Multidimensional functionality limit states for

seismic resilience analysis of urban buildings

Juan Gutiérrez (  jgutierrezt@outlook.com )
Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas: Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-9432-6217
Amado Gustavo Ayala
IIUNAM: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Instituto de Ingenieria
Saúl Esteban López
National Autonomous University of Mexico Faculty of Advanced Studies Acatlan: Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlan

Research Article

Keywords: structural resilience, performance levels, post-seismic inspection, loss and recovery of
functionality, non-structural and contents damage

Posted Date: April 13th, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2787605/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License
 Multidimensional functionality limit states for seismic resilience analysis of urban buildings

Juan Gutiérrez1, Gustavo Ayala2 and Saúl López3

1
Civil Engineering Program, Autonomous University of Zacatecas, Ramón López Velarde 801, 98600, Zacatecas,
Zac. México. ORCID: 0000-0002-9432-6217. Email: jgutierrezt@outlook.com; juan.gutierrez@uaz.edu.mx
2
Engineering Institute, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, 04510
CDMX, México.
3
Acatlan Faculty of Superior Studies, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Av. Jardines de San Mateo s/n,
Sta. Cruz Acatlán, 53150, Naucalpan de Juárez, México.

Abstract. Currently, most of methodologies available to evaluate the seismic performance of buildings use as index
maximum interstory drifts. However, recent earthquakes have evidenced the need to develop performance levels that
incorporate seismic resilience concepts to evaluate the level of post-seismic functionality of buildings and their capacity to
recover functionality. Furthermore, such performance levels should explicitly consider the performance of structural, non-
structural elements and contents. For this purpose, this paper proposes a set of six performance limit states for office-type
buildings, in which the seismic performance of structural, non-structural elements and contents is explicitly considered.
Each of these limit states is associated with a set of probable events that generically determine its recovery of functionality
(e.g., post-seismic inspection and management of financial resources). To exemplify the proposed scheme a seven-story
reinforced concrete building with unreinforced infill masonry walls and located in Mexico City is evaluated. The results
obtained suggest that the building has a significant probability of experiencing loss of functionality due to the damage
suffered mainly by the non-structural elements and contents. This indicates that modern seismic design codes, as that used
for this study, accomplish their main objective, which is to reduce the probability of collapse and to prevent the loss of
human lives. However, these results also demonstrate that the main objective of decision makers when designing such
buildings, which is to be functional for one or several needs, is not achieved.

Keywords: structural resilience; performance levels; post-seismic inspection; loss and recovery of functionality;
non-structural and contents damage.

1. Introduction

The last two decades have witnessed the development of probabilistic methodologies to evaluate the seismic
performance of individual buildings (Porter 2000, Moehle and Deierlein 2004, Mitrani-Reiser 2007, Günay
and Mosalam 2013, among others). A major aspect characterizing these formulations is the performance
limit states, used to estimate the probability of reaching or exceeding an undesired performance level, e.g.,
leading to demolition or collapse. Most of the existing methodologies use interstory drifts (maximum or
residual) as an Engineering Demand Parameter (𝐸𝐷𝑃). With this criterion it is possible to evaluate the
structural safety given a seismic hazard level; however, it is not feasible to evaluate the loss of functionality
of a building under study from a resilient perspective. Therefore, it is convenient to formulate
multidimensional performance limit states (MPLS) based on seismic resilience concepts that explicitly and
jointly relate the structural response (e.g., drifts, velocities, and accelerations) to the damage that structural
(𝑆), non-structural (𝑁𝑆) elements and contents (𝐶𝑆) are susceptible to experience.

In this regard, Cimellaro et al. (2010) proposed a unified analytical framework to quantify the seismic
resilience of individual structures, e.g., bridges, hospitals, etc. They defined resilience as a function that
indicates the capability of a given building to sustain a level of performance functionality over the recovery
time 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 defined as the time necessary to return a damaged building to a level of operation and comfort
equal or better than that offered before it was affected by the disruptive event. Under these conditions, this
research group proposed as a building resilience index 𝑅(𝑡) the area under the recovery curve normalized
by the recovery time (see Fig. 1), as shown by the following equation:

𝑡 +𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 𝑄(𝑡)
𝑅(𝑡) = ∫𝑡 0 𝑑𝑡 (1)
0 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶

where,

𝑄(𝑡) = [1 − 𝐿 𝑇 (𝐼𝑀, 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 )] ∙ [𝐻(𝑡 − (𝑡0 + 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 ))] ∙ 𝑓𝑅𝐸𝐶 (𝑡, 𝑡0 , 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 ) (2)

defines the functionality of the system as a function of time 𝑡 and 𝑡0 corresponds to the instant when a
1
potentially destructive earthquake occurs; 𝐿 𝑇 (𝐼𝑀, 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 ) is the loss of functionality caused by a seismic
intensity 𝐼𝑀; 𝐻(∙) is the Heaviside step function and 𝑓𝑅𝐸𝐶 (𝑡, 𝑡0 , 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 ) is the recovery function.

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the resilience of a building proposed by Bruneau et al. (2003) and
extended by Cimellaro et al. (2010).

According to this formulation, the loss function considers structural, and non-structural economic losses.
Non-structural losses are classified into direct and indirect losses. The former is due to the damage caused
to the contents and to the people injured and/or casualties. Indirect economic losses are generated by
business interruption (highly dependent on the recovery time). The total losses are obtained by summing
the fraction of each type of loss 𝐿𝑖 multiplied by the probability of exceeding one or more MPLS, 𝑹 ≥ 𝒓𝑙𝑖𝑚 ,
conditioned to an intensity measure, 𝐼𝑀, e.g., 𝑆𝑎(𝑇1 ), 𝑃𝐺𝐴, etc.,

𝐿 𝑇 (𝐼𝑀, 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 ) = ∑𝑛𝑖=1{𝐿𝑖 (𝐼𝑀, 𝑡𝑅𝐸𝐶 )} ∙ 𝑃𝑟 {⋃𝑛𝑗=1 (𝑹 ≥ 𝑟𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑗 |𝐼𝑀)} (3)

The MPLSs are characterized by a set of fragility functions, each one representing the probability of
reaching or exceeding the corresponding limit states associated with the structural response of the system,
e.g., interstory drifts. This framework is of a general nature, so it is necessary to perform a particular
formulation of the MPLS for the type of building under study.

Due to the limitations and the uncertainties that characterize seismic demands and structural response, in
the last two decades several research groups have been developing probabilistic methodologies to estimate
structural performance in terms of decision variables, 𝐷𝑉 , e.g., repair costs and repair time. In such
methodologies the performance levels are not controlled by a physical variable, but by the probability of
exceedance of the 𝐷𝑉s associated with an 𝐼𝑀 with a specific return period, e.g., 250 years.

The first methodology oriented to the probabilistic evaluation of buildings subject to the influence of
earthquakes was the scheme developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)
(Cornell and Krawinkler 2000; Moehle and Deierlein 2004; Günay and Mosalam 2013). This methodology
primarily aims to estimate the consequences of seismic damage experienced by individual buildings in
terms of a 𝐷𝑉 as a performance indicator. This scheme represented an important step towards the
quantification of the seismic risk of individual buildings. Nevertheless, it does not explicitly consider the
fundamental aspects of seismic resilience, i.e., loss of functionality and recovery time (Krawinkler and
Deierlein 2013).

Along this line of thought, Porter (2000) developed a methodology denominated Assembly-Based
Vulnerability (ABV) of buildings, which follows the same structure of the PBEE-PEER framework. This
methodology uses fragility functions to infer the damage that structural and non-structural elements may
develop as a function of the physical variable to which they are sensitive. The 𝐷𝑉 s obtained with this
approach are repair costs and repair times, which require a large number of non-linear dynamic analyses
(NLDA) for each 𝐼𝑀 of interest to determine their probability distribution.

The methodology developed by Porter (2000) was extended by Mitrani-Reiser (2007), who considered the
delay time for the start of repairs within the seismic performance evaluation scheme. The delay time is
composed by the post-seismic inspection, the bidding process, the process to obtain financial resources and
the governmental permitting stage (Comerio 2006). The most innovative aspect of Mitrani-Reiser´s work
was the probabilistic methodology called Virtual Inspector. This approximation consists of estimating the
2
probability of tagging the building in study as safe, restricted use or unsafe, according to the post-seismic
inspection criteria developed by the ATC 20 (1989). The assessment of the probability of the building being
tagged as unsafe, and therefore non-usable, considers only the structural damage. Therefore, since the
influence of non-structural elements and contents on the loss of functionality is not considered, these
probabilities correspond to the lower limit of the tagging probability.

The FEMA P-58-1 (2018a), based on the performance-assessment framework developed by PEER, adopted
the probabilistic post-seismic inspection approach proposed by Mitrani-Reiser (2007). This methodology
was modified to infer the number of people who may lose their lives given that the building is tagged as
unsafe. This methodology allows for probabilistic estimates of repair costs and times; however, it does not
consider the fraction of recovery time associated with delays, which have been shown to have a significant
impact on indirect economic losses associated with business interruption (Almufti and Willford 2014).

Mieler et al. (2016) developed a conceptual framework for estimating the probability of loss of functionality
in buildings. This scheme uses fault tree analysis to estimate such probabilities. This tool is characterized
by considering the performance of each component that can affect the functionality of the building in case
of damage. The methodology was designed to evaluate performance objectives considering structural and
non-structural elements and relate them to global levels of resilience. The implementation of this
methodology requires the development of a robust algorithm of the performance of structural and non-
structural components and prescribing their interdependence, therefore, it requires a detailed inventory of
the elements that are essential for the operation of the facility. The accuracy of this methodology depends
on the level of detail with which the fault tree is elaborated. However, it has been observed that this type of
approximation is very sensitive, and it is possible that the model under or overestimates the failure
probabilities (Porter and Ramer 2012).

The previous models only consider the assessment of postearthquake damage to evaluate the recovery of a
building. In recent years, Burton et al. (2016) developed five functionality limit states of the shelter in-place
housing capacity of a residential community in terms of seismic resilience. Each one of them is
characterized not only by the prescription of a specific damage configuration, but also considers a set of
events involved in the recovery of functionality (e.g., post-seismic inspection, structural redesign, and
execution of repairs). Due to the scarcity of systematically collected information on the events involved in
the post-seismic recovery of buildings, these limit states are based on heuristic reasoning, i.e., using
deduction by analogy (Polya 1954). This means that these limit states must be reviewed in future
earthquakes to verify their veracity, or if necessary, improve them or even propose new ones. Despite this
limitation, and the current state of the art of seismic resilience, the limit states developed by this research
group can be of great help to identify damage configurations potentially harmful to building performance
and to simulate scenarios of recovery of functionality at different levels of seismic hazard.

This paper proposes a MPLS formulation for the seismic performance assessment of urban buildings which
explicitly considers the damage of non-structural elements and contents. This formulation is an extension
of the methodology developed by Mitrani-Reiser (2007) for estimating the tagging probability of the post-
seismic inspection process in adaptation of the 𝐿𝑆s for residential buildings used by Burton et al. (2016).
The formulation of the 𝐿𝑆s is consistent with the MPLS of the seismic resilience assessment framework
developed by Cimellaro et al. (2010). To exemplify the proposed formulation, the probabilistic evaluation
of the 𝐿𝑆s in a seven-story RC office-type building with URM infill-walls designed with a modern seismic
design code is presented. The results obtained indicate that the loss of functionality in this type of buildings
is mainly due to the damage experienced by the non-structural elements and contents, proving that although
modern seismic design guidelines are aimed to prevent collapse under severe earthquakes to minimize loss
of life, they are not oriented to prevent the loss of functionality for low and moderate seismic intensities.

2. Methodology proposed

2.1 Assessment of the structural safety of a building using the inspection criteria proposed by ATC 20

When a potentially destructive earthquake affects a building, an immediate inspection is required to assess
the potential damage and determine whether the building can be partially or fully operational, or in the
worst case, demolition is required (Gutiérrez et al. 2020). To restore the functionality of the buildings
damaged by an earthquake, which affect their occupants, communities or an entire city, the post-seismic
inspection of all these constructions must be done in the shortest possible time. Therefore, to reduce and
optimize the inspection time, a significant number of specialized workers and engineers must be available
3
to perform the post-seismic assessments. However, the experience acquired from past destructive events
show that it is unlikely that the affected society will have enough qualified personnel to carry out this task
due to the possible large number of buildings affected and their dispersed location within a city (Gallagher
1989).

Due to this problem, the ATC 20 (1989) developed a procedure for inspecting conventional buildings
affected by an earthquake with the objective of minimize the time involved in this activity and for issuing
a report that defines the general activities required to mitigate the effects of the damage produced and to
recover their functionality. This procedure is divided into the three levels of inspection: rapid evaluation
( 𝑅𝐸 ), detailed evaluation ( 𝐷𝐸 ), and engineering evaluation (𝐸𝐸 ). The first two only require visual
inspections, while the third requires an engineering calculation process to determine the residual load
capacity of the affected building. The objective of the evaluation is to describe post-seismic structural safety
using one of three types of tagging: inspected, restrained entry, or unsafe. These tags are identified with the
green (𝐺 ), yellow (𝑌 ), or red (𝑅 ) colors, respectively. A fourth category involves the inspection of 𝑁𝑆
components, that although their damage does not affect the stability of the structure, it can be a cause of
injury to people in and outside the affected building. The tag assigned to the building due to this type of
damaged elements is unsafe area (𝑅𝑎 ), and the red color is used to identify it. The details of each type of
evaluation are described below.

2.1.1 Numerical simulation of building safety using the ATC 20 inspection criteria

Mitrani-Reiser (2007) developed a probabilistic methodology to estimate the post-seismic structural safety
based on the ATC 20 (1989) inspection criteria. This methodology, called Virtual Inspector, reproduces
numerically the rapid and detailed evaluation. For the first one, in case of assigning a 𝑌 tag, 𝑖. 𝑒., a restricted
entry tag, the process of a detailed inspection is then simulated. Finally, the probabilities of each type of
inspection are combined to obtain the probability that the building receives a 𝐺 or 𝑅 tagged given an 𝐼𝑀.

The main limitation of this approach is that the evaluation process only considers 𝑆 elements; therefore, the
probability of tagging the building corresponds to the lower limit of such probabilities (Gutiérrez 2021). To
address this limitation, this paper explicitly considers the simulation of the post-seismic inspection of 𝑁𝑆
elements and 𝐶𝑆 . With this consideration, the probability of tagging the post-seismic inspection
corresponds to the upper limit of probabilities. The development of 𝑁𝑆 − 𝐶𝑆 damage combined with null
structural damage is not a reason to post the building as structurally unsafe; however, it can be considered
as a potential risk due to the possibility of the 𝑁𝑆 − 𝐶𝑆 falling (𝑅𝑎 tag), and naturally, the possibility to
induce injury to people and partial loss of functionality.

The probabilities that the building being 𝑅, 𝑌 or 𝐺 tagged given an 𝐼𝑀, are calculated with the following
proposed equations:

𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑇 |𝑃𝐺𝑇 , 𝐼𝑀) = 𝑃𝑟(𝑆𝐷 |𝐼𝑀, 𝑁𝐶) ∙ 𝑃𝑟(𝑁𝐶|𝐼𝑀) + 𝑃𝑟(𝐶|𝐼𝑀) (4a)

𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑌𝑇 |𝑃𝐺𝑇 , 𝐼𝑀) = 𝑃𝑟(𝑀𝐷 |𝐼𝑀, 𝑁𝐶) ∙ 𝑃𝑟(𝑁𝐶|𝐼𝑀) (4b)

𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝐺𝑇 |𝑃𝐺𝑇 , 𝐼𝑀) = 𝑃𝑟(𝑁𝐷 , 𝐿𝐷 |𝐼𝑀, 𝑁𝐶) ∙ 𝑃𝑟(𝑁𝐶|𝐼𝑀) (4c)

where the subscript 𝑇 refers to the type of performance group (𝑃𝐺), i.e., 𝑆, 𝑁𝑆 elements or 𝐶𝑆. Examples
of these types of 𝑃𝐺 s are, to mention a few, columns, windows, and furniture, respectively. The terms
𝑃𝑟(𝑆𝐷 |𝐼𝑀, 𝑁𝐶), 𝑃𝑟(𝑀𝐷 |𝐼𝑀, 𝑁𝐶) and 𝑃𝑟(𝑁𝐷 , 𝐿𝐷 |𝐼𝑀, 𝑁𝐶), are the probability of experiencing severe (𝑆𝐷 ),
moderate (𝑀𝐷 ), null (𝑁𝐷 ) or light (𝐿𝐷 ) damage given that the building does not collapse. The term
𝑃𝑟(𝐶|𝐼𝑀) indicates the probability of collapse and 𝑃𝑟(𝑁𝐶|𝐼𝑀) = 1 − 𝑃𝑟(𝐶|𝐼𝑀) the probability of
survival. Note that only the severe (overturning) and null (rest) states are considered in the evaluation of
the contents, as is described in section 2.3.2. Thus, for this case the Eqs. 4a and 4c are used, which consider
the 𝑅 and 𝐺 tags.

The 𝐺, 𝑌 or 𝑅 color tagging that governs the post-seismic inspection of a building in evaluation is based on
the prescription of hierarchy levels among the types of 𝑃𝐺s, the most important are the 𝑆, followed by the
𝑁𝑆 elements and finally the 𝐶𝑆. Likewise, in each of these types of 𝑃𝐺s, a hierarchy is prescribed for the
level of damage that can develop. This second hierarchy starts with severe damage, followed by moderate
damage and ending with light damage. Additionally, in the approach proposed here only the detailed
inspection is performed, instead of doing the rapid and detailed virtual inspection. This is because the rapid
4
inspection is performed due to the lack of enough personnel specialized to inspect many buildings
potentially damaged in a short time. From a computational point of view, it is more efficient to perform one
numerical inspection instead of two.

2.2 Functionality limit states formulation

The notion of the functionality limit state was introduced by Burton et al. (2016). The 𝐿𝑆s explicitly relate
a series of damage configurations in a building caused by an earthquake to a set of generic activities that
must be performed to recover its functionality. In this work, the idea proposed by Burton et al. (2016) is
used and adapted in such a way that the configuration of each 𝐿𝑆 is derived from tagging of the post-seismic
evaluation of structural safety, and from the evaluation of the unsafe areas, corresponding to the 𝑁𝑆
elements and 𝐶𝑆 damaged. Due to the great uncertainties in the inference of the 𝐷𝑆s that characterize the
different 𝑃𝐺s that integrate a building, the 𝐿𝑆s allow to visualize generic configurations of the damage
combination patterns for different levels of 𝐼𝑀s. Likewise, since there are few real events that can be used
as a basis for generating a robust and reliable recovery model, currently, the only alternative so far is to
propose generic recovery events 𝑅𝑄(𝑡) formulated via deduction by analogy, i.e., from the perspective of
a heuristic point of view (Polya 1954). The configuration of each 𝐿𝑆 and 𝑅𝑄(𝑡), is described in the Table
1.

Due to the complex interaction of the events that define each 𝐿𝑆, to evaluate them, concepts of probability
and set theory are used. For example, the probability for the 𝐿𝑆3 conditioned to an 𝐼𝑀, is 𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆3 |𝐼𝑀) =
𝑃𝑟{𝑌𝑠 ∪ [(𝐺𝑁𝑆 ∩ 𝑌𝑁𝑆 ∩ 𝑅𝑁𝑆 ) ∪ (𝐺𝐶𝑆 ∩ 𝑅𝐶𝑆 )]|𝐼𝑀} . The events in this equation are obtained from the
random realizations that match with the events functionality limit states, defined in Table 1. The probability
of the 𝐿𝑆3 is obtained recurring to the frequentist definition of probability. In general, the canonical
expression for estimating the probability for each 𝐿𝑆 is calculated by the following expression:

𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆|𝐼𝑀) = 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺𝑆 , 𝑇𝐴𝐺𝑁𝑆 , 𝑇𝐴𝐺𝐶𝑆 |𝐼𝑀) (5)

Table 1. Description of the functionality limit states (adaptation of the work of Burton et al. 2016).
Functionality limit
Causes of loss of functionality Recovery events
states
In this case, the building could
This state corresponds to an undamaged
continue to provide service, if the
state, either structural ( 𝐺𝑆 ), non-
owner decides, while the inspectors
𝐿𝑆0 : Fully functional, structural (𝐺𝑁𝑆 ) and contents (𝐺𝐶𝑆 ), so
conduct the rapid assessment. Since
safe building, 𝑇𝐴𝐺 = the building remains operational after the
no damage of any kind occurs, the life
𝐺𝑆 . seismic event; however, it is possible that
integrity of the occupants of the
the owner may request an inspection to
building is not compromised.
verify that there is no minor damage.
The generic recovery process for this
limit state, 𝑅𝑄1 (𝑡) , consist of the
This state is composed by a combination
following events: (1) an inspection of
of null structural damage (𝐺𝑆 ) and light
the building due to the visual impact
non-structural damage (𝐺𝑁𝑆 ), and/or by a
of the damage to the contents and
severe content damage (𝐺𝐶𝑆 ). Therefore,
furnishings, an after the completion of
𝐿𝑆1 : Partially although the building is safe, a tag
the inspection, the
functional and indicative that it is partially non-
owners/stakeholders could apply for
structurally safe, functional is assigned because some
(2) an insurance to pay for the
𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝐺𝑆 usable spaces cannot be occupiable by
replacement of damaged elements, if
the users. This state could occur in
the amount and severity require it.
buildings whose contents may
Likewise, in this limit state is possible
experience accelerations of great
that falling 𝑁𝑆 elements and 𝐶𝑆 may
magnitude causing them to fall.
cause injuries to the occupants.

The process of recovery from this

This limit state is characterized by the
𝐿𝑆2 : Restricted use, limit state, 𝑅𝑄2 (𝑡), is assumed to be
presence of non-structural moderate
non-functional and composed of the following events: (1)
damage ( 𝑌𝑁𝑆 ), null structural damage
post-seismic inspection, where some
5
structurally safe, (𝐺𝑆 ) and by any type of damage in the
𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝐺𝑆 . contents ( 𝐺𝐶𝑆 , 𝑅𝐶𝑆 ). This limit state
could occur in 𝑃𝐺s with great capacity of
deformation or by those composed by
brittle materials, e.g., interior partitions
or interior/exterior windows.
This limit state occurs due to the
𝐿𝑆3 : Restricted entry,
presence of light structural damage (𝑌𝑆 )
non-functional and
and/or any type of discrete damage state
structurally safe,
in non-structural components (𝐺𝑁𝑆 , 𝑌𝑁𝑆 ,
𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑌𝑆 .
𝑅𝑁𝑆 ) and contents (𝐺𝐶𝑆 , 𝑅𝐶𝑆 )
This condition is caused by the
𝐿𝑆4 : Unsafe building, combination of severe structural damage
unoccupied, but ( 𝑅𝑆 ), and any state of non-structural
repairable, 𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑆 . damage ( 𝐺𝑁𝑆 , 𝑌𝑁𝑆 , 𝑅𝑁𝑆 ) and/or content
damage (𝐺𝐶𝑆 , 𝑅𝐶𝑆 ).
6
areas of the building are determined
as not usable due to the presence of
damage to 𝑁𝑆 elements and 𝐶𝑆 ; (2)
an insurance to pay for the
replacement/repair of damaged
elements and (3) mobilization for
repairs the 𝑃𝐺 s damaged. Similar to
the damage that characterizes the 𝐿𝑆1 ,
in this limit state, falling 𝑁𝑆 elements
and 𝐶𝑆 damaged can also cause
injuries to the occupants.
The recovery path, 𝑅𝑄3 (𝑡) , is
assumed to be described by the
following events: (1) post-seismic
inspection, where the building is
declared restricted entry, i.e., it
receives a yellow tag; (2) obtaining
the financing to pay for the repairs;
(3) execution of the structural repairs.
Once the structural repairs are
completed the building is declared
safety to be reoccupied, but with
restrict use. The next step (4) is to
repair/replace the 𝑁𝑆 elements and
𝐶𝑆 . After this last process has been
completed, the building has regained
its ability to be functional. Finally, in
this limit state, severe damage to 𝑁𝑆
elements and 𝐶𝑆 can cause injury to
users.
The recovery process, 𝑅𝑄4 (𝑡) , is
assumed to be integrated of the
following events: (1) the post-seismic
inspection is performed, in which it is
determined that the building is unsafe,
i.e., it receives a red tag. Due to the
quantity and severity of damage it is
determined that the building can be
repaired, i.e., it did not experience
significant residual drifts and the
repair cost/time are acceptable to the
stakeholders. After carrying out these
activities, the building condition
becomes restricted entry. During this
state the building could be occupied
by authorized personnel and the
following events are performed: (2)
obtain financial resources to pay for
repairs, (3) repair process planning
and (4) bidding process. Once the
structural retrofit has been determined
and the financing is obtained, (5) the
structural repairs are carried out. After
this step, the building is safe to be
reoccupied, i.e., with restricted use.
However, to be fully functional, (6)
the 𝑁𝑆 repairs and 𝐶𝑆 s replacement
must be done. Finally, in this limit
state, severe damage to 𝑆 elements
 and 𝐶𝑆 can cause injuries to users.

The recovery process, 𝑅𝑄5 (𝑡) , is

This state corresponds to an unsafe
given by the demolition and
building (𝑅𝑆 ) as it experienced excessive
reconstruction of the building. As in
𝐿𝑆5 : Unsafe, residual deformations or local structural
the previous case, in this limit state,
irreparable building, collapse, so it is determined that it must
severe damage to 𝑆, 𝑁𝑆 elements and
𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑆 be demolished either the system is
𝐶𝑆 elements can cause injuries to
technically irreparable and/or the repair
users.
cost/time may be excessive.
The recovery process, 𝑅𝑄6 (𝑡) , is
given by the cleaning of debris and
the reconstruction of the building. In
this limit state, it is considered, under
𝐿𝑆6 : Structural This state corresponds to structural
a conservative judgment, that the
collapse, 𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑆 collapse.
number of fatalities is equal to the
number of occupants who were in the
building at the time of the seismic
event.

The 𝐿𝑆s defined in Table 1 are similar to those proposed by Burton et al. (2016). The main difference is
that here they are obtained from the combination of the events associated with the virtual inspection
corresponding to 𝑆, 𝑁𝑆 elements and 𝐶𝑆, deducted under a heuristic criterion. This not only gives a logical
character to the deduction of the 𝐿𝑆s, but also allows the calculation of the probability of each one of them
in a less ambiguous way. Therefore, its numerical implementation is straightforward.

Likewise, the assumption of the events that integrate the recovery of each of these 𝐿𝑆s has been deduced
from a heuristic reasoning. This means that the events contained in the recovery process can be refined and
improved with the availability of more and better databases of 𝑆 , 𝑁𝑆 and 𝐶𝑆 damage produced by
potentially destructive seismic events in a wide range of buildings, and of the activities involved in the
recovery of its original functioning level. In general, 𝐿𝑆s can be interpreted as a series of combinations of
discrete damage (𝐷𝑆) levels experienced by the various 𝑃𝐺s that comprise a building, together with the
likely generic events involved in their recovery of functionality.

2.3 Damage analysis

The loss of functionality of a building that has experienced damage from an earthquake is mainly influenced
by the damage developed by the 𝑁𝑆 and 𝐶𝑆 elements. These elements can experience damage even at lower
seismic intensities than the structural system was designed for, mainly because of their low deformation
capacity (Almufti and Willford 2014; Filitrault and Sullivan 2014). In this section it is described the criteria
to infer the damage experienced by 𝑆 and 𝑁𝑆 elements.

2.3.1 Inference of the damage in structural and non-structural elements

The PBEE-PEER methodology does not establish a general criterion for determining whether damage is
inferred by element or by group of elements. However, several research groups, e.g., Mitrani-Reiser (2007),
Goulet et al. (2007), Yang et al. (2009), and guidelines as FEMA P-58-1 (2018a), to name a few, evaluate
the damage by grouping several elements of the same 𝑃𝐺 assuming that they can experience the same level
of 𝐸𝐷𝑃 given an 𝐼𝑀, and therefore the same level of 𝐷𝑆. To exemplify this, consider that on a given floor
of a building, a set of buckling restrained braces are installed on the same frame. With this approach, it is
accepted that all these elements develop the same level of maximum distortion in acceleration history and
therefore the same level of 𝐷𝑆.

This criterion may be appropriate if the structural models are bidimensional, if the uncertainties associated
with the mechanical properties of the materials used and their mass distribution are small enough to
disregard their variability. However, for 3D structural analysis, in-plan torsional effects can cause important
differences in the 𝐸𝐷𝑃s corresponding with a same set of elements located in a same floor. Therefore, the
level of 𝐷𝑆 in each element of the set could be substantially different. Furthermore, the damage level of an
element varies, even for the same values of 𝐸𝐷𝑃 due to the differences in the pattern and history of the
structural response (Günay and Mosalam 2013).
7
In the methodology presented here, three-dimensional structural models are used and both 𝐸𝐷𝑃s and 𝐷𝑆s
are evaluated individually, i.e., element by element, so that each of them has its own probability density
function (PDF) of structural response 𝑝(𝐸𝐷𝑃|𝐼𝑀), and therefore an individual PDF discrete damage state
𝑝(𝐷𝑆|𝐸𝐷𝑃). To infer the damage that each 𝑆 and 𝑁𝑆 element may experience, the methodology proposed
by Gutiérrez (2021) and Gutiérrez and Ayala (2022) is used, which corresponds to an extension of the
approaches carried out by Porter (2000) and Mitrani-Reiser (2007). This method uses the fragility functions
developed by FEMA P-58-3 (FEMA 2018b), which have been calibrated and tested in laboratories with
acceptable results (Beck et al. 2000).

2.3.2 Inference of the damage in contents

To infer the damage in a content element, the FEMA P-58-1 (2018a) adopted the procedure proposed in
ASCE/SEI 43-05 (2005) assuming that this damage can be estimated from the dynamic response of a rigid
block subjected to a history of accelerations at its base. The response of a rigid block to a horizontal
excitation at its base can be classified in four types: rest, slide, rocking and overturning. This methodology
uses fragility functions, similarly to those used to evaluate damage in the 𝑃𝐺s described in section 2.3.1.
Nonetheless, the results of a comparative study performed by Dar et al. (2016) between the predictions
obtained from the fragility functions proposed in ASCE/SEI 43-05 (2005) and FEMA P-58-1 (2018a) and
a series of NLDAs of a set of rigid blocks subjected to various levels of excitation concluded that, the
former offer unreliable, and in many cases, non-conservative results. Due to this inconsistency, in this paper
the theory of rigid block dynamics is used to estimate the performance of typical office furniture, e.g.,
bookcases and shelves. Details of the methodology used to estimate the damage to the contents can be
found in Gutiérrez (2021).

3. Numerical example

This section presents the probabilistic evaluation of the functional limit states for a hypothetical office-type
reinforced concrete building. The architectural floor plan is shown en Fig. 2. The building has seven floors
and three bays in each orthogonal direction. The story height of all floors is 4.0 m and the width of all bays
is 6.5 m. The ground floor is composed of a reception, a lobby, a restaurant, a couple of bathrooms, and the
stairs that give access to the upper floors. The rest of the floors are integrated of six offices, two bathrooms
and a meeting room. Fifteen particular types of 𝑃𝐺s are considered for the damage analysis: (1) columns,
(2) beams, (3) column-beam connections, (4) exterior windows, (5) ceiling system, (6) sprinkler system,
(7) gypsum interior partitions, (8) unreinforced masonry exterior walls, (9) interior windows, (10)
unreinforced masonry interior walls, (11) concrete stairs, (12) piping for cold and hot water system, (13)
ducting HVAC (Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning) system, (14) central unit HVAC and (15)
contents (bookcases and shelves for typical use). Table 2 gives the parameters of the probability
distributions of the damage states of the 𝑃𝐺 s (FEMA 2018b). Regarding the CS, all of them have
dimensions of 2.0 m high, 1.3 m wide and 0.5 m deep. The spatial location of each component of the PGs
is illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2. Space distribution of the usable areas in the building.

8
 Fig. 3. Localization of the PGs using the case of study.

Table 2. Probability distribution of the damage states of the 𝑃𝐺s used and their respective unit repair time
(FEMA 2018b).
Engineering
Performance Demand Damage State, Damage state PDF
Group, 𝑃𝐺 Parameter, 𝐷𝑆
𝐸𝐷𝑃 PDF 𝜇𝐷𝑆 𝑐𝑣𝐷𝑆
ID DS1 (sec) LN 0.02 0.4
DS2 (sec) LN 0.0275 0.3
Column (COL)
DS3 (sec) LN 0.05 0.3
(B1041.003b)
DS4 (m.exc,
LN 0.05 0.3
DS2,DS4)
R (rad) DS1 (sec) LN 0.0203 0.39
Beam (BEA)
DS2 (sec) LN 0.0394 0.35
(B1042.021b)
DS3 (sec) LN 0.0602 1
Column/beam ID DS1 (sec) LN 0.015 0.4
connection (CB- DS2 (sec) LN 0.0175 0.4
CTN)
DS3 (sec) LN 0.02 0.4
(B1041.043b)
Exterior windows ID DS1 (sec) LN 0.0156 0.35
(WIN-EXT)
DS2 (sec) LN 0.0561 0.3
(B2022.021)
A (g) DS1 (sec) N 1.47 0.3
Ceilings (CEI)
DS2 (sec) LN 1.88 0.3
(C3032.003b)
DS3 (sec) LN 2.03 0.3
Sprinklers (SPR) A (g) DS1 (sec) N 1.1 0.4
(D4011.021a) DS2 (sec) N 2.4 0.5
Wall partition ID DS1 (sec) LN 0.005 0.4
gypsum (GYW) DS2 (sec) LN 0.01 0.3
(C1011.001a) DS3 (sec) LN 0.021 0.2
Int/Ext masonry ID DS1 (sec) LN 0.0018 0.73
wall (WMA- DS2 (sec) LN 0.0051 0.65
INT/EXT)
DS3 (sec) LN 0.0086 0.56
(B1051.013)
9
 Interior windows ID DS1 (sec) LN 0.0147 0.25
(WIN-INT)
DS2 (sec) LN 0.0164 0.25
(B2022.034)
Concrete stairs ID DS1 (sec) LN 0.005 0.6
(STA) DS2 (sec) LN 0.017 0.6
(C2011.011b) DS3 (sec) LN 0.028 0.45
Piping for A (g) DS1 (sec) LN 2.25 0.4
hot/cold drinking
water (PIP) DS2 (sec) LN 4.1 0.4
(D2021.014a)
Ducting HVAC A (g) DS1 (sec) LN 3.75 0.4
(HVAC-DUC)
DS2 (sec) LN 4.5 0.4
(D3041.022c)
Central unit
HVAC (HVAC-
A (g) DS1 (-) LN 0.72 0.2
UC)
(D3031.013b)
Notes: ID: Interstory drift ratio, R: Rotation, A: Acceleration, LN: Lognormal distribution, N: Normal distribution, sec.: sequential, m.exc.: mutually exclusie

3.1 Structural design and location of the building

The building was designed in accordance with the Mexico City Building Code (NTC-DS) (GCDMX 2004).
It was assumed that the building is located at the accelerometer station of the Secretary of Communications
and Transportation (SCT), which is in Zone IIIb, corresponding to a soft soil, according to the geotechnical
zonation of the valley of Mexico City. The structural system chosen for the building was a reinforced
concrete moment resisting frame with low ductility as it is the most common system used in Mexico City
for such type of buildings. Accordingly, a seismic behavior factor 𝑄 = 2 was considered in its design. The
dimensions of the cross section of all columns and beams are 100 × 100 𝑐𝑚 and 90 x 70 cm, respectively.
The fundamental period of the designed building is 𝑇1 = 0.61 𝑠. The design of this building is shown in
detail in Gutiérrez (2021)

3.2 Seismic hazard analysis

The evaluation of the damage and functionality limit states of the hypothetical building was performed for
seven levels of seismic hazard, with return periods of 50, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2500 years, with
a probability of exceedance of 63, 33, 18, 10, 5, 3 and 2%, respectively, in a 50-year interval. Spectral
acceleration 𝑆𝑎(𝑇1 ) was used as the 𝐼𝑀 . The target mean spectral accelerations for each 𝐼𝑀 level
considered were: 0.15g, 0.22g, 0.29g, 0.36g, 0.47g, 0.54g and 0.63g, obtained from the seismic hazard
curve for the SCT site and a fundamental period of vibration of 𝑇1 = 0.6 𝑠 (see Fig. 4). The intensities
associated with earthquakes with return periods of 50 years correspond to service seismic events, that is, of
immediate occupation, and the events corresponding to a 250-year return period are associated with the
collapse prevention (GCMDX 2004). To represent the variability of the seismic demand, sets of 20 pairs of
accelerograms were simulated for each 𝐼𝑀 using the model proposed by Kohrs-Sansorny et al. (2005).
Details of this analysis can be found in Gutiérrez (2021).

It should be noted that the building studied in this research has limited ductility, so it is not appropriate to
estimate the probability of collapse using Incremental Dynamic Analysis (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002)
since this methodology is more suitable for buildings that can develop significant ductility demands
(Shoraka et al. 2013).

10
 Fig. 4. Seismic hazard curve for the SCT site and a fundamental period of vibration of 𝑇1 =0.6s.

3.3 Structural analysis

The NLDA was performed using the open‐source software OpenSees (Mazzoni et al. 2007). The columns
and beams were modeled using inelastic fiber elements with five integration points. The behavior of
concrete was modeled using the constitutive model developed by Chang and Mander (1994), and the
longitudinal reinforcement steel with the model proposed by Giuffrè and Pinto (1970). To consider the
stiffness contribution of the masonry infill walls, the methodology proposed by Kadysiewski and Mosalam
(2009) was used. This approach considers the in- and out-of-plan behavior of an infill wall. The parameters
of the constitutive model for masonry were calculated in accordance with FEMA 356 (2000). The
evaluation of the demolition limit state 𝐿𝑆5 associated with significant residual drifts was performed using
the methodology developed by Ramirez and Miranda (2012).

Structural collapse was assumed to occur when at least one building column exceeded a prescribed
maximum drift (first component failure) in a seismic random realization given a seismic intensity. This
approach is consistent with the criterion proposed by ASCE 41-06 (2006) for the limit state of collapse
prevention. A value of 0.025 was used as the limiting collapse drift, as suggested by Xue et al. (2008) and
Nazri (2018) for buildings with low ductile capacity. The probability of collapse is estimated using the
frequentist approach to estimate probabilities, i.e., by dividing the number of times the structure collapsed
by the total number of seismic realizations associated with a specific seismic hazard level.

Regarding content damage analysis, to estimate the history of accelerations at the base of each block located
on each floor, a bilinear interpolation of the accelerations calculated at the corners of the panels forming
the slab was carried out. To determine if the block under analysis experienced overturning, the maximum
angular displacement of the rotation point the block was used as 𝐸𝐷𝑃, with the maximum displacement
being 𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑡) = 1.40 rad (≈ 80°) . For values of 𝜃(𝑡) ≥ 𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑡) the numerical solution diverges, an
indication that the block was overturning. The results obtained are consistent with those observed in recent
earthquakes (e.g., Chile 2010 and México 2017).

4. Analysis of the results

For the sake of brevity, only the damage analysis associated with the functional limit states of the event
(𝐿𝑆4 , 𝐼𝑀6 ), is presented. More details about the damage analysis can be found in Gutiérrez (2021). This
event is the one that contributes most to the probability distribution of the seismic hazard level 𝐼𝑀6
(𝑆𝑎(𝑇1 ) = 0.54𝑔), which correspond to recurrence period of 1,500-years.

Figure 5 shows the visual damage simulation of each of the 𝑃𝐺s corresponding to this event, generated by
an orthogonal pair of synthetic accelerograms. In this seismic intensity the 𝑆 elements experienced light,
moderate and severe damage (see Figs. 5a and c). It is observed that a significant number of columns of the
first two floors experienced light damage, and one column, located on the second floor, developed moderate
damage. Likewise, an important number of column-beam connections located in the first three levels
experienced severe, moderate, and light damage, a condition sufficient for the building to receive a red tag,
indicating that the structural system is not safe for this level of seismic hazard. In this regard, the beam-
type elements did not experience damage of any type in any seismic realization (Fig. 5b). It can also be
seen that a facade window experienced moderate damage (Fig. 5d), which according to its pathology would
imply its fall, and possibly the cause of injuries on the users of the building, or on passers-by. On the other

11
hand, it can be observed that many partition wall elements experienced light and severe damage in most of
the floors (Fig. 5h). Also, most of the interior and exterior masonry walls located in the first three floors
experienced severe damage (Fig. 5i and j), while in the rest of the floors it is observed that this type of
elements experienced light and moderate damage. The concentration of damage in this type of elements in
the first three floors is a product of the demand of shear forces accumulated gradually from the top floor to
the base of the building. In this case, the stairways also experienced damage on all floors, especially
moderate and severe damage on the first and second floors (Fig. 5k). This condition automatically implies
loss of functionality because these elements are the transportation routes within the building.

An interesting result is due to the performance of 𝐶𝑆. The Figure 5o shows that this type of element suffered
severe damage, i.e., overturning, in the last three floors of the facility. This is since floor accelerations
increase gradually from the base to the top floor of the building. This physical aspect is typical of short-
period buildings, such as the one under evaluation. It can also be observed that the periphery of the last
three floors is where the greatest number of 𝐶𝑆 that experienced overturning is concentrated. This is
because to the fact that the points furthest from the center of mass of the building-floors experienced the
largest intensity due to plant rotational accelerations (see Fig. 6).

The estimation of the 𝐷𝑆 state element-by-element can help to identify vulnerable areas and, thus, which
may generate loss of functionality, and even the total or partial collapse of a building. At the same time, it
can be useful to identify the most vulnerable elements to propose structural retrofits that mitigate as much
as possible future earthquake induced damage.

Fig. 5. Discrete damage state developed for each element that conform each 𝑃𝐺 of the building for a
seismic realization for the case: 𝐿𝑆4 , 𝐼𝑀6 (Tr=50 years, 𝑆𝑎(𝑇1 ) = 0.54𝑔).

4.1 Post-seismic evaluation analysis and functionality limit states

The fundamental aspect of the methodology proposed in this paper is the probabilistic evaluation of the
post-seismic inspection, in which not only 𝑆 elements are considered, but also 𝑁𝑆 elements and 𝐶𝑆. This
process is essential to determine which seismic realizations, associated with each 𝐼𝑀 produce the damage
patterns of the 𝐿𝑆 s, and therefore the configuration of the events that allow the estimation of the
functionality recovery of the system (see Table 1).

12
In section 2.1, the importance of evaluating the performance of 𝑁𝑆 elements and 𝐶𝑆 was exposed because,
although they are not a cause of structural unsafety, they are the main cause of loss of functionality since
the spaces where these elements are installed can become non-usable during the period in which they are
repaired or replaced.

Fig. 6. Field of accelerations of each floor of the building for the following conditions: (a) (𝐿𝑆1 , 𝐼𝑀1 ), (b)
(𝐿𝑆3 , 𝐼𝑀3 ) and (c) (𝐿𝑆4 , 𝐼𝑀6 ).

Figure 7a shows the probability of tagging the post-seismic structural inspection for each 𝐼𝑀 considered in
the study. This figure shows that the building is safe, from the structural point of view (green color line),
up to intensity 𝐼𝑀5 (0.47𝑔) , that is, the probability of the building receiving a green tag is
𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑠 |0.47𝑔) = 0.95, of being tagged with restricted use is 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑌𝑠 |0.47𝑔) = 0.05, and of
being tagged as unsafe is 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑠 |0.47𝑔) = 0.0. However, at 𝐼𝑀6 (0.54𝑔), the probability that the

13
building is assigned a red tag is 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑠 |0.54𝑔) = 0.5. For this same level of seismic intensity, the
probability of the structure being tagged with restricted use is 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑌𝑠 |0.54𝑔) = 0.35, and of being
tagged as safe 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝐺𝑠 |0.54𝑔) = 0.15. For seismic intensity with return period of 2,500-years the
probability that the building is structurally unsafe is 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑠 |0.63𝑔) = 1.0.

Fig. 7. Probability of tagging of: (a) 𝑆, (b) 𝑁𝑆, (c) 𝐶𝑆 inspection, and (d) evaluation of 𝐿𝑆s for each 𝐼𝑀
used.

Figure 7b presents the probability of tagging of 𝑁𝑆 safety, analogous to 𝑆 inspection; however, for this case
the tagging refers to the safety of a certain area of the building. For this event, it is observed that the
performance of the 𝑁𝑆 elements completely change the system performance, not of the structural safety,
but of the functionality itself. The red line represents the probability that at least one element of the non-
structural 𝑃𝐺s will develop severe damage given a seismic intensity 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑁𝑆 , 𝐼𝑀). This probability
starts to become relevant at 𝐼𝑀3 (0.29𝑔) , which corresponds to the performance level of collapse
prevention (GCDMX 2004). This probability is 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑁𝑆 |0.29𝑔) = 0.5. Comparing this result with
the one obtained for the same intensity but with respect to structural safety tagging, is evident that 𝑁𝑆
damage controls the loss of functionality. This is a clear indication that the design regulations are not
developed to take care of the integrity of the 𝑁𝑆 elements nor to avoid injury to users, but only in
minimizing the damage that may be experienced by the 𝑆 elements to reduce the probability of collapse
and avoid loss of life.

In Figure 7c, which corresponds to the post-seismic inspection simulation of 𝐶𝑆, content overturning starts
to occur at 𝐼𝑀4 (0.36𝑔) . The probability that this type of element experiences severe damage is
𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝐶𝑆 |0.36𝑔) = 0.05 . For this same 𝐼𝑀 level the probability of the building being tagged as
unsafe is 𝑃𝑟(𝑇𝐴𝐺 = 𝑅𝑆 |0.36𝑔) = 0.0. Again, this is a clear indication that loss of functionality is caused
at seismic intensities lower than those that cause unsafety in the structural system, or even restricted use
(according to the tagging criteria proposed by the ATC 20 (1989), in which only structural safety, but not
functionality, is evaluated).

Figure 7d shows the probability of each 𝐿𝑆 as a function of each 𝐼𝑀 . This figure shows that for the
immediate occupancy seismic demand 𝐼𝑀1 (0.15𝑔) the limit state controlling the loss of functionality is
𝐿𝑆1 , therefore, the building is structurally safe, as expected. However, for this case, it is possible that some
𝑁𝑆 elements may develop light damage, which can be repaired in a short period of time, without rendering
the building non-functional, i.e., only cosmetic repairs are required on a small number of elements.

With respect to the collapse prevention (𝐼𝑀3 , 0.29𝑔) it is observed that the limit states 𝐿𝑆1 and 𝐿𝑆3 have
the same probability, that is, 𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆1 |0.29𝑔) = 𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆3 |0.29𝑔) = 0.5. Under a conservative criterion, it is
concluded that the building has a high probability of being yellow tagged, i.e., with restricted use.
According to the shape of the probability curves 𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆|𝐼𝑀) it is appreciated that such probabilities are
14
governed by the performance of the 𝑁𝑆 elements (see Fig. 7b) up to intensity 𝐼𝑀5 (Tr=1,000 years,
𝑆𝑎(𝑇1 ) = 0.47𝑔).

The 𝐿𝑆4 reflects severe structural damage with a 𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆4 |0.54𝑔) = 0.4. It should also be noted that for this
same seismic intensity the probability that the building will experience structural collapse is
𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆5 |0.54𝑔) = 0.1, which is an indication that the structural system is not safe at this level of 𝐼𝑀 since
this probability is not negligible according to seismic design standards against collapse.

For the 𝐼𝑀7 (0.63𝑔), it is observed that the 𝐿𝑆s that govern the performance of the system are 𝐿𝑆4 and 𝐿𝑆6 ,
with probability 𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆4 |0.63𝑔) = 0.5 and 𝑃𝑟(𝐿𝑆6 |0.63𝑔) = 0.5 , respectively. Taking a conservative
criterion, that is, accepting that the governing limit state of functionality is 𝐿𝑆6 , which corresponds to
structural collapse, it is concluded that the building is not resilient to this level of seismic demand. The 𝐿𝑆s
that allow the building to recover are 𝐿𝑆0 . . . 𝐿𝑆4 . The 𝐿𝑆5 also does not have the capacity to be resilient
because this state corresponds to the demolition of the facility; however, for this application example the
probability that the building will have to be demolished is zero for all the seismic intensities considered in
the study.

In general, it can be concluded that the building has the capacity to recover from seismic intensities less
than or equal to 𝑆𝑎(𝑇1 ) = 0.47𝑔, that is, with a recurrence period of approximately 1,000-years. However,
the resilience at these levels of 𝐼𝑀 can be costly, not only from the point of view of 𝑆, 𝑁𝑆 and 𝐶𝑆 repairs,
but also in terms of business interruption and the equivalent economic value associated with people injured
or losing their lives (Gutiérrez 2021).

5. Conclusions

This paper presents the formulation and evaluation of a set of six MPLS, referred as functionality limit
states, 𝐿𝑆s. These limit states are consistent with the seismic resilience evaluation scheme of individual
buildings proposed by Cimellaro et al. (2010). The limit states formulation for office-type buildings
corresponds to an adaptation of the formulation developed by Burton et al. (2016). The main difference
consists in that the formulation presented here is based on the results of post-seismic simulation following
the criteria proposed by ATC 20 (1989). In this regard, this research work explicitly considers the numerical
simulation of the inspection of 𝑁𝑆 elements and 𝐶𝑆 , which results in the upper limit of the tagging
probability of a building, whereas in the approach proposed by Mitrani-Reiser (2007) provides the lower
bound of the tagging probability is obtained since only the inspection of 𝑆 elements are considered.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the methodology proposed in this paper is an extension of the approach
developed by Mitrani-Reiser (2007) and adapted later by the FEMA P-58-1 (2018a) guidelines.

The formulation of the 𝐿𝑆 s presented in this work is based on a heuristic criterion, developed using
empirical knowledge obtained from the observation of the damage experienced by the components that
integrate a building for office use and its impact on the loss of functionality. Likewise, this formulation
considers in general terms the social and technical events that occur during the recovery of the functionality
of a damaged building. Therefore, this approximation should be refined and extended, to consider the
damage generated by future potentially destructive earthquakes, their impact on the functionality of the
buildings, and the factors that prevent the initiation of repairs. In this regard, it is desirable that post-seismic
emergency and mitigation plans be created, from which systematically collected information will be
extracted to develop 𝐿𝑆s such as those presented in this paper. Also, using a strategy like the one used here,
it is feasible to develop MPLS for other types of facilities, e.g., hospitals or government buildings.

To illustrate the application of the methodology proposed, this paper described the probabilistic evaluation
of the 𝐿𝑆s for a seven-story RC building with URM infill-walls along its entire height and the architectural
components that have been observed to be more susceptible to experience damage. The dynamic behavior
of 𝐶𝑆, i.e., bookcases and shelves, was also modeled using rigid body dynamics; however, electronic type
contents, e.g., desktop computers, were not considered due to the conditions employed in the solution of
the dynamic equilibrium equation. The consideration of this elements in the 𝐿𝑆s analysis can be carried out
by means of the more refined approach, such as the one developed by Jaimes and Reinoso (2013). The use
of this type of elements in the analysis can substantially increase the probability that the building loses
functionality in the face of seismic intensities that do not necessarily cause structural damage.

The construction system studied in the application is typical of office-type buildings located in Mexico City.
The results of the evaluation suggest, as expected, that the building may lose functionality mainly due to
15
the damage experienced by the 𝑁𝑆 elements and 𝐶𝑆 under seismic intensities comparable to those used in
the limit state of collapse prevention. This is a clear indication that the design regulations are formulated to
provide structures with sufficient strength and stiffness to reduce the probability of collapse, and, therefore,
to reduce the loss of life; however, they are not focused on reducing the probability of loss of functionality
at the same level of 𝐼𝑀s. These results also suggest that, in addition to the direct economic losses associated
with the repair of damaged elements, there may also be indirect economic losses derived from business
interruptions.

Another innovative aspect of the methodology proposed in this paper is the probabilistic assessment of the
damage that each element may experience individually, and not in sets of elements, as suggested by the
most popular methodologies for assessing structural performance (e.g., Porter 2000, Mitrani-Reiser 2007
and FEMA 2018b). Through element-by-element damage assessment it is possible to identify the most
vulnerable elements, and therefore, the areas of a building that are most likely to experience either partial
or total loss of functionality. At the same time, this information can be useful to propose reinforcement
systems not only for 𝑆 elements, but also for 𝑁𝑆 ones and 𝐶𝑆 . For example, if the probability of
experiencing irreparable damage to the 𝐶𝑆 of a laboratory is not negligible compared to the probability of
the 𝑆 elements experiencing severe damage given a seismic hazard level, then under this condition it is
possible to establish a mitigation strategy, e.g., by providing a special anchoring system at the base of the
most vulnerable elements, or by establishing a strategy to replace the damaged elements in the shortest
possible time.

Finally, the formulation proposed in this paper can be introduced into any of the seismic performance
evaluation formulations, e.g., Porter (2000), Mitrani-Reiser (2007), etc., to predict the expected value of
the 𝐷𝑉s associated with each 𝐿𝑆, e.g., direct economic losses due to repairs, or the recovery time of a
building, and at the same time identify more clearly the origin of such losses.

References

Almufti I, Willford M (2014) The REDi Rating System: A framework to implement resilience-based
earthquake design for new buildings. In: Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Alaska, USA
ASCE/SEI 41-06 (2006) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA, USA
ASCE/SEI 41-05 (2005) Seismic design criteria for structures, systems and components in nuclear facilities.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA
ATC 20 (1989) Procedures for post-earthquake safety evaluation of buildings, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, CA, USA
Beck J, Porter K, Shaikhutdinov R, Au S, Mizukoshi K, Miyamura M, Ishida H, Moroi T, Tsukada Y,
Masuda M (2002) Impact of seismic risk on lifetime property values. Technical Report EERL 2002-
04, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA,
USA
Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O’ Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K,
Wallace WA, von Winterfeldt D (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the
resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 19(4):733-752. https://DOI: 10.1193/1.1623497
Burton H, Deierlein G, Lallemant D, Lin T (2016) Framework for incorporating probabilistic building
performance in the assessment of community seismic resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering
142(8):C4015007-1—C4015007-11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001321
Chang G, Mander J (1994) Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge columns: Part 1-
Evaluation of seismic capacity. Technical Report NCEER-94-0006, University at Buffalo, New York,
Buffalo, NY, USA
Cimellaro G, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M (2010) Framework for analytical quantification of disaster
resilience. Engineering Structures 32(11):3639-3649. https://doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008
Comerio M (2006) Estimating downtime in loss modeling. Earthquake Spectra 22:349-365.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2191017
Cornell C, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. Technical
Report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA,
USA
Dar A, Konstantinidis D, El-Dakhaknhi W (2016) Evaluation of ASCE 43-05 seismic design criteria for
rocking objects in nuclear facilities. Journal of Structural Engineering 142(11):04016110-1—
04016110-13. https://doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943- 541X.0001581
16
FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA
FEMA P-58-1 (2012a) Seismic performance assessment of buildings, Volume 1-Methodology. Applied
Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA
FEMA P-58-3 (2012b) Seismic performance assessment of buildings, Volume 3-Fragility specification.
Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC,
USA
Filitrault A, Sullivan T (2014) Performance-based seismic design of nonstructural building components:
The next frontier of earthquake engineering. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration
13(1):17-46. https://doi: 10.1007/s11803-014-0238-9
Gallagher R (1989) Post-earthquake safety evaluation of buildings at DOE facilities. Second DOE Natural
Phenomena Hazards Mitigation Conference, Knoxville, TN, USA
GCDMX (2004) Normas técnicas complementarias para diseño por sismo (In Spanish). Gaceta oficial de
la Ciudad de México, CDMX, MEX
Giuffrè A, Pinto P (1970) Il comportamento del cemento armato per sollecitazioni cicliche di forte intensità.
Giornale del Genio Civile, Rome, ITA
Goulet C, Haselton C, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck J, Deierlein G, Porter K, Stewart J (2007) Evaluation of the
seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced concrete frame building–from seismic hazard
to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
36(13):1973-1997. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.694
Günay S, Mosalam K (2013) PEER performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, revisited.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 17(6):829-858. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.787377
Gutiérrez J (2021) Seismic resilience assessment of urban buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México, CDMX, MEX
Gutiérrez J, Ayala AG (2022) Análisis de la resiliencia sísmica de edificios (in Spanish). Revista de
Ingeniería Sísmica 107:47-73. https://doi.org/10.18867/ris.107.603
Gutiérrez J, Ayala GA, Bairán J (2020) Assessment of earthquake-induced loss of functionality in
reinforced concrete buildings. In: Proceedings of the 17th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Sendai, JPN
Housner G (1963) The behaviour of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 53(2):403-417
Ishiyama Y (1982) Motions of rigid bodies and criteria for overturning by earthquake excitations.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 10:635-650.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290100502
Jaimes M, Reinoso E (2013) Estimación de pérdidas por sismo de contenidos en edificios (in Spanish).
Technical Report ISBN 970-32-0196-2, Serie Investigación y Desarrollo, Instituto de Ingeniería,
UNAM, CDMX, MEX
Kadysiewski S, Mosalam K (2009) Modeling of unreinforced masonry infill walls considering in-plane and
out-of-plane interaction. Technical Report 2008/102, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
Kohrs-Sansorny C, Courboulex F, Bour M, Deschamps A (2005) A two-stage method for ground-motion
simulation using stochastic summation of small earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 95(4):1387-1400. https://doi:10.1785/0120040211
Krawinkler H, Deierlein G (2013) Performance-based seismic engineering: Vision for an earthquake
resilient society. Springer, New York, NY, USA.
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G, et al. (2007) Open System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, USA
Mieler MW, Uma SR, Mitrani-Reiser J (2016) Using failure analysis tools to establish seismic resilience
objectives for building components and systems. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering 49(1):86-97. https://DOI:10.5459/bnzsee.49.1.86-97
Mitrani-Reiser J (2007) An ounce of prevention: Probabilistic loss estimation for performance-based
earthquake engineering. Ph.D. Dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA
Moehle J, Deierlein G (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering.
In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, CA
Nazri F (2018) Seismic fragility assessment for buildings due to earthquake excitation. Springer, Penang,
MYS
Polya G (1954) Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Vol. I. Induction and analogy in mathematics.
Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA

17
Porter K (2000) Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its uses in seismic performance evaluation
and risk-management decision-making. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Porter K, Ramer K (2012) Estimating earthquake-induced failure probability and downtime of critical
facilities. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning 5(4):352-364
Ramirez C, Miranda E (2012) Significance of residuals drifts in buildings earthquake loss estimation.
Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics 41(11):1477-1493. https://doi: 10.1002/eqe.2217
Shoraka M, Yang T, Elwood K (2013) Seismic loss estimation of non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42:297-310. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2213
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 31:491-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141
Xue Q, Wu C, Chen C, Chen K (2008) The draft code for performance-based seismic design of buildings
in Taiwan. Engineering and Structures 30:1535-1547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.002
Yang T, Moehle J, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A (2009) Seismic performance evaluation of facilities:
Methodology and implementation. Journal of Structural Engineering 135(10):1146-1154. https://doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:10(1146).

Statements and Declarations

Funding

This research work was partially sponsored by the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal
Académico (DGAPA-UNAM) through the project titled “Desarrollo e implementación de una metodología
para la evaluación y diseño sísmico de edificios de concreto reforzado basado en resiliencia y control de
daño”-PAPIIT IN104821, and by the Mexico City Institute for Construction Safety through the project
number IISGCONV-098-2021. No 1536, “Evaluación de la resiliencia sísmica de edificios de concreto
reforzado de mediana altura diseñados con las Normas Técnicas Complementarias-Diseño por Sismo 2017”.
The first author would like to express his gratitude to the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
(CONACYT) for the financial support granted to carry out his doctoral studies.

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests in this work.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The development of codes was performed by
Juan Gutiérrez. Outputs were reviewed by Gustavo Ayala and Saúl López. The first draft of the manuscript
was written by Juan Jesús Gutiérrez Trejo. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

18