Roberto Villaverde

Professor Emeritus
University of California, Irvine
Department of Civil Engineering
Irvine, California 92697 U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]

Main research interests:

Seismic response of equipment and nonstructural components
Damping and isolating devices for vibration reduction
Dynamic response analysis of nonlinear systems
Collapse analysis of structures

I was fortunate to meet Luis Esteva for the first time back in 1973. I was visiting a for-
mer classmate of mine at my alma mater, the National University of Mexico, and was told by
this former classmate that Luis was looking for a research assistant. Intrigued by the opportunity
to work on research projects, I went to see him and he offered me the position. Soon after that I
quit the job I had in an engineering firm at that time and began working for him. We worked to-
gether in a couple of interesting projects dealing with seismic risk. A couple of publications
came out of this work. It was in this capacity that I had the chance to know Luis well and realize
that he is an exceptional individual. He is a man with a great intellectual ability, a vast knowl-
edge of both the theoretical and practical aspects of structural engineering, an unquestioned in-
tegrity, an unparalleled generosity, an extraordinary kindness, and, above all, a great sense of
humor. It was indeed a privilege and a pleasure to work with him and learn from him. It was
also a challenge because it was not always easy to digest the advanced concepts he usually and
effortlessly deals with in his research and was not easy to live up to his standards.
Little did I know, however, that crossing paths with Luis Esteva was to change my life
radically. For, about a year after I started working for him, he encouraged me and offered me the
opportunity to go abroad and study for my Ph. D. Inspired by him and attracted to the idea of
pursuing a research career like his, I, needless to say, took the opportunity. The rest, as it is
commonly said, is history. Had not he inspired me to become a researcher and had not he unsel-
fishly offered me that encouragement and opportunity, I would not have become what I became
and would not be where I am today. I owe to him more than to anybody else what I am profes-
sionally. I am grateful, thus, for this opportunity to thank him for the influence he had in my life
and for being a role model, a mentor, and a good friend throughout the years.
It is with great pleasure that I join the Engineering Institute of the National University of
Mexico and the other symposium participants in honoring Professor Luis Esteva for his magnifi-
cent contributions to earthquake engineering and his long and distinguished career.

Roberto Villaverde,
August 10, 2005
 CAN WE PREDICT THE SAFETY MARGIN OF STRUCTURES AGAINST AN
EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED COLLAPSE?

ABSTRACT

The collapse of engineered buildings during past earthquakes has put into ques-
tion the adequacy of current seismic provisions to prevent a partial or a total col-
lapse. As is well known, modern seismic provisions rely on a philosophy based
on strong column-weak beam designs, story drift limits, and post-elastic energy
dissipation to guaranty the survivability of building structures in the event of an
unexpectedly severe earthquake. However, this survivability has never been
demonstrated analytically, experimentally, or by field studies. On the contrary,
the fractures found in modern steel buildings after the 1994 Northridge and 1995
Kobe earthquakes have introduced new doubts into the validity of such an as-
sumption. Past collapses and the unproven adequacy of current design standards
to prevent a collapse raise thus questions as to how to determine the collapse
safety margin of structures, what is the inherent collapse safety margin in code-
designed structures, and how to strengthen structures to effectively augment such
margin. It is the purpose of this paper to review the methods that are available to
assess the collapse capacity of structures under earthquake ground motions, point
out the limitations of these methods, describe past experimental work in which
specimens are tested to collapse, and identify what is needed for an accurate
evaluation of the collapse capacities of structures and the safety margin against
such a collapse. It is contended that (a) there are no established methods to esti-
mate the collapse capacity of structures and the corresponding safety margin; (b)
it is not know if currently available collapse assessment methods can reliably pre-
dict the collapse capacity of structures; and (c) it is not know what is the inherent
safety margin against collapse of code-designed structures. It is also contended
that there is a need for experiments with realistic full-scale specimens in which
the specimens are tested all the way to collapse as well as studies to evaluate the
intrinsic safety margin in current seismic provisions against a structural collapse.

Introduction

Buildings have partially or totally collapsed during many of the earthquakes that have
occurred worldwide in the last two decades. Significant building collapses occurred during the
earthquakes in Valparaiso, Chile, in 1985 (Wyllie et al. 1986; Leiva and Wiegand 1996); Mexico
City in 1985 (Osteraas and Krawinkler 1988; Villaverde 1991); Armenia in 1988 (Wyllie and Fil-
son 1989); Luzon, Philippines, in 1990 (Schiff 1991); Guam in 1993 (Comartin 1995); North-
ridge, California, in 1994 (Hall 1994); Kobe, Japan, in 1985 (Comartin et al. 1995; Nakashima et
al. 1998); Kocaeli, Turkey, in 1999 (Youd et al. 2000); Chi-Chi, Taiwan, in 1999 (Jain et al
2002; Huang and Skokan 2002); and Bhuj, India in 2001 (Uzarski and Arnold 2001). Many of
these collapses occurred in older buildings designed with what is nowadays considered inade-
quate design standards. Others have been attributed to shoddy design and construction practices,
which undoubtedly was the case in many of them. Several of the collapses, however, took place
in buildings that were designed and constructed in accordance with modern seismic design prin-
ciples (see Fig. 1). A most dramatic example is the 22-story steel frame tower of the Pino Suarez
complex in Mexico City, which totally collapsed during the 1985 earthquake there (Osteraas and
Krawinkler 1988; Ger et al 1993). Therefore, as demonstrated by the fractures observed in the
welded connections of modern steel buildings during the 1994 Northridge earthquake (Bertero et
al. 1994) and the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake (Nakashima et al. 1998), it is possible that
many of the observed collapses have been the result of deficiencies in our knowledge of the re-
gional seismic hazard, the behavior of structural materials under dynamic loads, and the post-
elastic behavior of structural systems.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. Collapse of modern multi-story buildings during the (a) 1985 Mexico City earthquake;
(b) 1995 Kobe, Japan, earthquake; and (c) 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake

The collapses observed during past earthquakes have raised many questions regarding the
adequacy of current seismic provisions to prevent a partial or total collapse. As is well known,
modern seismic provisions rely on a philosophy based on strong column-weak beam designs,
story drift limits, and post-elastic energy dissipation to guaranty the survivability of building
structures in the event of an unexpectedly severe earthquake. However, this survivability has
never been demonstrated analytically, experimentally, or by field studies. In fact, some investi-
gators have put into question the validity of such an assumption. For example, Jennings and Hu-
sid (1968) note that if repeated excursions into the inelastic range of deformation of a structure
occur in response to ground shaking, then the accumulated permanent deformations in the struc-
ture may render gravity forces the dominant forces and make the structure collapse by lateral in-
stability. This effect, however, is not properly considered in modern design provisions. As
noted by Bernal (1987), code provisions account for the P-Δ effect of gravity loads in terms of an
inadequate extrapolation of results pertaining to static elastic behavior. In his study of the insta-
bility of buildings subjected to earthquakes, Bernal (1992) also notes that the safety of a struc-
ture against inelastic dynamic instability cannot be ensured by simply limiting the maximum
elastic story drifts of the structure, a finding that has been recently confirmed by Williamson
(2003). Similarly, Challa and Hall (1994), in their investigation of the collapse capacity of a 20-
story steel frame, observe significant plastic hinging in the structure’s columns and a likely col-
lapse of the structure under a severe earthquake ground motion. This despite the fact that, as re-
quired by current code provisions, the flexural strength of its columns exceeds that of its beams
at all joints. Interestingly enough, that observation has been recently corroborated by Medina
and Krawinkler (2005). For, in a study to evaluate the strength demands of a large number of
regular moment-resistant frames under different ground motions, they find that the potential for
the formation of plastic hinges in columns is high for regular frames designed according to the
strong column-weak beam requirements of recent code provisions. In study similar to that of
Challa and Hall, Martin and Villaverde (1996) find that a two-story, two-bay frame structure col-
lapses under a moderately strong ground motion even when the structure meets all the require-
ments from the 1992 AISC seismic provisions (AISC 1992). Likewise, Roeder et al. (1993a
1993b) observe in a study performed with an eight-story steel frame that the minimum design
criteria required by the 1988 Uniform Building Code (ICBO 1988) are not enough to ensure that
the inelastic story drifts of the structure are always below the maximum values considered in its
design. It is clear, thus, that structures designed in accordance with modern code provisions may
be susceptible to a total or partial collapse if excited by a sufficiently strong earthquake.
The collapses of modern structures during past earthquakes and the inadequacy of current
design standards to prevent these collapses brings thus the question as to what is the actual safety
margin of structures against an earthquake-induced collapse, a question that has acquired a new
importance as a result of the desire of the profession to move towards performance-based de-
signs. As is well known, collapse prevention is one of objectives of a performance-based design,
and one of its promises is the assurance of an adequate safety margin against collapse under the
expected maximum seismic load. Currently, however, as pointed out by several investigators
(Hamburger 1997; Astaneh et al. 1998; Li and Jirsa 1998; Bernal 1998, Griffith et al. 2002;
Esteva 2002), there are no established methods (other than the collective judgment of code writ-
ers) to calculate such a safety margin. Even more, it is not known if the available analytical tools
are adequate enough to evaluate it in a reliable way since the process of collapse involves large
deformations, significant second-order effects, and a complex material degradation due to local-
ized phenomena such as cracking, local buckling and yielding. What is worse, it appears that not
even an established criterion exists to identify when and how a structure collapses under the ef-
fect of dynamic loads. The reason is that reaching an unstable condition (i.e., a singular effective
stiffness matrix) is not sufficient to infer the collapse of a structure under dynamic loads as
unloading right after reaching such an unstable condition may restore the stability of the struc-
ture (Araki and Hjelmstad 2000).
The purpose of this paper is to review the methods that are currently available to assess
the collapse capacities of structures under earthquake ground motions, point out the limitations
of these methods, describe past experimental work in which specimens are tested to collapse, and
identify what are the needs and challenges for an accurate evaluation of the aforementioned col-
lapse capacities and the safety margin against such a collapse.

Collapse Assessment Methods

Single-degree-of-freedom Models

Several methods have been suggested or used in research studies in which structures are
modeled as single-degree-of-freedom systems to assess their collapse capacity. Takizawa and
Jennings (1980) employ an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system that accounts for the de-
stabilizing effect of gravity forces to examine the ultimate capacity of ductile reinforced concrete
frame structures under the combined action of strong ground shaking and gravity loads. The
single-degree-of-freedom idealization results from linking the actual structure to an auxiliary
rigid frame that makes the structure follow a specified deformation pattern. From the results of
their investigation, they find that: (a) short-duration motions have a low destructive capability,
even when they have a high peak acceleration; (b) stiff structures have a much larger safety mar-
gin between damage and collapse than flexible structures; (c) the conventional single-parameter
measures used to characterize ground motions are unsatisfactory to describe their destructive po-
tential; and (d) serious damage and collapse are significantly influenced by ground motion dura-
tion. In a similar study, Bernal (1987) proposes an empirical formula in terms of a ductility fac-
tor and a stability coefficient that characterizes the influence of gravity loads to compute an am-
plification factor that accounts for P-Δ effects in inelastic structures subjected to earthquakes.
The formula is derived from amplification spectra generated by dividing the inelastic accelera-
tion response spectrum ordinates obtained when gravity effects are included by those determined
when these effects are not considered. An elastoplastic single-degree-of-freedom model and an
ensemble of four recorded earthquake ground motions are used in the generation of these ampli-
fication spectra. Based on the results from his study, he shows that the amplification formulas
recommended by seismic codes are unconservative, and that they are increasingly so as the de-
sign ductility factor increases. Bernal (1992) also develops a simplified method to check the
safety against dynamic instability of two-dimensional buildings. The method is based on the re-
duction of a multistory structure to an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system and the deri-
vation of statistical expressions to correlate the minimum base shear coefficient needed to pre-
vent instability with some key structural and ground motion parameters. An ensemble of 24
earthquake records from firm ground sites is used to obtain these statistical correlations. With
this method, the safety margin of a structure is estimated by dividing the actual base shear capac-
ity of the structure by such a statistically determined minimum base shear. From the results of
this study, Bernal finds that the safety against dynamic instability strongly depends on the shape
of the failure mechanism. For buildings with a regular configuration, he identifies this failure
mechanism using a static limit analysis with lateral forces proportional to the structure’s story
weights. Using an approach similar to the one employed by Bernal in his 1987 study and based
on the analysis of bilinear oscillators with different post-elastic to elastic stiffness ratios, Mac-
Rae (1994) proposes a method for considering P-Δ effects on oscillators with different hysteretic
characteristics. From the results of the aforementioned analysis, MacRae observes that the post-
elastic to elastic stiffness ratio is a major parameter that affects the unidirectional accumulation
of inelastic deformation in a system and, hence, the system’s stability.
More recently, Williamson (2003) uses a simple model that explicitly considers the state
of damage in a system to determine the response of a number of single-degree-of-freedom sys-
tems under various earthquake ground motions and study the role of damage accumulation and
P-Δ effects on the response of inelastic systems. The earthquake vertical acceleration is consid-
ered explicitly in the analysis of the studied systems. He finds that damage accumulation has a
significant effect on the behavior of the analyzed systems. He also finds that P-Δ effects are im-
portant even for small values of the axial force and may lead to responses that are as much as
five times greater than in the case when P-Δ effects are ignored. In agreement with the findings
from other investigators, he observes, in addition, that a system’s response is not affected sig-
nificantly by the earthquake vertical acceleration. Finally, Adam et al. (2004) propose a proce-
dure to consider P-Δ effects in multi-degree-of-freedom structures through the use of an equiva-
lent single-degree-of-freedom system with properties defined based on the results from a push-
over analysis. The underlying assumption in this procedure is that the post-yielding global stiff-
ness obtained from the pushover analysis characterizes the global or local mechanism involved
when the actual structure approaches dynamic instability. With it, the collapse capacity of a
structure is determined through a series of dynamic analyses of the equivalent single-degree-of-
freedom system under progressively increasing ground motion intensities. The basic difference
between this procedure and that suggested by Bernal (1992) lies in the way the properties of the
equivalent system are determined. To assess the accuracy of the procedure, Adam et al. compare
the collapse capacities of two single-bay, non-deteriorating, multi-degree-of-freedom frame
structures obtained using the proposed procedure to those determined analyzing the actual struc-
tures. An ensemble of 40 ground motions is used in this comparative analysis. They conclude
that the global P-Δ effects of non-deteriorating structures may be predicted with good accuracy
with the proposed procedure and that in most cases the predictions err on the conservative side.

Finite Element Models

Several investigators have used finite element models to assess the collapse capacities of
building structures. Challa and Hall (1994) investigate the nonlinear response and collapse of
moment-resisting plane steel frames under the effect of severe earthquake ground motions. For
this purpose, they analyze employing a step-by-step integration procedure a 20-story frame de-
signed to meet the Zone 4 requirements of the 1991 Uniform Building Code (ICBO 1991) under
ground motions of two types. One is of the oscillatory type with long period components, and
the other is of the impulsive type. Fiber elements are used to model the members of the frame
and shear panel elements to model its beam-column joints. In addition, they consider the geo-
metric stiffnesses of the elements and realistic force-deformation relationships for both the ele-
ment fibers and the panel zones. They also update the deformed configuration of the structure at
each time step in the step-by-step analysis of the structure. As such, strain-hardening, axial-
flexural yield interaction, residual stresses, spread of yielding, P-Δ effects, and column buckling
are accounted for in the analysis. However, stiffness and strength degradation is neglected, as is
the effect of torsion and multi-component ground motions. They find that the frame collapses
under the oscillatory ground motion as a result of the formation of plastic hinges in the frame’s
columns and a collapse mechanism involving its lower stories.
In like fashion, Ger et al. (1993) investigate the factors that led to the collapse of a 22-
story steel building during the 1985 earthquake in Mexico City. To this end, they establish first
realistic nonlinear hysteretic constitutive relationships for the individual members of the struc-
ture, which consisted of open-web girders, welded box columns, and H-shape diagonal braces.
Then, using a three-dimensional finite-element model that includes the geometric stiffness of its
structural elements, they analyze the building under the three components of the ground motion
recorded at a station near the building’s site during the earthquake. From this analysis, they ob-
serve that most of the building’s longitudinal girders experienced severe inelastic behavior, lead-
ing to ductility demands that exceeded the ductility capacities considered in their design. Be-
cause of the failed girders, a redistribution of forces takes place and local buckling occurs in the
columns of floors 2 to 4. This local buckling, in turn, makes the affected columns loose their
load-carrying capacity. In consequence, the building tilts and rotates, experiences significant
drifts and P-Δ effects, and eventually collapses. Their results are in agreement with field obser-
vations of an almost identical building adjacent to the collapsed one, which was heavily dam-
aged and was at the verge of collapse during the same earthquake. Perhaps a significant conclu-
sion from this study is that it is possible to predict the collapse of a building using simplified
models, provided realistic force-deformation relationships are adopted.
In a somewhat different study, Martin and Villaverde (1996) develop a methodology to
(a) determine analytically if a structure excited by a given earthquake ground motion will experi-
ence a partial or total collapse, and (b) identify the structural elements that fail first and lead in
consequence to the collapse of the structure. The method is formulated on the basis of a step-by-
step, nonlinear, finite element analysis and the examination at each integration step of the up-
dated effective stiffness matrix of the structure. A partial or total collapse is detected when one
or more of the pivots of the triangularized effective stiffness matrix become zero or negative.
The part of the structure where the collapse is initiated (i.e., region of local instabilities) is lo-
cated by identifying the structural nodes that correspond to the found zero or negative pivots.
Martin and Villaverde (1996) apply their methodology to a steel cantilever beam and a two-
story, three-dimensional steel moment-resisting frame to validate the adequacy of the method.
More recently, Mehanny and Deierlein (2001) propose a methodology to evaluate the
likelihood of a structural collapse under earthquake effects using a component damage index de-
veloped by them. The methodology involves an inelastic time-history analysis with a finite-
element model, the calculation of the aforementioned damage index for each of the components
of the structure in accordance with the results of the analysis, the modification of the analytical
model according to the calculated damage indices and the corresponding local damage effects,
and a second-order analysis of this modified model under gravity loads alone. The ratio of the
gravity load under which the structure reaches its global stability limit to the actual gravity load
defines a global stability index that correlates collapse capacity to ground motion intensity.

Incremental Dynamic Analyses

Incremental dynamic analyses have recently emerged as a powerful means to study the
overall behavior of structures, from their elastic response through yielding and nonlinear re-
sponse and all the way to global dynamic instability (FEMA 2000). An incremental dynamic
analysis involves performing a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses in which the intensity of the
ground motion selected for the collapse investigation is incrementally increased until the global
collapse capacity of the structure is reached. It also involves plotting a measure of the ground
motion intensity (i.e., spectral acceleration at the fundamental natural period of the structure)
against a response parameter (demand measure) such as peak story drift ratio. The global col-
lapse capacity is considered reached when the curve in this plot becomes flat. That is, when a
small increase in the ground motion intensity generates a large increase in the structural re-
sponse. As different ground motions lead to different intensity versus response plots, the analysis
is repeated under different ground motions to obtain meaningful statistical averages. Incre-
mental dynamic analyses have been proposed as early as 1997 (Bertero 1980) and have been
studied extensively lately by several investigators.
Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2002), for example, describe the method in detail, determine
intensity–response curves for several structures (a 20-story moment-resisting steel frame, a 5-
story braced steel frame, and a 3-story moment-resisting frame with fracturing connections), ex-
amine the properties of these response-intensity curves, and propose techniques to perform effi-
ciently an incremental dynamic analysis and summarize the information obtained from the dif-
ferent curves that different ground motions produce. They observe that incremental dynamic
analyses are a valuable tool that simultaneously addresses the seismic demands on structures and
their global capacities. They also call attention to some unusual properties of the response-
intensity curves such as non-monotonic behavior, discontinuities, multiple collapse capacities,
and their extreme variability from ground motion to ground motion. Recognizing that a com-
plete incremental dynamic analysis requires an intense computational effort, Vamvatsikos and
Cornell (2004) propose a practical method to perform it efficiently, and show, through a detailed
example with a nine-story steel moment-resisting frame, how to apply it, how to interpret the re-
sults, and how to use these results within the framework of performance-based earthquake engi-
neering. By exploiting the relationship between an incremental dynamic analysis and a static
pushover analysis, they also develop (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2005) a simplified method to es-
timate the seismic demands and collapse capacities of multi-degree-of-freedom structures
through the use of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system.
Along the same lines, Ibarra and Krawinkler (2004) propose a methodology to evaluate
the global collapse capacity of deteriorating frame structures under earthquake ground motions.
The methodology is based on the use of a relative intensity measure, which they define as Sa(T1)/
g/γ, where Sa(T1) denotes the 5%-damping spectral acceleration at T1, the fundamental period of
the structure; g is the acceleration due to gravity; and γ is a base shear coefficient equal to Vy/W,
where Vy is the yield base shear without P-Δ effects and W is the weight of the structure. For
structures with no overstrength, this intensity measure is equivalent to the reduction factor used
in building codes for the analysis of yielding structures. The methodology is also based on the
use of deteriorating hysteretic models to represent the cyclic behavior of the structural compo-
nents under large inelastic deformations. To evaluate collapse capacity, they increase the inten-
sity measure until the intensity measure versus normalized maximum roof drift curve becomes
flat. The relative intensity at which this curve becomes flat is then considered to be the collapse
capacity of the structure. The evaluation is made using a probabilistic format to consider the un-
certainties in the frequency content of ground motions and the deterioration characteristics of the
structural elements. They use the proposed methodology to (a) conduct a parametric study with
typical frame structures and study the influence of several parameters on the collapse capacity of
structures; (b) develop collapse fragility curves, and (c) determine mean annual frequency
curves. The structures considered in the parametric study are stiff and flexible single-bay frames
with 3, 6, 9,12,15 and 18 stories with plasticity concentrated at the beam ends and the base of the
columns, i.e., plastic hinges are permitted to form only at the beam ends and at the base of the
columns. From the parametric study, they find that the two parameters that most influence the
collapse of a structure are the slope of the post-yield softening branch in the moment-rotation re-
lationship of the yielding members and the displacement at which this softening begins. In con-
trast, they also find that cyclic deterioration is an important but not a dominant factor in the col-
lapse of structures.
In a similar study, Ayoub et al. (2004) investigate the effect of stiffness and strength deg-
radation on the seismic collapse capacity of structures. To this end, they perform an incremental
dynamic analysis of a single-degree-of-freedom structure with a natural period of one second
considering three degrading constitutive models that explicitly account for the possibility of col-
lapse. They also develop collapse fragility curves for such a system. The constitutive models
take into account strength softening (branch with negative stiffness) and degradation of strength
and stiffness under cyclic loading. Collapse occurs when the system looses its full strength. The
three constitutive models considered are: a bilinear model, a modified Clough model, and a
pinching model. An energy-based criterion is used to define strength softening and stiffness and
strength degradation. The study is carried out employing an ensemble of 80 earthquake ground
motions and considering different levels of degradation. They find that the collapse rate of sys-
tems with low degradation is similar to the one for systems with moderate degradation. In con-
trast, systems with severe degradation fail at a much faster rate.
 Finally, Lee and Foutch (2004) evaluate the performance of 20 steel frame buildings de-
signed according to the recommendations of the 1997 NEHRP provisions (FEMA 1998) and
considering pre-qualified post-Northridge beam-column connections. To this end, the buildings
are subjected to a nonlinear time-history analysis under an ensemble of 20 earthquake ground
motions. For a performance objective of collapse prevention, they scale the ground motions so
as to have intensities that have a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The analytical
models used in the analysis account for the ductility of beam-column joints, the panel zone de-
formations, and the influence of interior gravity frames. The behavior of the beam-column joints
is characterized by a gradual strength degradation after a rotation of 0.03 radians. To evaluate
the performance of the building for the aforementioned collapse prevention objective, they com-
pare the maximum story drift demands against the drift capacities of the buildings. Local and
global drift capacities are considered in this comparison. The local drift capacities are the maxi-
mum drift angles the beam-column joints can sustain before losing their gravity load carrying
ability. Based on the results from full-scale experiments, they consider a local drift capacity of
0.07 radians. The global drift capacities are determined by performing an incremental dynamic
analysis for each of the buildings and plotting the corresponding maximum story drift ratio ver-
sus spectral acceleration curves. A building’s global drift capacity is considered to be the
maximum story drift ratio at which the maximum story drift ratio versus spectral acceleration
curve becomes flat, or, alternatively, the maximum story drift ratio at which this curve reaches a
slope equal to 20 percent of the slope in the elastic region of the curve. However, if this slope is
not reached before a story drift ratio of 0.10 is attained, it is assumed that the global drift capac-
ity is equal to 0.10. Based on the calculated drift demands and assumed local and global capaci-
ties, Lee and Foutch conclude that all the buildings considered in the study satisfy the collapse
prevention performance objective.

Shake Table Collapse Experiments

Only a few experiments have been conducted in which structural models are tested all the
way to collapse. Kato et al. (1973) test simple models to collapse, or near collapse, on a shaking
table and compare their response with the response obtained analytically considering strain hard-
ening and P-Δ effects. The models are formed with 15-cm high H steel columns fixed at both
ends and a concentrated mass on top of the columns. They conclude that except for some soften-
ing of the hysteresis loops due to Bauschinger effect, the tests results are well predicted by the
analytical model. Vian and Bruneau (2003) also test to collapse on a shaking table 15 simple
specimens, each built with four steel columns connected to a rigid mass. The column heights
range from 91.7 mm to 549.5 mm and are designed to have a slenderness ratio of 100, 150 or
200. The tests are conducted under the N-S component of the 1940 El Centro ground accelera-
tion record, progressively increasing the intensity of the motion until the specimens collapse.
From their test results, they observe that the inelastic behavior of the specimens have a high de-
pendence on a stability factor that is used to measure the influence of gravity loads. Specimens
with a stability factor of less than 0.1 are able to withstand the ground motions with larger ductil-
ity demands and accumulated drifts than those with a stability factor of more than 0.1. They also
compare their experimental results against those obtained analytically using a simple hysteretic
model. They find that the analytical results do not provide a good match to their experimental
data. On a shake table too, Kanvinde (2003) tests to collapse, or near collapse, nineteen simple
structures with a story height of 10 inches, a bay width of 24 inches, and a floor plan of 12 by 24
inches. The structures are built with four steel flat columns connected to a rigid 320-lb. steel
mass. They are tested under two of the ground motions recorded during the 1994 Northridge
earthquake: Obregon Park and Pacoima Dam. The specimens collapse after plastic hinges are
formed at the top and bottom of the columns and a story mechanism is formed. Kanvinde also
conducts a nonlinear, large displacement, dynamic analysis of the specimens to evaluate the abil-
ity of analytical tools to predict their response under very large displacements. For this purpose,
he uses the OpenSEES program being developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center (OpenSEES 2005). The hysteretic model used in the analyses is the Giufré-
Menegotto-Pinto model, which is characterized by a yield envelope and a nonlinear hardening
exponential law. The parameters for this model are determined from monotonic and cyclic tests
of the columns used to build the experimental models. By comparing the displacement time his-
tories obtained analytically and experimentally, Kanvinde finds that the analytical simulations
predict with an average error of about 15 percent the results from the shake table tests.

Needs and Challenges

It may be inferred from the foregoing literature review that the process to assess the
safety margin of a structure against an earthquake-induced collapse is complicated and unreli-
able. The reason is that many factors are involved and it is difficult to account for many of these
factors accurately. Factors that may significantly affect the collapse safety margin of a structure
are: (a) the characteristics of the ground motion (intensity, frequency content, and duration) ex-
citing the structure; (b) the dynamic properties of the structure; (c) the geometry of the structure;
(d) the post-elastic and post-buckling behavior of its components; (e) the strength and stiffness of
these components; (f) the degradation of this strength and stiffness after several loading cycles;
(g) the interaction between vertical loads and lateral drifts; (h) the interaction of the structure
with its non-structural components; and (i) residual stresses and initial imperfections. Besides,
the evaluation of this safety margin is complicated by the fact that it varies significantly from
one ground motion to another and the fact that the characteristics of the ground motions that will
affect the structure during its lifetime are largely unknown. In principle, therefore, an analytical
prediction of such a safety margin is only possible by means of a step-by-step dynamic finite
element analysis in which (1) the equations of equilibrium are established on the basis of the de-
formed configuration of the structure; (2) this deformed configuration is updated at each step; (3)
non-linear large-deformation elements are used; (4) the mesh considered is sufficiently fine to
accurately account for the spread of plasticity, local and global instabilities, and crack formation;
(5) a characteristic response of the structure is monitored to identify a rapid increase in its mag-
nitude; and (6) the analysis is repeated under a sufficiently large number of different ground mo-
tions with different characteristics to obtain statistically meaningful averages.
It may also be inferred from the presented literature review that the currently available
methods to assess the collapse capacity of a structure are not completely satisfactory. Those
based on single-degree-of-freedom models, although simple, are unreliable because, as pointed
out by Bernal (1992, 1998), the collapse capacity of a structure strongly depends on the assumed
shape of the failure mechanism and this shape cannot be predicted a priori, not even with the
help of a pushover analysis. The methods based on finite element models seem to be fine except
that to be reliable it is necessary to account properly for the many factors listed above. This ren-
ders them computationally demanding and therefore impractical. Likewise, the methods based
on an incremental dynamic analysis, besides being also computationally demanding, they are
also unreliable because they lead to multiple collapse capacities and depend on the parameter se-
lected to measure the ground motion intensity.
Lastly, it may be observed that (a) the reliability of collapse assessment methods may be
affected by the accuracy and convergence problems that are likely to occur due to the high levels
of nonlinear behavior and large displacements a structure may experience when it is near col-
lapse; (b) the adequacy of the available collapse assessment methods has not been verified
through experimental or field studies; (c) only a few shake table experiments have been carried
out to study the collapse of structures and verify the adequacy of collapse assessment methods;
(d) realistic models of real structures have never been tested to collapse; (e) little information is
currently available about the real capacity of structures to resist a collapse; and (f) little is know
about the inherent safety margin against collapse in code-designed structures.
It is clear, thus, that further research is needed before the collapse capacities of structures
and the associated safety margin against collapse may be evaluated with confidence. There is a
need for experiments with realistic full-scale specimens in which the specimens are tested all the
way to collapse. These experiments are needed to (a) advance the understanding of the condi-
tions that lead to a collapse in real, full-scale, three-dimensional structures; (b) evaluate the ca-
pability of existing numerical analysis techniques to predict building behavior at the levels of de-
formation involved when a structure is near collapse; and (c) assess the adequacy of current col-
lapse assessment methods. There is also a need to evaluate the inherent safety margin in current
seismic provisions against a structural collapse and establish whether or not this safety margin is
adequate enough.
The great challenge for the profession is the development of simplified techniques to es-
timate in a reliable way the aforementioned collapse capacities and safety margin. These tech-
niques are urgently needed to facilitate (a) the scrutinization of present and future code provi-
sions in regard to their ability to provide an adequate safety margin against collapse; (b) the de-
velopment of design procedures that explicitly would make structures resist a collapse with a
specified safety margin; and (c) the identification and strengthening of weak structural compo-
nents that may compromise the collapse capacity of a structure. Undoubtedly, the availability of
such techniques could help improve the seismic performance of building structures and minimize
the number of catastrophic failures during earthquakes.

References

Adam, C., L. F. Ibarra, and H. Krawinkler (2004). Evaluation of P-delta effects in non-deteriorating
MDOF structures from equivalent SDOF systems, Paper No. 3407, Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
AISC(1992). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Inc., Chicago, Ill.
Araki, Y. and K. D. Hjelmstad (2000). Criteria for assessing dynamic collapse of elastoplastic structural
systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 29(8), 1177-1198.
Astaneh-Asl A. et al. (1998). Stability of damaged steel moment frames in Los Angeles, Engineering
Structures, 20(4-6), 433-446.
Ayoub, A., C. Mijo, and M. Chenouda (2004). Seismic fragility analysis of degrading structural systems.
Paper No. 2617, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancou-
ver, Canada.
Bernal, D. (1987). Amplification factors for inelastic p-Δ effects in earthquake analysis, Earthquake En-
gineering and Structural Dynamics, 15(5), 635-651.
Bernal, D. (1992). Instability of buildings subjected to earthquakes, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 118( 8), 2239-2260.
Bernal, D. (1998). Instability of buildings during seismic response, Engineering Structures, 20(4-6), 496-
502.
Bertero, V. V., J. C. Anderson, and H. Krawinkler (1994). Performance of Steel Building Structures Dur-
ing the Northridge Earthquake, Report No. UCB/EERC-94/09, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Bertero, V. V. (1980). Strength and deformation capacities of buildings under extreme environments,
Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics, A Volume Honoring Edgar P. Popov, K. Pis-
ter, Ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Challa, V.R.M. and J. F. Hall (1994). Earthquake collapse analysis of steel frames, Earthquake Engineer-
ing and Structural Dynamics, 23(11), 1199-1218.
Comartin, C. D., Ed. (1995). Guam Earthquake of August 8, 1993 Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake
Spectra, Supplement B to Volume 11.
Comartin, C. D., M. Greene, and S. K. Tubbesing, Eds. (1995). The Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake,
January 17, 1995, Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute, Oakland, Calif.
Esteva, L. (2003). Optimum damage-control policies for structural systems under seismic risk conditions,
Proceedings of the 3rd World Conferences on Structural Control, F. Casciati, Ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd., Chichester, England, Vol. 1, pp. 33-46.
FEMA (1998). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures: Part I-Provisions, 1997 Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C.
FEMA (2000). Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Buildings, Report
No. FEMA 350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Ger, J.F., F.Y. Cheng, and L.W. Lu (1993). Collapse behavior of Pino Suarez Building during 1985 Mex-
ico City earthquake, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(3), 852-870.
Griffith, M. C., A. Kawano, and R. F. Warner (2002). Towards a direct collapse-load method of design
for concrete frames subjected to severe ground motions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31(10), 1879-1888.
Hall, J. F., Ed. (1994). Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report,
Publication No. 94-01, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
Hamburger, R. O. (1997). A framework for performance-based earthquake resistive design, The EERC-
CUREE Symposium in Honor of Vitelmo V. Bertero, UCB/EERC Report 97/05, pp. 101-108.
Huang S. C. and M. J. Skokan (2002). Collapse of the Tungshing building during the 1999 Chi-Chi
earthquake in Taiwan, Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ibarra, L. F. and H. Krawinkler (2004). Global collapse of deteriorating mdof systems, Paper No. 116,
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
ICBO (1988). Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
ICBO (1991). Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
Jain, S. K., W. R. Lettis, C. V. R. Murty, and J. P. Bardet, Eds. (2002). Chi-Chi Taiwan, Earthquake of
September 21, 1999, Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to Volume 18.
Jennings P.C. and R. Husid (1968). Collapse of yielding structures during earthquakes, Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 94(EM5), 1045-1065.
Kanvinde, A. M (2003) Methods to evaluate the dynamic stability of structures—Shake table tests and
nonlinear dynamic analyses, Winner EERI Annual Student Paper Competition.
Kato, B., H. Akiyama, H. Suzuki, and Y. Fukuzawa (1973). Dynamic collapse tests of steel structural
models, Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy.
Lee, K. and D. A. Foutch (2002). Performance evaluation of new steel frame buildings for seismic loads,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 653-670.
Leiva G. and W. Wiegand (1996). Analysis of a collapsed building using the displacement seismic design
approach, Paper No. 1512, Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing, Acapulco, Mexico.
Li, Y. R. and J. O. Jirsa (1998). Nonlinear analyses of an instrumented structure damaged in the 1994
Northridge earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, 14(2), 265-283.
MacRae, G. A. (1994). P-Δ effects on single-degree-of-freedom structures in earthquakes, Earthquake
Spectra, 10(3), 539-568.
Martin S. C. and R. Villaverde (1996). Seismic collapse of steel frame structures, Paper No. 475, Pro-
ceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.
Medina, R. A. and H. Krawinkler (2005). Strength design issues relevant for the seismic design of mo-
ment-resisting frames, Earthquake Spectra, 21(2), 415-439.
Mehanny. S. S. F. and G. G. Deierlein (2001). Seismic damage and collapse assessment of composite
moment frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 127(9), 1045-1053.
Nakashima, M., K. Inoue, and M. Tada (1998). Classification of damage to steel buildings observed in the
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, Engineering Structures, 20(4-6), 271-281.
OpenSEES (2005). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Osteraas J. and H. Krawinkler (1988). The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985 - Behavior of steel
buildings, Earthquake Spectra, 5(1), 51-88.
Roeder, C. W., S. P. Schneider, and J. E. Carpenter (1993a). Seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel
frames: Analytical study, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(6), 1867-1884.
Roeder, C. W., S. P. Schneider, and J. E. Carpenter (1993b). Seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel
frames: Experimental study, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(6), 1885-1902.
Schiff, A. J., Ed. (1991). Philippines Earthquake Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra, Supple-
ment A to Volume 7.
Takizawa H. and P.C. Jennings (1980). Collapse of a model for ductile reinforced concrete frames under
extreme earthquake motions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 8, 117-144.
Uzarski, J. and C. Arnold, Tech. Eds. (2001). Bhuj, India, Earthquake of January 26, 2001, Reconnais-
sance Report, Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to Volume 17.
Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491-514.
Vamvatsikos, D. and C. A. Cornell (2004). Applied incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Spectra,
20(2), 523-553.
Vamvatsikos, D. and C. A. Cornell (2005). Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multide-
gree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom ap-
proximation, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(4), 589-599.
Vian D. and M. Bruneau (2003). Tests to Structural Collapse of Single Degree of Freedom Frames Sub-
jected to Earthquake Excitations, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(12), 1676-1685.
Villaverde, R. (1991). Explanation for the numerous upper floor collapses during the 1985 Mexico City
earthquake, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 20(3), 223-241.
Williamson, E. B. (2003). Evaluation of damage and P-Δ effects for systems under earthquake excita-
tion,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(8), 1036-1046.
Wyllie, L. A. et al., (1986). The Chile Earthquake of March 3, 1985, Earthquake Spectra, 2(2).
Wyllie, L. A., Jr., and J. R. Filson, Eds. (1989). Armenia Earthquake Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake
Spectra, Special Supplement.
Youd, T. L., J.P. Bardet, and J. D. Bray, Eds. (2000), Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999
Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to Volume 16.