on columns and scaled
model frames. The Bracci et al. (1989) damage index calculation requires the
recalculation of the yield curvature after each cycle, in order for plastic deformation and
stiffness degradation to be accounted for. This involves a large computational effort if
the index is evaluated at many locations in the building.

Chung, Meyer and Shinozuka (1988) formulated a local damage index (De) from
consideration of stiffness degradation with cycling, and of the number of cycles required
to cause failure at a given curvature value.

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 4

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

 ni  


  kij 
N i
  ni  ni 

        1
De    i .    i .   ;  i   j i   i  i 1  ; k i  

k 
[5. 9]
 ni ki  2i 
ij
i  Ni Ni  Ni j 1
 
 

In Equation 5.9, + and - indicate the loading direction and i indicates the displacement or
curvature level. ni is the number of cycles applied at curvature level i. Ni is the number of
cycles required to cause failure at curvature level i, and is calculated as Ni = (Mi
+Mfi)/Mi, (where Mi and Mfi are the initial and final strength at curvature level i,
respectively).  is the damage modifier and kij+ (= Mij+/ i+) is the stiffness during the jth
cycle up to load level i. k i is the average stiffness during the Ni+ cycles to load level i.
Mij+ (= Mi1+ - (j-1) Mi+ ) is the moment reached after j cycles to load level i. The index
accounts for cumulative response and implicitly accounts for maximum response. It takes
into account the loading sequence and is mainly based on imposed displacements. The
index is computationally intensive, requiring the stiffness of the structure to be given as
part of the output for each applied load cycle. The evaluation of the number of load
cycles to failure at a given curvature level is also not simple. It depends not only on the
section properties of the member but also on its anchorage characteristics and the loading
time-history. A good correlation is seen between the index evolution and the hysteretic
response of flexural members, but its calibration with physical observations of damage is
very limited (Williams and Sexmith 1995).

The global damage is found using a method similar to that proposed by Park and Ang
(1985a). The local damage indices are weighted considering the relative member
contributions to the dissipated energy. However, Chung et al. (1988), firstly combine
damage indices at each individual story to obtain storey damage indices, Dsk :

D E i
k
i
k
N
Dsk  i 1
n
; Dg   Dsk I k [5. 10]
E i 1
i
k i 1

Where Dik is the local damage at location i on storey k. Eik is the energy dissipated at
location i on storey k. n is the number of locations at which the local damage index is
computed for storey k. The global damage index, Dg, is given as a weighted average of
the storey damage indices. Ik (= (N+1-k)/N) is the weighting factor for the kth storey, and
N is total number of storeys. A greater weighting is therefore given to those storeys that
show the most damage and that are situated in the lower part of the building. The
advantage of combining local damage indices on a storey by storey basis is that the
occurrence of soft-storey failure modes can be detected.

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 5

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

Global force-based damage indices, typically consider total structural stiffness

degradation in the characterisation of damage limit states (e.g. Ghobarah et al. 1999 or
Roufaiel and Meyer 1997). During experimental testing of frames, Otani (1994) observed
that global structure stiffness decreases, even during cycles at constant applied ductility.
A damage index based on stiffness degradation is capable of accounting for both the
accumulated structural damage due to cyclic loading, and that due to the maximum
response. The index proposed by Ghobarah et al. (1999) is an example of such an index.
It is evaluated from the global stiffness values (K) resulting from two push-over analyses,
carried out before and after the earthquake record is applied to the structure.

DI K  1 K final / K initial  [5. 11]

The damage index may also be evaluated for each individual story i, using the storey
shear-drift relationships, evaluated from the push-over analyses. The Final Softening
Index (f) by Di Pasquale and Cakmak (1987) is similar to that of Ghoborah et al. (1999).
However, it does not use the results of pushover analyses but is calculated from the
period change of an equivalent SDOF system during seismic loading.

2
T0
 f  1 2
[5. 12]
T final

Both indices are evaluated only once, at the end of the loading sequence. Therefore, their
evaluation involves less computational effort than Bracci et al. (1989) and Chung et al.
(1988). The value of the indices is affected by non-structural damage, which is
advantageous for damage scale calibration. However, they both assume that structural
damage alters the fundamental period of the structure, but not its mode shape. Therefore,
they are only adequate for the evaluation of damage in structures responding
predominantly in the first mode, which have not undergone large inelastic displacements.
Softening indices provide no information regarding the damage distribution within the
structure. Furthermore, even though damage is related to a reduction in force capacity,
forces cannot be used to represent damage in badly detailed members which can fail via
shear or reinforcement-bar pullout. As the aim is to assess damage in populations of
existing European structures, which are mainly composed of non-seismically designed
buildings, use of a force-based damage index is inappropriate.

5.2.3 Deformation-based Damage Indices

Deformation-based response parameters are the intuitive choice for damage

representation, due to their ease of visual interpretation. These measures are able to
represent the progression of building damage throughout the inelastic response range.
Furthermore, the recent development of displacement-based building design and

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 6

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

assessment methodologies, promotes the development of damage scales defined in terms

of deformations.

Deformation-based parameters defined at the section level, such as extreme fibre strains
or curvatures, are inadequate for use as damage indicators in a population vulnerability
assessment. For example, in reinforced concrete members, phenomena such as bar-
slippage and strain-penetration are not detected. Furthermore, their values have to be
monitored at numerous cross-sections, in all members within the structures, in order to
detect the propagation of plasticity. It is impractical for such detailed and extensive
analyses to be carried out for a population of structures.

Physical measures of damage at the member level are generally described in terms of
member rotations. However, the rotation values characterising different damage states,
vary according to the section geometry and member configuration. This parameter is
therefore not ideal for use in the calibration of a damage scale for building population
assessment. Damage state limits can be described in terms of acceptable ratios of rotation
demand to capacity as is proposed in FEMA273 (ATC 1997). However, a large
uncertainty is associated with the member rotation capacity determination (Rossetto 2002
and Panagiotakos and Fardis 1999). This greatly contributes to the uncertainty associated
with the damage state boundary value definitions. A further drawback of using member
rotations is that the structure displacement mode needs to be estimated in order to
determine the global damage state. Moreover, interaction between structural and non-
structural elements, and damage to the latter, is difficult to assess using this response
parameter.

The response parameter most commonly used to describe damage at the storey level is
the maximum inter-storey drift ratio (ISDmax%). Many researchers have found that
ISDmax% is closely correlated to observed damage, (Scawthorn et al 1981). Unlike the
case of member deformation, inter-storey drift response is capable of detecting global,
storey-level and non-structural damage. No information regarding local damage is given
by ISDmax% but its overall effect on the structure is implicitly included in the parameter.
ISDmax% is therefore suitable for the definition of a wide range of structural damage limit
states. Maximum inter-storey drift ratio values are used by Mosalam et al. (1997) to
characterise damage in their analytical vulnerability curves. FEMA273 (ATC 1997) also
associates ISDmax% values to different levels of seismic performance. Experimental
studies, however, clearly show the large variation in values of ISD within each damage
category which arises from the different building configurations, seismic detailing and
construction materials.

At the structural level, the overall drift ratio and structural displacement ductility are
commonly used to define the damage state. The two measures are linked, as the structural
ductility is the ratio of the overall to yield drift. Uncertainty in the definition of structural
yield makes the drift ratio the preferred parameter for use in building damage scale
calibration. Many sources assign drift ratio values to damage limit states, for structures
with different lateral-load resisting systems and design codes, (e.g. FEMA 273, Kircher et
al.1997, HAZUS99). A larger variation in the values proposed for similar structures by

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 7

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

different authors, is observed in the literature for total drift, than for ISDmax%. The overall
drift ratio is only representative of global building damage when the structure deforms
linearly with height. In cases where structural dynamic response is strongly affected by
higher modes of vibration, the overall drift ratio may decrease, despite a continued
increase in inter-storey drift and observed damage. Moreover, parameters defined on a
structural level are unsuitable for the assessment of non-capacity designed buildings, as
they are incapable of accounting for concentrations of damage at a single storey. Also,
most parameter values proposed in the literature are evaluated from opinion and may not
yield reliable estimates of damage.

5.2.4 Homogenised Reinforced Concrete Damage Scale (Rossetto and Elnashai,

2003): - A damage scale with a difference.

With the exception of the Park and Ang (1985a) damage index, all existing damage
indices are calibrated using few experimental observations. This is mainly due to the
prohibitive costs associated with the dynamic testing of large structures. Existing reports
on shake-table and pseudo-dynamic testing of structures are few in number and cover
only a limited number of lateral load resisting systems, configurations, and seismic codes.
Even in the case of local damage indices, available experimental data for calibration is
scarce. Extensive cyclic testing of reinforced concrete members has only recently been
carried out. Hence, a very limited number of section, member configurations, and axial
loading conditions are covered by existing experiments. Moreover, most cyclic member
tests concern well-detailed structural elements, failing in a flexurally dominated manner
(Rossetto 2002). This can lead to a poor representation of shear-dominated or mixed
flexure-shear failure modes by existing local damage indices. In both structure and
member tests, damage observations are not commonly made at times other than yield or
collapse. Consequently, large uncertainties are associated with response parameter values
assigned to intermediate damage states by existing damage scales.

An exception to this is the Homogenised reinforced concrete Damage Scale by Rossetto

and Elnashai (2003). The scale is subdivided into seven damage states, each of which is
clearly defined in Table 1.2 in terms of the typical structural and non-structural damage
expected in the four main types of reinforced concrete structure found in Europe. The
limit states are further defined in terms of a damage index, the HRC-Damage Index
(DIHRC), which provides a numerical reference scale for experimental calibration with the
structural response parameter of maximum inter-storey drift ratio (ISDmax%). The
calibration was carried out using published experimental reports on 25 dynamic tests for
RC bare, infilled and shear-wall structural models, wherein the progression of structural
damage and inter-storey drift response were recorded. Through interpretation of the
reported global damage, HRC-Damage Index values were assigned to the test specimens
at different times during the experiments, resulting in a total of 105 pairs of ISDmax% -
DIHRC values.

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 8

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

Non-linear regressions were carried out on these points and relationships derived for each
of the building categories of Table 1.1 separately, as well as for general structures of
unknown lateral load-resisting system. These relationships were further validated and
updated using the results of pseudo-dynamic tests carried out on two full-scale frames
(one bare and one infilled) and two shear-wall structure within the “Innovative Seismic
Design Concepts for New and Existing Structures” (ICONS) European Union funded
network. The final equations and the correlation coefficients resulting from their fit to the
experimental data are presented in 5.13 to 5.17, where ISDmax% is expressed in terms of
percentage.

DI HRC  34.89Ln( ISDmax,% )  39.39 , R2 = 0.991 for non-ductile MRF [5.13]

DI HRC  22.49Ln( ISDmax,% )  66.88 , R2 = 0.822 for infilled frames [5.14]
DI HRC  39.31Ln( ISDmax,% )  52.98 2
, R = 0.985 for shear-wall systems [5.15]
DI HRC  27.89Ln( ISDmax,% )  56.36 2
, R = 0.760 for general structures [5.16]

These equations are used to define the limit state boundary values of ISDmax% for the
HRC-Scale shown in 5.1.

ISDmax%(%) Limits for HRC-Scale HRC & FEMA- 273 [19] ISDmax%(%) Limits

HRC Damage All N-D Infilled Shear- FEMA-273 N-D MRF Shear-walls
State MRF MRF walls Damage State

None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HRC F273 HRC F273

Slight 0.13 0.32 0.05 0.26

Immediate
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Occupancy
Light 0.19 0.43 0.08 0.34

Moderate 0.56 1.02 0.30 0.72

Life Safety 1.36 1.00 0.93 0.50
Extensive 1.63 2.41 1.15 1.54

Part. Coll. 3.34 4.27 2.80 2.56

Collapse
3.20 4.00 1.99 2.00
Prevention
Collapse > 4.78 > 5.68 > 4.36 > 3.31

Table 5.1: Threshold values of ISDmax% defining the HRC-Scale damage limit states for general RC
structures (All), non-ductile MRF, Infilled MRF and Shear-wall structures. Comparison of the
ISDmax% limit state threshold values in FEMA-273.

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 9

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

DAMAGE
DIHRC DUCTILE MRF NON-DUCTILE MRF INFILLED MRF SHEAR-WALL
STATE

0 None No damage No damage No damage No damage

Fine cracks in plaster Fine cracks in plaster Fine cracks in plaster Fine cracks in plaster
Slight
10 partitions/infills partitions/infills partitions/infills partitions/infills

Start of structural damage Start of structural Cracking at wall-frame Start of structural

20 damage interfaces damage

30 Hairline cracking in Cracking initiates from Hairline cracking on

Hairline cracking in beams and columns corners of openings shear-wall surfaces &
beams and columns coupling beams
Light
near joints (<1mm)
near joints (<1mm)
Diagonal cracking of
walls. Limited Onset of concrete
spalling at a few
crushing of bricks at locations
40 b/c connections

Cracking in most beams Flexural & shear Increased brick crushing Most shear walls
50 & columns cracking in most beams at b/c connections
& columns exhibit cracks

60 Some yielding in a
Some yielding in a limited number Start of structural
Moderate limited number damage Some walls reach yield
capacity

Shear cracking &

Larger flexural cracks & spalling is limited Some diagonal shear
start of concrete spalling cracking in members Increased diagonal
especially for exterior cracking & spalling at
70 frames wall corners

Ultimate capacity reached
in some elements – large
flexural cracking,
concrete spalling
80
& re-bar buckling
Extensive
Short column failure
90
Loss of bond at lap- Extensive cracking of Most shear walls have
splices, bar pull-out, infills, falling bricks, exceeded yield, some
broken ties out-of-plane bulging reach ultimate capacity,
boundary element
distress seen.
Re-bar buckling,
extensive cracking &
Main re-bar may Partial failure of many
infills, heavier damage through-wall cracks.
buckle or elements in frame members, Shear failure of some
frame members
fail in shear some fail in shear

Beams &/or columns

Collapse of a few Shear failure of many Coupling beams
Partial fail in shear causing
columns, a building wing columns or impending shattered and some
Collapse partial collapse. Near
or single upper floor soft-storey failure shear walls fail
100 total infill failure

Complete or impending Complete or isoft-storey Complete or impending Complete or impending

Collapse
building collapse failure at ground floor building collapse building collapse

Table 1.2: The HRC-Scale: Typical damage expected in ductile, non-ductile and infilled RC moment
resisting frames and in RC shear-wall structures.
One observation made by the authors is that ISD thresholds proposed in codes of practice
(i.e. derived from expert judgement), are conservative when compared to experimental
damage observation (see figure 5.2.1.)

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 10

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

Comparison between the combined experimental results and the code given values for the
preliminary relationships
100
y=27.18Ln(x)+59.6
90 R2 = 0.801
80 y=29.68Ln(x)+49.9
R2 = 0.822
70

60
DIHRC

50

40

30

20
Experimental Data
10
Part-Judgement Data
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Maximum Inter-Storey Drift (%)

Figure 5.2.1: The DIHRC-ISDmax relationships for general RC structures, derived using experimental
data only, and experimental with part-judgement based data, (the latter being obtained by
combining experimental data with that obtained from published codes).

TASK FOR NEXT LESSON

Be Good!

REFERENCES
Banon H., (1980). “Prediction of seismic damage in reinforced concrete frames”. R80-16, Seismic
Behaviour and Design of Buildings Report 3, Constructed Facilities Division, Department of Civil
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA. 184 p.

Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H. and Biddah A., (1999). “Response-based damage assessment of structures”.
Earthquake Engineering And Structural Dynamics, Vol.28. pp79-104.

Williams M.S. and Sexmith R.G., (1995). “Seismic damage indices for concrete structures: A state-of-the-
art review”. Earthquake Spectra, Vol.11, No.2. pp. 319-346.

Singhal. A. and Kiremidjian A.S., (1997). “A method for earthquake motion-damage relationships with
application to reinforced concrete frames”. National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research Report
NCEER-97-0008, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA.

Park Y-J and Ang A.H-S., (1985a). “Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete”. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.111, No.ST4. pp. 722-738.

Park Y-J and Ang A.H-S., (1985b). “Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings”. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.111, No.ST4. pp. 740-757.

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 11

CEGEM022/G022 – Seismic Risk Assessment

Stone W.C. and Taylor A.W., (1993). “Seismic performance of circular bridge columns designed in
accordance with AASHTO/CALTRANS standards”. NIST building science series 170, U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 119p.

Park Y-J., Ang A.H-S. and Wen Y.K., (1987). “Damage limiting aseismic design of buildings”. Earthquake
Spectra, Vol.3. pp. 1-26.

Fardis M.N, (1995). “Damage measures and failure criteria for reinforced concrete members”. Proceedings
of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam. pp.1377-1382.

Cosenza E., Manfredi G. and Ramasco R., (1990). “An evaluation of the use of damage functionals in
earthquake-resistant design”. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Kucherenko Tsniisk of the USSR Gosstroy, Moscow, Vol.9. pp. 303-312.

Chai. Y.H, Fajfar P. and Romstad K.M., (1998). “Formulation of duration-dependent inelastic seismic
design spectrum”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.24, pp.913-921.

Rossetto T., (2002). “Prediction of deformation capacity of non-seismically designed reinforced concrete
members”. Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Urban
Earthquake Risk, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 2002. CD-ROM.

Bracci et al. , (1989). “Deterministic model for seismic damage evaluation of reinforced concrete
structures”. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Report NCEER-89-0033, Buffalo, N.Y.,
September 1989. 1 vol.

Chung Y.S, Meyer C. and M. Shinozuka, (1988). “A new damage model for reinforced concrete
structures”. Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan,
August 2-9, Vol. 7, pp.205-210.

Roufaiel M.S.L. and Meyer C., (1997). “Analytical modeling of hysteretic behavior of RC frames”. Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol.113, No.3. pp. 429-444.

Di Pasquale E. and Cakmak A.S., (1987). “Damage assessment from earthquake records”. Developments in
Geotechnical Engineering Vol. 45, Structures and Stochastic Methods, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
and Computational Mechanics Publications, Amsterdam and Southampton, England. Pp. 123-138.

Scawthorn C., Iemura H. and Yamada Y., (1981). “Seismic damage estimation for low and mid-rise
buildings in Japan”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.9. pp. 93-115.

Otani S., (1999). “Reinforced concrete building damage statistics and SDF response with design seismic
forces”. Earthquake Spectra, Vol.15, No.3. pp. 485-501.

Panagiotakos T.B. and Fardis M.N., (1999). “Estimation of inelastic deformation demands in multi-storey
RC frame buildings”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.28. pp. 501-528.

Mosalam K.M., Ayala G., White R.N. and Roth C., (1997). “Seismic fragility of LRC frames with and
without masonry infill walls”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.1, No.4. pp. 693-719.

Kircher C.A., Nassar A.A., Kustu O. and Holmes W.T., (1997). “Development of building damage
functions for earthquake loss estimation”. Earthquake Spectra, Vol.13, No.4. pp. 663-681.

Prof Tiziana Rossetto 12