Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

A novel lifetime cost-benefit analysis method for

seismic retrofitting of low-rise reinforced concrete
buildings

Chien-Kuo Chiu , Fu-Pei Hsiao & Wen-Yu Jean

To cite this article: Chien-Kuo Chiu , Fu-Pei Hsiao & Wen-Yu Jean (2013) A novel lifetime cost-
benefit analysis method for seismic retrofitting of low-rise reinforced concrete buildings, Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 9:9, 891-902, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2011.631114

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.631114

Published online: 17 Nov 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 246

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Vol. 9, No. 9, September 2013, 891–902

A novel lifetime cost-benefit analysis method for seismic retrofitting of low-rise reinforced
concrete buildings
Chien-Kuo Chiua*, Fu-Pei Hsiaob and Wen-Yu Jeanb
a
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan; bNational
Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan
(Received 17 September 2010; final version received 4 October 2011; accepted 5 October 2011; published online 17 November 2011)

This article presents a novel simplified method for assessing seismic damage to low-rise reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings by using the hazard curve of response spectral acceleration. Moreover, the occurrence of an earthquake is
assumed to follow a Poisson process when analysing the occurrence probability of a specified damage state in the
remaining service life and expected losses induced by seismic damage. Then, a novel procedure for estimating lifetime
costs and benefits of seismic retrofitting is proposed. In the case study, 16 practical design projects for seismic
retrofitting of RC school buildings in Taipei are subjected to lifetime cost-benefit analysis using the proposed
method. It can be found that not only lifetime cost-benefit ratios but also the financial return period for each dollar
invested seismic retrofitting can be identified conveniently. Additionally, they are useful information for making
decisions about whether to retrofit a building or not.
Keywords: cost-benefit; seismic retrofit; damage; financial returning period

1. Introduction However, Taiwan’s Ministry of Education is limited by

Observations made after several major earthquakes
worldwide, such as those that struck Taiwan and
China, indicate that elementary and secondary schools
were the most seriously damaged buildings. Especially
in Chi-Chi earthquake (21 September 1999), nearly
half of the school buildings in the central area of
Taiwan collapsed or were damaged seriously. Even in
Taipei City, which is about 150 km far away from the
epicentre, there were 67 school buildings damaged
(Chung et al. 2009). According to the report published
by the Ministry of Education of Taiwan, a total of 656
elementary and secondary school buildings, which are
almost categorised into low-rise reinforced concrete
(RC) buildings, were damaged in Chi-Chi earthquake.
Additionally, because school buildings are usually
required to typically serve as emergency shelters after
a disastrous earthquake event, seismic retrofitting of
existing elementary and secondary school buildings is a
public safety issue. Taiwan has 3497 elementary and
secondary schools. Of these, 3419 schools (roughly
98%) completed a simple survey in the past several
years.The seismic performance of school buildings was
scored based on survey data (e.g. structural types,
seismic resistance, possible failure modes, and avail-
able experimental data). Roughly 55% of school
buildings had less than satisfactory seismic perfor-
mance and almost all were low-rise RC buildings.
the amount of funds available for immediate invest-
ment in seismic retrofitting, even though the lifetime
costs and benefits associated with seismic performance
of school buildings are an increasing significant
concern.
Generally, the seismic performance of an RC
building can be evaluated using the capacity spectrum
method suggested by ATC-40 (1996). By increasing
structural strength or ductility, or a combination of
both, seismic performance can be upgraded to a level
that meets or exceeds existing seismic performance
specified in codes. However, the cost-benefit analysis of
an investment in seismic retrofitting is not articulated
in seismic retrofitting designs; that is, the primary
concern of seismic retrofitting designs is seismic
performance. Moreover, life-cycle cost (LCC) model-
ling for structures has garnered widespread interest in
recent years. A rational approach to LCC analysis
considers all costs incurred over a structure’s lifetime,
ranging from those associated with initial construction,
to those related to maintenance or repair and final
demolition. Although most studies evaluating the
LCCs of bridges have underscored the importance of
maintenance and repair strategies (Kong and Frango-
pol 2003, Frangopol and Liu 2007), past work has
identified the effects of extreme events on a structure’s
LCC (Takahashi et al. 2004, Takahashi et al. 2006).

*Corresponding author. Email: ckchiu@mail.ntust.edu.tw

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.631114
http://www.tandfonline.com
892 C.-K. Chiu et al.
In addition to LCC, the economic cost-benefit ratio
has been applied in decision analysis for seismic
retrofitted structures. For instance, Williams et al.
(2009) developed a methodology for making informed
decisions about whether to retrofit structures for
seismic events based on expected economic benefit
from retrofitting. Furthermore, Padgett et al. (2010)
proposed a risk-based assessment method for seismic
LCCs and benefits of retrofitting bridges to identify the
relative upfront costs and long-term benefits of seismic
retrofitting. Therefore, a risk-based estimation proce-
dure that can assess the lifetime costs and benefits of
seismic retrofitting and seismic damage to a building is
needed for decisions associated with investing in
alternative seismic retrofitting strategies, including the
decision not to retrofit a building.
This article presents a novel simplified method for
assessing seismic damage to low-rise RC buildings by
using the hazard curve of response spectral accelera-
tion. Moreover, the occurrence of an earthquake is
assumed to follow a Poisson process when analysing
the occurrence probability of a specified damage state
in the remaining service life and expected losses
induced by seismic damage. Then, a novel procedure
for estimating lifetime costs and benefits of seismic
retrofitting, as shown in Figure1, is proposed. Finally,
for discussing the application of the proposed method,
Figure 1. Estimation procedure for the financial return
period for each dollar invested in seismic retrofitting.
16 practical design projects for seismic retrofitting of
RC school buildings in Taipei are subjected to lifetime
cost-benefit analysis in the case study.
2. Assessment of occurrence probabilities of damage
states incurred by earthquakes
2.1. Seismic structural damage
The model developed by Park and Ang (1985), which is
the most widely used in literature (Cosenza et al. 2009),
is a linear combination of maximum deformation
response and hysteretic energy. The damage index of
this model is expressed as
Z
dM b
DP&A ¼ þ dE ð1Þ
du F y du
where DP&A is the damage index – an empirical
measure of damage (DP&A  1.0 indicates total
damage or collapse); dM is the maximum response
deformation; du is the ultimate deformation capacity
under static loading; Fy is the calculated yield strength;
dE is the incrementally absorbed hysteretic energy
(excluding potential energy); and b is the co-efficient
for cyclical loading effect (function of structural
parameters).
In this study, the capacity spectrum proposed in
ATC-40 (1996) was adopted to identify the ultimate
deformation capacity, du, yield strength, Fy, and elastic
fundamental period, Ty, of the single degree of
freedom (SDOF) system for a building. At first, a
nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis) can be
applied to simulate the capacity curve for a building,
which is the relationship between the base shear force,
V, and roof displacement, DR; the conversion of the
capacity curve to the capacity spectrum can then be
achieved by determining the dynamic characteristics of
a structure in terms of the first modal participation
factor and first modal mass co-efficient. After plotting
the capacity spectrum, approximating an equivalent
bilinear capacity representation that establishes an
effective yield point ((Sdy, Say), Sdy is the yield
displacement of an SDOF system and Say is the yield
acceleration of an SDOF system) and an effective peak
inelastic limit ((Sdp, Sap), Sdp is the ultimate displace-
ment of an SDOF system and Sap is the ultimate
acceleration of an SDOF system) is useful. Based on
these two points, the ultimate deformation capacity, du
(¼Sdp), the yield strength, Fy (¼M6Say, M is the
effective mass of the first mode for a structure), the
yield deformation, dy (¼Sffidy), and elastic fundamental
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
period, Ty ð¼ 2p Sdy =Say Þ, of the SDOF system can
be acquired.
Generally, the nonlinear time history analysis is
needed for estimating the maximum response
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 893
R
deformation, dMdM, and hysteretic energy, dE, in response spectrum of velocity can be constructed based
Equation (1). However, for enhancing the efficiency of on Equations (2)–(6).
computing work, instead of nonlinear time history pffiffiffi
analysis, the equivalent linearization method (section Tmax ¼ m  Ty ð5Þ
2.3) and a simplified evaluation of seismic energy
demand (section 2.4) were utilised to estimate the 2p
SA ¼ SV ð6Þ
maximum deformation response and hysteretic Tmax
energy of a building, respectively. In addition to total
 2
damage or collapse (DP&A ¼ 1.0), different damage SV
states with DP&A limiting values of 51.0 were set dM ¼ a þ b dy ð7Þ
oy dy
based on those in previous research (Park and Ang
1985). where oy is the elastic fundamental frequency of the
SDOF system for a building; dy is yield deformation of
the SDOF system for a building; a ¼ 1.5/(1.5 þ 10g1);
and b ¼ 10g1/(1.5 þ 10g1).
2.2. Equivalent linearisation method for maximum By the same approach (Handou et al. 2001,
deformation Minegishi et al. 2001), maximum deformation response
When the response spectrum of acceleration, velocity, of the SDOF system for a building, dM, with the
or displacement is constant, maximum deformation constant response spectrum of acceleration and
response of the SDOF system for a building can be displacement can be estimated using Equations (8)
estimated without iterative calculations in the equiva- and (9), respectively. In addition, the response
lent linearisation method. According to Okano and spectrum of displacement can be approximated using
Miyamoto (2002), the equivalent linearisation method Equation (10).
has been simplified. Additionally, compared with
h1 c  SA i2
nonlinear time history analysis, the simplified method
dM ¼   dy ð8Þ
is highly accurate. Equations (2)–(4) are the basic b Say
assumptions in the equivalent linearisation method
developed by Okano and Miyamoto (2002).
" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #2
1 4a  SD  o2y
dM ¼ b þ b2 þ  dy ð9Þ
SA Fh ¼ Say ð2Þ 4 Say

1:5
Fh ¼ ð3Þ !2
1 þ 10heq Tmax
SD ¼ SA ðaT Tmax Þ ð10Þ
pffiffiffi 2p
heq ¼ g1 ð1  1= mÞ þ 0:05 ð4Þ

where SA is the response spectral acceleration; Say is
the yield acceleration of the SDOF system for a
building; Fh is the reduction factor; m is the cycle
ductility (defined by dM/dy); and heq is the equivalent
damping ratio (g1 ¼ modificatory factor for the
equivalent damping ratio and equal to 0.15 (Okano
and Miyamoto 2002)).
In the condition of the constant response spectrum
of velocity (in the medium period range), which is a
common case in seismic design, the equivalent funda-
mental period of the SDOF system for a building,
Tmax, can be approximated using Equation (5).
Spectral acceleration, SA, in Equation (2) can then be
replaced by response spectral velocity, SV, derived in
Equation (6). Accordingly, the estimation formula,
Equation (7), for maximum deformation response of
the SDOF system for a building, dM, with the constant
where SD is spectral displacement; c is 1.5/10g1; and
aT is the modification factor for the equivalent
fundamental period (¼0.82 (Okano and Miyamoto
2002)).
This study applied Equations (7)–(9) to estimate
the mean value of maximum deformation responses,
dM , of the SDOF system for a low-rise RC building
under a specified response spectral acceleration SA.
Based on Okano and Miyamoto (2002), the co-efficient
of variation for dM induced by earthquake ground
motion was 0.3 (Okano and Miyamoto 2002).
2.3. Assessment of hysteretic energy
A measure of the cyclical amplitude distribution is the
equivalent number of cycles, neq (Equation (11)). It
represents the number of cycles during maximum
894 C.-K. Chiu et al.

deformation response, dM, of the SDOF system for a
structure for dissipating total hysteretic energy, Eh.
Eh E  1
h estimated using Equation (14) (mean error (AE) ¼
neq ¼ ¼ ð11Þ
Fy ðdM  dy Þ M Say ðdM  dy Þ
Fy Say
Fh ¼ ¼ ð12Þ
M  SA SA
where Eh is the total hysteretic energy.
By combining the estimation of the number of
equivalent cycles, neq, with the definition of Fh
(Equation (12)), an expression of the hysteretic energy
in terms of the cycle ductility mM (defined by dM/dy)
can be derived using Equation (13). Therefore,
R the
hysteretic energy, which is the same as dE, can be
approximated by Equation (13) by introducing appro-
priate expressions of Fh available in literature, based
on the known response spectral acceleration, SA.
In Equation (13), according to Manfredi (2001), neq
depends linearly on earthquake characteristics embo-
died in the seismic index ID (Equation (15)) and can be
0.103; standard error (SE) ¼ 0.583); therefore, this
index is assumed an indicator of cyclical demand of an
earthquake. Manfredi (2001) provided a general over-
view of ID values for different strong motions;
impulsive records had low ID values (Bucharest (3.37
in Incerc)), whereas a large duration effect had high ID
values (Mexico (14.98 in SCT); Chile (36.17 in
Llolleo)). Additionally, this study chose three earth-
quakes that caused considerable damage in Taipei –
the 921 Chi-Chi earthquake (Richter magnitude
ML ¼ 7.3, 1999), the 0614 earthquake (ML ¼ 6.3,
2001), and the 331 earthquake (ML ¼ 6.8, 2002) (The
number preceding an earthquake means the date of
occurrence). Time history data recorded in Taipei were
used to estimate the values of seismic index (Figure 2).

Figure 2. (a) Seismic index of 921 earthquake (ML ¼ 7.3, 1999). (b) Seismic index of 0614 earthquake (ML ¼ 6.3, 2001). (c)
Seismic index of 331 earthquake (ML ¼ 6.8, 2002).
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 895

The values of seismic index for the 331 and 20010614 specified damage state incurred by earthquakes for an
earthquakes were distributed uniformly between 5 and RC building. One uncertainty is related to ground
15, between 10 and 20 for the 921 Earthquake. motion, and includes maximum deformation response
Therefore, in this case study, two uniform distributions of an SDOF system, dM, seismic index, ID, and
were set for seismic index, ID; one is in the 5–15 range response spectral acceleration, SA. Therefore, instead
and the other is in the 15–25 range. of a specified response spectral acceleration, SA,
earthquakes during the life of a building occurring at
 2
Eh SA different locations and times and with different
¼ ðmM  1Þneq ðFh Þ2 ð13Þ magnitudes must be considered when estimating
M oy
 3=5 annual probability of occurrence. In this study, the
1 hazard curve of response spectral accelerations for a
neq ¼ 1 þ 0:18 1 ID t1=2 ð14Þ
Fh building obtained from seismic hazard analysis was
adopted to reflect the uncertainty of earthquakes.
with The other one is related to structural capacity, and
includes the limiting value of the damage index, Dlim.
t ¼ Ty =Ts if Ty > Ts ; t ¼ 1 if Ty > Ts According to Park and Ang (1985), the limiting value
of DP&A for total damage or collapse, i.e. ultimate
IE structural capacity, was assumed as a lognormal
ID ¼ ð15Þ
PGA  PGV distribution with a mean of approximately 1.0 and
standard deviation of roughly 0.54. However, the
where t is the modificatory factor for the elastic limiting value of DP&A for each damage state may
fundamental period of a building; PGA and PGV are differ due to building or structure type or the damage
the peak ground acceleration and peak ground assessment. In other words, previous experimental
velocity, respectively, and IE equals: data and investigation information used for classifying
seismic damage states can be applied to set the limiting
ZtE value of DP&A for each specified damage state. Table 1
IE ¼ aðtÞ2 dt ð16Þ was constructed using both experimental data and
0 investigation information for low-rise RC school
buildings in Taiwan (NCREE-08–023 2008). In this
where a(t) is the ground acceleration, tE is the earth- study, Table 1 was adopted to determine the limiting
quake duration, Ts is the initial period of the medium value of DP&A for each specified damage state.
period range, and IE is proportional to Arias Intensity,
which is used to determine the intensity of shaking by
measuring the acceleration of transient seismic waves 2.5. Annual occurrence probability of exceeding a
(Arias 1970). specified damage state
By incorporating
R uncertainty into random response
(dM and dE) and structural capacity (Dalw), the
2.4. Uncertainties in ground motion and structural occurrence probability of exceeding each damage state
capacity under a specified response spectral acceleration Paf, as
In this work, two uncertainties must be considered in Equation (17), can be estimated using Monte Carlo
when estimating the annual occurrence probability of a simulations, which are a class of computational

Table 1. Classification of damage states for low-rise RC school buildings in Taiwan.

Limiting
Damage state value of DP&A Description of damage state
Without any damage 50.2 Slight cracks in non-structural components.
Slight damage 0.2–0.4 Slight cracks in structural components (e.g. beams and columns).
Medium damage 0.4–0.6 Flexure shear cracks in the top or bottom of columns. Spalling of concrete. Shear
cracks in the middle of columns connected to windowsills. Damage in non-
structural components. Stirrup loosening at the top or bottom of columns.
Serious damage 0.6–0.9 Crushing concrete in column cores. Stirrup loosening extensively. Buckling of main
bars.
Total damage 40.9 Extensive damage in columns. Extensive crushing of core concrete in columns and
columns without any load-bearing capacity. Partial or total building collapse, or
close to collapse.
896 C.-K. Chiu et al.
algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to
compute their results.
Paf ðDalw jSA Þ
¼ P½ðDP&A  Dalw Þ > 0
  Z   
¼ P DP&A du ; dy ; Fy ; dM ; dE  Dalw > 0
ð17Þ
ZSAu   
dðHðSA ÞÞ
Paf ðDalw Þ ¼ PðDalw jSA Þ  dSA
dSA
SAl
ð18Þ
where Dalw is the limiting value of the damage R index,
DP&A, for a specified damage state; dM and ð dE=MÞ
are random variables (their mean values and co-
efficients of variation are explained in Sections 2.2
and 2.3); du, dy, and Fy are deterministic variables and
can be obtained using the capacity spectrum; SAu is the
upper bound of response spectral acceleration; and SAl
is the lower bound of response spectral acceleration.
Considering the hazard curve of response spectral
accelerations H(SA) obtained from seismic hazard
analysis for a selected building, annual occurrence pro-
bability of a specified damage state can be derived on
the basis of Equation (18). Furthermore, by assuming
annual occurrence probability has a standard normal
distribution, the annual reliability index, Ria, can be
calculated. In this study, when the annual reliability
index, Ria, for a specified damage state is lower than the
allowable value, Ralw, the damage state for a building is
controlled within the specified damage state.
3. Seismic life-cycle cost model
3.1. Seismic retrofitting techniques for low-rise RC
buildings
Schemes for seismic retrofit designs may focus on
upgrading structural strength, or ductility, or a
combination of both (Hsiao et al. 2009). Generally,
seismic retrofitting techniques for improving existing
structural systems can be classified into the following
categories:
(1) Strengthening existing structural components:
For example, the size of existing beams or
column sections may be increased and existing
beams or columns may be supported using steel
plates or fibreglass reinforced plastics (FRP)
wraps.
(2) Strengthening components can be added to
existing structural systems by constructing RC
wing walls, RC shear walls, or steel braces.
(3) Lateral strength demand under design earth-
quakes can be reduced, which is typically
achieved by reducing structural weight, and
by adding seismic isolators or energy dissipat-
ing devices to buildings.
For low-rise RC buildings with poor seismic
capacities that are below the required code levels,
several seismic retrofitting techniques, including en-
largement of RC column sections, steel plate jackets,
RC wing walls, and RC shear walls, are adopted in this
study. These retrofitting techniques are preferred
because they improve strength or ductility at a low
cost and have minimal impacts on building usage. That
these techniques are useful for upgrading low-rise RC
buildings in Taiwan has been proved experimentally
(Chiu et al. 2006). Most importantly, retrofitting
materials and the required labour are not difficult to
find in the construction industry.
In this study, the ultimate state of a low-rise RC
building was defined by maximum base shear force; in
addition to this, the story drift for each floor must
be 52.0% in the ultimate state. By considering the
ultimate state stated above, it is possible to estimate
the ultimate deformation capacity du, for the SDOF
system of a building using the pushover analysis. In
addition, the seismic retrofit cost index CARet is a
seismic retrofit cost normalised by the cost of replacing
the building with a new one.
According to ATC-40, the inelastic response of the
SDOF system for a building under a specified earth-
quake, i.e. acceleration and displacement, can be
determined using the intersection point of its capacity
spectrum and the response spectrum of the earthquake.
However, iterative calculations are generally needed to
find the intersection point. According to the design
response spectrum modified by the equivalent damping
ratio, xeq, and the equivalent fundamental period, Teq
(secant period), the capacity spectrum can be trans-
ferred into a seismic performance curve rather than
using iterative calculations (NCREE-08–023 2008).
Based on the definition of the ultimate state, ground
acceleration corresponding to a specified performance
of a selected building, Ap, can be derived. Accordingly,
the response spectral displacement for specified
performance is the same as the ultimate
deformation capacity of the SDOF system for a
building, i.e. Sdp ¼ du.
3.2. Modelling the expected value of losses due to
seismic damage
Generally, in certain regions characterised by large
infrequent earthquakes non-Poisson time-dependent
models can be used to simulate earthquake occurrence.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 897

However, for simulation convenience, we assume the where j is the damage state (1 ¼ slight damage; 2 ¼
occurrence of an earthquake follows a Poisson process medium damage; 3 ¼ serious damage; and 4 ¼ total
in the analysis of occurrence probability of a specified damage), Tr is the remaining service life of a building,
j
damage state in the remaining service life and expected Closs is the loss associated with damage state j, and Pjaf
values of losses induced by seismic damage. Under the is the annual occurrence probability of exceeding
assumption of a Poisson process in which events occur the damage state j. Additionally, a discount ratio k,
continuously and independently of one another, the which is used to convert future costs into current
probability of exceeding a specified damage state values, is based on the idea that current costs and
occurring in the remaining service life, PT rj , and the benefits incurred are extremely valuable to decision-
expected value of losses due to seismic damage in makers.
current dollars, Closs , can be derived as follows: The expected value of losses in Equation (20) does
not include initial construction cost, seismic retrofitting
PjTr ¼ 1  ð1  Pjaf ÞTr ð19Þ cost, or maintenance costs, but rather provides an
estimate of losses induced by damage from lifetime
1 X4 seismic exposure on the basis of Table 2. In Table 2,
Closs ¼ ð1  exp ðkTr ÞÞ the damage ratio corresponding to a specified damage
kTr j¼1
  state means the loss induced by the specified damage
j
 Closs  ½lnð1  PjTr Þ  lnð1  Pjþ1
Tr  ð20Þ state, which is normalised by the initial construction
cost. Equation (20) is based on the assumption that
regardless of the damage level, a building is restored to
its original state after each seismic event. Furthermore,
the capacity of structural components withstand
Table 2. Damage ratio corresponding to damage states.
seismic loadings is assumed constant over a structure’s
Limiting value remaining service life; in other words, deterioration of
Damage state of DP&A Damage ratio materials by environmental conditions is not consid-
Without any damage 50.2 0.00 ered herein. Therefore, the Tr-year occurrence prob-
Slight damage 0.2–0.4 0.02 ability of a specified damage state can be derived on
Medium damage 0.4–0.6 0.10 the basis of Equation (19), while assuming the annual
Serious damage 0.6–0.9 0.50 occurrence probability of a damage state at each time
Total damage 40.9 1.00, 2.00, or 10.00
point is identical and independent.

Table 3. Practical seismic retrofitting projects for low-rise RC school buildings.

Case Number of floor (base) AP (g) Seismic retrofit technique Seismic retrofit cost index Year of construction
N01 4 (1) 0.12 Non-retrofitted 0.0 1980
R01-A 4 (1) 0.24 Enlargement of column sections 0.14 –
R01-B 4 (1) 0.25 RC wing walls 0.13 –
N02 3 (1) 0.13 Non-retrofitted 0.0 1977
R02-A 3 (1) 0.25 Enlargement of column sections 0.20 –
R02-B 3 (1) 0.25 RC wing walls 0.19 –
N03 4 (1) 0.17 Non-retrofitted 0.0 1990
R03-A 4 (1) 0.25 Enlargement of column sections 0.15 –
R03-B 4 (1) 0.28 RC wing walls 0.13 –
N04 4 (1) 0.14 Non-retrofitted 0.0 1979
R04-A 4 (1) 0.25 Enlargement of column sections 0.15 –
R04-B 4 (1) 0.30 RC wing walls 0.14 –
N05 4 (1) 0.12 Non-retrofitted 0.0 1986
R05-A 4 (1) 0.25 Enlargement of column sections 0.16 –
R05-B 4 (1) 0.25 RC wing walls 0.15 –
N06 4 (1) 0.17 Non-retrofitted 0.0 1977
N06-A 4 (1) 0.25 Enlargement of column sections 0.14 –
N06-B 4 (1) 0.26 RC wing walls 0.14 –
N07 4 (1) 0.17 Non-retrofitted 0.0 1985
R07-A 4 (1) 0.24 Enlargement of column sections 0.13 –
R07-B 4 (1) 0.27 RC wing walls 0.13 –
N08 3 (0) 0.18 Non-retrofitted 0 1966
N08-A 3 (0) 0.29 RC wing walls 0.063 –
N08-B 3 (0) 0.24 RC shear walls 0.064 –
898 C.-K. Chiu et al.

responsibility, such as avoidance of loss of life, are

3.3. Risk-based seismic cost-benefit assessment
Cost-benefit assessment is a useful tool for comparing
the outcome of different investments. This study
assesses the cost effectiveness of seismic retrofitting a
building using a risk-based cost-benefit framework.
Expected losses with and without seismic retrofitting of
a building, as stated in section 3.2, can be calculated
considering the occurrence probability of each damage
state and the damage ratio in terms of each damage
state. Moreover, the benefit of a particular seismic
retrofit technique, BTr, is defined as the difference
between expected current value of losses without
retrofitting, CN
loss , and the current value of losses with
retrofitting, CR
loss , as in:
not easily estimated accurately and then quantified in
the damage ratio of the total damage state of a
building.
4. Case study
The applicability of the lifetime cost-benefit analysis
method proposed in this study work was tested by
analysing practical projects during which low-rise RC
school buildings in Taipei, northern Taiwan, were
retrofitted. Eight low-rise RC school buildings with
below-code seismic performance were selected

BTr ¼ CN R
loss  Closs ð21Þ

BTr
CBRTr ¼ ð22Þ
CRet

Notably, we assume maintenance costs for a building

with and without seismic retrofitting are the same. The
cost-benefit ratio, CBRTr, for a particular seismic
retrofitting technique is then defined as the ratio
between the benefits of seismic retrofitting and the
seismic retrofit cost index, CRet (Equation (22)).
The CBRTr is a measure of the financial return
period for each dollar invested in seismic retrofitting. A
CBRTr 4 1 indicates a positive return on investment,
and the seismic retrofitting technique with the largest
CBRTr has a larger expected savings in losses over the
remaining service life per dollar invested. Notably, a
CBRTr 5 1 may be favourable in some cases because
non-monetary benefits of retrofitting and social

Figure 4. (a) Probability of occurrence of exceeding each

damage state for N01 and R01-A. (b) Probability of
Figure 3. Hazard curve of response spectral acceleration in occurrence of exceeding each damage state for N01 and
Taipei, Taiwan. R01-B.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 899

(Table 3). Additionally, these buildings are generally

Figure 5. Expected current values of lifetime costs for N01,
R01-A, and R01-B.
over 30 years old. According to the seismic design code
for buildings in Taiwan (Seismic design code for
buildings 2005), performance-based ground accelera-
tion of a building must be 0.24 g. To meet this code
requirement, designers must develop different low-
priced seismic retrofitting designs; therefore, each case
contains two preliminary seismic retrofitting designs.
Based on the uncertainty associated with earth-
quakes, a site was subjected to seismic hazard analysis
by considering seismicity, tectonic structure, and the
empirical ground motion prediction model. Figure 3
shows the hazard curves of response spectral accelera-
tion for the long and short period in Taipei, Taiwan.
Based on the response spectrum of accelerations for
short and long periods, the hazard curves of the
response spectrum for selected buildings were deter-
mined considering site-effects and vibration period of
structure (Seismic design code for buildings 2005).
Furthermore, this work chose three earthquakes that

Figure 6. (a) Financial return periods for R01-A and R01-B. (b) Financial return periods for R04-A and R04-B. (c) Financial
return periods for R05-A and R05-B. (d) Financial return periods for R06-A and R06-B.
900 C.-K. Chiu et al.

caused major damage in Taipei (section 2.3). The performance-based ground accelerations for non-ret-
uniform distribution for the seismic index, ID, was set rofitted cases for all selected buildings with different
at 5–25. remaining service lives when damage ratios for the
Figure 4a shows probabilities of specified damage total damage are set at 2.0 and 10.0, respectively. The
states occurring within a specified response spectral cost-benefit ratio decreases as seismic performance of a
acceleration for non-retrofitted case N01. When the non-retrofitted case for a selected building increases;
response spectral acceleration was close to 0.25g, the these curves expressed in the semi-logarithmic scale are
occurrence probability of exceeding the serious state or close to linearity for all specified remaining service
total damage state approached 1.0. When N01 was lifetimes. In other words, Figure 7 can be used to
retrofitted by enlarging column sections, called R01-A, determine the effectiveness of investing in seismic
the occurrence probabilities of exceeding the serious retrofitting of low-rise RC school buildings of Taiwan.
state or total damage state in terms of a response For instance, when the seismic performance of a
spectral acceleration of 0.25g decreased to near zero
(Figure 4a). Additionally, based on simulation results
(Figure 4b), the seismic retrofitting technique of
installing RC wing walls, called R01-B, also upgrades
seismic performance.
If the expected lifetime costs are defined as the sum
of the seismic retrofitting cost index and expected
current value of losses caused by seismic damage, the
expected current value of lifetime costs in terms of
specified remaining service life for a building can be
constructed using the risk-based seismic cost-benefit
assessment (sections 3.2 and 3.3). For instance, Figure
5 shows the expected current values of lifetime costs,
including losses incurred by seismic damage and
seismic retrofit cost, for cases N01, R01-A, and R01-
B when the damage ratio of total damage is set at 2.0.
When the remaining service life is set at 49 years,
retrofitting cases R01-A and R01-B are more econom-
ical than case N01 (not retrofitted). However,
non-monetary benefits of retrofitting and social re-
sponsibility, such as avoiding loss of life, are difficult to
investigate and are included in the damage ratio for the
total damage state. Therefore, based on the different
damage ratios for the total damage state, curves for the
financial return period of seismic retrofitting for
selected buildings were constructed (Figure 6). Simula-
tion results for the financial period expressed in the
logarithmic scale for N01, N04, N05, and N06 are
close to linearity in their seismic retrofitting cases. This
simulation provides building owners or users with
useful information when determining whether to
retrofit a building. Moreover, the financial return
periods of each dollar invested in seismic retrofitting
can also be used to compare the costs of different
seismic retrofitting methods. For instance, in Figure
6a, the seismic retrofitting method of RC wing walls
for N01 has a shorter financial return period than the
method of the expansion of column sections whatever
the damage ratio of the total damage state is set;
Figure 7. (a) Cost–benefit ratios in terms of different
relatively, the method of RC wing walls is recom-
remaining service lifetimes when the damage ratio of the
mended for retrofitting N01. total damage state is set at 2.0. (b) Cost–benefit ratios in
Figure 7a and 7b shows curves representing the terms of different remaining service lifetimes when the
relationship between cost-benefit ratios and damage ratio of the total damage state is set at 10.0.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 901

Figure 8. (a) Financial return periods of all selected cases when the damage ratio of total damage is set at 2.0. (b) Financial
return periods of all selected cases when the damage ratio of total damage is set at 5.0. (c) Financial return periods of all selected
cases when the damage ratio of total damage is set at 10.0. (d) Financial return periods of all selected cases when the damage ratio
of total damage is set at 20.0.

non-retrofitted case for a building is 0.14g, the cost-
benefit ratio will be 41.0 when assuming the damage
ratio corresponds to the total damage state of 10.0; the
remaining service lifetime is then five years.
Figure 8 shows the curves associated with the
relationship between financial return periods and
performance-based ground accelerations of non-retro-
fitted cases for all selected buildings under different
damage ratios for the total damage state. The financial
return period increases while the seismic performance
of a non-retrofitted case for a selected building
decreases; these curves expressed in a semi-logarithmic
scale are then close to linearity for all specified damage
ratios.
In Taipei, many low-rise RC school buildings with
inadequate seismic performance are roughly 35 years
old and their performance-based ground accelerations
are almost 0.15g. Because the service life of RC
buildings must be 450 years in Taiwan, the remaining
service lifetime is approximated at 15 years. According
to Figure 8c with the damage ratio of the total damage
state at 10.0, the financial return period is shorter than
the remaining service lifetime of 15 years. Therefore,
seismic retrofitting low-rise RC school buildings in
Taipei are economically worthwhile.
5. Conclusions
This work presents a novel simplified assessment
method for lifetime cost-benefit analysis of low-rise
RC buildings by using the hazard curve of response
spectral acceleration. Additionally, the occurrence of
902 C.-K. Chiu et al.
an earthquake is assumed to follow a Poisson process
when analysing the probability of occurrence for a
specific damage state in the remaining service lifetime
and expected lifetime cost. Although the case study
only addresses low-rise RC school buildings in Taipei,
the financial returning period for each dollar invested
in seismic retrofitting calculated via the same proce-
dure can be derived and utilised when making
decisions about whether to retrofit a building based
on economic considerations or not.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the National Science
Council of the Republic of China, Taiwan, for financially
supporting this research under Contract NSC 98-2218-E-011-
006.
References
Arias A., 1970. A measure of the earthquake intensity in
seismic design for nuclear power plants. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 438–468.
ATC, 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
buildings. ATC-40 report. Redwood City, CA: Applied
Technology Council.
Chiu, C.K., et al., 2006. Study on experiments of retrofit for
typical structures of primary and secondary schools in
Taiwan. Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute
(JCI), 28(2), 1591–1596.
Chung, L.L. et al., 2009. Seismic upgrading of school
buildings (I) – strategy. In: International conference in
commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the 1999 Chi-
Chi earthquake, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Polese, M., 2009. Simplified
method to include cumulative damage in the seismic
response of single-degree-of-freedom systems. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), 135(10), 1081–1088.
Frangopol, D.M. and Liu, M., 2007. Maintenance and
management of civil infrastructure based on condition,
safety, optimization, and life-cycle cost. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 3(1), 29–41.
Handou, M., Minegishi, T., and Shibuya, J., 2001. Estima-
tion of inelastic displacement response using response
spectrum and equivalent linearization method – part I:
method of estimation. In: Summaries of technical papers
of annual meeting (AIJ), C-2 structures IV, reinforced
concrete structures prestressed concrete structures ma-
sonry wall structures. Tokyo: Architecture institute of
Japan, 673–674.
Hsiao, F.P., et al., 2009. Seismic upgrading of school
buildings (II) – technology. In: International conference
in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the 1999 Chi-
Chi earthquake, Taipei, Taiwan.
Kong, J.S. and Frangopol, D.M., 2003. Life-cycle reliability-
based maintenance cost optimization of deteriorating
structures with emphasis on bridges. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE), 129(6), 818–828.
Manfredi, G., 2001. Evaluation of seismic energy demand.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30,
485–499.
Minegishi, T., Handou, M., and Shibuya, J., 2001. Estima-
tion of inelastic displacement response using response
spectrum and equivalent linearization method– part II:
inspection of estimation. In: Summaries of technical
papers of annual meeting (AIJ), C-2 structures IV,
reinforced concrete structures prestressed concrete struc-
tures masonry wall structures. Tokyo: Architecture
institute of Japan, 675–676.
NCREE-08-023, 2008. Technology handbook for seismic
evaluation and retrofit of school buildings. Taiwan, Taipei:
National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering.
Okano, H. and Miyamoto, Y., 2002. Equations derived from
equivalent linearization method – consideration based on
energy balance and its application to evaluation of
probability of excess of deformation capacity. Journal of
Structural Construction Engineering (AIJ), 562, 45–52.
Padgett, J.E., Dennemann, K., and Ghosh, J., 2010. Risk-
based seismic life-cycle cost-benefit (LCC-B) analysis for
bridge retrofit assessment. Structural Safety, 32, 165–173.
Park, Y.J. and Ang, A.H.-S., 1985. Mechanistic seismic
damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of the
Structural Engineering (ASCE), 111(4), 722–739.
Takahashi, Y., Der Kiureghian, A., and Ang, A.H.-S., 2004.
Life-cycle cost analysis based on a renewal model of
earthquake occurrences. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 33(7), 859–880.
Takahashi, N., Nakano, Y., and Shiohara, H., 2006.
Reparability demand spectrum of R/C buildings due to
the life cycle seismic loss estimation. In: First European
conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (1st
ECEES), 3–8 September, Geneva, Switzerland.
Seismic Design Code for Buildings. 2005. Taipei, Taiwan:
Minister of the Interior of Taiwan.
Williams, R.J., Gardoni, P., and Bracci, J.M., 2009. Decision
analysis for seismic retrofit of structures. Structural
Safety, 31, 188–196.