STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING, 2016

VOL. 12, NO. 7, 848–860

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1064967

Structural damage accumulation and control for life cycle optimum seismic
performance of buildings
Luis Esteva, Orlando Javier Díaz-López, Alberto Vásquez and Jesus Alberto León
Institute of Engineering, National University of Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 México, DF, Mexico

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Seismic reliability and expected performance functions of structural systems are sensitive to the process Received 3 November 2015
of damage accumulation associated with the random sequences of ground motion excitations that Revised 25 May 2015
those systems may experience. Optimum life cycle-based engineering decisions must examine the Accepted 16 June 2015
Published online
influence of concepts related to both the target safety level of the initial system and the eventual repair 6 August 2015
and maintenance actions that may be undertaken during the life of the system. This study includes an
overview of the general framework supporting these decisions as well as some available results about KEYWORDS
(a) the influence of damage accumulation of the seismic vulnerability functions of building structures, (b) Structural damage
approximate estimates of accumulated damage and (c) optimum damage threshold values for repair of accumulation; seismic
structural frames or replacement of energy dissipating devices. Some comments are presented concerning vulnerability functions; life
desirable studies about life cycle optimisation of systems exposed to different types of excitations. cycle optimisation; repair
and maintenance; damage
indicators

1. Introduction design criteria, quality control and repair and maintenance

Modern approaches to the formulation of seismic design
criteria to be used in engineering practice are based on the
adoption of specified reliability levels and expected perfor-
mance targets for a set of ‘design earthquakes’, each of them
defined in terms of the seismic intensities corresponding to the
specified return intervals at the site of interest. Because neither
the times of occurrence nor the intensities of the earthquakes
that may act on the structure are known, both the reliability
and the expected performance levels should be related to the
expected useful life of the system or to a time interval of that
order. Ordinarily, it is not unlikely that when the ‘design earth-
quake’ occurs, the system has experienced a process of damage
accumulation generated by the previous earthquakes, by differ-
ential settlements or by any other accidental excitation. For this
reason, it is necessary to assess the potential influence of dam-
age accumulation on the evolution of the seismic vulnerability
functions; this potential influence includes both a reduction
in the seismic reliability level and an increase in the expected
damage cost, both as functions of the intensity. If the seismic
vulnerability function is known and the possible sequences of
occurrence of earthquakes of different intensities are repre-
sented by means of an adequate stochastic process model, the
estimation of failure probabilities and expected damage costs
during given time intervals is straightforward.
Optimum life cycle engineering decisions for structural sys-
tems to be built at sites affected by significant seismic hazard
conditions are made by selecting the combination of seismic
strategies leading to the minimum present value of the sum
of initial construction costs and those that may occur during
the life cycle of the system. The latter include those due to pos-
sible damage and failure as well as to repair and maintenance
actions in both structural and non-structural elements
(Bradley, Dhakal, Cubrinovski, MacRae, & Lee, 2009; Rosen-
blueth, 1976). All these costs depend on the evolution of the
seismic vulnerability function of the system with time, as a
consequence of the damage accumulation process (Esteva,
­
Campos, & Díaz-López, 2011; Esteva & Díaz, 1993). For struc-
tural elements, repair and maintenance actions include, for
instance, the restoration of the strength and stiffness of struc-
tural members and joints and the preventive replacement of
energy dissipating or seismic isolation devices. Within this
framework, optimum seismic design criteria also include the
selection of the potential damage distribution patterns and of
the locations in the structural system where damage can be
made to concentrate, in case it occurs, aiming at repair actions
that are more reliable, efficient and easy to perform.
Concepts related to damage accumulation, its influence on
expected performance, monitoring and maintenance strat-
egies for different types of systems have received significant
attention during the last years. Corotis, Hugh Ellis, and Jiang
(2005), Ellingwood (2005) and Frangopol (2011) proposed
general criteria for the establishment of optimum inspection
and maintenance strategies for infrastructure systems, taking
into account the influence of fatigue and corrosion processes

CONTACT  Luis Esteva  LEstevaM@iingen.unam.mx

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

in the ­degradation of the mechanical properties of the system
components. These criteria are formulated within a life cycle
optimisation framework, taking into account uncertainties
associated with concepts such as the initial mechanical prop-
erties of the system, the characteristics of the processes lead-
ing to their degradation and the accuracy of the tools used to
assess the damage levels or the actual values of the mechanical
properties at given times. They focus attention on systems with
wide space-and-time variability of live loads, but high intensity
accidental excitations, such as earthquakes or hurricanes, are
not considered.
Moan (2005, 2011) presents similar ideas for specific
applications to offshore platforms; inspection, maintenance and
repair decisions depend on specified upper bounds to the
cumulative failure probability for given time intervals. Stewart
(2006) presents some illustrative examples about the potential
of using spatial variability analysis to obtain improved esti-
mates of the expected maintenance costs based on pre-specified
values of local damage indicators. Sanchez-Silva, Klutke and
Rosowsky (2011) propose a life cycle expected performance
analysis, assuming that repair and maintenance decisions are
taken with information about the global capacity of the system
that results from its initial value, corresponding to the undam-
aged condition, and the reductions produced by the damage
accumulation process.
Probabilistic models are proposed for this process, but
no information is provided about the detailed degradation
processes in the individual members that lead to the global
capacity reductions considered. Chiu, Hsiao, and Jean (2013)
proposed a procedure for assessing expected costs and benefits
of seismic retrofitting in multi-storey buildings. They adopt the
assumption that a building is restored to its original state after
each seismic event, regardless of the damage level reached, thus
eliminating the possibility of damage accumulation. In a later
study, Chiu (2014) presents a criterion for the reliability-based
service life assessment of deteriorating reinforced concrete
buildings, including the influence of cumulative damage; dam-
age states are determined by visual inspection, cumulative dam-
age evolution is expressed in terms of a Markov chain model,
taking into account degradation of structural properties due to
corrosion. The study is focused on a life cycle analysis based
on the probabilistic estimation of future events, but decisions
to be made in the future do not take into account any updated
information about the observed seismic demand and damage
processes. However, it is recognised that the proposed method
provides useful information related to maintenance based on
both serviceability and safety.
The joint influence of seismic and environmental hazards in
the process of damage accumulation on the life cycle expected
performance of bridges was studied by Akiyama, Frangopol,
and Matsuzaki (2011), who estimated seismic demands and
performance of a reinforced concrete bridge pier, taking
into account the deterioration of its mechanical properties
resulting from the hazard associated with airborne chlorides.
Similar studies are presented by Ghosh and Padgett (2011) for
ageing bridges, by Biondini, Camnasio, and Palermo (2014)
for a four-span continuous bridge, and by Celarec, Vamvat-
sikos, and Dolšek (2011) for multi-storey reinforced concrete
buildings, considering the influence of corrosion over time. Liel
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   849
and Deierlein (2013) examine the effectiveness of alternative
­retrofit strategies for the control of seismic risk in old reinforced
concrete frames, considering different damage levels, including
collapse. The importance of a proper combination of seismic
and environmental hazards in the evaluation of the lifetime
seismic performance was observed in all the systems consid-
ered.
This article starts with a brief examination of the problems
faced in the selection of local and global damage indicators that
can be used for the development of practically applicable crite-
ria for the assessment of the influence of damage accumulation
on the seismic vulnerability functions of building structures.
Some quantitative information is then shown about this influ-
ence for a family of typical systems of this kind. This is followed
by the mathematical models adopted here for the life cycle
optimisation process and the results of several applications are
examined, with an emphasis on their implications for the opti-
mum engineering decisions. Finally, some practical problems
are discussed about the assessment of the damage indicators
for specific systems and desirable lines of future research are
identified.
Seismic vulnerability functions for the systems studied in the
following are determined with the aid of previously developed
criteria and models (Esteva et al., 2011; Esteva & Díaz-López,
2006; Esteva, Díaz-López, & Ismael-Hernández, 2010). Atten-
tion is focused on the analysis of the influence of some varia-
bles on those functions and on the resulting life cycle present
values of expected damage costs. The main independent varia-
bles considered are: (a) the nominal value of the lateral strength
reduction factor specified to allow different levels of non-linear
behaviour, (b) initial damage accumulated from the response
to previous seismic excitations, (c) use of energy dissipating
devices, (d) threshold damage values for repair of the structural
system or replacement of energy dissipating devices. Expected
performance is expressed in terms of the following indicators:
(a) global and local fatigue damage indexes, (b) vulnerability
functions, including final expected damage and failure proba-
bility in terms of intensity and initial damage, (c) expected fail-
ure rates for given values of initial damage, (d) optimum life
cycle repair and replacement strategies for structural frames
with or without energy dissipating devices.
2.  Seismic vulnerability functions
In practical engineering applications related to perfor-
mance-based earthquake-resistant design, the estimation of the
seismic reliability of non-linear multi-storey buildings for the
given values of the ground motion intensity is ordinarily based
on a measure of the probability that the lateral deformation
capacity of the system, determined by conventional pushover
analysis, is greater than the peak value of the corresponding
non-linear response demand for an ensemble of earthquake
excitations with the specified intensity. However, probabilistic
estimates of the deformation capacities of multi-storey build-
ings obtained by means of pushover analysis are tied to severe
limitations because according to this approach it is not possible
to account for (a) the influence of cumulative damage associ-
ated with the cyclic response, and (b) the dependence of the
lateral deformation capacity on the response configuration of
the system when it approaches failure. This has fostered the
850    L. ESTEVA ET AL.
Figure 1.  Influence of initial conditions on the damage potential of new
earthquakes.
development of alternative criteria, such as the incremental
dynamic analysis (Vamvatsikos & Cornell, 2002), which permit
the estimation of the seismic reliability function of the system
without having to determine any deformation capacity.
Esteva and Ismael (2003), Esteva and Díaz-López (2006),
Esteva et al. (2010, 2011) presented a secant-stiffness-reduction
index to be applied in the seismic reliability assessment of mul-
ti-storey buildings. According to it, the reliability of the system
under the action of a ground motion of known intensity but
uncertain detailed ground motion time history is expressed
in terms of the probability density function of a secant-stiff-
ness-reduction index (ISSR):
K0 − Ks
ISSR = (1)
K0
where K0 is the initial tangent stiffness associated with the base
shear vs. roof displacement curve resulting from pushover anal-
ysis and KS is the secant stiffness (base shear divided by lateral
roof displacement) when the lateral roof displacement reaches
its maximum absolute value during the seismic response of the
system. The failure condition is expressed as ISSR  =  1.0. For a
given value of the intensity (y), the probability density function
of Q  =  ln ISSR is equal to fQ(q), which is continuous for q  <  0
and includes a discrete concentration at q = 0, which is equal to
pF(y) = P[Q = 0|y], the failure probability for an intensity equal
to y.
This approach has been adopted by Esteva et al. (2011) in
an exploratory study about the influence of initial damage con-
ditions on the damaging potential of new earthquakes. Their
results are presented in Figure 1, taken from the mentioned ref-
erence, where the normalised intensity is equal to the ratio of
the ordinate of the linear displacement response spectrum to
the deformation capacity of the system, in this case a large-span
single-storey frame with natural period equal to .43 s, subjected
to simulated ground motion acceleration time histories with
frequency contents and durations similar to those typical of a
Mexico City soft soil site. The damage at the end of each seismic
excitation, for given initial damage conditions, is measured by
the value of ISSR, as given by Equation (1).
Up to now, most seismic reliability studies for multi-storey
buildings have been oriented to in-plan symmetric systems.
Picazo, Diaz Lopez, and Esteva (2015) presented an extension
of the approach described in the preceding paragraphs.
3.  Influence of damage accumulation on seismic
vulnerability functions
3.1.  Damage indicators
For the purposes related to the assessment of seismic vulner-
ability functions of structural systems of multi-storey build-
ings, it is convenient to measure physical damage by means
of indicators that are strongly correlated with the potential
reductions in strength, stiffness, deformation capacity and
energy dissipation capacity of those systems when subjected
to seismic excitations. Those indicators can be expressed with
different levels of detail: they can be referred to the global or
to the local properties of the system, either to critical sec-
tions of individual members or to assemblages of them, such
as building storeys. In those cases when the spatial distribu-
tion of damage is approximately uniform, global indicators
of damage are sufficient to obtain reasonable estimates of the
influence of the latter variable on the seismic vulnerability
function of the system. In other cases, it will be necessary to
identify the potential failure modes for the whole system or
for significant portions of it that may be triggered by local
failures at the members or system segments where damage
concentrations take place; global failure probabilities will
then have to be estimated taking into account the possibili-
ties of occurrence of all significant failure modes.
Both global and local damage can be measured by different
types of indicators; some of them are based on peak ampli-
tudes of response demands, while others take into account
concepts related to dissipated energy or to low-cycle fatigue
indexes (Banon, Biggs, & Irvine, 1981; Banon & Veneziano,
1982; Cosenza, Manfredi, & Ramasco, 1993; Jeong & Iwan,
1988; Park & Ang, 1984; Powell & Allahabadi, 1988; Roufaiel &
­Meyer, 1987; Wang & Shah, 1987; Williams & Sexsmith, 1995).
The variables considered in a few of the damage indicators pro-
posed in these references are summarised in Table 1. They can
be applied to members such as beams, columns, frame-infill-
ing diaphragms or to any assemblage that can be modelled as a
two-dimensional system contained in a vertical plane and sub-
jected to cyclic excitations (forces or imposed displacements)
contained in the same plane; the latter include, for instance, a
symmetrical multi-storey building subjected to a single hori-
zontal ground motion component acting on its plane of sym-
metry. However, the applicability of the mentioned damage
indicators to other types of elements or systems, such as col-
umns, building segments or storeys subjected to two simulta-
neous orthogonal horizontal excitations is still to be developed.
The cases studied in this article belong to the first group
mentioned above. Their applicability can be extended to the
determination of the influence of local damage accumulation
on the seismic reliability of three-dimensional systems sub-
jected to two simultaneous horizontal components if their
lateral capacities in each direction are provided only by two-
dimensional elements, such as wall panels.
3.2.  Damage identification and estimation
Severe local damage concentrations at critical sections of struc-
tural members can often be visually identified. If the visual
information suffices to make reasonable quantitative estimates
of the damage levels at those sections, they can be i­ ncorporated
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   851

Table 1. Local damage indicators.

Authors Applicability, variables considered

Most traditional and simple
Banon and Veneziano (1982)
Park and Ang (1984)
Roufaiel and Meyer (1987)
Jeong and Iwan (1988)
Bilinear systems
Peak ductility demand
Bilinear systems
Ratio of secant stiffness at failure to initial stiffness
Plastic dissipated energy normalised with respect to the product of the yield force by the yield deformation
Bilinear systems
Peak ductility demand
Plastic dissipated energy normalised with respect to the product of the yield force by the ultimate deformation
Bilinear systems
K0/Km, K0/Kf . K0 = initial stiffness, Kf  = secant stiffness at failure, Km = secant stiffness at peak deformation
General hysteretic system
Miner’s rule

into an updated mechanical model of the whole system and
used to assess the expected influence of the residual damage
on the potential increase of its vulnerability function under
the action of a future external excitation, in this case an earth-
quake ground motion of unknown intensity. Decisions about
repair and maintenance actions can then be made in terms of
risk-acceptance and cost-benefit criteria, formulated within a
life cycle framework.
In many cases, visual inspection may not provide enough
quantitative information about the local damage levels and, as
a consequence, about their potential impact on the increase
of the seismic vulnerability function of the system. This may
occur, for instance, if main structural members are hidden by
some architectural finishing elements the removal of which
might be considered too expensive; it may also happen in hys-
teretic energy dissipating devices, which may not show any
evidence of damage before the failure condition by low cycle
fatigue is reached. In many of these cases it would be justified
to make preliminary estimates of local and global damage after
the occurrence of moderate and high intensity events. These
estimates can be derived from instrumental response records
obtained during those events or from simulated time histories
of local strains or distortions at critical sections, generated by
means of mathematical models of the system; they can also be
based on structural health monitoring studies performed after
the occurrence of excitations deemed to be significant.
If these damage estimates lead to significant increments in
the values of the seismic vulnerability function, further actions
should be taken to improve the knowledge of the decision-­
maker about the local damage conditions and their possible
impact on the updating of the latter function. The first step
might be to perform a detailed visual inspection, covering all
the critical sections that form part of each relevant global fail-
ure mechanism. Final estimates of the vulnerability function
should include the information coming from the visual inspec-
tion as well as that derived from the previous steps. For this
purpose, probabilistic models of the epistemic uncertainties
associated with the local damage levels and the corresponding
mechanical properties should be developed in accordance with
Bayesian probability concepts.
The information needed for the establishment of these mod-
els might be partially derived from observations about physical
evidences of local damage and values of fatigue-damage indica-
tors resulting either from recorded structural response histories
or from those determined by means of mathematical models.
3.3.  Spatial distribution of damage: its implication on
seismic vulnerability functions and long-term expected
performance
Spatial distribution of damage throughout a structural
system is often characterised by significant irregularities.
Damage concentrations tend to occur at those elements
or sub-assemblages with the highest ratios of the magni-
tudes of the internal forces associated with the accidental
excitations (earthquake ground motions, in this example)
to those corresponding to the permanent loads. Because the
mentioned irregularities determine the dominant potential
failure mechanisms of the system under the action of future
earthquakes, the functions relating the expected increments
in the seismic vulnerability functions to the global indica-
tors of initial damage are affected by very large uncertain-
ties. It is reasonable to expect that significant reductions in
these ­uncertainties can be achieved through the use of vec-
tor damage indicators, integrated by components describ-
ing ­simultaneous values of local damage levels at individual
structural members or segments. This is another concept
deserving attention in research programs in the near future.
The influence of damage accumulation on the expected
seismic performance of the systems can be expressed in terms
of the increasing values of the expected failure rates νF, deter-
mined in accordance with the following equation:
( )
∞ d𝜈Y y
∫0
𝜈F = − PF (y)dy (2)
dy
where νY(y) is the seismic hazard function at the site, expressed
in terms of the mean annual rate of occurrence of intensities
greater than y, and PF(y) is the probability of failure given that
the intensity is equal to y. This probability grows with time, as
the accumulated damage grows.
4.  Life cycle analysis including damage accumulation
Esteva et al. (2011) present the basic concepts of a life cycle
framework (Rackwitz, 2000; Rosenblueth, 1976) normally
adopted for the formulation of optimum engineering deci-
sions applicable to the design, construction and maintenance
of structural systems. Within this framework, a utility function
as given by Equation (3) is defined as the sum of the present
values of the expected benefits and costs to be generated since
the construction of the system to its eventual demolition or
abandonment:
852    L. ESTEVA ET AL.

[ ∞
]
−𝛾T
∑
U = B − C0 − E Di i (3)
i=1

In this equation, C0 is the initial construction cost, B is the

present value of the expected benefits to be received while
the system remains in operation, E[·] is the expected value, Ti
is the unknown time of occurrence of seismic event i, Di is the
expected value of the costs associated with the potential damage
generated by this event and γ is the discount coefficient adopted
to transform instantaneous values at any time to present values
at the decision-making time.
As explained by Esteva et al. (2011), Di includes both the Figure 2. Artificial ground acceleration time history at the site of the building.
expected costs of damage in case of survival of the system and
the expected cost of collapse multiplied by the failure probabil-
ity for the intensity of the seismic event considered. In appli-
cations of Equation (1), the influence of damage accumulation
is[taken]into account by adjusting the model used to estimate
−𝛾Ti
E Di as a function of the damage indicator Di−1, at the end
of event i − 1, and the potential reductions in the value of this
indicator arising from the repair and maintenance actions that
may be performed after that event.
Esteva and Díaz (1993) and Esteva et al. (2011) present
detailed probabilistic models to be used in the formulation of
optimum decisions about minimum threshold values of resid-
ual damage levels demanding repair and maintenance actions,
including possible preventive replacement of energy dissipating
devices. Those models include expressions for the transition
probabilities of the value of Di−1 to that of Di, as functions of the Figure 3. Linear acceleration response spectra for a sample of simulated records at
intensity of the ith event. Because of the epistemic uncertainties the soft soil site considered.
affecting the values of Di−1, as estimated from the information
available after the occurrence of the ith event, the probability of
performing the required repair and maintenance actions when periods of the systems, including the influence of soil–structure
the specified threshold value is reached or exceeded will often interaction, are equal to .892 and .984 s for buildings B6-2 and
be smaller than unity. This concept has to be taken into account B6-4, and 1.04 and 1.302 s for B10-2 and B10-4, respectively.
in the formulation of practical decision criteria. In order to account for uncertainties about the gravitational
loads and the mechanical properties of structural members, a
5. Applications sample of random values of those variables was generated by
Monte Carlo simulation. Each system generated in this man-
5.1.  Reliability and expected damage functions in several
ner was subjected to an artificial ground motion time history
reinforced concrete multi-storey buildings
simulated in accordance with the criterion proposed by Ismael
5.1.1.  Reinforced concrete frame buildings and Esteva (2006). Figures 2 and 3, respectively, show one of the
In the following paragraphs, a summary is presented of the simulated records and the linear response spectra for 50 records
main results of a study about (a) the expected damage pro- of different intensities. The long duration and the narrow band
duced by earthquakes of different intensities on several rein- characteristics of the records are obvious consequences of the
forced concrete buildings and (b) the influence of damage local soil conditions at the site selected.
accumulation on the seismic reliability functions (and, there- In the dynamic response studies, the non-linear behav-
fore, on the seismic vulnerability functions) of those systems, iour of the systems considered was assumed to be concen-
expressed in terms of the ground motion intensity (Vásquez, trated at plastic hinges at the ends of beams and columns. A
2010). Two six-storey and two ten-storey buildings were con- stiffness degrading model proposed by Campos and Esteva
sidered, assumed to be built at a soft soil site in Mexico City. (1997) was used to represent the constitutive functions relating
Two reduced design spectra were considered for each pair of moment and curvature at those hinges. According to this model,
buildings, corresponding to two different values of the nominal damage at a structural member or section subjected to a cyclic
ductility factor (Q  =  2, 4) intended to account for non-linear excitation is measured by the damage index ε, the reduction
dynamic response behaviour. In the following, these buildings in the acting force associated with the maximum deformation
are designated as B6-2, B6-4, B10-2 and B10-4, where the first experienced during the previous cycles with respect to the value
number in each case identifies the number of storeys and the adopted by that force at the same deformation during a mono-
second number corresponds to the value of Q. The fundamental tonic loading process; its value is estimated as 1 − exp(−αD),
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   853

where D is the fatigue index equal to i 𝜃i ∕𝜃F, θi is the peak

∑
absolute deformation experienced by the structural member
or section considered, θF is its value at failure under the action
of monotonic load and α is an empirical parameter, taken here
equal to .0671 (Campos & Esteva, 1997). For each structural
member, the damage index ε was taken equal to the average of
the local damage at its two ends.
The global damage for the whole system, designated as IDF
in the following, was taken equal to the average of the damage
index ε at all the members. Considering that the global damage
determined in this manner does not provide any information
about the spatial distribution of damage and, therefore, about
its implications on the reliability of the system as a whole; it
was decided to define a normalised damage index, IDFN = IDF/IFE,
where IFE is the expected value of IDF required to produce global
failure of the system. For this purpose, IFE was estimated from
the results of ten simulated ground motion records acting on a
model of the structural system where all its gravitational loads
and mechanical properties were taken equal to their expected
values. A large value of this ratio means that the effective
damage, in terms of its potential to lead to failure, is higher than
the average along the building height. This is due to the concen-
tration of damage at one or more segments of the system.
Figures 4–6 present a comparison between the values of the
damage and normalised damage indexes for systems B6-2, B6-4
and B10-4 as functions of the intensity y. The latter variable
is measured by the ordinate of the linear pseudo-acceleration Figure 4. Values of damage and normalised damage indexes for system B6-2.
response spectrum of the ground motion excitation, for the
fundamental natural period of the system considered and for
a damping ratio equal to 5%; it is expressed as a factor to be
applied to the acceleration of gravity.
The large values of the ratio IDFN/IDF result from non-uniform
distribution of local damage along the building height. The
influence on IDF of the nominal value Q of the ductility factor
assumed for design can be easily observed by comparing the
values of IDF and IDFN in systems B6-2 and B6-4 corresponding
to the same value of y. These values are higher for Q = 4 than for
Q = 2, as it should be expected, as a consequence of the higher
levels of non-linear behaviour expected to be experienced by
the former systems. The wide variability in the values of IDF can
be ascribed to the statistical deviations of the mechanical prop-
erties of the structural members and of the variability of the
local and global non-linear dynamic response demands of the
system for a sample of ground motion records with equal inten-
sities but different detailed time histories. The concentrations of
the values of IDF and IDFN near their upper and lower limits can
be explained by the fact that failure events are ordinarily asso-
ciated with large concentrations of distortion demands at one
or a few members or segments. Because of this, no significant
increments are observed in the average values of the damage
indicator ε throughout the whole system.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate that for high intensities, the values
of IDF are concentrated at two opposite ends: one corresponding
to collapse and another covering a narrow band of low values.
In consistency with this, the values of the intensity leading to a
given value of IDFN, taken as .5 in this case, are equal to 1.5 and Figure 5. Values of damage and normalised damage indexes for system B6-4.
.7, respectively, for the mentioned cases. It can also be observed
that, for an intensity equal to 1.2 g, IDFN = .1 for Q = 2, while concentrations for system B10-4 are less pronounced than for
collapse occurs for Q = 4. Figure 6 shows that local distortion systems B6-2 and B6-4. The implications within a life cycle
854    L. ESTEVA ET AL.
Figure 6. Values of damage and normalised damage indexes for system B10-4
Figure 7. Influence of initial damage on final damage function; system B6-2.
framework of the value of adopted for design are examined
later, according to the results shown in Figures 18 and 19.
For a number of members in the sample of simulated
systems associated with each of the basic systems (B6-2, B6-4,
B10-2 and B10-4), the influence of initial normalised damage
IDFN on the final normalised damage as a function of the inten-
sity was estimated by subjecting each of those simulated sys-
tems to ten ground motion time histories corresponding to each
given intensity.
Some typical results are presented in Figures 7 and 8, which
show the final values of IDFN for systems B6-2 and B10-4,
respectively, for different values of the initial normalised dam-
age IDFN. For this operation, the normalised damage index IDFN
was obtained taking IFE, the value of IDF leading to failure, equal
to its mean value obtained for the corresponding basic sys-
Figure 8. Influence of initial damage on final damage function; system B10-4.
Figure 9. Influence of initial damage on failure probability functions.
tem, represented, as mentioned above, by a model where all its
gravitational loads and mechanical properties were taken
equal to their expected values. These figures also show that the
variation of IDFN with the normalised value of the initial damage,
IDFNI, is very similar for the two cases considered. The informa-
tion obtained in this manner can be used to obtain cumulative
damage functions for the basic systems considered, in terms of
intensity and initial damage; these functions can be applied in
engineering decisions related to optimum threshold damage
levels for repair and maintenance actions.
Curves of this type can be used to make repair and mainte-
nance decisions based on acceptable limits of failure probabili-
ties per year, as an instantaneous value of a reliability indicator
that takes into account the contributions of all seismic excita-
tions of different intensities that may act on the system.
The influence of initial damage on the failure probability
functions of the four basic cases under study is shown in Figure
9. These functions were derived from previously determined
seismic reliability functions β(y), following the definition by

Figure 10. Seismic hazard functions for the four systems studied.
Figure 11. Influence of initial damage on the expected failure rates.
Cornell (1969). The latter functions were estimated using the
maximum likelihood approach proposed by Esteva and Ismael
(2003). In general, these curves show a gradual variation of the
failure probability with respect to the intensity for each value of
IDFN, the initial value of the normalised damage. A few excep-
tions shown are probably associated with the statistical variabil-
ity of the simulated response amplitudes resulting from a small
sample of seismic excitations. These deviations would probably
be reduced if the information associated with all the values of
IDFN were processed simultaneously. A comparison of Figure
9(a) and (b) shows that failure probabilities for given values of
the intensity and the rates of variation of those probabilities are
lower for systems designed with Q = 2.
The seismic hazard functions for the four basic systems con-
sidered are shown in Figure 10; the intensities are measured by
the ordinates of the linear pseudo-acceleration response spec-
tra for .05 damping, for the fundamental natural periods of
those systems, calculated taking the gravitational loads and the
mechanical properties equal to the corresponding mean values.
The resulting expected failure rates νF were determined accord-
ing to Equation (2), in terms of the initial damage; they are pre-
sented in Figure 11. They are approximately equal to 10−5 and
10−4, for Q = 2 and Q = 4, respectively. The rate of variation of νF
with the initial damage is almost linear in a semi-log plot; it is
more pronounced for systems designed with Q = 2: a normal-
ised damage index of .15 produces an increase by a factor of 10
in the expected failure rates in buildings B6-2 and B10-2 and
by a factor of 4 in buildings B6-4 and B10-4, but the maximum
values reached for IDFN ≤ .5 remain higher for Q = 4.
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   855
As mentioned above, these curves represent instantaneous
values of a reliability indicator; they are modified after each
repair or maintenance action.
5.1.2.  Buildings with energy dissipating devices
León (2010) presents a study about the influence of initial dam-
age on the damage increments produced by earthquakes of dif-
ferent intensities on two ten-storey reinforced concrete frame
buildings (BD2 and BD4) with hysteretic energy dissipating
devices (EDDs). Their architectural configuration is identical,
as shown in Figure 12, but they differ in their structural design:
both were designed in accordance with the same design spectra
adopted for the reinforced concrete frame buildings described
in the foregoing sections, using two different values of the nom-
inal ductility factor Q, taken equal to 2 and 4 for systems BD2
and BD4, respectively. In both cases, the preliminary design
was made subjected to the condition that, at each storey, the
lateral strength and stiffness of the EDD are equal to those of
the frame.
In the studies about dynamic response, the non-linear
behaviour of the reinforced concrete frame was represented by
the same model adopted for the systems in the previous section:
The behaviour of the EDDs was represented by an elasto-plastic
model without any cyclic degradation of strength or stiffness,
but assumed to fail by fatigue according to the condition:
n
∑ 1
=1 (4)
i=1
Ni
where Ni given by Equation (5) (Ruiz, 2000), is the number of
cycles of amplitude δi leading to failure and δ0 is the amplitude
at failure under monotonic load, which was taken here equal to
15.25 cm, based on experimental information about the type of
EDD to be used:
( ( )−0.02 )
Ni = exp 121 𝛿i ∕𝛿0 −1 (5)
The buildings were subjected to the same sample of artificial
ground motion records used in the examples of the previous
section (Figures 2 and 3). For the initial undamaged condi-
tion, the final global damage indexes in the frame are shown in
Figures 13 and 14. Comparing the results of Figures 6 and 14,
both corresponding to a ten-storey building designed for Q = 4,
both with the same strength and stiffness properties, it is easily
observed that the values of the intensities leading to collapse are
higher for system BD4. This clearly shows the beneficial influ-
ence of the energy dissipation devices in controlling the global
and local storey distortions.
Details about the variation of the distribution of the local
storey damage for different values of the global damage are
­presented in Figure 15, which shows the variation of the ratio
IDFNi/IDFN in the frame for building BD4. Each portion of the
­figure corresponds to values of the final normalised global
­damage ­index comprised within the interval presented in its
footing. In all cases, damage is concentrated at the lowest histo-
ries; from the second storey to the top, the ratio of the normalised
local damage at a given storey is practically independent from
the normalised global damage level. As should be expected, the
intensities of the damage concentrations at the ground floor
856    L. ESTEVA ET AL.

Figure 12. Ten-storey building with hysteretic energy dissipating devices.

Figure 13. Values of damage and normalised damage indexes for system BD2. Figure 14. Values of damage and normalised damage indexes for system BD4.
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   857

Figure 16. Damage indexes in EDDs at the first storey.

Figure 15. Variation of expected damage in the frame along the building height
for system BD4.

storeys increase significantly with the corresponding global

damage values.
Damage indexes in the EDD at the first storey are shown in
Figure 16 for both buildings, BD2 and BD4. They are designated
as IDD; their values are significantly higher for building BD4
than for BD2, thus reflecting the influence of the lower value
of the lateral strength of the former system, for equal value of
the spectral ordinate of the excitation. The form of variation of
the expected value of the normalised damage index (IDDN) in
the EDDs along the building height is shown in Figure 17 for
systems BD2 and BD4, for an initial damage level in the frame
approximately equal to .22. The variation is more pronounced
for system BD4 than for system BD2.

5.2.  Optimum repair and maintenance strategies

Several illustrative examples are presented in this section,
aiming at showing the impact of the damage threshold lev-
el adopted for repair and maintenance actions within a deci-
sion-making criterion based on the maximisation of the utility
function given in Equation (3). The evaluation of Di is made
in accordance with the approach proposed by Esteva and Díaz Figure 17. Variation of expected damage on the EDDs along the building height for
systems BD2 and BD4. Initial global damage in the frame = .22.
(1993).
858    L. ESTEVA ET AL.
Figure 18. Life cycle utility functions in terms of damage threshold repair index.
Figure 19. Life cycle utility functions in terms of damage threshold repair and/or
replacement index.
For simplicity, the following assumptions are adopted:
(1) The expected damage terms Di do not include the costs asso-
ciated with non-structural damage for the condition of system
survival but only those corresponding to collapse.
(2) The initial cost C0 corresponds to a system with mechani-
cal properties resulting from previously established design
­requirements.
(3) The damage threshold level is expressed in terms of the global
indicator. It is assumed that when the repair and maintenance
actions are performed the system as a whole returns to a condi-
tion of zero damage.
(4) The probability of repair is equal to 1.0 once the specified
threshold level is reached. This implies that the decision-maker
counts with perfect information about the global damage level
at the end of each seismic event.
5.2.1.  Reinforced concrete frame buildings
Present values of life cycle expected damage cost functions
U/C0 in terms of the damage threshold repair index Dr were
determined for systems B6-2, B6-4, B10-2 and B10-4, in
­accordance with Equation (3). The results are presented in
Figure 18. It is easy to appreciate that these functions are not
very sensitive to Dr for cases designed assuming a nominal
­value of the ductility factor Q = 2.
This is a consequence of the lower damage levels expected
for a system designed for higher lateral forces, because in these
cases it was assumed that the moment-curvature constitutive
functions for the structural members in the systems designed
for Q = 2 and Q = 4 are the same. These results are consistent
with those presented by Esteva et al. (2011).
5.2.2.  Buildings with energy dissipating devices
Figure 19 presents U/C0 functions for systems BD2 and BD4,
considering several alternative combinations of damage thresh-
old values for repair of the frame (Drf ) and/or replacement of
EDD’s (Drd): (a) system BD2, Drf = Drd, (b) system BD2, Drd = .2,
different values of Drf, (c) system BD4, Drf  =  Drd, (d) system
BD4, Drd  =  .2, different values of Drf. Similarly to what it was
observed for the group of reinforced concrete frame buildings,
U/C0 functions for building BD2 are not very sensitive to the
damage thresholds for repair or replacement. For building BD4,
U/C0 functions show variations in the range 1.12 ≤ U/C0 ≤ 1.28.
In both groups of cases, U/C0 functions are nearly constant
within a broad range of Drf and Drd. Within this range, decisions
about repair-and-replacement damage threshold values should
be based on minimum life cycle risk considerations.
6.  Discussion and concluding remarks
6.1.  General conclusions
The studies reported here are intended to provide some gross
information about the potential influence of structural damage
accumulation on the expected seismic performance of multi-
storey buildings. Its scope is limited to structural damage due to
seismic excitations; however, it is recognised that damage due
to other excitations, such as differential settlements, can also be
of high relevance in this respect.
For simplicity, in the life cycle studies presented here struc-
tural damage is expressed in terms of a global indicator; the
influence of spatial distribution is disregarded. Therefore,
decisions about repair of structural members and replacement
of EDD’s are not performed on a member-by-member basis,
but in accordance with the global damage indicator. This sim-
plification may contribute to significant uncertainties in final
damage estimates.
For the cases studied here, it was found that increments
by a factor as high as 10 in the expected failure rates can be
generated by residual damage levels of about .15.
Because of the many variables that affect spatial distribution
of damage on different structural systems, it is not considered
feasible to perform parametric studies about the concepts stud-
ied in this article; it is only intended to present a glimpse about
the orders of magnitude of the influence of damage accumula-
tion on some relevant indicators of life cycle seismic e­ xpected
performance for some typical building systems. The main
quantitative results, previously presented in the corresponding
sections, are summarised as follows:
(1) Significant local damage concentrations may occur at a few
storeys of buildings, even if they were designed for
­uniform-safety-factor conditions along the building height. As
a consequence of non-linear response, the ratio of local/global
damage indexes grows with the intensity of the excitation. Usu-
ally, damage concentrations occur at the lowest storeys. These
features have significant implications in the seismic vulnerabil-
ity functions of the corresponding systems.

(2) For the cases studied, the variability of the local/global damage
indexes is very similar, regardless of the lateral-force-reduction
index Q assumed in the structural design.
(3) Expected failure rates for the systems studied range from 10−5
to 10−4, for the condition of no initial damage. For initial values
of IDFN equal to .5, these rates may increase by a factor as high
as 100.
(4) Systems with energy dissipating devices have lower vulnerabil-
ity functions than conventional structural systems with equal
values of the lateral strength and stiffness.
(5) Present values of life cycle expected damage cost functions
are not very sensitive to the damage threshold repair index for
systems designed for Q  =  2, while pronounced variations are
observed for systems designed for Q = 4, both for conventional
frames and for systems with energy dissipating devices.
6.2.  Recommendations for future studies
Near-future research activities should be aimed at improving
engineering tools for the assessment of the influence of initial
structural damage on the seismic reliability and expected per-
formance of multi-storey buildings and for the selection of effi-
cient repair and maintenance strategies. Some specific concepts
requiring attention are:
(1) Efficient criteria and methods to estimate and identify local
damage and its relation with global damage, including both
­instrumental records and analytical models.
(2) Selection of ‘efficient’ damage distribution patterns; i.e. loca-
tions where damage should be made to concentrate, so that
they lead to easy, reliable and efficient retrofit actions.
(3) Application of the foregoing concepts to three-dimensional
systems subjected to two simultaneous horizontal components.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D.M., & Matsuzaki, H. (2011). Life-cycle
reliability of RC bridge piers under seismic and airborne chloride
hazards. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40, 1671–1687.
Banon, H., Biggs, I.M., & Irvine, H.M. (1981). Seismic damage in
reinforced concrete frames. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division,
107, 1713–1729.
Banon, H., & Veneziano, D. (1982). Seismic safety of reinforced concrete
members and structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 10, 179–193.
Biondini, F., Camnasio, E., & Palermo, A. (2014). Lifetime seismic
performance of concrete bridges exposed to corrosion. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 880–900.
Bradley, B.A., Dhakal, R.P., Cubrinovski, M., MacRae, G.A., & Lee, D.S.
(2009). Seismic loss estimation for efficient decision making. Bulletin of
the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, 42, 96–110.
Campos, D., & Esteva, L. (1997). Modelo de comportamiento histerético
y de daño para vigas de concreto reforzado [Hysteretic behavior and
damage model for reinforced concrete beams]. Proceedings of XI
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 567–573. Veracruz,
Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniería Sísmica (in Spanish).
Celarec, D., Vamvatsikos, D., & Dolšek, M. (2011). Simplified estimation
of seismic risk for reinforced concrete buildings with consideration
of corrosion over time. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9,
1137–1155.
Chiu, C.K. (2014). Reliability-based service life assessment for deteriorating
reinforced concrete buildings considering the effect of cumulative
damage. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 1101–1118.
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   859
Chiu, C.K., Hsiao, F.P., & Jean, W.Y. (2013). A novel lifetime cost-benefit
analysis method for seismic retrofitting of low-rise reinforced concrete
buildings. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9, 891–902.
Cornell, C.A. (1969). A probability-based structural code. Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, 66, 974–985.
Corotis, R.B., Hugh Ellis, J., & Jiang, M. (2005). Modeling of risk-based
inspection, maintenance and life-cycle cost with partially observable
Markov decision processes. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 1,
75–84.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., & Ramasco, R. (1993). The use of damage
functionals in earthquake engineering: A comparison between different
methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22,
855–868.
Ellingwood, B.R. (2005). Risk-informed condition assessment of civil
infrastructure: State of practice and research issues. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 1, 17–18.
Esteva, L., Campos, D., & Díaz-López, O. (2011). Life-cycle optimisation
in earthquake engineering. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7,
33–49.
Esteva, L., & Díaz-López, O. (2006). Seismic reliability functions for complex
systems based on a secant-stiffness reduction index. Proceeding of
International Federation for Information Processing, WG7.5 Working
Conference, Kobe, Japan.
Esteva, L., Díaz-López, O., & Ismael-Hernández, E. (2010). Seismic
vulnerability functions of multi-storey buildings: Estimation and
applications. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6, 3–16.
Esteva, L., & Díaz, O. (1993). Influence of cumulative damage on the seismic
reliability of multistory frames. Proceeding of Fifth IFIP WG7.5 Working
Conference, Takamatsu, Japan.
Esteva, L., & Ismael, E. (2003). A maximum likelihood approach to system
reliability with respect to seismic collapse. Proceeding of International
Federation for Information Processing, WG7.5 Working Conference,
Banff, Canada.
Frangopol, D.M. (2011). Life-cycle performance, management and
optimization of structural systems under uncertainty: Accomplishments
and challenges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7, 389–413.
Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J.E. (2011). Probabilistic seismic loss assessment
of aging bridges using a component-level cost estimation approach.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40, 1743–1761.
Ismael, E., & Esteva, L. (2006). A hybrid method for the generation of
artificial strong ground motion records. Proceedings of First European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Jeong, G.D., & Iwan, W.D. (1988). The effect of earthquake duration on the
damage of structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
16, 1201–1211.
León, J.A. (2010). Funciones de daño acumulado para diseño de edificios
con disipadores de energía [Cumulative damage functions for design
of buildings with energy dissipating devices] (MsC thesis). Graduate
Program in Engineering, National University of Mexico, Mexico
(in Spanish).
Liel, A.B., & Deierlein, G.G. (2013). Cost-benefit evaluation of seismic risk
mitigation alternatives for older concrete frame buildings. Earthquake
Spectra, 29, 1391–1411.
Moan, T. (2005). Reliability-based management of inspection, maintenance
and repair of structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 1,
3–62.
Moan, T. (2011). Life-cycle assessment of marine civil engineering
structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7, 11–32.
Park, Y.J., & Ang, A.H.S. (1984). Mechanistic seismic damage model
for reinforced concrete. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 110,
722–739.
Picazo, Y., Diaz Lopez, O., & Esteva, L. (2015). Seismic reliability analysis
of buildings with torsional eccentricities. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 44, 1219–1234.
Powell, G.H., & Allahabadi, R. (1988). Seismic damage prediction
by deterministic methods: Concepts and procedures. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 16, 719–734.
Rackwitz, R. (2000). Optimization  — The basis of code-making and
reliability verification. Structural Safety, 22, 27–60.
860    L. ESTEVA ET AL.
Rosenblueth, E. (1976). Optimum design for infrequent disturbances.
ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 102, 1807–1825.
Roufaiel, M.S.L., & Meyer, C. (1987). Analytical modeling of hysteretic
behavior of R/C frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 113, 429–444.
Ruiz, V.M. (2000). Confiabilidad de marcos simples con disipadores
[Reliability of simple frames with energy dissipators] (MsC thesis).
Graduate Program in Engineering, National University of Mexico,
Mexico (in Spanish).
Sanchez-Silva, M., Klutke, G.-A., & Rosowsky, D.V. (2011). Life-cycle
performance of structures subject to multiple deterioration mechanisms.
Structural Safety, 33, 206–217.
Stewart, M.G. (2006). Spatial variability of damage and expected
maintenance costsfor deteriorating RC structures. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 2, 79–90.
Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C.A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 491–514.
Vásquez, A. (2010). Funciones de daño acumulado para edificios de concreto
reforzado [Cumulative damage functions in reinforced concrete
buildings] (MsC thesis). Graduate Program in Engineering, National
University of Mexico, Mexico (in Spanish).
Wang, M.L., & Shah, S.P. (1987). Reinforced concrete hysteresis model
based on the damage concept. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 15, 993–1003.
Williams, M.S., & Sexsmith, R.G. (1995). Seismic damage indices for
concrete structures: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Earthquake Spectra, 11,
319–349.