EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.245)

Optimum seismic zoning for multiple types of structures

Jaime Garc
a-P
erez; , Francisco Castellanos and Orlando D
az
Instituto de Ingenier
a; Mec
anica Aplicada; Universidad Nacional Aut
onoma de M
exico;
Apartado Postal 70-472; Ciudad Universitaria; DF 04510; Mexico

SUMMARY
We consider zoning for the design criterion that minimizes the expected present value of the total cost,
including the initial cost as well as losses due to damage and failure. The problem consists of the
following: given the number of zones, their boundaries and design coecients must be such that they
minimize the expected present value of all structures built in the region. We will refer to solutions in
one or more dimensions, depending on the number of the types of structures built in the region to be
zoned. Two methods are proposed to solve the problems. The rst method is based on the dierent
combinations performed in order to attain optimum zoning. The second method uses an analogy to
the evolution of biological systems. The work ends by applying the methods developed to a region of
known seismicity. Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:

zoning; optimization; genetic algorithm; optimal zoning; total cost

INTRODUCTION
Seismic zoning consists in dividing a region of known seismicity into portions. In each zone,
constant design coecients are specied for the dierent types of structures built. In previous
studies, Rosenblueth and Garc
a-P
erez [1], and Garc
a-P
erez [2] justied the practice of zoning.
The rst paper deals with the general problem of zoning. The case when zoning a region can
be reduced to a single dimension is thoroughly treated as well. In the second paper, two
design criteria are considered to study seismic zoning. The rst criterion called initial-cost
minimization establishes that each structure is to be designed for not less than certain values
of coecients specied in a map of isoparametric curves. Therefore, when we zone, almost
all structures are overdesigned, and only initial cost is of concern. In the second criterion, the
coecients in each zone and the interzone boundaries must minimize the expected present
value of the total cost of the structures, including maintenance costs as well as losses due to
damage and failure. This criterion was called total-cost minimization.

Correspondence to: Jaime Garc
a-P
erez, Instituto de Ingenier
a, Mec
anica Aplicada, Universidad Nacional
Aut
onoma de M
exico, Apartado Postal 70-472, Ciudad Universitaria, DF 04510, Mexico.
E-mail: jgap@pumas.iingen.unam.mx

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 23 January 2002

Revised 24 July 2002
Accepted 9 August 2002

712

J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

The initial-cost minimization criterion is justied when seismicity is so high that choosing
design coecients governs social tolerance to the damages caused by earthquakes. Outside
of this situation, the rational criterion might seem the total-cost minimization. This criterion
is justied in most cases because the monetary amounts involved are usually small enough
compared with societys resources; hence, they can be assumed to be linearly related to utility.
The total-cost minimization criterion is used in this paper, and uncertainties in the attenuation law are included to compute the expected present value of the total cost. Two
methods are developed in order to nd the optimum coecients and the corresponding interzone boundaries. The combination method searches the optimum zoning exhaustively through
all possible congurations resulting from assigning the cells (counties or entities formed by
well-established lines, usually jurisdictional limits) comprising the region to each one of the
possible zones. Searching like this implies calculating the cost for a huge number of congurations, resulting in a very long time for processing the data. To overcome this disadvantage,
an alternative method is proposed using optimization procedures based on the mechanics of
natural selection and natural genetics. The process begins with the generation, deterministic
or random, of several congurations for the region under study. These congurations are subjected iteratively to processes such as cost evaluation, selection, crossover and mutation. At
the end of the simulation process, if the number of iterations is enough, the costs of the
processed zoning converge to the optimum. Both methods developed here are applied to the
zoning of a region of known seismicity when it has dierent kinds of structures. The data
needed in these examples are the seismicity demand and the number of structures built in the
region.
GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Let x, y be the coordinates of a point in the region to be zoned and structures type i = 1; : : : ; I
and zone k = 1; : : : ; K. If we also let z = z(x; y) be the vector of quantities dening seismicity.
For this purpose, we use the ordinates of the pseudo-acceleration spectrum expressed in terms
of the acceleration of gravity. Also, let c denote the vector of design coecients, w = w(c; z)
the expected present value of the total cost of a structure,
=
(x; y) be the expected present
value of the number of structures, and W be the expected present value of the total cost of
all structures. Then




i wi d x d y
Wik =
k

Wk =

I

i=1

Wik

and

W=

K

k=1

Wk

The problem is to minimize W .

EXPECTED PRESENT VALUE OF THE TOTAL COST
The total cost of a structure takes into account the initial costs, the costs of structural damages
due to earthquakes, and the costs of social impact. In other words, the total cost includes all the
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

713

direct material damages suered by the building itself before an earthquake strikes, and other
damages (indirect, both monetary and non-monetary) that earthquakes cause to society. The
framework developed to evaluate the expected present value of the total cost of the structures
assumes that earthquakes occur in accordance with a multiple Poisson process, and that the
intensities are described by an attenuation law with lognormal distribution. Uncertainties in
the structural properties are not included.
Optimum coecients 1D: The expected present value of the initial cost per unit area of
structures built at (x; y) per unit area is given by [2]:
u =
[1 + 2 (c c0 )3 ]C

(1)

where, if the structure is not designed against earthquakes, C would be its initial cost and c0
would be its lateral resistance; 2 and 3 are constants.
is the expected
 present value of the
number of structures that will be built per unit area dened by
= 0 (t) et d t, where
(t) is the expected number of structures that will be built per unit area and per unit time,
and  is the discount rate. (If (t) = and  are independent of time, then
= =.)
The expected present value of the losses per unit area will be [2]:

zm
Lz  d z
(2)
v = (
=)
0

where zm is the maximum intensity that can occur at the site of interest;  is the density of
occurrence of earthquakes with intensity z; Lz is the loss due to an earthquake of intensity z at
the instant of occurrence. We will take Lz to be formed by two terms. The rst term represents
direct material damages suered by the building itself under the action of an earthquake of
intensity z. The second term represents the other damages (indirect, both monetary and nonmonetary) that earthquakes cause to society. Then we can write Lz = u(z; c)[1 + b(z; c)]
where u = [1 + 2 (c c0 )3 ]C, and b is a factor much greater than one. The function  must
increase with z, thereby decreasing as c increases such that limz0  = 0 and limz  = 1.
Furthermore, it must tend very fast to zero when z tends to zero because we know that
earthquakes of low intensity do not cause any damage. According to empirical data and
considerations made [2], the following expressions are used for (z; c) = (): () = 0:0256
0:0159 if 61 and () = (0:188 + 1:8 )=(117:8 + 1:8 ) if 1, where  = z=c.
If  = (z) = d = d z, with  = (z) being the exceedance rate of z computed by

Mu
(z) =
(d (M )= d M )P[Zz |M; R] d M
(3)
M0

where M0 and Mu are the lower and upper limits of the interval of magnitudes involved in the
seismic process, respectively. (M ) is the exceedance rate of the magnitudes of earthquakes
originating in a tectonic province. According to Cornell and Vanmarcke [3], it is taken as
(M ) = 1 (e M e Mm ) where M means magnitude; Mm the maximum value of M that can be
generated in the province,  and are constants. P[Zz | M; R] is the probability occurrence
of an earthquake with intensity greater than z, knowing the magnitude M of an earthquake
originated at a distance R. Z is a random variable with lognormal density function with a


median equal to the value given by the attenuation law z = aR2 e M , where a and  are
parameters depending on both the fundamental period of vibration of the structure and its
position dened by the coordinates x; y. These parameters take dierent values depending on
the site eects at each site in the region.
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730



J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

714

At this point we can write P[Zz | M; R] = [X ], where  is the cumulative standard
normal distribution evaluated at X = (ln(aR2 ) ln z +  M )=
ln z . Here,
stands for standard
deviation. After substituting in Equation (3), the density of occurrence of earthquakes with
intensity z can be computed as follows:

(z) =

Mu

M0

5
exp[ M X 2 =2] d M
z

(4)

where 5 = 4 =( 2
ln z ), and 4 = 1 . Thus, the expected present value of the losses per
unit area dened in Equation (2) is given by

u5
v =


zm

Mu

1
(z=c)[1 + b(z=c)] exp[ M X 2 =2] d M d z
z

M0

(5)

which with the change of variable  = z=c is converted to

v =

u5


m

Mu

1
()[1 + b()] exp[ M Y 2 =2] d M d 


M0

(6)

where Y = (ln(aR2 ) ln  ln c +  M )=
ln z and m = zm =c.
If we did not zone, the optimum design coecient at a given site would be the one that
minimizes the cost given by the sum of Equations (1) and (6). The optimum value of c can
be computed numerically such that it minimizes w.
Once the boundaries for zone k are dened, the total cost is given by the following formula:
Wk = uk [(Fk Fk1 ) + (Gk Gk1 )]

(7)


where Fk =

(x; y) d x d y and
 
5  m  Mu ()
[1 + b()] exp[ M Y 2 =2] d M d  d x d y. These double integrals
Gk =

0
M0 
cover the area within which c6ck . The optimum ck is computed numerically such that Wk is
minimum.
Optimum coecients for multiple dimensions: Let i = 1; : : : ; I , j = 1; : : : ; J and k = 1; : : : ; K
represent the type of structure, elementary cell and zone, respectively. If each cell were a
single zone, the initial cost of structure type i at (x; y) inside cell j would be ui (cij ), where
cij would be the vector of design parameters for type i in this cell. The expected present
value of all structures per unit area would be

u i (cij ) =
i (x; y)ui (cij )

(8)

Following a similar procedure as in the 1D case the expected present value of the losses
due to all earthquakes can be calculated using the following equation:
vi =

i ui (cij )5


0

m

Mu

M0

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1
()[1 + b()] exp[ M Y 2 =2] d M d 


(9)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

715

Combining with Equation (8) and integrating we will nd the expected value of
 all types
[u (c ) +
I that would be built in j if j were a single zone: Wij (cij ; zij ) =
j i ij
vi (cij ; zij )] d x d y.
If cell j is assigned to zone k, the cost of cell j is given by the above equation substituting
cij for the corresponding cik . Thus, if zone k is formed by N of the J cells compounding the
region, then the cost associated to zone k is dened by
Wik = uik [Fik + Gik ]
where Fik and Gik are dened by Fik =

Gik =

in 5


m

Mu

M0


N

(10)

in (x; y) d x d y and

()
[1 + b()] exp[ M Y 2 =2] d M d  d x d y
in

The integrals cover the area corresponding to the N cells forming the zone k.

METHODS FOR OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

Two methods to determine the optimum zoning of a region with known seismicity and density
of structures are presented. The rst method based on combinations performs an exhaustive
ordered search of the optimum zoning among all possible congurations of the region under
study. The second method is based on genetic algorithms using similar processes to those
developed in the natural selection of the species.
Combinations: This method searches the optimum zoning in all possible congurations of
the region under study. To do this, the method computes the cost of all possible congurations
and nds the optimum as that with the minimum cost. To reduce the number of combinations,
cells with similar intensities are grouped then each group is considered as one cell. Cells are
grouped by using a combination matrix consisting of K 1 vectors, where K is the number
of zones in which we want to divide the region under study. Each vector is comprised of J
elements, representing the number of cells making up the region. These elements can either
take values of one or zero depending on whether or not the corresponding cell is considered
with the association between cells. The possible congurations can be obtained through the
following algorithm:
(1) Assign cells constituting zone 1. These cells are those whose corresponding values in
the rst vector of the combination matrix are equal to one.
(2) Assign cells forming zone 2 using values from the second vector of the matrix and
ignoring cells chosen for zone 1. Repeat this procedure until dening the arrangement
corresponding to the rst K 1 zones. Cells not chosen are considered to form zone
K. Thus, the rst zoning or conguration is obtained.
(3) Keep the arrays for the rst K 2 zones and compute all possible arrays for zone
K 1. Cells not considered in the rst K 1 zones are assigned to zone K. This step
will give the dierent congurations.
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

716

J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

(4) Repeat Step 3 for all possible arrays for zone K 2, then for zone K 3 and so on. In
other words, the array of a zone is modied when all possible arrays for the posterior
zones have been generated.
(5) Repeat Steps 14, but now using a new combination matrix resulting from swapping
rows and columns in an orderly manner, thereby ensuring computation of all possible
congurations.
Genetic algorithm: This algorithm is exible due to the independence between the optimization process and the function to optimize. Flexibility gives the freedom to manage
dierent functions dening the expected present value of the cost in the problem treated
here. The genetic algorithm method is general in the sense that it optimizes
all kind of functions with dierent levels of eciency [4]. There are some functions whose
behaviour makes it dicult to nd the optimum. Among these functions are those
presenting discontinuities and or several local optima. Some methods cannot calculate the
optimum when this happens, because they get stuck in some of the local optima. However, when the genetic algorithm nds some of the diculties discussed above,
it reduces its eciency, but with some more iterations it inevitably converges to the
optimum.
The genetic algorithm starts by generating a population comprised of a set of chromosomes.
The chromosomes are vectors containing information of the necessary parameters for the
function to be optimized. The elements forming the vector are called genes, which take on
some number of values called alleles. In zoning, the chromosome is the region to be zoned that
is composed of cells (genes). Each cell is given a number (allele), depending on the zone to
be assigned. The objective function is dened by the function computing the expected present
value of the cost due to zoning.

GENETIC ALGORITHM PROCESSES IN SEISMIC ZONING

Genetic algorithms are processes for optimizing a system that use criteria similar to those
developed in nature for selecting the best-adapted species during its evolution. Thus, the main
processes forming a genetic algorithm are: evaluation of adaptation, selection, crossover, and
mutation.
Evaluation of adaptation: In the case of seismic zoning, adaptation is dened by the
expected present value of the total cost associated with a region zoned or conguration. The
value adopted by the objective function of the conguration is its corresponding adaptation.
Two aspects must be considered at this stage. The rst is the cost evaluation (adaptation) of each one of the congurations comprising the population. This is necessary in
order to dene the survival probabilities of these congurations for the next generations.
The second is the modication of the costs by type of optimization and scaling, in order to make them directly proportional to the probability of survival, as required by the
algorithm.
The type of optimization indicates if a minimum or maximum of the function is searched.
In the present study, we are concerned with the minimum of the objective function. In this
case, the survival probability of a conguration will be directly proportional to the dierence
between the maximum cost obtained in the population and the cost corresponding to the
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

717

Figure 1. Spectral ordinates (Z) and number of structures per km2 (
).

current conguration. This way, the conguration with the lesser cost in the population will
have the higher survival probability.
Modications due to scaling are concerned with a linear tting on the values of the costs.
This tness balances the dierences in the costs obtained in a generation, thus avoiding
the fast predominance of a well-adapted conguration in subsequent generations. The tted
model used in this work is given by F  = F + !, where F  represents modied values of
the costs (F).  and ! are constants dened such that two conditions are met: F  = F and
Fm = Fm . Here the bar stands for mean values, m for maximum and for the expected
number of congurations of the best-adapted zoning or conguration surviving to the next


stages. Under these assumptions, the following equation can be used:  = ( Fm F)=(F
m F)
 m F).

and ! = (1 )Fm F=(F
Selection of the best-adapted congurations: Once the costs are modied by type of optimation and scaling, the survival probabilities are computed by normalizing these costs with
respect to the sum of the costs corresponding to all congurations comprising the population
[4]. Selection is performed now based on the survival probabilities of each region zoned or
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

718

J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

Figure 2. Region discretized into cells.

conguration. Random numbers, with uniform distribution between zero and one, are generated to select the conguration from a vector containing cumulative probabilities of all
congurations making up the population.
Crossover between selected congurations: After selecting congurations, the resulting population is subjected to the crossover process consisting of three steps:
(1) Select a pair of congurations based on their crossover probability.
(2) Dene with a uniform distribution the number of the rst cell and the number of cells
swapped between the two congurations.
(3) Perform the crossover between the two congurations.
In order to make each cell have the same swapping probability, a circular conguration is necessary. This kind of conguration assumes that cells are disposed in a ring,
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

719

Figure 3. Zoning ID, using combinations.

such that the last and the rst cells are neighbours. The value of the crossover probability depends on the function to be optimized, and it is justied just through experience
[4]. In this study, a value of 0.6 was adopted after observing the behaviour of several
congurations.
Mutation: The objective of this step is to maintain the population diversity, thus new places
in the objective function are searched. Mutation is the change of value (zero or one) of a
cell from a conguration. The choice of a specic conguration and the corresponding cell
to mutate depends on the probability of mutation, obtained as the inverse of the number of
cells comprising the region under study. This way, the probability of mutation ensures that at
least one conguration mutates in each generation [4].
The costs are calculated for the resulting conguration, and the process is repeated as many
times as the number of generations have been dened. The optimum is obtained at the end
of the simulation process.
Convergence, behaviour and eciency of the algorithm: Convergence and behaviour
are described basically by the mean cost and the optimum cost obtained in each
generation. The type of convergence and behaviour wanted on these variables depends
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730



J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

720

Table I. Variables used in the calculation of the expected present value of the total cost.
Variable
1
2
3
b

ln z

c0

R
a
M0
Mu

Description

Value

Constant
Constant
Constant
Factor
Constant
Standard deviation of ln(z)
Constant
Lateral resistance of the structure if it is
not designed against earthquakes
Discount rate
Epicentral distance (km)
Constant for attenuation law
Lower limit of the magnitudes used
Upper limit of the magnitudes

20 000
0.5
1.3
12
2.2
0.7
1.64
0.05
0.05
280
1.0
4.5
8.2

on the objective function. In the case of zoning, the value of the probability of mutation
as well as the variables controlling the scaling were modied. Modications were made
such that convergence in the mean cost is obtained and, at the same time, the minimum
costs survive one or two generations. This makes the algorithm search for points around
the minimum found, where the function will supply smaller values than those already
obtained.
Eciency of the algorithm is based on preparing information patterns inside the region
zoned. These information patterns are the sets of cells dened inside the regions, which in
turn result in the optimum zoning. Therefore, the smaller the number of cells forming a pattern
and the closer they are, the sooner the convergence of the algorithm.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Combinations method
One-dimensional case. Figure 1 shows a region of approximately 1600 km2 that is going
to be divided into three zones. Full and dashed lines represent the isoseismals of spectral
ordinates for a 500-year recurrence period in the region and the number of structures per
unit area, respectively. The region is discretized into cells as shown in Figure 2, therefore
the information regarding the number of structures is dened. The boundaries of the cells
are determined by the area in which both intensity and the number of structures remain
constant. The optimum zoning shown in Figure 3 is obtained following the combination
algorithm.
Table I contains the values of the variables employed in nding the optimum coecients
for all the numerical examples presented in this section.
Two-dimensional case: Figure 4 shows the geographical variation of seismicity for a
500-year recurrence period for two types of structure (Z1 and Z2 ), through a region
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

721

Figure 4. Jurisdictional limits, seismicity and number of structures per km2 .

of approximately 1040 km2 with 16 counties. The number of structures per unit area (
1
and
2 ) is represented by dashed lines in the gure. We want to divide the region into three
zones with the boundaries of each zone coinciding with lines of the jurisdictional limits. After discretizing the region into cells, whose boundaries are dened by the area in which both
intensity and the number of structures remain constant, as shown in Figure 5 and applying
the combination algorithm, the optimum zoning presented in Figure 6 is obtained.
Genetic algorithm: The region shown in Figure 7 covers an area of approximately 1040 km2
with its lower portion mainly comprised of very sparsely built areas and farmland. In this
study, the structures built in the region are distributed into 751 cells, and they are
classied into four types depending on the fundamental period of vibration as shown in Table
II. Jurisdictional lines making up 16 counties, as well as three distinct zones depending on
soil characteristics, are also displayed in this gure. The data regarding the area covered with
the four dierent kinds of structures are taken from Ordaz et al. [5]. The intensity curves
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

722

J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

Figure 5. Region discretized into cells, 2D case.

(ordinates of the pseudo-acceleration spectrum expressed in terms of the gravity acceleration), for the dierent types of structures used in the following examples, were drawn using
the model proposed by Ordaz et al. [6]. These curves correspond to an event, with a magnitude of 8.2 and a source-to site-distance of 280 km, generated at the subduction zone that
runs along the southern coast of Mexico. In all cases, the region is divided into four zones.
One-dimensional case: The number of type 1 structures are presented in Figure 8, and the
corresponding intensities are shown in Figure 9. Zoning is performed rst with 751 cells, and
then with 16 counties in order to observe their dierences and decide which one is more
advisable to study in the next cases. In the case with 16 counties, the intensity used in each
one of the counties, is that producing the same optimum cost as the one obtained using all
the cells comprising the corresponding county.
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

723

Figure 6. Zoning in 2D using combinations.

Zoning for the region under study using 751 cells is shown in Figure 10 where a tendency is
observed in grouping cells with similar intensities following their corresponding isoseismals.
Optimum coecients for the region and their respective costs are displayed in Table III.
Figure 11 presents the zoning of the region using 16 counties. Costs and optimum coecients
for this case are given in Table IV.
The smaller size in the case of 751 cells favours the procedure consisting of computation
of unrestricted optimal boundaries. The cost of zoning is less than in the case with 16 counties. However, for practical applications where the boundaries are preferred to coincide with
jurisdictional limits, the case with 16 counties is more appropriated. This is why we will zone
with 16 counties in the following example.
Four-dimensional case: The combination of the four structures under study is used to nd
the optimum zoning of the region. Areas covered and intensity demands for the distinct
types of structures, similar to the case described before, were used. The resulting zoning
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730



J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

724

Figure 7. Jurisdictional limits and location of the 751 cells used in the study.

Table II. Characteristic periods for the four types of structures used. After Ordaz et al. [5].
Type of structure
T1

Firm soil
TM

T2

0.05
0.15
0.60
0.40

0.10
0.20
1.00
0.70

0.20
0.30
1.40
0.90

1
2
4
7

T1

Soft soil
TM

T2

0.20
0.30
0.90
0.60

0.30
0.40
1.50
1.00

0.50
0.60
2.20
1.40

T ,
1

T2 yTM are the characteristic periods in seconds, for each structural class and type of soil. TM is used
in this paper.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

725

Figure 8. Number of structures per unit area ( 102 km2 ). Type of structure 1 (curves @0:35 km2 ).

is given in Figure 12(a). Figure 12(b) shows the corresponding coecients and optimum
costs. Convergence of both optimum costs and mean costs during the simulation process is
presented in Figure 12(c). Values for the optimum coecients associated with a specic type
of structure remain practically constant through zoning, considering one or several dimensions.
This is because the dierences between congurations hardly aect the optimum value of
the coecients. The higher the number of dimensions considered the greater the value of
the optimum costs computed after zoning, for each type of structure, indicating the same
optimization level in all congurations.
Results for optimum zoning, besides those shown here, for the distinct types of structure
displayed in Table II are presented by Castellanos [7]. The author treats dierent cases of
zoning for the one-dimensional case and their respective combinations in two- and threedimensional cases, using both 751 cells and 16 counties.
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

726

J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

Figure 9. Intensities (Sa=g). Type of structure 1 (curves @ 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS
Considering the expected present value of the total cost (taking into account the initial cost
as well as the losses due to damage and failure) of a structure, zoning has been presented
in this work. The approach presented here diers from others by including uncertainty in the
attenuation law and its application to real zoning problems. Two methods were developed in
order to obtain the optimal zoning. The rst of them is based on dierent combinations, which
searches the optimum zoning in all the possible congurations for the region under study. The
second method is the genetic algorithm that nds the optimum zoning following a process
similar to those developed in nature on the natural selection. Application of the two methods
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

727

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

Figure 10. Zoning 1D, type of structure 1, 751 cells.

Table III. Coecients and optimum costs. Zoning 1D, type of structure 1, 751 cells.
Zone
1
2
3
4

C1k
0.0879
0.0802
0.0613
0.0876
WTOTAL =

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

W1k =C
79
67
78
83

227
791
004
807

900
300
700
800

308 831 700

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730



J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

728

Figure 11. Zoning 1D, Type of structure 1, 16 counties.

Table IV. Coecients and optimum costs. Zoning 1D, type of structure 1, 16 counties.
Zone
1
2
3
4

c1k
0.0507
0.0646
0.0792
0.0891
WTOTAL =

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

W1k =C
15
78
16
198

279
635
525
282

800
100
800
000

308 722 700

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

729

OPTIMUM SEISMIC ZONING

(a)

1
0.0646
78 635 100
0.0738
24 367 400
0.0944
16 382 300
0.1074
1 993 510

4
3
2
0.0507
0.0795
0.0890
197 770 000 15 279 800 17 038 200
0.0799
0.0550
0.0924
63 719 600 2 329 440 11 031 900
0.0000
0.1142
0.0959
957 824
34 304 800
0.0000
0.1178
0.0000
10 729 700
WTOTAL= 474 539 574

(b)

4749E+5
Wmean pop
Wmin pop

W/C

Zone
c1k
W1k/C
c2k
W2k/C
c4k
W4k/C
c7k
W7k/C

4747E+5

4745E+5

(c)

101

201

301

Generation number

Figure 12. (a) Zoning in 4D, (b) coecients and optimum costs, (c) convergence
type of structures 1, 2, 4 and 7, 16 counties.

developed is illustrated through examples in one, two, and four dimensions, depending on the
number of the types of structures used.
The expected present value of the total cost of the structure must include specically different uncertainties related to the structure itself (mechanical properties, damage in contents,
social impact, maintenance) and the intensities (time, magnitude and site-to-source distance of
earthquake occurrence, frequency content, site eects). Including all uncertainties will bring
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730

730

J. GARC
IA-PEREZ,
F. CASTELLANOS AND O. D
IAZ

about zoning optimizing costs that are more representative. The expectance function presented here is a function of the seismic design coecient and of the intensity exceedance
rate. However, in cases where the costs depend on other factors (special foundations, increase
in transportation costs, labour, and materials), the variation of the costs can be included by
modifying, in an adequate proportion, the number of damaged structures within the inuence
area. A better estimation of the damage suered by a structure requires the use of the frequency content and the eective duration of the ground motion, and not just the value of
the acceleration spectrum associated with the fundamental period of vibration of the structure
under study, as it was considered here.
The combination method nds the optimum zoning through an exhaustive searching in all
the possible congurations of the region under study, implying a high number of evaluations
of the corresponding costs, and restricting the number of cells or counties employed in the
solutions. On the other hand, the genetic algorithm is a exible, ecient and general optimization process, whenever we keep the minimum value of the ratio between the number of
evolutions and the number of possible congurations. In order to decrease the minimum value
of the mentioned ratio, it is advisable to use dierent criteria to seed congurations closely
to the optimum. The genetic algorithm used here is one of the simple types. Use of more
complex algorithms that exist in the literature, especially those whose parameters associated
with the algorithm are modied depending on the convergence reached, allow the optimum
zoning in a small number of evolutions to be found.
The authors believe that there are no limitations in the algorithms presented here, neither
on the size of the region to be divided nor on the computational time. Of course, the higher
the number of cells used the greater the computational time. Comparisons should be done
to get an idea on how fast this time increases. Also, new methods such as neural networks
should be explored.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are grateful to Dr Luis Esteva for his critical and constructive review of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Rosenblueth E, Garc
a-P
erez J. Optimal zoning. Engineering Structures 1994; 16:460 469.
2. Garc
a-P
erez J. Seismic zoning for initial- and total-cost minimization. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2000; 29:847865.
3. Cornell CA, Vanmarcke E. The major inuences on seismic risk. Proceedings of the IVth World Congress in
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 1969; A169A183.
4. Goldberg DE. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning (20th printing). Addison
Wesley: Reading, MA, 1999.
5. Ordaz M, Meli R, Montoya-Dulch
e C, S
anchez L, P
erez-Rocha LE. Data base for seismic risk assessment in
Mexico City. International Symposium on Earthquake Disaster Prevention, CENAPRED, Mexico, III, May
1992; 99109.
6. Ordaz M, Reinoso E, P
erez-Rocha LE, Montoya-Dulch
e C. Z Programa para la determinaci
on de espectros de
sitio del DF. Software developed for the Federal District Department in Mexico City, June 1995.
7. Castellanos F. M
etodos para zonaci
on s
smica o
ptima en varias dimensiones. Master Dissertation, National
University of Mexico, July 2001 (in Spanish).

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:711730