Seismic vulnerability of RC buildings considering SSI

and aging effects

S.D. Fotopoulou, S.T. Karapetrou & K.D. Pitilakis

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

SUMMARY: (10 pt)

The present study aims at the assessment of seismic vulnerability of RC buildings taking into account the soil –
structure –interaction (SSI) and the aging effects due to corrosion of the RC structural members. Two-
dimensional non-linear dynamic analyses were performed to assess the expected performance of initial (t=0
years) and 50 years old RC frame structures. The time-dependent probabilistic fragility functions are derived for
adequately predefined damage states at different time periods in terms of peak ground acceleration at the base of
the studied structure typologies. As it was expected, the fragility of the structures increases over time due to
corrosion. Moreover, the consideration of soil deformability and SSI effects is found to yield to a significant
increase on the seismic vulnerability. Hence the combination of these two effects may modify detrimentally the
vulnerability of RC structures compared to the usually assumed case of fixed base structure with no aging
affects.

Keywords: seismic vulnerability, RC buildings, time-dependent fragility curves, aging, SSI effects

1. INTRODUCTION

The seismic vulnerability of structures is commonly expressed through probabilistic fragility functions
representing the conditional probability of reaching or exceeding a predefined damage state given the
measure of earthquake shaking. It‘s evaluation is essential for effective emergency planning, risk
management and mitigation of damage and losses prior and after an earthquake. Traditionally, in
seismic vulnerability assessment studies it has been implicitly assumed that the maintenance of the
structure is conducted in an optimum manner. In other words, the impact of various environmental
deterioration mechanisms (such as e.g. corrosion, erosion, fatigue or even cumulative damages from
past seismic events), on the seismic fragility estimates have not been yet accounted for. These
phenomena are dynamic in nature and as such a time-dependent fragility analysis of the structure is
required to account for their changing patterns over time and their likely evolving potential for
structural damage. One of the most important environmental degradation mechanisms of RC buildings
is corrosion of the steel reinforcement. Corrosion is a complex process that may affect a RC structure
in a variety of ways, including, among others, cover spalling, loss of steel-concrete bond strength and
loss of reinforcement cross sectional area. Thus, it may affect both the safety and serviceability of RC
structures in relation to their initial as-built state under the action of seismic (or even static) loading. It
has been generally acknowledged that corrosion phenomena are subject to severe uncertainties thus
necessitating the use of probabilistic models (e.g. Duracrete 2000). Very recently some researchers
(e.g. Ghosh and Padgett, 2010; Choe et al, 2010; Yalciner et al 2012) have introduced different
probabilistic models into the seismic vulnerability assessment framework to assess the time-variant
seismic fragility of corroded bridges and RC frame structures.
In parallel, other important effects that can significantly contribute to the building’s seismic fragility
are the soil conditions affecting the foundation compliance and the soil-structure interaction. Although
there are some studies that take into account the local site effects by providing fragility curves for
buildings for different soil conditions (e.g. NIBS, 2004), the effect of soil-structure interaction (SSI) to
the expected structure’s performance has not received much attention. This may be due to the fact that
the incorporation of SSI phenomena in the analysis is generally believed to reduce the seismic demand
and consequently the corresponding structural damage of non-linear systems. Thus, neglecting their
affects in fragility modeling has been generally assumed to be on the safe side. However, it has been
shown that SSI effects may be either beneficial or unfavorable to the structure’s seismic fragility
depending on the dynamic properties of the soil and the building as well as the characteristics
(frequency content, amplitude, significant duration) of the input motion (Sαez et al, 2011).
The scope of this study is to assess the seismic vulnerability of RC buildings taking into account the
SSI and the aging of the RC structural members proposing time-dependent fragility functions. Figure 1
presents a schematic flowchart of the proposed framework adopted to develop time-dependent fragility
curves for RC frame buildings. Soil structure interaction is considered through an uncoupled approach.
The appropriate motion at the foundation level of the structure is estimated through a 1D equivalent
linear analysis for given soil profiles (corresponding to shear wave velocities Vso,ave=200 and 300m/s),
while the soil structure interaction has been modeled using appropriate springs and dashpots, that
simulate rocking and sway corresponding to the computed ground shear strain levels. The
consideration of aging is achieved by including probabilistic models of chloride induced corrosion
deterioration of the RC elements within the vulnerability modeling framework. Two-dimensional non-
linear dynamic time history analyses were performed for all the RC building typologies considered
herein. Different real accelerograms recorded in outcrop conditions scaled at three different levels of
peak ground acceleration PGA (0.1g, 0.3g and 0.5g) are used as input motion. Fragility curves
derived for the initial (t=0 years) and the corroded buildings (t=50 years) are compared to gain insight
into the effect of reinforcement corrosion on the structure’s performance. Moreover, different time-
dependent curves are constructed to account for the effects of SSI and soil conditions (rock,
Vso=300m/s, Vso=200 m/sec) highlighting the importance of their incorporation in the fragility
analysis.

Figure 1.1 Methodological framework adopted

2. APPLICATION

2.1. Description of the numerical models

The studied reference structures are two moment resisting frames (MRFs) that vary on the
geometrical, structural and stiffness characteristics (Fig. 2.1). The first one (adopted by Gelagoti 2010)
is a two storey - one bay frame model that is considered representative of low – rise buildings,
designed by the Greek seismic code (EAK, 2000). The second is a four storey frame model with
three bays that can be categorized as a mid – rise building, designed according to the current seismic
code of Portugal (adopted by Abo El Ezz, 2008). The analyses of the buildings are conducted using
the finite element code SeismoStruct (Seismosoft, 2011), which is capable of calculating the large
displacement behavior of space frames under static or dynamic loading, taking into account both
geometric nonlinearities and material inelasticity. The spread of material inelasticity along the member
length and across the section area is represented through the employment of a fibre-based modeling
approach, implicit in the formulation of SeismoStruct's inelastic beam-column frame elements. Thus,
the sectional stress-strain state of beam-column elements is obtained through the integration of the
nonlinear uniaxial material response of the individual fibres in which the section is subdivided. For the
present analysis, the frame sections are divided into 300 fibres. Distributed inelasticity frame elements
are implemented assuming force-based (FB) formulations and considering 4 controlling integration
sections along the element. A uniaxial nonlinear constant confinement model is used for the concrete
material, assuming a constant confining pressure throughout the entire stress-strain range (Mander et
al.,1988). For the reinforcement, a uniaxial bilinear stress-strain model with kinematic strain hardening
is utilized. The mass of the building is assumed to be uniformly distributed along beam elements.
Some basic characteristics of the reference structures are presented in Table 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Reference MRF models used for time – dependent vulnerability assessment

Table 2.1 Characteristics of the studied buildings

Initial
Sections Mass fundamental
RC building fc [MPa] fy [MPa]
[cm] [t/m] period
T [sec]
Column 40x40 0.41
Low-rise 0.3936 20 500
Beam 1st - 2nd floor 20x50 3.15
Column 45x45 0.51
Mid-rise Beam 1st - 2nd - 3rd floor 30x60 4.77 0.5018 28 460
Beam 4rth floor 30x60 3.41

To consider the reference fixed base condition the structures are assumed to be founded on rock. Then
four structural models are analyzed considering SSI effects for two representative soil profiles.
Appropriate link elements (rotational and translational springs and dashpots) are used to simulate the
foundation rigidity and damping with respect to the underlain soil and the attained ground shear strains
as described in the following subsection.

2.2. Consideration of SSI effects

The influence of SSI in the dynamic response of the structure is taken into account in an uncoupled
two-step approach. First, the bedrock time-histories are propagated through a one - dimensional
equivalent linear analysis for the considered soil profiles, using Cyberquake (BRGM Software 1998).
It is noticed that due to the consideration of an elastic halfspace (Vs=1000 m/sec) it was possible to
directly apply the outcropping rock motion at the base of the soil model (Kwok et al. 2007). Then, the
obtained free field surface motion is imposed at the base of the buildings to estimate the expected
seismic performance. The coupling of the two sub models (soil and structure) is achieved by
calculating impedance functions introduced into the base of the structural models via equivalent linear
springs and dashpots. To simulate the soil-foundation conditions, two soil deposits are considered
(Fig. 2.2). The average low strain shear wave velocities Vso,ave of the soil profiles are taken equal to
300m/sec and 200m/sec respectively. The elastic bedrock (Vs=1000 m/sec) is assumed to lie at 30m.
The nonlinear soil behavior is modeled using the shear modulus reduction and damping curves
proposed by Darandeli (2001), which account for the variation of soil plasticity, OCR and overburden
pressure with shear strain amplitude. The analysis yields the free field acceleration time histories at the
ground surface that are finally inserted into the structural models. In parallel, the amplitude of the
effective shear strain of the surface layer (γeff=0.65·γmax) is used for the calculation of the new
compatible values of shear modulus and material damping ratio. Based on the new dynamic soil
properties, the stiffness and radiation damping of equivalent springs (Ki) and dashpots (Ci)
respectively are estimated through the expressions proposed by Mylonakis et al. (2006) referring to
equal size footings on elastic half – space. The footing dimensions are selected to satisfy the
prescriptions of the modern seismic norms as 1.7m x1.7m and 2m x 2m for the low and medium rise
structures respectively.

Figure 2.1 Soil profiles used for the 1D equivalent linear site response analyses

2.3. Corrosion modeling

Several models have been proposed to quantify and account for corrosion in the design, construction,
fragility analysis and maintenance of RC structures. A summary of these models can be found e.g. in
DuraCrete (1998). In the present study the corrosion of reinforcing bars due to the ingress of chlorides
is considered, as it is reportedly one of the most serious and widespread deterioration mechanisms of
concrete structures. The probabilistic model proposed by FIB- CEB Task Group 5.6 (2006) for
modeling corrosion initiation due to chloride ingress is adopted. According to this, the time till
corrosion initiation can be determined as:

 1 
 
 2   C 
2
 1 n 
Tini     erf 1 1  crit    (2.1)
 4  ke  kt  DRCM ,0   t0 n   Cs  
 

where Tini=corrosion initiation time (years), α =cover Depth (mm) Ccrit.=critical chloride content (wt %
cement); Cs = the equilibrium chloride concentration at the concrete surface (wt % cement); t0=
reference point of time (years); DRCM,0=Chloride migration Coefficient (m2/s); ke=environmental
function; kt=regression parameter; erf=Gaussian error function and n=aging exponent.
Once the protective passive film around the reinforcement dissolves due to continued chloride ingress,
corrosion initiates and the time dependent loss of reinforcement cross-sectional area can be expressed
as (e.g. Ghosh and Padgett, 2010):

 2 
 n  Di  4 for t  Tini
A(t )   (2.2)
max  n   D   t  2   , 
0 for t  Tini
  4 

where n=number of reinforcement bars; Di=initial diameter of steel reinforcement; t=elapsed time in
years and D(t)=reinforcement diameter at the end of (t – Tini) years, which can be defined as:

D(t )  Di  icorr    (t  Tini ) (2.3)

where icorr=rate of corrosion (mA/cm2); κ =corrosion penetration (μm/year) (κ =11, 6μm/year uniform
corrosion penetration for generalized corrosion).
The statistical quantification of the model parameters describing the chloride induced corrosion
initiation and propagation into the reinforced concrete elements adopted for the present study is given
in Table 2.2 based on FIB- CEB Task Group 5.6 (2006) prescriptions and the available literature (e.g.
Choe et al., 2009, 2010; Stewart, 2004; Ghosh and Padgett, 2010). A relatively aggressive atmospheric
exposure environment (e.g. ke=0.67, Choe et al., 2009) is assumed for an adverse chloride induced
deterioration scenario (w/c=0.6, High corrosion Level). The distribution for the corrosion initiation
time is assessed through crude Monte Carlo simulation. A lognormal distribution with mean 2.96 years
and standard deviation of 2.16 years is found to be a good fit to the simulated data for the corrosion
initiation time.

Table 2.2 Statistical characteristics of parameters affecting the chloride induced corrosion deterioration of RC
elements adopted in the present study
Parameter Mean COV Distribution
Cover Depth (mm) α 25 0.20 Lognormal
Environmental transfer variable ke 0.67 0.10 Normal
Chloride migration Coefficient (DRCM,0) (m2/s) 2.5E-11 0.10 Normal
Aging exponent n 0.3 cov=0.05 , a=0.0, b=1.0 Beta
Critical Chloride Concentration (Ccr) wt % cement 0.6 cov=0.05, a= 0.2, b=2.0 Beta
Surface Chloride Concentration (Cs) wt % cement 1.539 0.10 Normal
Rate of Corrosion (icorr) mA/cm2 10 0.20 Normal

Table 2.3 Reinforcement area in different points in time (t= 0 and 50 years) for the low and mid-rise RC
buildings
Loss of
Reinforcement area Reinforcement area
Reinforcement
RC Building Element at t=50 years
(t=0 years)
Ao (t=0 years) A(t=50years)
A(t)/Ao
(mm2) (mm2)
Column 8Φ20 2513.20 1340.00 0.53
Low-rise 1st floor beam 5Φ16 1005.31 447.65 0.45
2nd floor beam 4Φ14 615.75 238.72 0.39
4Φ18 1017.88 502.78 0.49
Column
4Φ16 804.25 358.14 0.45
2Φ10 157.08 37.99 0.24
Mid-rise 1st and 2nd floor
5Φ12 565.49 180.59 0.32
beams
3Φ16 603.19 268.62 0.45
3rd and 4th floor 6Φ10 471.24 113.86 0.24
beams 3Φ12 339.29 108.22 0.32
The distribution of the loss of area of steel due to corrosion of the RC elements for the considered
corrosion scenario (t=50 years) is calculated as a function of the corrosion rate and the corrosion
initiation time variables as well as the reinforcement of the initial as-built structure. Table 2.3 presents
the reinforcement area for the different structural members of the low and mid-rise buildings for the
initial non-degraded state and the predicted median values of the reinforcement area (considering a
lognormal fit) for the corroded structures. The corresponding anticipated loss within the elapsed time
(t-Tini) is also shown indicating losses of the cross-sectional area that vary from 24% to 53%. It is
assumed that the loss of steel area is uniformly distributed along the reinforced concrete members
whereas the degradation of steel material properties is not taken into account.

2.4. Non-linear dynamic analysis

Two-dimensional non-linear dynamic time history analyses are conducted in Seismostruct to predict
the inelastic response of the considered RC buildings for the two time scenarios (t=0 and 50 years).
For the 50 years scenario, the expected median (reduced) values of the longitudinal reinforcing bar
cross-sectional area as estimated in the previous section are inserted in the structural dynamic model.
Analyses are performed for eight real ground motion accelerograms scaled at different levels of PGA
(0.1, 0.3 and 0.5g) and recorded at sites classified as rock (Soil class A) according to EC8 (Table 2.4).
In this way, the characteristics of the earthquake ground motion (amplitude, frequency content and
duration) in relation to the dynamic properties of the soil and the structures as well as the inherent
variability associated to the earthquake demand are explicitly considered on the structures’ dynamic
response. Note that when the SSI effects are considered, the aforementioned accelerograms are first
propagated through 1D soil profiles to obtain the appropriate free field base motion for the structure.

Table 2.4 Selected outcropping records used for the dynamic analyses
Earthquake Record station Mw R (km) PGA (g)
Valnerina, Italy 1979 Cascia 5.9 5.0 0.15
Friuli, Italy 1976 San Rocco 5.9 15.0 0.11
Parnitha, Athens 1999 Kypseli 6.0 10.0 0.12
Montenegro 1979 Hercegnovi Novi 6.9 60.0 0.26
Northridge, California 1994 Pacoima Dam 6.7 19.3 0.42
Palm Springs, California 1986 Whitewater Trout Farm 6.2 7.3 0.52
Campano Lucano, Italy 1980 Sturno 7.2 32.0 0.32
Umbria, Italy 1998 Cubbio-Piene 4.8 10.0 0.24

The hysteretic damping, which is responsible for the dissipation of the majority of energy introduced
by the earthquake action, has already been implicitly included in the analysis through the 1D
equivalent linear site response analysis and the employment of the nonlinear fibre-based model
formulation of the inelastic frame elements. Additionally, a 3% of tangent stiffness – proportional
damping (Priestley and Grant, 2005) is also assigned. Various parameters were analyzed such as the
peak ground acceleration PGA, peak ground displacement PGD, spectral acceleration Sa(T) at the base
and at the top of the structures and the transfer functions with regard to input’s frequency content.
However, the final output of the dynamic analysis that is then used to estimate a damage index for
assessing the seismic fragility of the buildings, is the maximum interstory drift ratio (ISDmax%).

3. DEVELOPMENT OF TIME-DEPENDENT FRAGILITY CURVES

3.1. Definition of damage states

The definition of damage states constitutes an important step in the construction of the fragility curves.
The definition and selection of realistic damage states are of paramount importance since these values
have a direct effect on the evaluation of the fragility curve parameters. The use in this study, of the
maximum interstory drift ratio (ISDmax%) to determine the expected global seismic performance of the
structures, while it is generally intuitive, is still a comprehensive and easily calibrated indicator that
has been widely used in previous studies. Four damage states (slight, moderate, extensive, complete)
are defined based on the drift limits proposed by Ghobarah (2004). Different drift limits are adopted
for the analyzed ductile (un-corroded, properly designed) and non ductile (corroded) moment resisting
frame (MRF) structures (Table 3.1) as suggested in Ghobarah (2004). Thus, it has been implicitly
assumed that for the t=50 years corrosion scenario the structures would present limited ductility
compared to the initial non-corroded buildings.

Table 3.1 Damage states for Ductile and nonductile MRFs used in this study (after Ghobarah, 2004)
State of damage Ductile MRF Nonductile MRF
Slight/Light damage 0.4 0.2
Moderate damage 1.0 0.5
Extensive damage 1.8 0.8
Complete 3.0 1.0

3.2. Fragility functions

Fragility curves provide the conditional probability of reaching or exceeding predefined damage states
as a function of a seismic intensity parameter. The overall time dependent fragility function of the
buildings can be mathematically expressed as a two-parameter time-variant lognormal distribution:


 In  IM   In IM  t 
P  DS / IM   Φ 
  (3.1)
  t  
 

where, Φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function, IM is the intensity measure of the
earthquake expressed in terms of PGA (in units of g) at the ground surface, IM  t  and β(t) are the
median values (in units of g) and logarithmic standard deviations of the building fragilities at different
points in time along its service life and DS is the damage state. Median values of PGA to each damage
state for the different building configurations and time scenarios (t=0 and 50 years) were assigned
based on the corresponding analytical relationships between the damage index (ISDmax%- dependent
variable) and PGA (independent variable). Figures 3.1(a-d) present representative PGA - ISDmax%
relationships for the low rise structures considering fixed and compliant (SSI effect for Vso,ave
=300m/s) foundation conditions for the initial (t=0 years) and corroded (t=50 years) scenario.
Lognormal standard deviation values β(t) describe the total dispersion associated with each fragility
curve. Three primary sources of uncertainty contribute to the total variability for any given damage
state (NIBS, 2004), namely the variability associated with the definition of the limit state value, the
capacity of each structural type and the seismic demand. The uncertainty in the definition of limit
states is assumed to be equal to 0.4 while the variability of the capacity is assumed to be 0.25 (NIBS,
2004). The third source of uncertainty associated with the demand, is taken into consideration by
calculating the variability in the results of the numerical simulations carried out in Seismostruct.
Assuming that these three component dispersions are statistically independent, the total variability is
expressed as the root of the sum of the squares of the component dispersions. Table 3.2 presents the
median and beta values of each limit state for all the building typologies and time scenarios examined.
Figure 3.2 illustrates the derived sets of fragility curves for the different building configurations for the
initial non-degraded state, compared to the corresponding curves when considering corroded structural
members. It is seen that the fragility curves for the corroded structures display a great shift to lower
acceleration values for the same earthquake scenario. This is more pronounced for the stiffer, fixed
base structures compared to the more ductile, compliant structures. Overall, similar trends are
expected to occur for the low- and mid-rise structural configurations. The large differences observed
generally between the curves for un-corroded and corroded frame buildings, may be partially
attributed to the different damage state thresholds adopted (see Table 3.1). However, even if the same
threshold is adopted, it has been shown (yet not presented herein due to space limitations) that an
important increase of building vulnerability due to reinforcement corrosion is expected to take place.
Moreover, as shown in the figure, the consideration of soil-foundation compliance and SSI effects may
increase significantly the structure’s fragility compared to the fixed base case. In particular, it is
observed that the more deformable are the soil and the foundation, the more vulnerable the structure is.
This trend, however, should not be generalized as the consideration of SSI and site effects may either
increase or decrease the expected structural damage depending on the type of the structure and its
fundamental period in relation to the dynamic input motion and the soil properties. The modification
of the soil properties during shaking is affecting the foundation compliance, and hence the two
phenomena cannot be identified separately.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3.1. Computed PGA - ISDmax% relationships for the low rise structures considering fixed and
compliant foundation conditions for the initial and corroded scenario

Table 3.2 Parameters of fragility functions

Foundation Time scenario Median PGA (g)
RC building Dispersion
conditions (years) Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
t=0 0.12 0.33 0.61 1.03 0.527
Fixed base -rock
t=50 0.05 0.135 0.22 0.28 0.555
Flexible base t=0 0.15 0.28 0.43 0.62 0.529
Low-rise
Vso=300 m/s t=50 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.29 0.578
Flexible base t=0 0.05 0.14 0.27 0.49 0.530
Vso=200 m/s t=50 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.640
t=0 0.13 0.35 0.63 1.06 0.568
Fixed base -rock
t=50 0.06 0.129 0.23 0.29 0.720
Flexible base t=0 0.17 0.38 0.51 0.62 0.600
Mid-rise
Vso=300 m/s t=50 0.12 0.21 0.29 0.34 0.676
Flexible base t=0 0.08 0.17 0.27 0.41 0.646
Vso=200 m/s t=50 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.688

4. CONCLUSIONS

The seismic vulnerability of RC frame buildings has been assessed taking into account foundation
 Figure 3.2. Fragility curves for the low rise (left) and mid-rise structures (right) considering fixed and
compliant (Vso=200, 300 m/sec) foundation conditions for the initial (t=0 years) and corroded (t=50
years) scenario

compliance, SSI effects and the corrosion of the RC structural members. Both low and mid-rise bare
frame structures were analyzed using 2D nonlinear dynamic computations. Time-dependent
probabilistic fragility functions have been derived for predefined selected damage states for two time
periods (t=0, 50 years) in terms of peak ground acceleration at the base of the structure for all the
building typologies considered. It has been showed that the reinforcement corrosion may result to a
significant increase of the structures’ fragility. The consideration of soil deformability and foundation
compliance has been found to modify the structural response of the analyzed structures resulting to
higher vulnerability values. However, this should not be regarded as a general trend as the seismic
structural vulnerability may decrease or increase depending on the characteristics of the building, the
input motion and the soil properties. Moreover in order to increase the robustness of the preliminary
conclusions presented herein, further research is needed in the definition of limit states for corroded
structures based on adequate analytical, experimental and empirical data and the incorporation of the
fully probabilistic corrosion models within the dynamic analysis. In summary the results presented
prove that eventually the fragility curves used so far for RC buildings under fixed base conditions and
assuming no aging effects, may, under certain circumstances, underestimate the real vulnerability of
the structures.

AKCNOWLEDGEMENT
Most of the work reported in this paper was carried out in the framework of the ongoing REAKT
(http://www.reaktproject.eu/) project, funded by the European Commission.

REFERENCES

Abo El Ezz, A. (2008). Deformation and strength based assessment of seismic failure mechanisms for existing
RC frame buildings, Master dissertation, Rose School, Pavia.
BRGM (French Geological Survey) Software (1998) Cyberquake, version 1.1. User’s guide.
CEB-FIB Task Group 5.6 (2006), Model Code for Service Life Design. Bulletin 31, fédération internationale du
béton (fib), 2006.
Choe, D.-E., Gardoni, P. and Rosowsky, D. (2010). Fragility Increment Functions for Deteriorating Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 136:8, 969- 978.
Choe, D.-E., Gardoni, P., Rosowsky, D. And Haukaas, T., (2009). Seismic fragility estimates for reinforced
concrete bridges subject to corrosion, Structural Safety 31, 275–283.
Darendeli, M. (2001). Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping
curves, Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Texas.
DuraCrete (1998). Modeling of Degradation. BRITE –EURAM-Project BE95-1347/R4-5.
DuraCrete (2000). Probabilistic Performance Based Durability Design of Concrete Structures: Statistical
Quantification of the Variables in the Limit State Functions. Report No.: BE 95-1347, pp. 62-63.
EAK2000 (2000). Greek Seismic Code, Organization of Seismic Planning and Protection.
Gelagoti, F. (2010). Metaplastic Response and Collapse of Frame–Foundation Systems, and the Concept of
Rocking Isolation, Ph.D. Dissertation, National Technical University of Athens.
Ghobarah, A. (2004). On Drift Limits Associated with Different Damage Levels, International Workshop on
Performance-Based Seismic Design, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Ontario,
Canada, June 28 - July 1.
Ghosh, J. and Padgett, J.E., (2010). Aging Considerations in the Development of Time-Dependent Seismic
Fragility Curves, Journal of Structural Engineering 136: 12, 1497-1511.
Kwok, A. O. L., Stewart, J. P., Hashash, Y. M., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z. and Yang, Z. (2007). Use of
Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of Nonlinear Seismic Ground
Response Analysis Procedures, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133:11, 1385-
1398.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete,
Journal of Structural Engineering 114:8, 1804-1826.
Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, S. and Gazetas, G. (2006). Footings under seismic loading: Analysis and design issues
with emphasis on bridge foundations, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26, 824–853.
National Institute of Building Sciences (2004). Direct Physical Damage - General Building Stock. HAZUS-MH
Technical manual, Chapter 5, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Priestley, M.J.N. and Grant, D.N. (2005). Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 9:1, 229-255.
SeismoSoft (2011). SeismoStruct – A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed
structures, (online): Available from URL: www.seismosoft.com
Stewart, M. (2004). Spatial variability of pitting corrosion and its influence on structural fragility and reliability
of RC beams in flexure, Structural Safety 26, 453–470.
Sαez, E., Lopez-Caballero, F. and Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi, A. (2011). Effect of the inelastic dynamic soil–
structure interaction on the seismic vulnerability assessment. Structural Safety 33, 51-63.
Yalciner, H., Sensoy, S. and Eren, O.(2012). Time-dependent seismic performance assessment of a single-
degree-of-freedom frame subject to corrosion, Engineering Failure Analysis 19, 109–122.