1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

COLLAPSE PROBABILITY OF FRAME STRUCTURES WITH

DETERIORATING PROPERTIES
Helmut Krawinkler1 and Luis Ibarra1
1

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Email: krawinkler@stanford.edu

SUMMARY
This paper addresses the collapse potential of deteriorating systems when subjected to
seismic excitations. A global collapse assessment approach, which is based on a hysteretic
model that includes history dependent strength and stiffness deterioration, and considers the
uncertainty in the ground motion frequency content, is illustrated on hand of SDOF systems
and MDOF frame structures. The deterioration model is energy-based and traces
deterioration as a function of past loading history and the energy dissipation capacity of the
components of the structural system. In the proposed approach global collapse is described
by a relative intensity measure, defined as the ratio of ground motion intensity (measured by
the spectral acceleration at the first mode period) to a structure strength parameter (base shear
coefficient). The relative intensity at which collapse occurs is called the collapse capacity.
A parametric study is performed using SDOF systems and generic MDOF frames subjected
to a set of Californian ground motions. The frames include nonlinear behavior by means of
concentrated plasticity. The nonlinear springs at the end of the elements include hysteretic
models with strength and stiffness deterioration characteristics. To obtain the collapse
capacity, the relative intensity is increased in small increments and dynamic analyses are
carried out at each increment. Global collapse occurs when the relative intensity-EDP curve
becomes flat. In MDOF systems, a flat slope implies that in a specific story the gravity
induced P-delta effects have overcome the deteriorating story lateral resistance.
The collapse capacity data are used to generate fragility curves for a given MDOF system.
The mean annual frequency of collapse can be obtained by integrating the collapse fragility
curve for a given MDOF system over the spectral acceleration hazard curve pertaining to a
specific site.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Protection against collapse has always been a major objective of seismic design. Collapse refers to the loss
of ability of a structural system, or any part thereof, to resist gravity loads. Local collapse may occur, for
instance, if a vertical load carrying component fails in compression, or if shear transfer is lost between
horizontal and vertical components (e.g., shear failure between a flat slab and a column). Such local
collapse issues are not discussed in this paper. Global (or at least story) collapse will occur if local
collapses propagate (cascading collapse) or if an individual story displaces sufficiently so that the second
order P-delta effects fully offset the first order story shear resistance and instability occurs (incremental
collapse).
Deterioration in strength and stiffness of individual components plays a critical role in the incremental
collapse mode. Therefore, assessment of collapse safety necessitates the capability to predict the dynamic
response of deteriorating systems, particularly for existing older construction in which deterioration
commences at relatively small deformations. To this date, the system collapse issue was seldom addressed
because of the lack of hysteretic models capable of simulating deterioration behavior, and collapse is

325

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

usually associated with an acceptable story drift or the attainment of a limit value of deformation in
individual components of the structure. This approach does not permit a redistribution of damage and
does not account for the ability of the system to sustain significantly larger deformations before collapse
than those associated with first attainment of a limiting deformation in a component. These shortcomings
are overcome in the procedure proposed in this paper
The approach presented in this paper is based on hysteretic models of structural elements that account for
history-dependent strength deterioration and stiffness degradation. The cyclic deterioration model is
energy based and traces deterioration as a function of past loading history and the energy dissipation
capacity of each component. System collapse can then be evaluated in a reliability format that considers the
uncertainties in the intensity and frequency content of the earthquake ground motions as well as the
deterioration characteristics of each structural element. Research on SDOF systems and MDOF frame
structures utilizing these component deterioration models has been performed. Parameter studies are
carried out in which the period (number of stories) of the structural system and the deterioration properties
of the component models are varied. Salient findings of this study on deteriorating SDOF systems and
MDOF frame structures are the subject of this paper.

2.

DETERIORATING HYSTERESIS MODEL

2.1 Basic Component Models

Three basic component models are widely used for a generic representation of hysteretic characteristics, i.e.,
the bilinear model, the peak-oriented (Clough) model, and the pinching model. If no deterioration exists,
these three models can be described by a small number of parameters; i.e., the elastic stiffness Ke, the yield
strength Fy, the strain hardening stiffness Ks = sKe, an unloading stiffness, Ku, if different from the elastic
stiffness, and two more parameters to define the pinching effect (for the pinching model only). In this paper
all of the presented results are for the peak-oriented model. For an assessment of the effects of basic
hysteresis properties on collapse the reader is referred to [Ibarra, 2003].
2.2 Component Models with Deterioration in Strength and Stiffness
Replication of collapse necessitates modeling of deterioration characteristics of structural components.
The literature on this subject is extensive, but few simple deterioration models exist, and little systematic
research on the effects of component deterioration on the collapse potential has been performed in the past.
The reader is referred to the following references, which are representative examples of important work in
this area: [Kunnath et al., 1997], [Sivaselvan and Reinhorn, 2000], and [Song and Pincheira, 2000].
Rigorous evaluation of collapse safety requires more emphasis on deterioration models. Utilization of the
PEER framework equation for prediction of the collapse probability [Krawinkler, 2002] is feasible only if
modeling of history dependent deterioration is incorporated in the response prediction. Refined component
models that incorporate deterioration characteristics are being developed as part of the PEER OpenSees
effort. These models are detail-specific and cannot be employed for general sensitivity studies. Thus, a
general deterioration model had to be developed as part of one of the PEER demand studies [Ibarra, 2003].
This hysteresis model attempts to model all important modes of deterioration that are observed in
experimental studies. An example of a monotonic load-displacement response and a superimposed cyclic
response of identical plywood shear wall panels is illustrated in Figure 1. The monotonic test result
shows that strength is capped and is followed by a negative tangent stiffness (which often degrades
gradually, a phenomenon that is ignored in this model). The cyclic hysteresis response indicates that the
strength in large cycles deteriorates with the number and amplitude of cycles, even if the displacement
associated with the strength cap has not been reached. It also indicates that similar strength deterioration
occurs in the post-capping range, and that the unloading stiffness may also deteriorate. Furthermore, it is
observed that the reloading stiffness may deteriorate at an accelerated rate if the hysteresis response is of a
pinched nature (as in this example).

326

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

Thus, the hysteresis model should incorporate a backbone curve that represents the monotonic response,
and deterioration rules that permit modeling of all important deterioration modes and should be applicable
to any of the three basic hysteresis models summarized previously. Thus, as a minimum, the backbone
curve has to be trilinear in order to include strength capping and post-cap strength deterioration. The
strength cap Fc is associated with the cap deformation, c, and is followed by a post capping tangent
stiffness Kc = cKe, which is either zero or negative. The branches of the backbone curve for monotonic
loading are shown in Figure 2. As seen, the ratio c/y may be viewed as the ductility capacity, but
deformations larger than c can also be tolerated.
UCSD Test PWD East Wall
10

Load (kips)

Fc
sKe

Fy

0
-5

cKe

Monotonic

Ke

ISO

min. strength

-10
-6

-4

-2

Displacement (in)

Figure 1 Experimental results from plywood

shear wall tests; modes of deterioration

Figure 2 Backbone curve and its movement

with deterioration (Ibarra et al., 2003)

The strain hardening and post capping branches may remain stationary or may deteriorate (i.e., translate
towards the origin) in accordance with a relatively simple energy-based deterioration model [Rahnama and
Krawinkler, 1993] defined by a deterioration parameter of the type

Ei

i =
i
Et E j

j =1

in which

(1)

i
Ei
Et

Ej
c

=
=
=
=
=

parameter defining the deterioration in excursion i

hysteretic energy dissipated in excursion i
hysteretic energy dissipation capacity, expressed as a multiple
of Fyy, i.e., Et = Fyy
hysteretic energy dissipated in all previous excursions
exponent defining the rate of deterioration

This deterioration parameter can be applied to one or all of the following four deterioration modes:
1.

Basic strength deterioration, defined by translating the strain hardening branch towards the origin by
an amount equivalent to reducing the yield strength to
Fi = (1 is )Fi 1

where

Fi
Fi 1

is

(2)

= deteriorated yield strength after excursion i

= deteriorated yield strength before excursion i
= given by Eq. 1, employing an appropriate value to model strength
deterioration, i.e., s.

327

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

In addition, the slope of the strain hardening branch is continuously rotated by an angle equivalent to
the amount of strength deterioration, such that the strain hardening stiffness is equal to zero when the
yield strength has deteriorated to zero.
2.

Post-cap strength deterioration, defined by translating the post-capping branch towards the origin by
an amount equivalent to reducing the cap strength to
Fi = (1 ic )Fi 1

(3)

using the same definitions as in the strength deterioration case but employing ic associated with an
appropriate value to model cap deterioration, i.e., c.
3.

Unloading stiffness deterioration, defined by reducing the unloading stiffness Ku in accordance with
K u ,i = ( 1 i )K u ,i 1 = u K u ,i 1

(4)

using the same definitions as in the strength deterioration case but employing ik associated with an
appropriate value to model unloading stiffness degradation, i.e., k.
4.

Accelerated reloading stiffness deterioration, defined by moving the target deformation t,i (which
defines the point targeted in the reloading branch of the peak-oriented and pinching model) along the
backbone curve to a value of

t ,i = ( 1 + i ) t ,i 1 = k t ,i 1

(5)

employing ia associated with an appropriate value to model accelerated reloading stiffness

degradation, i.e., a.
In addition to these deterioration modes, a residual strength of Fy can be assigned to the model. When
such a residual strength is specified, the backbone curve is supplemented by a horizontal line with ordinate
Fy, and the strength will not drop below this value.
Thus, the deterioration model has two parameters defining the capping phenomenon (c [or Fc] and c), up
to four deterioration parameters (s, c, k, a) [presuming that the exponent in Eq. 1 is equal to 1.0, which is
the only case considered so far], and a residual strength parameter . This model was tested on
force-deformation data obtained from experiments on steel, reinforced concrete, and wood components.
Adequate simulations were obtained in all cases by tuning the model parameters to the experimental data.
Examples illustrating the effects of cyclic deterioration on the time history response of an SDOF system are
shown in Figure 3. The backbone curve parameters are indicated in the figure, and values of 100 and 25,
respectively, are used for the four modes of deterioration. The NR94hol ground motion recorded in the 94
Northridge earthquake is used as input. The small values (25 as compared to 100) lead to pronounced
cyclic deterioration, which is reflected in the decrease in strength and stiffness evident in Figure 3(b), which
in turn increases the maximum displacement by about 50% compared to the case with slow cyclic
deterioration, but does not yet lead to collapse.

328

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR W/CYCLIC DET.

HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR W/CYCLIC DET.

Peak Oriented Model, NR94hol Record , =5%,

P-=0, s=0.03, c=-0.10, c/y=4, s,c,k,a=100

Peak Oriented Model, NR94hol Record , =5%,

P-=0, s=0.03, c=-0.10, c/y=4, s,c,k,a=25
1.2

0.8

Normalized Force, F/Fy

Normalized Force, F/Fy

1.2
Initial
Backbone

0.4
0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2

0.8
0.4
0
-0.4
-0.8

Initial
Backbone

-1.2
-4

Normalized Displacement, /y

-4

Normalized Displacement, /y

(a)
(b)
Figure 3 Effect of Cyclic Deterioration in Time History Analysis (a) s,c,k,a =100, (b) s,c,k,a = 25
3.

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND GROUND MOTIONS USED IN THIS STUDY

3.1 Structural Systems

Both SDOF systems and MDOF frames are investigated in this study. Even though the deterioration model
described in Section 2 is a component model, in the SDOF study it is assumed that the system response
follows the same hysteresis and deterioration rules as a representative component. Clearly this is an
approximation, as it is idealistic to assume that all components of a structural system have the same
deterioration properties and it is unrealistic to assume that all components yield and deteriorate
simultaneously. But such assumptions are made often when conceptual SDOF studies are performed in
which the SDOF system is intended to represent a MDOF structure. The yield level of the SDOF system is
defined by the parameter = Fy/W, with Fy being the yield strength and W being the seismically effective
weight.
The MDOF systems are single-bay moment resisting frames with number of stories, N, equal to 3, 6, 9, 12,
15, and 18, and a fundamental period, T1, of 0.1N and 0.2N. Note that there are overlaps at T1 = 0.6 s., 1.2 s.
and 1.8 s., which allows an assessment of the effects of N in the response of the frames given T1.
The main characteristics of this family of frames are as follows:
The same mass is used at all floor levels
Centerline dimensions are used for beam and column elements
Relative stiffnesses are tuned so that the first mode is a straight line
Plastic hinges can occur only at the end of the beams and the bottom of the first story columns (no weak
stories permitted)
Frames are designed so that simultaneous yielding is attained under a parabolic (NEHRP, k = 2) load
pattern
The global shear strength of the frame is defined by the parameter = Vy/W, with Vy being the base
shear yield strength and W being the seismically effective weight of the full frame (i.e., is equivalent
to of the SDOF system)
Moment-rotation hysteretic behavior is modeled by using rotational springs with the appropriate
hysteresis and deterioration properties. In all cases, 3% strain hardening is assumed.
The effect of gravity load moments on plastic hinge formation is not included
Global (structure) P-Delta is included
For the nonlinear time history analyses, 5% Rayleigh damping is assigned to the first mode and the
mode at which the cumulative mass participation exceeds 95%.

329

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

3.2 Ground Motions

A set of 40 ordinary ground motions (denoted as LMSR-N set) is used to carry out the time history analysis.
The ground motions are from Californian earthquakes of moment magnitude between 6.5 and 6.9 and a
closest distance to the fault rupture between 13 km and 40 km (i.e., near-fault effects are not considered).
These ground motions were recorded on NEHRP site class D [FEMA368, 2000]. Qualitatively,
conclusions drawn from the collapse evaluation using this set of ground motions are expected to hold true
also for stiffer soils and rock. The records are selected from the PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research) Center Ground Motion Database (http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/).
A comprehensive
documentation of the properties of the LMSR-N ground motion set is presented in [Medina, 2003].

4.

DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE CAPACITY

Since only bending elements are utilized in the frame models (i.e., shear and axial failures are not modeled),
collapse implies that the interstory drift in a specific story grows without bounds (incremental collapse).
The basic parameter used to drive the structure to collapse is the relative intensity [Sa(T1)/g]/, with
Sa(T1), the spectral acceleration at the first mode period, being a measure of the intensity of the ground
motion, and being a measure of the strength of the structure. [For SDOF system the equivalent parameter
is (Sa/g)/.]
The parameter [Sa(T1)/g]/ represents the ductility dependent response modification factor (often denoted
as R), which, in the context of present codes, is equal to the conventional R-factor if no overstrength is
present. Unless gravity moments are a major portion of the plastic moment capacity of the beams, and there
are considerable changes in column axial forces due to overturning moments as compared to the gravity
axial forces in columns, the use of [Sa(T1)/g]/ as a relative intensity measure can be viewed two ways;
either keeping the ground motion intensity constant while decreasing the base shear strength of the structure
(the R-factor perspective), or keeping the base shear strength constant while increasing the intensity of the
ground motion (the Incremental Dynamic Analysis, IDA. perspective [Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002]).
Thus, the process of determining the collapse capacity of a structural system consists of subjecting the
structure to a set of ground motions, and for each ground motion incrementing the relative intensity until
dynamic instability occurs. This implies that the curve relating the relative intensity, [Sa(T1)/g]/, and a
relevant engineering demand parameter, EDP, (e.g., roof drift, maximum story drift, maximum story
ductility) becomes flat (horizontal), as illustrated in Figure 4, because the EDP increases indefinitely for a
minute increase in relative intensity. Thus, the relative intensity associated with the last point of each
[Sa(T1)/g]/ - EDP curve (the maximum story ductility is used as EDP in Figure 4) can be viewed as the
collapse capacity of the structural system, denoted here as [Sa,c(T1)/g]/ .
Thus, if 40 ground motions are used, up to 40 data points for the collapse capacity are obtained (Figure 4
illustrates an example for only 20 ground motions). It is evident that the collapse capacity has a very large
scatter, and for several ground motions it may be attained at very high [Sa(T1)/g]/ values that are outside
the range of interest. Thus, the collapse capacity can only be evaluated statistically, and often from an
incomplete data set. For good reasons [Ibarra, 2003] it is assumed that the distribution of the collapse
capacity data is lognormal, and counted statistics is employed because of the sometimes occurring
incompleteness of the date set (i.e., for 40 records the average of the 20th and 21st sorted value is taken as the
median, the 6th sorted value is taken as the 16th percentile, and the 34th sorted value is taken as the 84th
percentile). If the data set is complete, a distribution can be fitted to the data as shown in Figure 4. The
meaning of this distribution is discussed further in Section 6.. In the following discussion the emphasis is
on median values of collapse capacity.

330

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

M AX . STO RY DUCTILITY vs. NO RM . STRENG TH

N =9, T 1 =0.9, =0.05, K 1 , S 1 , BH, =0.015, Peak-O riented M odel,
s =0.05, c/ y =4, c =-0.10, s =8 , c =8 , k =8 , a =8 , =0, LM SR

10

[Sa(T1)/g]/

8
6
4
Median
Individual responses

2
0
0

10
20
M axim um Story D uctility O ver the H eight, s,m ax

30

Figure 4 Statistical determination of the collapse capacity

The median collapse capacity can be determined for different periods and different system parameters,
which permits an evaluation of the effects of deterioration parameters. The collapse capacity is a property
of the selected structural system and the selected ground motion set. For a system of given strength ( or ),
it represents the median Sa value leading to collapse, and for a given Sa value (hazard level), it represents the
median strength leading to collapse. As mentioned before, in the latter context [Sa(T1)/g]/ represents the
response modification factor (R-factor) without overstrength, and therefore, the median [Sa(T1)/g]/ value
at collapse is equivalent to the median R-factor causing collapse. In the following discussion the median
[Sa(T1)/g]/ value at collapse is being used to assess the sensitivity of the collapse capacity to the period and
deterioration properties of the structural system.
An example of the dependence of the collapse capacity on the system period is presented in Figure 5,
showing data points for individual records as well as median and 16th percentile values. The data are for an
SDOF system that is defined by a c/y value of 4.0, a cyclic deterioration parameter of s,c,k,a = 100, and a
post-capping slope of c = -0.1. The results are obtained by performing collapse analysis for structural
systems whose period is varied in closely spaced intervals. It can be observed that the statistical measures
for the collapse capacity vary only slightly with period, except in the short period range (T < 0.6 sec.) in
which they decrease considerably. This is also the range in which many past studies have shown that even
for nondeteriorating systems the R-factor for constant ductility demands decreases rapidly with a decrease
in period. The dependence of the SDOF median collapse capacity on two system parameters (c/y and c)
is illustrated in Figure 6. If a flat post-capping slope (c = -0.1) exists, it permits a significant increase in
(Sa/g)/ after c is reached but before the relatively large collapse displacement is attained. Thus, the effect
of c/y on collapse values of (Sa/g)/ is not very large unless a steep post-capping slope exists, in which
case collapse occurs soon after c has been reached (see curve for c/y = 2 and c = -0.3 vs c = -0.1).
EFFECT OF c/y ON MEDIAN (Sa/g)/ AT COLLAPSE
Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%, P-='0.1N',
s=0.03, c=Var, c/y=Var, s,c,k,a=100

(Sa/g) / at COLLAPSE vs PERIOD

Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%, P-='0.1N',
s=0.03, c=-0.10, c/y=4, s,c,k,a=100
30
25
20

(Sa/g) /

(Sa/g) /

10

Median
th
84

15

c/y=6, c=-0.1
c/y=4, c=-0.1
8 / =2, =-0.1
c y
c
c/y=2, c=-0.3
6
4

10
2

5
0

2
Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 5 Variation of SDOF collapse capacity

with period; one specific system, all data points

331

Figure 6 Variation of SDOF median collapse

capacity with period, various systems

1-1: Krawinkler

5.

Otani Symposium 2003

MEDIAN COLLAPSE CAPACITY FOR FRAME STRUCTURES

In the MDOF study it is assumed that every plastic hinge in the structure can be described by the same
hysteresis and deterioration model. This simplifying assumption permits a consistent evaluation of the
collapse data and an assessment of the effect the various deterioration parameters have on the collapse
capacity. The parameters of primary interest in the following discussion are:
The ductility capacityc/y. Values of 2, 4, and 6 are used.
The post-capping tangent stiffness ratio c. Values of 0.1, -0.3, and 0.5 are used.
The cyclic deterioration parameter = Et/Fyy. Value for s = c = k = a of (no cyclic
deterioration), 100, 50, and 25 are used.
The first observation to be made is that none of these parameters can be evaluated independently of the
others. The simplest example is the one illustrated in Figure 6. It appears that the ductility capacity does
not have an overriding effect on the collapse capacity. But this holds true only if the post-capping stiffness
is flat (e.g., c = -0.1) because then the component strength capacity deteriorates slowly after the cap
displacement c is reached. If the post-capping stiffness is steep (e.g., c = -0.3), collapse occurs soon after
c has been reached. The interdependence of the various parameters must be kept in mind when the
collapse capacity results are interpreted. Moreover, there is a clear dependence of the parameter effects on
the first mode period and the number of stories in the frame structure.
5.1 Effect of Ductility Capacity and Post-Capping Stiffness
The effect of ductility capacity (c/y) on the median collapse capacity is illustrated in Figure 7 for frame
structures with T1 = 0.1N and T1 = 0.2N, with N = 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. The effect clearly is larger if the
post-capping tangent stiffness is steep, but even then the collapse capacity does not increase in the same
proportion as the ductility capacity. The effect of the post-capping stiffness is isolated in Figure 8, which
shows median collapse capacities for frames with c/y = 4 but different c values. There is a large
difference between the collapse capacities for c = 0.1 and 0.3, but little difference between the capacities
for c = 0.3 and 0.5. The reason for the latter is that c = 0.3 corresponds already a steep slope.
There is some, but not much, sensitivity to the number of stories for a given T1. Perhaps most striking is the
strong dependence of the collapse capacity on the first mode period T1. This is expected for the short period
structure with T1 = 0.3 sec., where the collapse capacity is much smaller than that for T1 = 0.6 sec. But the
large decrease in collapse capacity for long period structures is striking, indicating that the period
independent R-factor concept is way off. The reason is the P-delta effect, which is much more important
than might be expected.
This paper does not address P-delta effects in detail, but it must be emphasized that this effect is severely
underestimated in present practice. It turns out that for long period structures the elastic story stability
coefficient ( = P/hV) severely underestimates the P-delta effect in the inelastic range. In most practical
cases the lower stories experience large drifts when the structure undergoes large inelastic deformations,
and the story stability coefficient increases correspondingly. The fact that the elastic story stability
coefficient is a poor measure of the inelastic P-delta effect is illustrated in Figure 9, in which the collapse
capacities of SDOF and MDOF systems are compared, utilizing the MDOF first story elastic stability
coefficient (for T1 = 0.2N) in the analysis of the SDOF systems. It can be seen that the results are very close
to each other for systems for which the P-delta effects are not dominating. But for long period structures the
results deviate considerably, with the SDOF system predicting much too large a collapse capacity.

332

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

DUCTILITY CAPACITY EFFECT ON [Sa,c(T1)/g]/

N=Var, T1=Var, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,
s=0.03, c/y=Var, c=-0.30, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

DUCTILITY CAPACITY EFFECT ON [Sa,c(T1)/g]/

N=Var, T1=Var, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,
s=0.03, c/y=Var, c=-0.10, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

10

10
c/y = 6
c/y = 4
c/y = 2

6
4
2

c/y = 6
c/y = 4
c/y = 2

8
[S a,c(T1)/g]/

[S a,c(T1)/g]/

6
4
2

T1 = 0.1 N
T1 = 0.2 N

T1 = 0.1 N
T1 = 0.2 N

0
0

2
Period (sec)

2
Period (sec)

(a)
(b)
Figure 7 Effect of ductility capacity c/y on median collapse capacity of frames (a) flat (c = -0.1),
and (b) steep (c = -0.3) post-capping tangent stiffness
POST-CAPPING STIFFNESS EFFECT ON [Sa,c(T1)/g]/
N=Var, T1=Var, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,
s=0.03, c/y=4, c=Var, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0
10

10

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/ & (Sa,c/g)/

c = -0.1
c = -0.3
c = -0.5

8
[S a,c(T1)/g]/

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/ & (Sa,c/g)/ vs PERIOD

N=Var, T1=0.2N, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,
s=0.03, c/y=4, cap=-0.10, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

6
4
2

T 1 = 0.1 N
T 1 = 0.2 N

SDOF, P-D=0.2N

MDOF, T=0.2N

6
4
2
0

2
Period (sec)

Figure 8 Effect of post-capping stiffness on

collapse capacity of frames

2
Period (sec)

Figure 9 Collapse capacities of SDOF and MDOF

systems with same elastic stability coefficient

5.2 Effect of Cyclic Deterioration on Collapse Capacity

The effect of cyclic deterioration on the collapse capacity of frames with c/y = 4 and c = 0.1 is illustrated
in Figure 10. The effect is evident, although not overpowering, which indicates that the combination of
ductility capacity and post-capping stiffness is in general equally or more important than the effect of cyclic
deterioration. The effect diminishes for long period structures because of the dominant importance of
P-delta effects. It should be said that the ground motion set used in this study is comprised of records with
relatively short strong motion duration. A parallel study utilizing records with long strong motion duration
did show a somewhat but not much larger effect of cyclic deterioration. Thus, cyclic deterioration appears
to be an important but not dominant issue for collapse evaluation unless the energy dissipation capacity of
the structural components is very small ( = 25).
The results shown so far represent median collapse capacities. To assess the reliability of structures, the
measure of dispersion of the collapse capacities is equally important. Since it is assumed that the
distribution of collapse capacities is lognormal, the appropriate measure of dispersion is the standard
deviation of the natural log of the data. Typical data for this measure of dispersion are shown in Figure 11.
It is noted that the measure of dispersion is rather large but is not sensitive to the period of the structural
system. This is an important observation in view of the probability of collapse issue discussed in the next
section.

333

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

CYCLIC DETERIORATION EFFECT ON [Sa,c(T1)/g]/

N=Var, T1 =Var, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,
s=0.03, c /y =4, c=-0.10, s,c,k,a=Var, =0
10

s,c,k,a= Inf
s,c,k,a=100
s,c,k,a=50
s,c,k,a=25

1
T1=0.1N

Standard Dev. ln[Sa,c(T1)/g]/

8
[S a,c(T1)/g]/

DISPERSION OF [Sa,c(T1)/g]/ vs PERIOD

N=Var, T1=Var, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,
s=0.03, c/y=4, c=-0.10, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

6
4
2

T1 = 0.1 N
T1 = 0.2 N

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

2
Period (sec)

Figure 10 Effect of cyclic deterioration on

collapse capacity of frames

6.

T1=0.2N

0.8

2
Period (sec)

Figure 11 Dispersion of collapse capacity of

frames

COLLAPSE FRAGILITY CURVES AND MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCY OF COLLAPSE

In the context of seismic performance assessment, collapse constitutes one of several limit states of interest.
It can be argued that it is not a fundamental limit state. On one hand it contributes to the cost of damage, if
monetary losses or downtime are performance targets. In this context collapse could be viewed as a
damage measure for which it is useful to develop fragility curves. On the other hand, collapse contributes
to (but is not solely responsible for) casualties and loss of lives. Thus, for the performance target of
casualties and loss of lives, collapse is an intermittent decision variable that could be described by means of
a Mean Annual Frequency (MAF) of exceedance. Both, fragility curves and MAFs can be derived from the
collapse capacity data as illustrated next.
6.1 Collapse Fragility Curves
Data of the type shown in Figure 4 can be utilized to develop fragility curves, which describe the probability
of failure (in this case failure implies collapse), given the value of [Sa(T1)/g]/ (or (Sa/g)/ in the case of
SDOF systems). Such fragility curves are obtained from the CDF of the last point of each of the curves
shown in Figure 4 (the collapse point). Typical results of fragility curves are shown in Figure 12 for SDOF
systems of various periods and a set of specific structural parameters, which may be viewed as baseline
properties that are used in many of the graphs to follow. The baseline properties are

c/y = 4
c = -0.1

No cyclic deterioration (s = c = k = a = )

No residual strength ( = 0)
Figure 12,, which is for SDOF systems, shows ragged lines that are obtained from the ordered data points,
as well as smooth curves that are obtained from fitting a lognormal distribution to the data. The general
observation is that a lognormal distribution fits the data rather well, and for this reason in the subsequent
graphs for MDOF frames only the fitted distributions are shown. The dependence of the fragility curves on
the system period is evident in Figure 12(a), with the curve for T = 0.3 sec. indicating a much higher
probability of collapse for a short period system. Systems with T = 0.6 sec. to 3.6 sec. show only small
period sensitivity, which is no surprise for SDOF systems (see also Figure 9 for median values). But this
observation is not valid for MDOF frames as is discussed in the next section.

334

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

(Sa,c/g)/ vs PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE

(Sa,c/g)/ vs PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE

Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%, P-='0.1N'

s=0.03, c=-0.10, c/y=4, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%, P-='0.1N'

s=0.03, c=-0.10, c/y=4, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

Probability of Collapse

Probability of Collapse

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
T = 0.3 sec
T = 0.9 sec

0.2

0.8
0.6
0.4
T = 0.6 sec
T = 1.8 sec
T = 3.6 sec

0.2

T = 1.8 sec

0
0

12

16

12

16

(Sa,c/g)/

(Sa,c/g)/

(a)
(b)
Figure 12 Fragility curves for SDOF systems of various periods
6.2 Collapse Fragility Curves for MDOF Frames with Parameter Variations
Figure 13 presents MDOF fragility curves that can be compared directly to the SDOF fragility curves of
Figure 12. They are for baseline structural properties. The four digit code identified for each frame the
number of stories and the first mode period, i.e., 0918 means a 9-story frame with T1 = 1.8 sec. There is a
clear pattern, equivalent to that exhibited in the median in Figure 9, of high fragility (small collapse
capacity) for short period structures (T1 = 0.3 sec.), a large decrease in the fragility for medium period
structures (T1 = 0.6 and 0.9 sec.), and then again an increase in fragility for long period structures (T1 = 1.8
and 3.6 sec.) because of the predominance of P-delta effects.
[Sa,c(T1)/g]/ vs PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/ vs PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE

N=Var, T1=Var, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,

s=0.03, c/ y=4, cap =-0.10, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

N=Var, T1=Var, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,

s=0.03, c/ y=4, cap =-0.10, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0
1

Probability of Collapse

Probability of Collapse

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0303

0.2

0909

0.8
0.6
0.4
0306
0918

0.2

1836

1818

0
0

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/

10

15

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/

10

15

(a)
(b)
Figure 13 Fragility curves for frame structures with baseline properties; (a) three frames with T1 =
0.1N, (b) three frames with T1 = 0.2N
The effects of ductility capacity and post-capping tangent stiffness are illustrated in Figure 14 for four
frames with the first mode period varying from 0.3 sec. to 3.6 sec. An increase in the ductility capacity
shifts the fragility curves to the right, but not by an amount proportional to the increase in ductility capacity.
An increase in the slope of the post-capping tangent stiffness (from flat to steep) has a very detrimental
effect on the fragility.
In concept, all observations that have been made previously for median collapse capacities hold true also
for the fragility curves. The value of these curves lies in their probabilistic nature that permits probabilistic
expressions of performance and design decisions. For instance, if for a given long return period hazard (e.g.,
2/50 hazard) a 10% probability of collapse could be tolerated, then the intersections of a horizontal line at a
probability of 0.1 with the individual fragility curves provides targets for the R-factor that should be
employed in design in conjunction with the spectral acceleration associated with this hazard. If such

335

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

horizontal lines are drawn in the graphs of Figure 14, it can be conjectured that the indicated R values are
low, even for rather ductile systems.
The second value of the fragility curves lies in the opportunity they provide for a rigorous computation of
the mean annual frequency of collapse, as is discussed in the next section.
[Sa,c(T1)/g]/ vs PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/ vs PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE

N=3, T1=0.3, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,

s=0.03, c/y=Var, c=Var, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

N=9, T1=0.9, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,

s=0.03, c/y=Var, c=Var, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0
1
Probability of Collapse

Probability of Collapse

1
0.8
0.6
c/y=6, c=-0.10
c/y=4, c=-0.10
c/y=2, c=-0.10
c/y=4, c=-0.30
c/y=2, c=-0.30

0.4
0.2

0.8
0.6
c/y=6, c=-0.10
c/y=4, c=-0.10
c/y=2, c=-0.10
c/y=4, c=-0.30
c/y=2, c=-0.30

0.4
0.2
0

0
0

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/

10

15

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/

(a)

15

(b)

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/ vs PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/ vs PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE

N=18, T1=1.8, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,

s=0.03, c/y=Var, c=Var, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0

N=18, T1=3.6, BH, Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%,

s=0.03, c/y=Var, c=Var, s,c,k,a=Inf, =0
1
Probability of Collapse

1
Probability of Collapse

10

0.8
0.6
c/y=6, c=-0.10
c/y=4, c=-0.10
c/y=2, c=-0.10
c/y=4, c=-0.30
c/y=2, c=-0.30

0.4
0.2

0.8
0.6
c/y=6, c=-0.10
c/y=4, c=-0.10
c/y=2, c=-0.10
c/y=4, c=-0.30
c/y=2, c=-0.30

0.4
0.2
0

0
0

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/

10

15

(c)

[Sa,c(T1)/g]/

10

15

(d)

Figure 14 Fragility curves for frame structures with parameter variations;

(a) 3-story, T1 = 0.3 sec.; (b) 9-story, T1 = 0.9 sec.; (c) 18-story, T1 = 1.8 sec.; (d) 18-story, T1 = 3.6 sec
6.3 Mean Annual Frequency of Collapse
If the collapse fragility curve for a given system has been determined, probabilistic collapse assessment can
be carried out according to the following equation:
(6)
f = F C Sa ( x ) | dS a ( x ) |
where

f
FC Sa (x)

= mean annual frequency of collapse

= probability of the Sa capacity, Sa,c, (for a given or value) exceeding x

Sa (x)

= mean annual frequency of Sa exceeding x (ground motion hazard)

Thus, given the Sa hazard curve and fragility curves of the type shown in Figures 12 to 14, it is a matter of
numerical integration to compute the mean annual frequency of collapse. The process of integrating
Equation (6) is illustrated in Figure 15. FC Sa (x) corresponds to the specific fragility curve of interest. In
this context, the structure strength parameter ( or ) is kept constant, i.e., the individual curves shown in
Figure 15 represent IDAs.

336

1-1: Krawinkler

Otani Symposium 2003

Sa/g

PDF for
Sa,c/g

(Sa/g)

Fragility
Curve

Sa

EDP

Hazard Curve
Probability of Sa,c/g exceeding x
dSa(x)
given Sa/g FC,Sa(x)
Figure 15 Illustration of process used to compute the mean annual frequency of collapse
The results obtained will depend strongly on the selected hazard curves and collapse fragility curve. The
former is site dependent and the latter is site (ground motion) and structure dependent. To provide an
illustration of typical results, hazard curves for various periods are derived (approximately) from the equal
hazard spectra employed in PEER studies for a Los Angeles building, see Figure 16, and fragility curves for
SDOF systems with specific structural properties are utilized to develop curves for the MAF of collapse for
various periods and selected strength levels .. These curves are shown in Figure 17. They are for
illustration only, as they are rather site and structure system specific. But they illustrate general trends and
are the product of a rigorous process for computing the mean annual frequency of collapse.
Equal Hazard Spectra, Van Nuys, CA.

MEAN ANNUAL PROB. OF COLLAPSE, Van Nuys, CA.

Peak Oriented Model, LMSR-N, =5%, P-='0.1N', HC-LR
s=0.03, c=-0.10, c/y=6, s,c,a=Inf, k=Inf, =0

50% in 50 years
10% in 50 years
2% in 50 years

1.5

1.0E+00
Mean Annual Prob Collapse

Spectral Acceleration

0.5

= 1.0
= 0.5
= 0.2
= 0.1

1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1.0E-07

0.5

1.5

1.0E-08
0

Period, T (sec)

0.5

1.5

Period, T (sec)

Figure 16. Equal hazard spectra used to derive

hazard curves for specific periods

Figure 17. Mean annual frequency of collapse

for SDOF systems of given strength = Fy/W

7.

SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

The study summarized here demonstrates that collapse assessment needs to account for several
deterioration phenomena of the inelastic cyclic response characteristics of the important components of
the structural system.
The level of displacement at which a monotonically loaded component attains its maximum strength
(defined by c/y), as well as the stiffness after attainment of this displacement, are important
parameters that can be accounted for in the backbone curve of the hysteretic rules that describe the
system (component) behavior.

337

1-1: Krawinkler

8.

Otani Symposium 2003

The slope of the post-capping stiffness has a significant effect on the collapse capacity. If this slope is
small (flat), the strength of the component (system) decreases only slowly and deformations much
larger than c can be attained before collapse occurs.
The rate of cyclic deterioration, which is assumed to be controlled by energy dissipation demands and
capacity, is another important parameter. It can be accounted for by developing rules for history
dependent cyclic deterioration. Everything else equal, cyclic deterioration is of somewhat greater
importance for short period systems because of the larger number of inelastic cycles to which such
systems are subjected.
Deterioration in unloading and reloading stiffnesses is in general of smaller consequence than the
deterioration characteristics of the aforementioned parameters.
P- effects, which depend on the period of the structural system and on the relationship between period
and the number of stories, require much attention. They will accelerate collapse of deteriorating
systems, and they may be the primary source of collapse for flexible but very ductile structural
systems.
Collapse fragility curves derived from equivalent SDOF systems for long period frame structures may
provide misleading information unless the large inelastic P-delta effect is accounted for in the
equivalent SDOF system. The elastic story stability coefficient will not do the job.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is supported by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, an Engineering
Research Center sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. This support is much appreciated.

9.

REFERENCES

FEMA 368 (2000). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other
structures, Building seismic safety council, Washington D.C.
Ibarra, L.F. (2003). "Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations," Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Krawinkler, H. (2002). A general approach to seismic performance assessment, Proceedings,
International Conference on Advances and New Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research,
ICANCEER 2002, Hong Kong, August 19-20.
Kunnath, S.K., Mander, J.B. and Lee, F. (1997). Parameter identification for degrading and pinched
hysteretic structural concrete systems. Engineering Structures, 19 (3), 224-232.
Medina, R. A. (2003). Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their dependence on
ground motions, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Rahnama, M. and Krawinkler, H. (1993). "Effects of soft soils and hysteresis model on seismic demands."
John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 108, Department of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University.
Sivaselvan, M.V., and Reinhorn, A.M. (2000). Hysteretic models for deteriorating inelastic structures.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(6), 633-640.
Song, J-K., and Pincheira, J.A. (2000).
Spectral displacement demands of stiffness- and
strength-degrading systems. Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 16(4), 817-851.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491-514.

338