Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 2459–2484 | Cite as

The 50-year expectations of structural residual seismic capacity ratios based on uniform collapse probabilities

  • Zheng HeEmail author
  • Ning An
  • Yantai Zhang
Original Research


To achieve a more reliable assessment on structural residual seismic capacity (RSC) in case of sequence-type earthquakes, the procedures for the estimate of the 50-year expectations of RSC ratios of buildings with different importance categories and different precautionary intensities are developed based on the context of the specified uniform collapse probabilities. In accordance with the Chinese design background, the uniform collapse probability corresponding to each case is specified conservatively by its lowest limit as the uncertainty coefficient increases from 0.275 to 0.95. By these specified uniform collapse probabilities, the rare-level and great-level intensities and corresponding peak ground accelerations for all precautionary regions are modified. Further, the combination of local and global structural resilience indexes obtained from RSC ratio curves results in the expectations of Y-year RSC ratios of various buildings. With the assumed linear relation between the expectations and the collapse probability density functions, the expectations of the RSC ratios for different life extensions to 50-year design service life are also provided by corresponding specified uniform collapse probabilities. The efficiency of two types of passive control devices, especially base isolators, for the improvement of structural RSC and resilience is demonstrated by a case study on an 8-story RC frame.


Residual seismic capacity Uniform collapse probability Exceedance probability Seismic hazard Rare earthquake Great earthquake 



This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 91315301).


  1. An N, He Z (2016) A framework of seismic design based on structural resilience. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on civil, structural and transportation engineering (ICCSTE-2016). Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-10, RestonGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC-63 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Applied Technology Council, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. CECS 392 (2014) Code for anti-collapse design of building structures. China Planning Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  6. Chen K, Gao MT (2015) Controlling seismic collapse risk of general construction projects in China mainland. J Build Struct 36(1):23–29. (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  7. Coliba V, Vacareanu R, Pavel F, Craciun I (2017) Uniform risk-targeted seismic design maps for Romania. In: Proceedings of the 6th national conference on earthquake engineering and the 2nd national conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Bucharest, Romania, pp 249–256Google Scholar
  8. Douglas J, Ulrich T, Negulescu C (2013) Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France. Nat Hazards 65(3):1999–2013. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elenas A, Meskouris K (2001) Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structures. Eng Struct 23(6):698–704. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FEMA P-750 (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiorini E, Bazzurro P, Silva V (2014) Preliminary results of risk-targeted design maps for Italy. In: 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  12. Gao MT, Lu SD (2006) Preliminary discussion on the key technologies and principle of the next generation of seismic zoning map. Technol Earthq Disaster Prev 1:1–6 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  13. GB 50011–2010 (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings. China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  14. GB18306–2015 (2016) Seismic ground motion parameters zonation map of China. Standards Press of China, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  15. GB50010–2010 (2011) Code for design of concrete structures. China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  16. GB50223 (2008) Standard for classification of seismic protection of building constructions. China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  17. Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H, Biddah A (1999) Response-based damage assessment of structure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(1):79–104.;2-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hindi RA, Sexsmith RG (2001) A proposed damage model for RC bridge columns under cyclic loading. Earthq Spectra 17(2):261–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jalayer F (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. In: Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  20. JBDPA (2001) Guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation and rehabilitation. The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  21. Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Abel JF (1991) A computational tool for evaluation of seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings. Comput Struct 41(1):157–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luco N, Ellingwood BR, Hamburger RO, Hooper JD, Kimball JK, Kircher CA (2007) Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States. In: Proceedings of the SEAOC 76th annual convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  23. Maeda M, Nakano Y, Lee KS (2004) Post-earthquake damage evaluation for R/C buildings based on RSC. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Paper ID: 1179, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  24. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2011) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSEES) command language manual.
  25. Ou JP, He Z, Wu B, Qiu F (1999) Seismic damage performance-based design of reinforced concrete structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 19(1):21–30. (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  26. Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK (1985) Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. J Struct Eng 111(4):740–757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK (1987) Damage-limiting aseismic design of buildings. Earthq Spectra 3(1):1–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Senate Bill 499 (2009) Hospitals: seismic safety, structural regulations, facilities development division, the building department for California’s hospitals. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  29. Sewell RT, Toro GR, McGuire RK (1991) Impact of ground motion characterization on conservatism and variability in seismic risk estimates. NUREG/CR-6467, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Shi W, Ye LP, Lu XZ, Tang DY (2011) Study on the collapse-resistant capacity of RC frames with different seismic fortification levels. Eng Mech 28(3):41–68 (in Chinese) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shi W, Lu X, Ye L (2012) Uniform-risk-targeted seismic design for collapse safety of building structures. Sci China Technol Sci 55(6):1481–1488. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silva V, Crowley H, Bazzurro P (2016) Exploring risk-targeted hazard maps for Europe. Earthq Spectra 32(2):1165–1186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS (1996) Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. J Struct Eng 122(12):1459–1467. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ulrich T, Negulescu C, Douglas J (2014) Fragility curves for risk-targeted seismic design maps. Bull Earthq Eng 12(4):1479–1491. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vacareanu R, Coliba V (2017) Risk-targeted maps for seismic design. A brief review of the state-of-the-art. Romanian J Tech Sci Appl Mech 62(1):80–97Google Scholar
  36. Vacareanu R, Pavel F, Coliba V, Craciun I (2017a) Risk-targeted seismic design maps for Romania. In: Proceedings of the 6th national conference on earthquake engineering and 2nd national conference on earthquake engineering and seismology. Bucharest, Romania, pp 453–460Google Scholar
  37. Vacareanu R, Pavel F, Craciun I, Coliba V, Arion C, Aldea A, Neagu C (2017b) Risk-targeted maps for Romania. J Seismolog 22(2):407–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vanzi I, Marano GC, Monti G, Nuti C (2015) A synthetic formulation for the Italian seismic hazard and code implications for the seismic risk. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 77:111–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu JJ, He Z (2016) Influencing factors of incremental damage evolution of reinforced concrete structures subjected to aftershocks. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on civil, structural and transportation engineering (ICCSTE-2016), OttawaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  3. 3.Power China Huadong Engineering CorporationHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations