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 Fully Operational Operational Life Safety Near Collapse Performance Description Continuous service, negligible damage Safe for occupancy, light damage, repairs for non-essential operations Moderate damage, life safety protected, repair possible but may be impractical Severe damage, collapse prevented, falling of non-structural elements Storey Drift (%) 0.2 % 0.5 % 1.5 % 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)
0.45 0.35

D10 (mm)
500 300

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
(kN) p2 p1 p3

Storey
4 3 2
Ke,p3 e,p3 Ke,p2 e,p2 Ke,p1 e,p1

p1

p2

p3

P1 P2 P3

Displacement ()
?= 5%
0.50 0.45 0.40
) m ( 0.35 t n e m 0.30 e c a l p 0.25 s i D l a 0.20 r t c e p 0.15 S

Inter-storey Drift ()
?= 20%
0.50
TR=2475y TR=2475y

Figure 3. Capacity assessment: pushover curve (left) and associated storey drifts (right).

0.45
TR=975y

TR=975y TR=475y TR=50y

0.40
TR=475y TR=50y

0.10 0.05 0.00 0 1 2 3 4

) 0.35 m ( t 0.30 n e m e 0.25 c a l p 0.20 s i D l a r 0.15 t c e p 0.10 S

0.05 0.00 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% 2, 1
e g a m a D 60% f o e g a 40% t n e c r e P

100% 0.01, 1 e80% g a m a 60% D f o e g a40% t n e c r e P 20% 0%

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

100% 0.05, 1 e80% g a m a D60% f o e g a40% t n e c r e P20% 0% 0 0.001, 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 Inter-StoreyDriftRatio 0.02 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Inter-StoreyDriftRatio 0.05 0.06 0.02, 0.8

80%

0.003, 0.4
NS Drift Sensitive Dam age

20% 0%

NS Acceleration Sensitive Dam age

0.005, 0

0.015, 0.3 0.01, 0.1

Structural Damage

0.4, 0

0.002, 0.1

PeakFloorAcceleration(g)

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 intervention []

Percentage of elements to be strengthened [%]

Cost of strengthening per unit length [200 /m]

Element length per cubic meter of building [0.14 m/m3]

Volume of building [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 :

f =

1 1+

1 S 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 RP (y) Te (s) eq Sa(Teff, eq) (g) Sd(Teff, eq) (m)
Existing 5000 4500 4000 3500 ) N3000 k ( r a e 2500 h S e s 2000 a B 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Displacement (m)
Brittle failure is expected prior to reaching the Life Safety limit state in the existing building

FO 20 1.55 5% 0.041 0.024

Element Strengthening

DC 72 1.55 5% 0.093 0.054

LS 975 2.35 12% 0.138 0.189

NC 2475 2.86 18% 0.132 0.269

O 6

DC

LS

NC
Operational (O)

DC

LS

NC

? O,DC = 5% KO,DC

? LS = 12% KLS

? NC = 18% KNC

4 y e r3 o t S 2

Damage Control (DC) Life Safety (LS) Near Collapse (NC)

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

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 DC 0.00% 0.00% 6.67% 41.21% 0.00% 0.00% 4.0% 24.7%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% LS 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% NC *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 7000 6000
Walls Existing Element/Dampers FPS-Iso

100%

80%

) 5000 N k ( r a 4000 e h S e s 3000 a B

2000 1000 0 0.00

Brittle failure expected in existing structure

Element/ Damper retrofits assume continued pushover

) t n e m e 60% c a l p e R % ( 40% s s o L t c e r i D 20%

Existing Elem-50% FPS-Iso Walls Dampers

Vbase and ? roof at stick-slip activation of FPS 0.20 0.40

Design capacity of FPS 0% 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 Fully Operational Damage Control Life Safety Near Collapse

Interruption 1 week 4 weeks 6 months 1.5 years

Time (days) 7 30 180 540

Lossindirect (% of RC) 1.2 % 5.0% 30.0% 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 Existing (do-nothing ) RP (y) LossDirect | O (%) LossIndirect | O (%) Damage Control RP (y) LossDirect | DC (%) LossIndirect | DC (%) Life Safety RP (y) LossDirect | LS (%) LossIndirect | LS (%) Near Collapse Expected Annual Loss RP (y) LossDirect | NC (%) LossIndirect | NC (%) 20 4.00% 1.17% 72 28.27% 5.00% 273 100% 90.00% 2475 100% 90.00%
*

LIMIT STATE

Element (50%) 20 4.00% 1.17% 72 28.27% 5.00% 975 66.50% 30.00% 2475 81.38% 90.00%

FPS Isolation** 20 4.00% 1.17% 72 28.27% 5.00% 3400 39.8% 5.00% 3400 39.8% 5.00%

Shear Walls 30 2.90% 1.17% 140 24.73% 5.00% 2000 62.53% 30.00% 4400 81.17% 90.00%

Added Damping 30 4.00% 1.17% 200 28.27% 5.00% 3200 66.50% 30.00% 4300 81.38% 90.00%

Fully Operational

EALDirect (%) 1.70% 1.37% 1.20% 0.79% 0.84% 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 EAL Direct + Indirect

2.5%

) 2.0% t n e m e c a 1.5% l p e r f o % 1.0% ( L A E

0.5%
% 0 7 . 1

% 6 6 . 2 % 7 3 . 1

% 1 8 . 1 % 0 2 . 1

% 1 4 . 1 % 9 7 . 0

% 6 0 . 1 % 4 8 . 0

% 7 0 . 1

0.0%

Existing 1

2 Elem-50%

3 FPS Iso

4 Walls

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 (1 r )t (1 r )t NPVExisting NPVRe trofit t =1 Benefit t =1 = = 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): CostRe trofit Value 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 (do-nothing ) Cost (%RC) EALDirect (%RC) Direct Losses NPVEAL (%RC) Benefit (%RC) Benefit-Cost Ratio tbreak even (y) Direct + Indirect Losses EALDirect+Indirect (%RC) NPVEAL (%RC) Benefit (%RC) Benefit-Cost Ratio tbreak even (y) 1.70% 85.24% 2.66% 133.04% Element (50%) 16.0% 1.37% 68.55% 16.69% 1.043 47.9 1.81% 90.52% 42.52% 2.658 18.8 FPS Isolation 22.0% 1.20% 59.81% 25.43% 1.157 43.2 1.41% 70.31% 62.73% 2.853 17.5 Shear Walls 24.0% 0.79% 39.32% 45.92% 1.913 26.1 1.06% 52.95% 80.08% 3.336 15.0 Added Damping 22.2% 0.84% 41.87% 43.37% 1.955 25.6 1.07% 53.57% 79.46% 3.582 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
4.0
B/C Direct Losses

Break-Even Analysis for Considered Retrofit Options

60.0
Direct Losses

3.5 3.0 o i t a R 2.5 t s o C t 2.0 i f e n e B 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

B/C Direct + Indirect

50.0 ) s r a e 40.0 y ( n e v E k 30.0 a e r B r o f e 20.0 m i T 10.0 9 . 7 4 2 . 3 4 1 . 6 2 Walls 3

Direct + Indirect

6 6 . 2

5 8 . 2

4 3 . 3

8 5 . 3

4 0 . 1 Elem-50% 1

6 1 . 1 FPS - Iso 2

1 9 . 1 Walls 3

5 9 . 1 Dampers 4

0.0

8 . 8 1

5 . 7 1

0 . 5 1

6 . 5 2

0 . 4 1

Elem-50% 1

FPS -2 Iso

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.