Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Estimating direct and indirect losses due to earthquake damage in T

residential RC buildings
Donatello Cardone∗, Amedeo Flora, Mauro De Luca Picione, Adriano Martoccia
School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The downtime due to earthquake damage in RC buildings is examined. The rational component of downtime is
Seismic performance assessment evaluated based on the results of probabilistic seismic loss assessment analyses, using suitable time estimating
RC frame buildings manuals for civil construction works. The irrational component of downtime is derived from empirical data
Downtime relevant to post-earthquake reconstruction in Italy. Suitable criteria are then adopted to monetize the downtime
Indirect losses
for indirect loss estimation. Finally, a simplified model, expressing indirect monetary loss as a function of the
Expected annual loss
earthquake intensity level, is tentatively proposed, to be incorporated in practice-oriented procedures for the
estimation of the expected annual loss of residential RC buildings.

1. Introduction Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center represents, at the

moment, the most comprehensive procedure for the estimation of
Past earthquakes have shown that the economic losses associated monetary losses resulting in a building from earthquakes. The PEER-
with a seismic event are not limited to the monetary efforts related to PBEE methodology has been implemented in the FEMA P-58 guidelines
building repair. Indeed, the interruption of use may be a major concern. [2], and an electronic tool (referred to as PACT - Performance Assess-
As shown in Fig. 1, economic losses due to earthquake damage can ment Calculation Tool) [3] has been developed to reduce the compu-
be divided in three main categories defined as direct losses, indirect tational effort associated with the application of the methodology.
losses and social losses. Direct losses represent the cost associated with In the probabilistic framework of FEMA P-58 [3], estimation of
repair of earthquake damage (i.e. to return a damaged building into its economic losses is performed in four steps.
undamaged state). Indirect losses are those associated with business In the first step, the seismic hazard of the building site is defined by
interruption/missing revenues and occupants’ relocation. Finally, social means of a curve relating a given earthquake Intensity Measure (IM)
losses are related to casualties (fatalities and injuries). with the associated Mean Annual Frequency of Exceedance (MAFE). In
Indirect losses are strictly related to the interval of time between the the second step, the deterministic seismic demand to the building at
seismic event and the end of repair activities. This interval of time is increasing ground motion intensity levels is evaluated through
generally called “downtime”. As shown in Fig. 2, the downtime can be Nonlinear Response History Analyses (NRHAs). The deterministic re-
divided in two components: the irrational downtime, representing the sults are used as a basis to derive a probabilistic description of the
interval of time between the seismic event and the start of the works seismic demand imposed to the building, through Monte Carlo simu-
(spent for damage assessment, design calculations, contractor bidding lations. Subsequently, damage to individual structural and non-
process, etc..) and the rational downtime, representing the time needed structural components is estimated, using suitable fragility curves, as a
to complete all repair activities [1]. function of selected Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs) (e.g., peak
Obviously, the downtime strongly depends on the seismic intensity inter-story drifts, floor accelerations etc.) computed in the second step
of the earthquake and building vulnerability. Indeed, the bigger is the of analysis. Finally, expected losses are estimated through a set of sui-
building damage, the bigger is the downtime. table consequence functions [2], based on the level of damage sustained
Nowadays, some refined methodologies exist for the performance by each component.
seismic assessment of buildings. Among them, the Performance-Based The main output of the PEER-PBEE methodology is represented by
Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) methodology developed by the Pacific the so-called building Expected Annual Loss (EAL) [4,5], which

∗
Corresponding author. School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, Viale dello Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100, Potenza, Italy.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Cardone), amedeo.fl[email protected] (A. Flora), [email protected] (M. De Luca Picione),
[email protected] (A. Martoccia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105801
Received 6 March 2019; Received in revised form 27 June 2019; Accepted 9 August 2019
0267-7261/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

for the EAL estimation. A general review of such procedures is provided

in Section 2. All the currently available simplified procedures for the
EAL estimation focuses on direct losses only, neglecting the contribu-
tion related to indirect losses associated with downtime. In fact, a
comprehensive simplified procedure for the EAL estimation accounting
for both direct losses and downtime is currently missing.
The aim of this paper is to provide a general understanding of the
importance of indirect losses (due to downtime), compared to direct
losses (due to repair/replacement costs), and eventually incorporate
indirect losses in a simplified procedure for the estimation of the EAL
for residential RC buildings. First, the rational component of downtime
is evaluated based on the results of probabilistic seismic loss assessment
analyses, using suitable time estimating manuals for civil construction
works. Next, the irrational component of downtime is derived from
empirical data relevant to post-earthquake reconstruction in Italy.
Suitable criteria are then adopted to monetize the downtime for in-
direct loss estimation. Finally, a simplified model, expressing indirect
losses as a function of the earthquake intensity level, is proposed to be
Fig. 1. Earthquake-induced losses in a building.
incorporated in a practice-oriented procedure [10] for the estimation of
the EAL of residential RC buildings.
Generally speaking, the results of this study strictly apply for a
specific building class only, represented by older RC frame buildings
with substandard details. However, it is reasonable to think that the
same approach can be easily adopted for other building types, thus
extending the applicability of the simplified procedure proposed in this
paper.

2. Simplified procedures for the estimation of the expected annual

loss

One of the main difficulties in the application of the FEMA P-58

methodology is that the seismic performance assessment follows a
component-based approach. This requires the definition of specific
Fig. 2. Post-earthquake functionality recovery of a building.
fragility curves and consequence functions at the component level. In
the attempt of limiting the number of analyses and computational ef-
forts associated with the application of the FEMA P-58 methodology,
represents the average economic loss that is expected to accrue every some authors have proposed simplified procedures for the estimation of
year in the building, considering different earthquake scenarios char- the EAL. Among them, the simplified procedure proposed by Cardone
acterized by different frequencies of exceedance and earthquake in- et al. [9] appears interesting because it uses results of traditional
tensity levels. The EAL is calculated by integrating, over the hazard structural analyses within a closed-form expression.
curve, the economic losses conditioned on the seismic intensity level Fig. 3 shows the Mean Loss Factor vs. Seismic Intensity Measure
[4]: model proposed in Cardone et al. [11]. The Mean Loss Factor represents
the expected loss at a given seismic intensity measure, normalized by
EAL = ∫IM E[Loss IM ]dλ (IM ), (1) the Replacement cost of the building (%RepC). The spectral accelera-
where λ(IM) represents the Mean Annual Frequency of Exceedance tion at the effective fundamental period of vibration of the building (Sa
(MAFE) expressed in terms of a given Intensity Measure (IM), dλ(IM) is (T*)), T* being the geometric mean of the fundamental periods of vi-
the derivative of the hazard curve and E[Loss IM ] represents the ex- bration of the building in the two orthogonal directions, is chosen as
pected monetary loss conditioned on a given IM. seismic intensity measure.
The EAL is a very useful indicator of the “seismic quality” or In principle, only three parameters are needed to define the building
“seismic resilience” of a building [5]. It represents a valuable parameter loss curve (see Fig. 3), i.e.: the slope md, which depends on the imposed
for many building stakeholders, such as insurance companies, to cal- replacement threshold [9], the spectral acceleration at the Zero Loss
culate the economic impacts of natural disasters and insurance pre-
miums, and government agencies, to establish possible contributions
and tax deduction for the seismic retrofit of buildings [6]. Moreover,
the EAL can be used within a cost-benefit analysis to make decisions, for
example, on which buildings retrofit first (within a given building
stock) or what retrofit intervention to undertake (within alternative
seismic retrofit techniques) [7].
The PEER-PBEE methodology, however, appears tricky and com-
putationally very demanding for practitioners, since it requires a large
inventory of damageable structural and non-structural components and
the definition of specific fragility functions and consequence functions.
Furthermore, accurate nonlinear structural models and the selection of
suitable suites of seismic records are needed for NRHA. Fig. 3. Limit state loss vs. seismic intensity model for simplified loss assessment
Recently, some authors [8–11] have proposed simplified procedures purposes proposed by Cardone et al. [8].

2
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

(ZL) limit state, Sa,ZL, and the corresponding initial loss threshold, single walls of 100 mm thickness each, separated by a cavity of
q = MLZL/RepC, where MLZL is the monetary loss at the zero loss limit 100 mm. Internal partitions are realized with a single layer of hollow
state [11] and RepC is the replacement cost of the building. clay bricks with 100 mm thickness. The layout of the internal partitions
The ZL limit state corresponds to the onset of damage in the ma- is shown in Fig. 4.
sonry infills of a critical storey of the building. In first approximation, All the case-study buildings are supposed to be located in the city of
the ZL limit state can be deemed to be attained when a maximum in- L’Aquila (central Italy) on stiff soil (soil type A), which is characterized
terstorey drift of the order of 0.075–0.1% is reached. The aforesaid by the highest levels of seismic hazard for Italy (0.452 g PGA with 2475
threshold limit represents the median value of interstory drift derived years return period on stiff soil). This choice was purposely done in
from fragility curves relevant to light damage (i.e. detachment of infill, order to exploit the experimental data on downtime available, as shown
light diagonal cracking) of masonry infills [12]. The slope md is derived later, for a number of real buildings damaged by the M6.3 earthquake
by fitting the performance points associated with a number of limit that occurred in 2009 with epicenter near L’Aquila.
states (e.g. Zero Loss, Operational and Damage Control), which are It is worth noting that the choice of locating all the buildings in the
determined through simple structural analysis (e.g. Response Spectrum same, high seismicity, region is not detrimental to the general validity
Analysis). of the downtime model proposed in this study. Indeed, in first ap-
The simplified expression for the estimation of EALR is as follows: proximation, the structural response associated with a given earthquake
intensity level (hence the corresponding damage scenario, repair efforts
k 0 ⎡⎛ m ⎛ 1−q 1 −k ⎤
EALR = K1 ⎢⎜
q+ ⎜⎛1 + ⎞ − 1⎟⎞⎟⎞⎥, and downtime) can be assumed to be substantially the same, regardless
Sa, ZL ⎝ 1−k ⎝⎝ m ⎠ ⎠ ⎠⎦ (2) the building site and neglecting the return period of the seismic event.
⎣
Minor differences are expected due to different criteria in ground mo-
where k0 and k represent the intercept and the slope, respectively, of a tion selection.
line fit to the site hazard curve [11], that can be determined as follow: The structural response and direct loss assessment of the buildings
under consideration were carried out in previous studies [15]. In the
k=
Log ( )
λULS
λ SLS
, next paragraph, the main results of such studies are summarized since
Log ( )
Sa,ULS
Sa,SLS (3)
they are exploited in the heuristic approach for the estimation of
downtime presented in Section 4.
k
k0 = λ SLSSa,SLS , (4)
3.1. Summary of previous studies
where λULS and λSLS are the mean annual frequency of exceeding any
serviceability (SLS) and ultimate (ULS) limit state imposed by the re- A time-based performance assessment of the case-study buildings
ference seismic code, and Sa,SLS and Sa,ULS are the corresponding spec- examined in this paper was performed with PACT [12] to estimate the
tral accelerations at the effective fundamental period of vibration of the expected direct losses due to building repair in the event of an earth-
building (T*). quake. Nine different earthquake intensity levels, with return period TR
Equation (2) can be considered as a practice-oriented tool for a ranging from 30 to 2475 years were considered. For each intensity
large-scale estimation of EALR, which may be very useful for a rapid level, ten ground motion pairs were selected to be compatible (on
seismic performance assessment of a building stock with similar char- average) with given Conditional Mean Spectra [16], considering a
acteristics (e.g. all the residential RC buildings realized in Italy in the suitable M-R-ε (Magnitude-Distance-Epsilon) disaggregation and at-
1950s through to the early 1970s). tenuation relationship deemed appropriate for the city of L’Aquila.
In the present form, the simplified procedure by Cardone et al. [9] Extensive NRHA on accurate lumped-plasticity models [12,14,15] were
provides an estimate of the EAL associated with building repair (EALR) carried out to evaluate the structural response of the building models at
only. The contribution due to downtime (EALD) is neglected. One of the increasing seismic intensity levels. The seismic demand to the building
main goals of this paper is to further develop the proposed simplified was derived considering 500 realizations (for each earthquake intensity
procedure (see Eq. (2)) to incorporate indirect losses related to down- level) generated in PACT through Monte Carlo simulations on the basis
time. of the engineering demand parameters (maximum interstorey drifts and
peak floor accelerations) obtained from NRHA.
3. Case studies Five drift-sensitive Fragility Groups (FGs) were defined in PACT to
account for damageable structural components, which include: external
A set of archetype RC frame buildings with number of storeys ran- beam-column joints, internal beam-column joints, ductile weak col-
ging from four to eight (labeled with 4A, 6A and 8A in Fig. 4) has been umns and brittle weak columns liable to shear failure. For each FG,
examined. The archetype buildings feature 27.0 m × 15.0 m plan di- three repairable damage states were identified, differing in the exten-
mensions and 3.0 m inter-storey height. All the archetype buildings sion and gravity of damage, hence repair actions required to restore the
have the same structural configuration (with internal frames in the long structural component to its pre-earthquake (essentially undamaged)
direction only), with RC columns tapering along the height of the state. Similarly, for damageable non-structural components, six drift-
building. All the buildings feature a dog-leg stair with cantilever steps sensitive and one acceleration-sensitive FGs were defined (exterior
sustained by two stiff ‘flight’ beams. The structural characteristics of the masonry infill walls with and without openings, interior partitions with
archetype buildings (geometric dimensions, reinforcement ratios, and without openings, partition-like non-structural components and
structural details, etc.) have been derived from a simulated design, generic acceleration-sensitive non structural components). For each FG,
considering gravity loads only, according to the technical standard and a set of specific fragility functions was developed by the same authors
state of practice enforced in Italy before ’70s [13]. [17] and then implemented in PACT to relate the levels of drift (or
Cross section dimensions and reinforcement ratios of beams and acceleration) the component will experience during an earthquake to
columns are reported in detail in [14] for each building under con- the probability of that component will attain a certain Damage State
sideration. Steel reinforcement is realized with smooth steel rebars with (DS). Finally, a set of specific consequence functions (loss functions),
end-hooks in the exterior beam-column joints and at the base of the relating the quantity of elements to be repaired with the associated
columns. As far as the strength of materials is concerned, an average repair cost, was used in PACT to estimate expected direct losses.
compression strength of 25 MPa and a yield strength of 325 MPa have Building repair was deemed to be economically and practically not
been assumed for concrete and steel, respectively. Finally, the buildings feasible when residual drifts exceeded 1% [2]. This was taken into
feature external infills made of hollow clay bricks arranged in two account assuming a lognormal residual drift fragility function with

3
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

Fig. 4. Typical layout (plan view, front and lateral views) of the archetype buildings (4A, 6A and 8A).

median value of 1% and dispersion of 0.3 [12]. A repair loss thresholds 4.1. Damage scenarios
equal to the replacement cost of the building (RepC) was assumed, to
impose a cap to the building repair efforts. The Replacement Cost of The starting point for the definition of the damage scenarios re-
each building was estimated based on the current average construction quired for downtime estimation were the results of seismic performance
cost per square meter for new residential buildings with similar volume assessment obtained from previous studies (see paragraph 3.1). In
and characteristics (equal to 730 €/m2 according to CIAMI [18]). In particular, in order to account for the uncertainties associated with the
addition, a cost per cubic meter for demolition and waste disposal of 44 seismic demand imposed to the building, three inter-storey drift and
€/m3 was considered [19]. The building collapse was taken into ac- floor acceleration profiles have been selected for each earthquake in-
count by means of specific collapse fragility functions derived based on tensity level, corresponding to the 16th, 50th and 84th percentiles of
the results of pushover analysis, using the SPO2IDA (Static PushOver to the 500 realizations carried out in PACT.
Incremental Dynamic Analysis) tool provided in PACT, and assuming a The selected drift and acceleration profiles have been used to de-
total dispersion of 0.6. termine the number (percentage) of components of any fragility group
Results from rigorous probabilistic loss assessment with PACT [11] reaching a given DS in any direction of each storey of the building, by
pointed out values of the EAL associated with repair/replacement costs entering the associated fragility functions, as shown in Fig. 5(a). In the
(EALR) ranging from 0.98% RepC (for the building 4A) to 0.72% (for example of Fig. 5(a), valid for masonry infill walls without openings, a
the building 8R). drift value of the order of 1.2% produces a percentage of components
experiencing a DS2 (extensive diagonal cracking) of the order of 28%, a
percentage of components featuring a DS3 (corner crushing) of the
4. Heuristic approach for downtime estimation order of 55% and a percentage of components experiencing a DS4
(collapse) of the order of 12%. There are no elements damaged ac-
In this section, the downtime of the selected case study buildings cording to the DS1 (light cracking).
(4A, 6A and 8A) is evaluated following a heuristic approach, based on For each earthquake intensity level, the collapse fragility curve of
the use of suitable time estimating manuals for civil construction works. the building has been used to derive the probability of collapse and
The heuristic approach under consideration is based on the results of non-collapse, as shown in the example of Fig. 5(b), valid for the 4A
the probabilistic seismic assessment described in Section 3.1. An ap- building model, where a probability of collapse of 44% and a prob-
proximate relationship relating downtime with earthquake intensity ability of non-collapse of 56% is registered for a spectral acceleration of
level is then derived. 0.6 g.
It is anticipated that, strictly speaking, the proposed relationship is
valid only for pre-70 RC frame residential buildings, with character- 4.2. Downtime estimation
istics representative of the construction practice adopted in Italy in the
1950s through to the early 1970s. However, it can be easily extended to Downtime is influenced by many factors, e.g.: building inspection,
other building types following the same heuristic approach. damage assessment, finance planning, professional consultancies, pos-
sible competitive bidding process and, finally, the difficulty and

4
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

Fig. 5. (a) Use of fragility curves for the definition of the damage scenarios (b) probability of collapse and non-collapse for a given earthquake intensity level.

extension of the repair activities needed to return the building to its First of all, the expected replacement time (E[R'T|C,IM]) has been
undamaged state. estimated in terms of man-days unit and then converted in labour days
Usually, two components of downtime are identified, namely: the considering 8 hrs per day working crew, and a number of workers equal
rational component and the irrational component. The former is the to 2 per 50 m2.
period of time needed to complete the building repair activities, from Next, the expected total repair time conditioned on a specific in-
the day in which the activities actually starts until the day when they tensity measure (E[RT|NC,IM]) has been computed with the following
are actually over. The latter (often referred to as mobilization time expression valid for the slow-track repair scheme:
[20]) includes a series of preliminary activities, such as: damage as-
sessment, occupants/activities relocation, bureaucratic issues, requests E [RT |NC , IM ]slow − track = ∑ E [RU⁎ (m)|NC, IM ] + E [CS |NC, IM ],
m (6)
for financing, technical consultation, design of interventions, etc..
Considering the high level of uncertainties, the evaluation of the irra- In Eq. (6), the building repair time (E[RU∗(m)|NC,IM]), measured in
tional component of downtime is considered tricky and sensitive. calendar days from the date on which repair work begun, is calculated
According to Mitrani-Raiser [20], the expected building downtime, by summing up the expected repair times of each operational unit:
for a given hazard level, can be calculated using downtime estimates for
collapse and non-collapse cases. As a consequence, the expected value E [RU* (m)|NC , IM ] = ∑ tr (FGi, DSj)⋅Qr (FGi, DSj),
i, j (7)
of downtime, conditioned on a given intensity measure (IM), can be
expressed as follows: where Qr(FGi,DSj) is the number of components included in the i-th
Fragility Group (FG), located in the m-th operational unit, and featuring
E [Downtime IM ] = E [R′T |C , IM ]⋅P [C|IM ] + E [RT |NC , IM ] the j-th Damage State (DS). Qr(FGi,DSj) has been derived as described in
⋅P [NC|IM ] + E [RT 0 |IM ] + NT ⋅E [RCOT ] (5) the paragraph 4.1, using the EDPs associated with given realizations
(16th, 50th and 84th percentile) and suitable fragility functions for
where: each fragility group. tr(FGi,DSj) represents the total repair time required
to restore the damaged components of the i-th FG to their undamaged
• E[R' |C,IM] represents the expected replacement time needed to
T state, starting from the j-th Damage State.
demolish and rebuild the building in case of severe or extensive The interval of time needed to complete each repair activity has
damage, conditioned on a given IM. Such value can be calculated by been derived from time estimating manuals for civil construction works
summing the demolish time and the reconstruction time; [21]. The total repair time tr(FGi,DSj) has been obtained by combining
• E[RT|NC,IM] represents the expected total repair time conditioned the repair times associated with each activity, also considering the
on the structure not collapsing (NC), conditioned on a given IM; possibility of performing two or more sub-activities in parallel. An ex-
• E[RT0|IM] is the mobilization time conditioned on a certain IM; ample of repair activities and corresponding repair times for different
• NT and E[RCOT] represent the number of change-of-trade and the damage states of External RC beam/column joints and External ma-
average time associated with the change-of-trade delay, respectively sonry infill walls are reported in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
• P[C|IM] and P[NC|IM] represent the probability of collapse and The second term in Eq. (6) represents the construction site time, i.e.
non-collapse conditioned on a given IM, respectively, obtained en- the time needed to assemble and dismantle the construction site. It has
tering the collapse fragility function of the building with the value of been calculated as follows:
IM (like in example see Fig. 5(b)).
E [CS |NC , IM ] = tcs + tes, (8)
For what concerns the expected total repair time (E[RT|NC,IM]),
where tcs represents the time required for material/equipment hand-
considering each floor as an independent operational unit (m), a slow-
ling, installation/removal of access protection, application/removal of
track scheme, in which the operational units are supposed to be re-
curtains against dust, installation/disassembly of work platforms, waste
paired in series, has been assumed as repair strategy in this study.
disposal, etc.; tes represents the time needed to assembly/disassembly
external scaffolding. Both tcs and tes have been derived from Beck et al.
4.2.1. Rational component of downtime [22], and expressed in terms of man-days per floor.
The first two terms of Equation (5) represents the rational compo- Obviously, the repair time depends on the number of workers in-
nent of downtime. volved in the repair activities. In line with the current practice in Italy,

5
 D. Cardone, et al.

Table 1
Damage States, Repair Activities and Repair times for external RC beam/column joints.
Damage state Damage state description Repair activities Unit of Unit of time (min/unit Area/volume Time per element Total time per
measure measure) involved (min) element (hours)

DS1 Light cracking at beam/column-joint interfaces (< 1–1.5 mm), yielding of Floor and screed demolishing m2 14.4 2.25 32.4 7.2
beam rebars. Possible first inclined cracks in EWJ. Plaster removing m2 9 3.7 33.3
Concrete cover removing and m2 12 1.44 17.28
cleaning
Epoxy injection m2 192 0.7 134.4
(cracks < 1.2 mm)
Screed restoring m2 9.6 2.25 21.6
Floor restoring m2 48 2.25 108
Plaster restoring m2 15.6 3.7 57.72
Painting m2 7.3 3.7 27.01

DS2 Severe cracking (≥3–5 mm), often localized at the beam/column-joint Floor and screed demolishing m2 14.4 3 43.2 13.67
interface in a single wide crack. Possible spalling of cover concrete. Plaster removing m2 9 5.1 45.9
Epoxy injection m2 216 1.4 302.4

6
(cracks > 1.2 mm)
Concrete cover removing and m2 12 2 24
cleaning
Concrete patching with mortar m2 57.6 2 115.2
mix
Screed restoring m2 9.6 3 28.8
Floor restoring m2 48 3 144
Plaster restoring m2 15.6 5.1 79.56
Painting m2 7.3 5.1 37.23

DS3 Spalling of cover concrete, possible crushing of concrete at beam/column- Floor and screed demolishing m2 14.4 4 57.6 28.16
joint interface. Possible buckling of column rebars. Plaster removing m2 9 6.7 60.3
Complete element restoringa m2 396 3 1188
Screed restoring m2 9.6 4 38.4
Floor restoring m2 48 4 192
Plaster restoring m2 15.6 6.7 104.52
Painting m2 7.3 6.7 48.91

a
includes concrete restoring with mortar mix, steel jacketing and epoxy injections.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801
 D. Cardone, et al.

Table 2
Damage States, Repair Activities and Repair times for external masonry infills.
Damage state Damage state description Repair activities Unit of Unit of time (min/unit Area/volume Time per element Total time per element
measure measure) involved (min) (hours)

DS1 Separation of the infill from the frame. Light diagonal cracking Ceramic tiles removing m2 13.5 1.9 25.65 6.56
(width < 1 mm) Plaster removing m2 9 3.8 34.2
Fibre-glass reinforcing mesh m2 9.6 3.8 36.48
installation
Ceramic tiles installation m2 27.6 1.9 52.44
Plaster restoring m2 15.6 3.8 59.28
Painting m2 7.3 25.4 185.42

DS2 Extensive diagonal cracking Ceramic tiles removing m2 13.5 3.2 43.2 9.23
(1 mm < width < 2 mm). Plaster removing m2 9 6.3 56.7
Possible failure of brick units. Loosen panel area demolishing m2 16.8 1.27 21.34
Fibre-glass reinforcing mesh m2 9.6 6.3 60.48
installation
Plaster restoring m2 15.6 6.3 98.28

7
Painting m2 7.3 25.4 185.42
Ceramic tiles installation m2 27.6 3.2 88.32

DS3 Corner crushing, Brick spalling, Detachment of large plaster area. Complete panel demolition m2 16.8 12.7 213.36 38.17
Sliding in the mortar joints Panel reconstruction m2 96 12.7 1219.2
Electrical service restoring ml 7.2 4.7 33.84
Hydraulic service restoring ml 13.14 4.7 61.76
Plaster restoring m2 15.6 25.4 396.24
Painting m2 7.3 25.4 185.42
Mopboard installation ml 9 4.7 42.3
Ceramic tiles installation m2 27.6 5 138

DS4 In-plane or out-of-plane collapse Complete panel demolition m2 16.8 12.7 213.36 38.17
Panel reconstruction m2 96 12.7 1219.2
Electrical service restoring ml 7.2 4.7 33.84
Hydraulic service restoring ml 13.14 4.7 61.76
Plaster restoring m2 15.6 25.4 396.24
Painting m2 7.3 25.4 185.42
Mopboard installation ml 9 4.7 42.3
Ceramic tiles installation m2 27.6 5 138
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

two workers per crew and a floor area of 50 m2/crew has been assumed
Repair time + Construction site time
for all the repair activities, except for assembly/disassembly operations
concerning external scaffoldings, for which a ratio of 80 m2/crew/day

273 (4/11/09 to 04/08/10)

has been assumed.

450 (8/11/11 to 31/1/13)

194 (8/2/10 to 20/08/10)

204 (4/3/10 to 23/9/10)

385 (5/3/10 to 24/3/11)

326 (3/3/10 to 22/1/11)

The theoretical values of the rational component of downtime, ob-
tained following the heuristic approach described above, have been
compared to empirical data collected from building contractors in-
volved in repair activities of existing buildings damaged by recent
seismic events. A number of residential buildings, similar to the case
(days)

studies presented in Section 3., in terms of age of construction, struc-

tural scheme and architectural details, have been selected to perform a
meaningful comparison. They include six real RC frame buildings lo-
211 (6/4/09 to 3/11/
307 (6/4/09 to 7/2/

945 (6/4/9 to 7/11/

336 (6/4/09 to 4/3/

330 (6/4/09 to 2/3/

331 6/4/09 to 3/3/

cated in the city of L’Aquila damaged by the seismic event occurred on

Mobilization time

the 6th of April 2009 differing in terms of number of storeys and da-
mage level (hence post-earthquake repair activities).
The main characteristics of the selected real buildings are sum-
(days)

marized in Table 3. The fundamental period of vibration of the build-

10)

10)

10)

10)

09)

11)

ings under consideration has been estimated with the simplified ex-
Empirical data collected from building contractors involved in repair activities of pre-70 RC frame buildings damaged during the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake.

Seismic Isolation + FRP

pression (T* = 0.055H, where H is the height of the building in meters)

proposed in [23] for infilled RC frame buildings designed for gravity
Retrofit Technique

loads only. The seismic intensity level (Sa(T*)) experienced by each

building has been evaluated by entering the 5%-damped response
spectrum of the NS and WE components of the main-shock of the 2009
L’Aquila earthquake (1.32 AM–6/04/2009), and then combining the
FRP

FRP

FRP

FRP

FRP

obtained values with the Square Root of the Sum of Squares (SRSS) rule.
In Table 3, information relevant to the actual repair time for each
Cracking of beam/column joints; diagonal cracks in external joints. Detachment of

Cracking of beam/column joints; diagonal cracks in external joints, mainly at first

external joints. Extensive diagonal cracking and failure of brick units in masonry

Some cracks in structural elements, including corner joints. Diagonal cracking of

damage of non structural elements. Detachment of large plaster area in masonry

building are reported, including: (i) the interval of time needed for
Severe cracking of beam/column joints. Spalling of cover concrete. Extensive
Development of plastic hinges in beams and columns, extensive damage in

Soft-storey mechanism. Collapse of masonry infills at the first storey (B–C)

damage assessment, design process, technical consultation, bureau-

large plaster area and sliding in the mortar joints of masonry infills (B–C)

cratic issues ecc. (i.e. the so-called mobilization time) and (ii) the time
required for construction site and repair activities. A brief description
on the damage scenario observed and main retrofit strategy adopted for
each building is also provided.
In Fig. 6, the results in terms of rational component of downtime
obtained following the proposed heuristic approach are compared with
floor. Extensive damage of masonry infills. (B–C)

the empirical data provided by building contractors. As can be noted

the real data on downtime are in good accordance with those provided
by the heuristic approach followed in this study for downtime estima-
masonry infills of the first storey (B–C)

tion. Indeed, a mean error of the order of 15% is obtained considering

the 50th curve. This discrepancy is probably due to some simplifying
assumptions made within the heuristic approach that are not com-
pletely satisfied in the reality, for instance those concerning the number
of workers actually engaged in a specific repair activity and the choices
Damage description

concerning contemporary (or not simultaneous) repair activities.

Moreover, although the selected real buildings match the general
(Damage Tag)

infills (B–C)

characteristics of the archetype buildings presented in Fig. 4, some

infills (E)

differences in terms of structural and non-structural content are un-

avoidable, which may affect the results.
(sec)

0.68

0.68

1.02

1.02

1.36

1.36
T*

4.2.2. Irrational component of downtime

After a seismic event, before the beginning of repair activities, a
certain time is needed for damage assessment, design calculations,
Construction

contractor bidding, bureaucratic procedures for subsidy assignment etc.

1962–1971

1962–1971

1962–1971

1962–1971

1962–1971

1962–1971

This time delay is called mobilization time (E[RT0|IM] in Eq. (5)). It is

Age of

easy to understand that, due to the uncertainties affecting the problem,

a deterministic evaluation of mobilization time is not possible.
(number)

In accordance with the ATC-20 guidelines [24], the mobilization

Storeys

time can be roughly estimated based on the global damage state of the
building, defining three tags (green, yellow and red) related to the
4

damage level (from low to severe) of the building. The ATC-20 guide-
Long (°)

13.37

13.37

13.41

13.41

13.41

13.40

lines define a “virtual inspector” which is a useful tool to evaluate the

probability for a building to be tagged in one of the three mentioned
Lat (°)

states. This probability is determined considering only the damage level

42.35

42.36

42.36

42.36

42.35

42.34

of the structural components:

Table 3

ID

8
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

Fig. 6. Comparison between estimates obtained from the proposed heuristic approach and empirical data provided by building contractors for (a) 4-, (b) 6- and (c) 8-
storey buildings (see Table 3).

P (TAGR |NC , IM ) = P (C|IM ) + P [severestructdamage (NC|IM )] respectively.

The significant difference between the mobilization time associated
⋅P (NC|IM ) (9)
with yellow and red tag (equal to 620 days) can be ascribed to the fund
P (TAGY |NC , IM ) = P [moderatestructdamage (NC|IM )]⋅P (NC|IM ) allocation policy usually adopted in Italy in the post-earthquake re-
construction. Indeed, public funds are allocated based on the actual
(10)
damage condition of the building, as detected during the on-site us-
P (TAGG |NC , IM ) = P [lightornostructdamage (NC|IM )]⋅P (NC|IM ) (11) ability assessment carried out in the aftermath of an earthquake, in
which a tag (from A to E) is attached to identify the damage level of
The total probability theorem can be used to evaluate the total ex- each building. Priority is given to partially or temporarily condemned
pected mobilization time conditioned on the building safety-tagging buildings (tags B–C), which represent the majority of the buildings
results of the virtual inspector: listed in Table 3. The building n. 6, instead, was tagged with E (con-
demned building). As a result, it required a longer time for the begin-
E [RTO NC , IM ] = E [RTO TAGG]⋅P (TAGG |NC , IM ) + E [RTO TAGY ]
ning of the rehabilitation works.
⋅P (TAGY |NC , IM ) + E [RTO TAGR]⋅P (TAGR |NC , IM ) Obviously, different choices regarding the fund allocation policy
(12) and/or the repair priority criterion adopted in the post-earthquake re-
construction may produce different results in terms of downtime. This
Mitrani-Reiser [20] suggests values of 10, 30 and 180 days for E
is, for instance, the case in which insurance companies are involved in
[RT0|TAGG], E[RT0|TAGY] and E[RT0|TAGR], respectively. Herein, the
the post-earthquake reconstruction.
statistics proposed in the ATC-20 have been revised and adjusted to the
As shown in the following, this assumption (which is based on the
Italian framework, where post-earthquakes reconstruction is partially
empirical data of a single recent earthquake in Italy) significantly af-
or totally financed by the Government. In such circumstances, indeed,
fects the results in terms of downtime. Further studies aimed at in-
the mobilization time can result considerably longer, compared to that
vestigating the many situations and factors influencing the irrational
experienced in the US, due to the long bureaucratic procedures for
component of downtime are then desirable for a comprehensive eva-
subsidy assignment. For that reason, specific values of mobilization
luation.
time (suitable for Italy) have been derived based on data collected from
It should be noted that the last term in Eq. (5) represents a further
building’s contractors involved in the seismic reconstruction after the
irrational component of downtime. Indeed, NT is the number of change-
2009 L’Aquila earthquake [25]. Consequently, E[RT0|TAGY] and E
of-trade in the repairing unit m, and E[RCOT] represents the average
[RT0|TAGR] have been assumed equal to 340 days and 960 days,

9
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

Table 4 5. Incorporating indirect losses in simplified procedures for EAL

50th percentile values of downtime. estimation
Case study Downtime Earthquake intensity level
component IM1 IM2 IM3 IM4 IM5 IM6 IM7 IM8 IM9 A damaged building that needs to be repaired implies different in-
(days) direct losses. For a residential building, the main sources of indirect
4A Rational 45 74 81 110 125 138 171 208 179 losses are due to relocation of building occupants and apartment rentals
Irrational 24 26 30 41 58 96 266 447 976
Total 69 100 111 151 184 234 437 655 1155
(lost of earning for the building owners or monthly expense for renters
6A Rational 63 113 125 147 184 200 262 312 281 with condemned buildings).
Irrational 26 32 43 35 77 96 320 504 976 In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, building occupants
Total 89 144 168 183 262 296 581 816 1257 are usually accommodated in hotels at subsized rates. Subsequently,
8A Rational 66 105 156 162 197 259 338 428 372
building occupants of condemned buildings move to a “long term” ac-
Irrational 32 34 34 43 62 110 243 454 976
Total 97 138 189 205 260 369 581 882 1348 commodation (e.g. a new apartment or temporary prefabricated
houses). Herein, the following assumptions have been made based on
the experience of the L’Aquila earthquake [25]: (i) building occupants
time associated with the change-of-trade delay, herein assumed equal are accommodated in hotels for no more than 90 days at an average
to two weeks [20]. accommodation cost of 40 €/room/day; (ii) average rental rate (Crental)
equal to 0.12€/m2/day (source ISTAT); (iii) average building occu-
pancy ratio of 1.4 persons/100 m2 (source ISTAT) (iv) relocation cost
4.3. Results (i.e. the cost subsided by the Government for a new long-term accom-
modation), equal to Crental normalized by the building occupancy ratio
The 50th percentile values of downtime for the archetype buildings (i.e. 8.5 €/person/day). Obviously, the aforesaid assumptions are af-
presented in Section 3. are summarized in Table 4. In the same table, fected by a high level of uncertainty. For example, the number of
the rational and irrational components of downtime are also reported. It building occupants that effectively go in hotel or in a new apartment is
is worth noting that in many cases, in particular when the severity and generally lower than the total number of building occupants (Nocc),
extent of damage is particularly high, the demolition and replacement because some of them may be hosted by relatives or move to their
of the damaged building may result faster than repairing. Table 4 points second house. Similarly, the relocation time in the immediate aftermath
out that for the highest earthquake intensity level. This is the case of of the earthquake depends on several factors, varying from a few days
IM9 (see last column of Table 4), where a collapse condition is achieved to many weeks. All that considered, two different scenarios have been
for all the selected case-study buildings. In that case, the collapse defined. In the first scenario (“Lower Bound condition”), it has been
condition is achieved for case-studies 4A, 6A and 8A. In that case, the assumed that only 2/3 of the building occupants are effectively ac-
rational component of downtime has been assumed equal to the Re- commodated in a hotel and successively relocated in a “long term”
placement Time (RepT) of the building while the irrational component accommodation using Government support subsidies. Moreover, in this
has been calculated considering the mobilization time associated with case, an hotel accommodation period equal to 45 days has been con-
the “red Tag”. As can be seen, a significant increase of downtime is sidered in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. On the other
obtained passing from 4- to 8-storey buildings. The rational component hand, in the second scenario (“Upper Bound condition”), it has been
of downtime is predominant for low to moderate earthquake intensity assumed that all the building occupants are relocated and a hotel ac-
levels (IM1 to IM6), exceeding 70% of the total. For the highest seismic commodation period equal to 90 days has been considered.
intensities, the importance of the rational component progressively In this study, the following rule of thumb has been adopted to
reduces: it is around 50% for IM7, between 30 and 45% for IM8 and it combine the aforesaid costs:
does not exceed 25% for IM9.
Fig. 7 shows the downtime vs. earthquake intensity level relation- E [indirect loss IM ] = Crelocation⋅Nocc⋅E [downtime IM ] + Crental ⋅Atot
ships corresponding to the 16th, 50th and 84th percentile values of ⋅E [downtime IM ] (13)
downtime. The dashed line shown in Fig. 7 represents the replacement
time, which expresses the number of days needed to demolish and re- where E[downtime|IM] is the expected value of downtime computed
built the building with the same characteristics. The replacement time with Eq. (5), Nocc is the number of building occupants, Atot the total
has been estimated assuming a rate of 25 m2/worker and 8 hrs/day/ leasable building area (in squared meters), Crental is the average rental
crew. rate and Crelocation the relocation cost.
The contribution of different components of downtime (50th per- Once downtime has been monetized for each IM, the corresponding
centile values), for different earthquake intensity levels, is shown in Indirect Loss Factor (ILF) has been derived dividing E[indirect loss|IM]
Fig. 8 for the 8A case-study building. As expected, the contributions by the Replacement Cost of the building. At this point, each value of ILF
associated with the demolition and reconstruction of the building (re- has been associated with the corresponding Mean Annual Frequency of
placement time in Fig. 8), as well as the contribution relevant to the Exceedance (MAFE) derived from the hazard curve of the building site.
mobilization time, increase with the earthquake intensity level. On the Finally, the Expected Annual Loss due to Downtime (EALD) has been
other hand, the construction site time remains almost constant (and evaluated computing the area underneath the ILF vs. MAFE curve [7].
quite negligible compared to the other components) while increasing One may note that the selected set of seismic intensities (with return
the seismic intensity level. period ranging from 30 to 2475 years) does not cover the entire range
It is worth noting that component-based consequence functions re- of possible seismic intensities. However, it should be observed that the
lated to downtime can be easily derived by disaggregating, for each DS contribution of lower intensities (Tr < 30 years) can be neglected
and fragility group, the total downtime estimates obtained for the entire considering the minor damage expected for such intensities. Similarly,
building. The consequence functions thus obtained can be implemented the contribution of higher intensities (Tr > 2475 years) can be ne-
in PACT for probabilistic seismic performance assessment of specific glected considering the relatively low probability of exceedance
buildings. (MAFE) of such intensities.
The expected indirect losses conditioned on the seismic intensity are
summarized in Table 5 for each case study building. In Table 6, the
values of EAL due to downtime (EALD) are compared to the EAL values
due to repair/replacement (EALR) for each case study. As can be seen,

10
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

Fig. 7. 16th, 50th and 84th percentile values of downtime vs earthquake intensity level.

Table 5
Expected indirect losses conditioned on seismic intensity for each case-study
building, Lower Bound and Upper Bound conditions.
Case IM Replacement Replacement cost E[Indirect E[Indirect
Study time (days) (€) losses|IM] losses|IM]
Lower Upper Bound
Bound (€)
(€)

4A 1 179 927,655 € 21,746 € 46,857 €

2 29,859 € 53,387 €
3 32,673 € 56,369 €
4 43,214 € 70,127 €
5 51,728 € 82,835 €
6 64,858 € 102,431 €
7 117,795 € 181,441 €
8 174,778 € 266,491 €
9 301,598 € 450,146 €
Fig. 8. Downtime contributions for different seismic intensity levels (8A
building). 6A 1 281 1,391,843 € 40,398 € 76,865 €
2 62,138 € 101,186 €
3 71,666 € 115,407 €
the contribution of EALD to the total expected annual loss (EALT) is 4 77,279 € 123,785 €
significant, ranging (on average) from 22% to 34% for the case studies 5 108,161 € 169,878 €
under considerations. 6 121,603 € 189,940 €
7 233,432 € 356,848 €
The results of this study clearly points out that indirect losses play a
8 325,295 € 493,958 €
significant role in the definition of the EAL. As a consequence, they 9 492,470 € 735,030 €
should be not neglected in any seismic loss assessment procedure or
cost-benefit analysis. The relative importance of EALD is expected to 8A 1 372 1,855,311 € 58,408 € 109,046 €
2 79,833 € 130,411 €
further increase for buildings with different destination of use (e.g.
3 106,528 € 170,254 €
office, school, hospital, etc.). 4 114,860 € 182,691 €
Fig. 9(a) shows the normalized spectral acceleration versus nor- 5 143,110 € 224,855 €
malized indirect loss relationships for the case study buildings ex- 6 200,291 € 310,199 €
amined in this study. For the sake of brevity, in Fig. 9(a) reference to 7 310,949 € 475,359 €
8 468,471 € 710,467 €
the “Lower Bound condition” has been made. Indirect losses are nor-
9 704,404 € 1,051,349 €
malized by the replacement cost of the building (RepC). Similarly,
spectral accelerations are normalized by the corresponding value at the
Zero Loss limit state (Sa,ZL(T*), see Section 2). The latter has been es- As can be seen in Fig. 9(a), all the curves show a substantially linear
timated by response spectrum analysis of the infilled model of each trend. Assuming no indirect losses for the Zero Loss limit state, a re-
building. gression line fitting the available data is drawn, as shown in Fig. 9(b).

11
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

Table 6 estimation presented in Cardone et al. [11] (see Fig. 3) to account for
Expected Annual Loss due to repair/replacement costs (EALR), downtime monetary loss due to downtime.
(EALD) and total Expected Annual Loss (EALT) for each case-study building, This could represent an important refinement of the simplified
Lower bound and Upper bound conditions. procedure under consideration. However, further studies are needed to
Building EALD, EALD, EALR EALT, EALT, validate and further substantiate the proposed relationship based on the
Lower Upper bound (%RepC) Lower bound Upper bound results of comprehensive parametric analyses, involving more case
bound (%RepC) (%RepC) (%RepC) studies, buildings sites and soil conditions, as well as a significant
(%RepC)
amount of experimental data derived in the post-earthquake re-
4A 0.17% 0.29% 0.98% 1.15% 1.27% construction of past seismic events.
6A 0.22% 0.36% 0.81% 1.03% 1.17%
8A 0.24% 0.38% 0.68% 0.92% 1.06% 6. Conclusions and further developments

The probabilistic seismic performance assessment of existing

buildings appear extremely tricky and computationally demanding for
practitioners, considering that nonlinear structural analyses at multiple
seismic intensity levels are required to evaluate the seismic demand
imposed to the building. Moreover, a set of specific tools (including
fragility and consequence functions) are needed to convert seismic
demand into seismic damage, hence expected losses.
In the last years, some authors have started proposing simplified
procedures for the estimation of some performance indicators such as
the so-called Expected Annual Loss (EAL), which represent the amount
one could expect to pay, on average, every year to cope with earth-
quake damage, considering different sources of uncertainties.
Currently available simplified procedures for the estimation of the
EAL focuses the attention on the costs associated with building repair/
replacement (direct losses), while neglecting the contribution due to
indirect losses (associated with downtime) and casualty estimates.
In this paper, a heuristic approach for the estimation of downtime
has been applied to three case-study buildings representative of typical
Italian pre-70 residential RC frame buildings. The rational component
of downtime has been evaluated based on the results of probabilistic
seismic loss assessment analyses, using suitable time estimating man-
uals for civil construction works. On the other hand, the irrational
component of downtime has been derived from empirical data relevant
to post-earthquake reconstruction in Italy. Finally, downtime has been
monetized (based on rational criteria) in the attempt to derive an ap-
proximate relationship relating indirect losses to earthquake intensity
measure to be incorporated in the closed-form equation simplified ap-
proach for the EAL estimation proposed in Cardone et al. [11].
The results of this study emphasize the importance of indirect losses
(due to downtime), compared to direct losses (due to repair/replace-
ment costs), in the evaluation of the EAL of the selected building type.
The relative importance of the EAL component associated with down-
time is expected to increase for buildings with different destination of
use (e.g. offices, schools, hospitals, etc.).
The downtime estimation is characterized by many sources of un-
certainty which affect, in particular, the irrational component of
downtime. In fact, the latter can be significantly influenced by un-
predictable factors, which are not necessarily related to the seismic
intensity of the earthquake or the building damage level. For instance,
the mobilization time of a slightly damaged building may considerably
increase due to the precautionary closure of some area (e.g. a neigh-
borhood or the historic center of a city) imposed by the authorities for
safety reasons (i.e. indirect risks imposed by highly damaged adjacent
buildings, etc.), as happened in L’Aquila (Italy, 2009) and Christchurch
(New Zealand, 2010–2011), just to mention some well-known recent
Fig. 9. (a) Normalized indirect loss vs spectral acceleration curves and (b)
proposed indirect loss model for the use in the simplified procedure for EAL
examples. Moreover, the irrational component of downtime may be
estimation by Cardone et al. [8]. strongly influenced by the bureaucratic issues involved in the damage
assessment phase carried out by public authorities or insurance com-
panies. Similarly, when the allocation of funds for the post-earthquake
The regression equation and the R-squared (R2) statistic are also re-
reconstruction is managed by the Government (like in Italy), the mo-
ported. As can be seen, a value of R2 greater than 0.9 is found, thus
bilization time may be strongly influenced by the policy and priority
confirming the consistency and accuracy of the proposed linear re-
criterion adopted.
gression. The main advantage of the proposed linear relationship is that
All that considered, it is clear that further studies on these topics are
it can be directly incorporated in the simplified procedure for the EAL
desirable. Future research shall include examination of real case-study

12
D. Cardone, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126 (2019) 105801

buildings (considering also different building types and destinations of 1002/eqe.2216.

use) and benchmarking with experimental data. [9] Welch DP, Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM. Developing direct displacement-based procedures
for simplified loss assessment in performance-based earthquake engineering. J
Earthq Eng 2014;18(2):290–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.
Acknowledgments 851046.
[10] Solberg KM, Dhakal RP, Mander JB, Bradley BA. Computational and rapid expected
annual loss estimation methodologies for structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
This work has been carried out within the line 7 of the ReLUIS/DPC 2008;37:81–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.746.
2014–2018 research program, dealing with displacement-based ap- [11] Cardone D, Sullivan TJ, Gesualdi G, Perrone G. Simplified estimation of the ex-
proaches for the evaluation of seismic losses of buildings. The authors pected annual loss of reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2893.
gratefully acknowledge the support of the RELUIS consortium for this [12] Cardone D, Perrone G. Developing fragility curves and loss functions for masonry
research. infill walls. Earthq Struct 2015;9(1):257–79.
[13] Regio Decreto. Norme per la esecuzione delle opere in conglomerato cementizio
semplice od armato. Gazzetta Ufficiale del Regno di Italia 16/11/1939. N.092. (in
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Italian).
[14] Cardone D, Gesualdi G, Perrone G. Cost- benefit analysis of alternative retrofit
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// strategies for RC frame buildings. J Earthq Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105801. 13632469.2017.1323041.
[15] Cardone D, Perrone G. Damage and loss assessment of pre-70 RC frame buildings
with FEMA P-58. J Earthq Eng 2017;21(1):23–61.
References [16] Baker JW. Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct
Eng 2011;137(3):322–31.
[17] Cardone D. Fragility curves and loss functions for RC structural components with
[1] Comerio MC. Estimating downtime in loss modelling. Earthq Spectra smooth rebars. Earthq Struct 2016;10(5):1181–212.
2006;22(2):349–65. [18] CIAMI. Collegio degli ingegneri e degli architetti di Milano. Prezzi tipologie edilizie.
[2] ATC - Applied Technology Council. Next-generation seismic performance assess- Roma, Italy: Edit by DEI; 2014. p. 500. [in Italian].
ment for buildings. FEMA P-58. Methodology, vol. 1. Washington, D.C: Federal [19] Bassi A. Costi per tipologie edilizie. La valutazione economica dei progetti in fase
Emergency Management Agency; 2012. preliminare. Maggioli. Italy: Santarcangelo di Romagna [RN]; 2014. p. 336. [in
[3] ATC - Applied Technology Council. Next-generation seismic performance assess- Italian].
ment for buildings. FEMA P-58. Implementation guide, vol. 2. Washington, D.C: [20] Mitrani-Reiser J. An ounce of prevention: probabilistic loss estimation for perfor-
Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2012. mance-based earthquake engineering PHD Thesis California Institute of technology;
[4] Krawinkler H, Zareian F, Medina RA, Ibarra LF. Decision support for conceptual 2007
performance-based design. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35(1):115–33https://doi. [21] Grosso L. Tempario per opere edili civili. Il sole 2007;24. [in italian)].
org/10.1002/eqe.536. [22] Beck J, Kiremidjian A, Wilkie S, Mason A, Salmon T, Goltz J, Olson R, Workman J,
[5] Calvi GM, Sullivan TJ, Welch DP. A seismic performance classification framework to Irfanoglu A, Porter K. Decision support tools for earthquake recovery of businesses.
provide increased seismic resilience. Perspect Eur Earthq Eng Seismol CUREE-Kajima joint research program. 1999. Phase III.
2014;34(11):361–400https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07118-3_11. [23] Masi A, Vona M. Estimation of the period of vibration of existing RC building types
[6] Asprone D, Jalayer F, Simonelli S, Acconcia A, Prota A, Manfredi G. Seismic in- based on experimental data and numerical results. NATO science for peace and
surance model for the Italian residential building stock. Struct Saf 2013;44:70–9. security series C environmental security. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.06.001. [24] ATC - Applied Technology Council. ATC-20 guidelines. Procedures for post-earth-
[7] Calvi GM. Choices and criteria for seismic strengthening. J Earthq Eng quake safety evaluation of buildings. 1995. California, US.
2013;17(6):769–802. [25] Reluis Consorzio. Libro bianco sulla ricostruzione privata fuori dai centri storici nei
[8] Ramirez CM, Liel AB, Mitrani‐Reiser J, Haselton CB, Spear AD, Steiner J, Deierlein comuni colpiti dal sisma dell'Abruzzo del 6 aprile 2009. Doppiavoce8889972505;
GG, Miranda E. Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete 2015.
frame buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41:1455–75. https://doi.org/10.

13