See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326209029

Repair Cost and Downtime Seismic Vulnerability Assessment for RC School

Buildings

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

2 758

5 authors, including:

Luis E. Yamin Raul Rincon

Los Andes University (Colombia) Rice University
96 PUBLICATIONS 1,440 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 161 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rafael Fernández Juan C. Reyes

University College London Los Andes University (Colombia)
15 PUBLICATIONS 78 CITATIONS 127 PUBLICATIONS 1,382 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Raul Rincon on 05 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Eleventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Integrating Science, Engineering & Policy
June 25-29, 2018
Los Angeles, California

REPAIR COST AND DOWNTIME SEISMIC

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR RC
SCHOOL BUILDINGS
L. E. Yamin1, J. R. Rincón2, R. I. Fernández3, A. P. García3 and J. C.
Reyes1

ABSTRACT

The primary goal of vulnerability assessment is to evaluate the seismic performance of buildings
typologies in terms of the expected damage. New approaches of the risk assessment are inquiring the
quantification of the recovery time related to the seismic performance of buildings. Stakeholders are
encouraging academic researchers to develop reliable methodologies which can be used in resilience
assessment of the school infrastructure after a disaster. In this paper, a methodology to evaluate the
building expected losses and downtime performance subjected to strong motions is presented. To
illustrate the methodological approach a 2-story RC frame building, representative of the 25% of the
public schools in Peru, is selected as a case study. Accurate nonlinear computational analysis and
rigorous methodologies accounting for uncertainties are implemented. The methodology is based on a
probabilistic component-based perspective in which fragility for components are adopted and modified
from the FEMA P-58. Monte Carlo technique is used for integrating uncertainties in the hazard
analysis, the model response, component damage states and repair cost and repair time fragilities.
Damage is calculated for each simulation and then is normalized by the replacement cost to obtain the
vulnerability functions. Downtime is estimated based on a prioritization scheme for repair works,
sequence of activities and impeding factors for each simulation. Total downtime is normalized by a
reference time estimated for total reconstruction of the building. Finally repair cost and downtime
vulnerability functions are proposed to develop probabilistic risk assessment. Using the inventory of
educational buildings in Peru and downtime vulnerability functions, expected annual losses and
expected annual downtime are estimated. These parameters provide innovative and valuable
information for risk mitigation and disaster response strategies.

1
Associate professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá , Colombia (email:
[email protected])
2
Instructor, Dept. of Civil Engineering Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

Yamin LE, Rincón JR, Fernández RI, Garcia AP, Reyes JC. Probabilistic seismic vulnerability and downtime
assessment for RC school buildings. Proceedings of the 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA. 2018.
 Repair Cost and Downtime Seismic Vulnerability Assessment for RC
School Buildings
L. E. Yamin1, J. R. Rincón2, R. I. Fernández3, A. P. García3 and J. C. Reyes1

ABSTRACT
The primary goal of vulnerability assessment is to evaluate the seismic performance of buildings
typologies in terms of the expected damage. New approaches of the risk assessment are inquiring
the quantification of the recovery time related to the seismic performance of buildings. Stakeholders
are encouraging academic researchers to develop reliable methodologies which can be used in
resilience assessment of the school infrastructure after a disaster. In this paper, a methodology to
evaluate the building expected losses and downtime performance subjected to strong motions is
presented. To illustrate the methodological approach a 2-story RC frame building, representative of
the 25% of the public schools in Peru, is selected as a case study. Accurate nonlinear computational
analysis and rigorous methodologies accounting for uncertainties are implemented. The
methodology is based on a probabilistic component-based perspective in which fragility for
components are adopted and modified from the FEMA P-58. Monte Carlo technique is used for
integrating uncertainties in the hazard analysis, the model response, component damage states and
repair cost and repair time fragilities. Damage is calculated for each simulation and then is
normalized by the replacement cost to obtain the vulnerability functions. Downtime is estimated
based on a prioritization scheme for repair works, sequence of activities and impeding factors for
each simulation. Total downtime is normalized by a reference time estimated for total reconstruction
of the building. Finally repair cost and downtime vulnerability functions are proposed in order to
develop probabilistic risk assessment. Using the inventory of educational buildings in Peru and
downtime vulnerability functions, expected annual losses and expected annual downtime are
estimated. These parameters provide innovative and valuable information for risk mitigation and
disaster response strategies.

Introduction

Disaster risk management is nowadays a key issue for national and local governments. Recent
catastrophes have demonstrated that it worthwhile investing in prevention and mitigation
activities, as opposed to emergency response [1]. Additionally, enhancing resilience of the
communities has become one of the key issues in risk reduction plans [2]. This consternation and
raised importance in the government policies have started with the observation of the undesired
collapses of buildings in essential facilities such as schools and hospitals during past earthquakes.
Some recent examples are the earthquakes occurred in Mexico (Mw7.1, 2017), Turkey (Mw6.4,
2003) and Nazca (Mw7.7, 2001) [3]–[5].

The reconnaissance of the eventual great impact of earthquakes in the development by

governments, communities and, in general, stakeholders is needed to promote the safety and
resilience of the infrastructure. In recent years more and more attention has been given to these
important aspects of any mitigation plan. However, a lot of concern still exists in how to improve
the communication and interaction between stakeholders in order to reach the common objective
of reducing social impacts, physical damage to infrastructure and disruption time of critical
systems during and after seismic events [6], [7]. Seismic risk assessment should include improved
engineering techniques which permits the quantification of, not only the expected damages and
economic costs, but also the estimation of the recovery time of critical components and systems
such as the educational, health, communications, energy, water distribution, transportation and
others. Performance based earthquake engineering techniques (PBEE) [8], turns out to be a key
methodological approach in order to estimate the abovementioned factors. Different frameworks
have been proposed for damage quantification and its representation by means of fragility curves
(probability to reach a certain limits states given a seismic intensity parameter) [9]–[11] or
vulnerability curves (damage ratio and the associated uncertainty given an intensity parameter)
[9], [12]–[14]. For downtime, frameworks have been developed to quantify the full recovery time
for particular buildings [2], [7], [15] as a function of a certain intensity parameter, IP.

This paper presents a methodological approach for the seismic vulnerability assessment of
RC schools buildings in terms of repair costs and downtimes. The methodology is partially based
in previous studies [12], [16], where vulnerability functions have been proposed for typical
buildings characterized by a set of unique geometric, design and behavioral parameters (archetype
buildings). For each seismic intensity level, the level of damage and a repair time is estimated for
each individual component of the building. With this an integral work schedule is proposed taking
into considerations practical aspects and common constructions practices in the local area where
the assessment is to be conducted. To illustrate the methodology, a study case is selected consisting
in one of the most typical configuration of RC framed school’s buildings found in Latin American
countries. This especial case requires particular considerations for the calculation of downtimes
because it presents particular failure mechanism which may require a total reconstruction process
generating important delays in the recovery time of the scholar infrastructure after big earthquakes.

Probabilistic Component-Based Vulnerability and Downtime Assessment

In this paper, Yamin et. al [12] probabilistic component-based methodology is modified in order
to evaluate and integrate the expected physical damage and downtime for a building given an
intensity parameter. The methodology adopts and modify the component fragilities specifications
from FEMA P-58 [17]. The downtime is computed using some modifications proposed by García
[18] in order to take into account the prioritization of reparation, workers availability after the
earthquakes, the impeding factors (adopted from Merrifield and Almufti [2]) and a detailed repair
schedule for full recovery of functionality. The general methodology incorporates the uncertainties
in the hazard, in model response, in the damage states and the variation of costs and times of repair.
Also it considers the residual drifts as a controlling parameter for the definition of collapses or
significant losses [19], [20]. The proposed methodological approach is summarized in Fig. 1.

As result of the proposed methodological approach both repair cost and downtime
vulnerability functions are generated. With these functions, a probabilistic seismic risk assessment
can be developed in terms of repair costs and downtimes. These risk metrics are required to
compare mitigation options and establish prioritization criteria. In this case, both the expected
annual loss (EAL) and the expected annual downtime (EAD) can be computed. To perform the
probabilistic seismic risk assessment, the CAPRA platform is used [6], [13].

Risk parameters proposed are the expected annual losses (EAL) and the expected annual
downtime (EAD). Each one of these parameters are calculated using the following equation:
 𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

𝐸𝐴𝐿 = ∑ E⁡(𝑃|𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖 ) ∙ 𝐹𝐴 (𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖 ) (1)

𝑖=1
𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

𝐸𝐴𝐷 = ∑ E⁡(𝐷|𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖 ) ∙ 𝐹𝐴 (𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖 ) (2)

𝑖=1

where E(P | Eventi) and E(D | Eventi) are the expected value of the losses, P, or downtime,
D, given that event i occurs and FA(Eventi) is the annual occurrence frequency of event i [6].

Building Downtime
Select model considering:
records for -Impeding Factors
nonlinear -Repair Schedule
analysis Engineering Integration of -Available workers
Model component
demand probabilistic
and fragility
parameters results considering
curves definition Building repair cost
Model from IDAs uncertainties
model considering:
geometry and -Total repair costs
nonlinear -Residual drifts
definition -Maximum accepted
losses by the owner

Figure 1. Proposed methodological approach (modified from Yamin et.al [12])

Case study
Building description
The application of the methodology requires the definition of an archetype building which is
defined as a representative building model representing the behavior of a collection of buildings
with similar expected seismic behavior. In this case the selected building corresponds to the RC
framed 2-story building constructed between 1985 and 1998 in Perú for school buildings. These
buildings are locally known as 780PRE buildings. They were built before the Peruvian’s seismic
code update in 1997. Given the insufficient requirements of this particular code version, these
buildings presents excessive horizontal flexibility and do not exhibit proper ductility levels. [1],
[21]. Different researches have worked in the quantification of the overall behavior of these
facilities [1], [4], [22]. Generally, they concluded that the columns were not designed to withstand
the shear stresses expected to be imposed by design level earthquakes, causing shear failures and
brittle behavior. Such structural response should be avoided as it does not allow an evacuation of
the occupants and the probability of collapses increases [21]. This was reflected in recent
earthquakes where shear failure appears because of the presence of captive columns [3]. Moreover,
recent vulnerability assessments in similar index buildings [23], have identified a fragile collapse
mechanism for this building typology.

The building contains 6 classrooms (3 per story) separated by confined masonry walls.
Lateral force resisting systems consist in RC frames, for longitudinal direction, and confined
masonry walls, fir transverse direction. The typical front and rear view is shown in Fig. 2. The
foundation is formed by strip footings below the masonry walls and isolated footings below the
columns. Detailing information was obtained from the original drawings received from recent
seismic risk projects [1]. From the drawings, it was observed that a seismic gap between façade
walls and columns was not proposed.

(a) (b)
Figure 2. 3D model representation of 780PRE buildings

Analysis considerations
To have a reference evaluation for the damage and downtime, it was decided to evaluate the
seismic performance of the 780PRE building with two different considerations: a) Building with
presence of captive columns (780PRE-CC), and b) Building without captive columns problem
(780PRE-OC). In both cases, and for illustrative purposes, only the longitudinal direction was
evaluated. To characterize the behavior of the structures, a non-linear model is developed in
Perform 3D software [24]. Fig. 3 presents the models and its fundamental period in the longitudinal
direction. The model consists in a tri-dimensional model with concentrated plasticity in RC frames,
for flexural and shear behavior, and axial hinges for masonry parapet walls. RC frames model
considered strength loss [25], cyclic degradation, global and local p-delta effects, rigid zones in
beams and columns connections, rigid diaphragms in all the stories and pre-cracking conditions
(cracked inertias). Nonlinear parameters were obtained from ASCE 41-13[25].

Typical loads obtained from ASCE 7-10 [26] and Peru’s Seismic Design Code [27] are
used. Super dead load (considering finishing’s and ceiling) is 100 kg/m2 and live loads considered
were 250⁡kg/m2 and 400 kg/m2 , for classroom and corridor areas. As recommended by ASCE 7,
a 25% of the total live load was considered for time history analysis.

(a) T1=0.45 sec (b) T1=0.23 sec

Figure 3. Perform 3D models for 780PRE buildings: (a) 780PRE-OC and (b) 780PRE-CC.

Records selection
A total of 18 ground motions are selected to represent the seismic conditions of the Peruvian’s
territory. General information of the seismic events and elastic acceleration response spectra is
shown in Fig. 4. Recommendations for the input motion selection process were used from
references [12], [28]. Input motions are obtained from the PEER database [28].
 Year Event Mw Station Elastic acceleration response spectra (ζ=5%)
1971 San Fernando 6.61 Pearblossom Pump
1979 Imperial Valley 6.53 Parachute Test Site
1984 Morgan Hill 6.19 Gilroy - Gavilan Coll.
1984 Morgan Hill 6.19 Gilroy Array #6
1986 N. Palm Springs 6.06 Fun Valley
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 APEEL 7 - Pulgas
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Anderson Dam (Downstream)
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Fremont - Mission San Jose
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Gilroy - Gavilan Coll.
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Gilroy Array #6
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Monterey City Hall
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 SF - Diamond Heights
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Saratoga - Aloha Ave
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 UCSC Lick Observatory
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Yerba Buena Island
1992 Landers 7.28 Yermo Fire Station
1994 Northridge 6.69 Lake Hughes #1
1994 Northridge 6.69 Littlerock - Brainard Can
Figure 4. Elastic acceleration response spectra (𝜁 = 5%) for selected records.

Performance and Engineering Demand Parameters

Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) is performed to obtain the engineering demand parameters
(EDP) of the archetype buildings. Each record was scaled linearly using the first mode spectral
acceleration (Sa(T1)) ranging from 0.02g to 2.00g, for a total of 100 scaled motions per record.
EDPs selected for the vulnerability and downtime analysis are the roof drift (Δ𝑟𝑑 ), peak interstory
drift ratio (Δ𝑖𝑑𝑟 ), story acceleration (a𝑖𝑎 ) and residual drift (Δ𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑟 ). These EDP are selected for
damage correlation between overall response and components fragilities [17]. Collapse is
presumed when the model presents numerical instability or reaches a collapse mechanism (either
by flexural or shear behavior) or when the horizontal maximum lateral roof drift presents
considerable high additional values for low increments in the seismic intensity. It must be noted
that overall overestimation in collapse intensity parameter can be presented given computational
limitations [12].

Seismic Performance
IDAs results for the structures under analysis with the selected EDP are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
These results demonstrate that buildings without presence of captive columns (780PRE-OC)
presents a ductile collapse mechanism while 780PRE-CC presents a very fragile collapse
mechanism. However, it should be noted that the T1 is different for each building (see Fig. 3). For
this reason, the Sa(T1) is also different and the figures must not be compared directly.

a) b) c)
Figure 5. Representative IDA curves for 780PRE-CC: (a) Δ𝑟𝑑 vs Sa(T1)/g, (b) Δ𝑖𝑑𝑟 vs Sa(T1)/g
and (c) Δ𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑟 vs Sa(T1)/g.
 a) b) c)
Figure 6. Representative IDA curves for 780PRE-OC: (a) Δ𝑟𝑑 vs Sa(T1)/g, (b) Δ𝑖𝑑𝑟 vs Sa(T1)/g
and (c) Δ𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑟 vs Sa(T1)/g.

Vulnerability and Downtime Component-based Assessment

Vulnerability functions were obtained using the proposed methodology. A component model and
a set of fragility functions were defined and selected for structural, non-structural and content
components of the building. The fragility functions used are an adaptation of the ones developed
in the FEMA P-58 [17]. Damage state repair costs and time were updated with local expertise.

Using results from the IDAs, components model, fragility components curves and the
software IT_FUNVUL_V2 [12] (available at www.ecapra.org) the vulnerability curves were
obtained by Monte Carlo integration. This software allows the user to consider three main type of
uncertainties: the model, the damage and the cost and time uncertainties [12] using N simulations
for each one. In this study case, a total of 30 simulations per uncertainty were selected. This leads
a total of 60750 Monte Carlo simulations for each intensity level (Sa(T1)). Damage is calculated
for each simulation as a total repair cost that consists in the summation of the components repair
cost considering the scaled economy for each damage state. The total repair cost is normalized by
the exposed value (replacement cost) to obtain the vulnerability curves. Repair cost vulnerability
functions for 780PRE-OC and 780PRE-CC are shown in Fig. 7.
100 100
Mean damage ratio (%)
Mean damage ratio (%)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Sa(T)/g Sa(T)/g
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Repair cost vulnerability functions for RC frames without and with presence of captive
columns

Given the component-by-component results, disruption time can be estimated for the
 overall structure for each one of the for 60750 Monte Carlo simulations. For this purpose, fragility
curves of FEMA P-58 [17] present repair time per component given the damage state. For the
present study, repair classes, repair sequence and impeding factors (such as post-earthquake
inspection, engineering mobilization, review/re-design, and others [2]) are included for
determining downtime [15], [18]. Total repair time is normalized by the total reconstruction time
estimated for this building. Downtime vulnerability functions for 780PRE-OC and 780PRE-CC
are shown in Fig. 8.
100 100
Mean relative repair time (%)

Mean relative repair time(%)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Sa(T)/g Sa(T)/g
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Downtime vulnerability functions for RC frames without and with presence of captive
columns

Seismic Risk for RC Framed School Buildings

Risk assessment is needed in order to compare different mitigation options for the 780PRE-CC
and 780PRE-OC and define a prioritization scheme for the complete school building portfolio.
Both the EAL and the EAD are used for these analyses. To illustrate the risk assessment process,
the complete portfolio of school buildings in Perú area was used [1].Probabilistic hazard
information and an approximate site effects model (see Fig. 9 (a) and (b)) are taken from recent
studies [1], [29]. To understand the uncertainty in the risk parameters for each type of building a
sensitivity analysis is performed selecting random exposure location of a 20x20km mesh at country
level. (see Fig. 9 (c)). The figure shows simultaneously the seismic hazard zones defined in the
Peruvian seismic code (Zone 4 representing the highest hazard zone).

EAL and EAD are evaluated for the two building typologies described (780 PRE-OC and
780 PRE-CC) locating them in each point of the 20 x 20 km grid described. Results are grouped
for each seismic zone of Fig 9 (c) and are represented in Figures 10 and 11.for the OC and CC
system respectively. The distribution of the selected risk parameters is presented with box and
whiskers figures. These figures can be understood as the distribution of the risk parameter values
into a seismic zone for a representative building. Mean value, represented by an asterisk. Mean in
this case is the mean value of the EAL and the EAD for all the possible locations for a particular
zone.
 a) b) c)
Figure 9. Input for probabilistic seismic risk assessment. a) Probabilistic seismic hazard. b) Site
effects. c) Random exposure location.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Risk parameters distributions in seismic zones for 780PRE-CC. a) EAL and b) EAD.

(a) (b)
Figure 11. Risk parameters distributions in seismic zones for 780PRE-OC. a) EAL and b) EAD.
 Discussions and Conclusions

An approach to improve and expand the risk parameters has been presented. New proposed repair
cost and downtime vulnerability curves are based on probabilistic component-based
methodologies. The analytical methodologies consider all sources of uncertainties such as hazard
selection, modeling process, damage states, repair cost and time required in the computation of the
probability of physical losses or downtime exceedance. Common constructions practices and
economical rates in the local area where the assessment is to be conducted can be included into
the analysis.

Archetype RC school buildings from Peru were selected to investigate the differences in
risk results due to repair costs and downtime assessment. The selected RC building presents two
different collapse mechanisms. Depending on the seismic gap between non-structural walls and
concrete columns, results presents a rigid seismic initial response in 780PRE-CC buildings before
the fragile collapse is produced by the captive column. In the other hand, ductile seismic behavior
but an extensive interstory deformations and large residual drifts are expected in 780PRE-OC.

Repair costs vulnerability curves used in risk assessment shows that 780PRE-CC is more
vulnerable than 780PRE-OC in terms of EAL, principally for seismic zones 4 and 3. This will
guide stakeholders to prefer a 780PRE-OC behavior. However, including downtime curves
increased the vulnerability in the risk parameters of the 780PRE-OC. Results in EAD exhibited by
the two archetypes buildings is similar for seismic zones 1 to 3. Undesired downtime is expected
in 780PRE-OC and consequently this building will not function as a shelter depending on the
seismic intensity of the event. Therefore, the conclusion is that 780PRE-CC must be prioritized
for intervention to prevent high physical losses and downtime and the decision of intervention of
the 780PRE-OC should be based principally by the objective of reducing downtime.

The main contribution of the proposed methodology is the integration of repair costs and
downtime for archetype buildings in risk assessment as a tool for decision makers. Component-
based methodological approach results in the needed accurate in risk parameters for prioritization
of building’s interventions. EAL and EAD are proposed as innovative risk parameters for the
selection of risk mitigation options and the prioritization of interventions. A random exposure
analysis is used to compute the possible distribution of risk values in defined zones. This analysis
can be also very useful for risk analysis and the direction of government policies in countries where
detailed information about the location of the exposed assets is not available. Other applications
would include rational decision making for contingency and emergency response plans, relative
categorization of risk for different structural typologies or building uses, and quantification of the
seismic resilience of essential facilities.

References

[1] L. E. Yamin, F. Ramirez, R. Rincon, and J. C. Atoche, “Estrategia de Reducción del Riesgo Sísmico de
Edifi caciones Escolares Públicas del Perú,” 2016.
[2] I. Almufti et al., “REDi TM Rating System,” no. October, 2013.
[3] A. Irfanoglu, “Performance of Template School Buildings during Earthquakes in Turkey and Peru,” J.
Perform. Constr. Facil., 2009.
[4] L. T. Guevara and L. E. García, “The captive- and short-column effects,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 21, no. 1, pp.
141–160, 2005.
 [5] F. Galvis, E. Miranda, P. Heresi, H. Dávalos, and J. R. Silos, “Preliminary Statistics of Collapsed Buildings
in Mexico City in the September 19 , 2017 Puebla-Morelos Earthquake,” no. October, 2017.
[6] O. Cardona, M. Ordaz, E. Reinoso, L. Yamin, and A. Barbat, “CAPRA–comprehensive approach to
probabilistic risk assessment: international initiative for risk management effectiveness,” Proc. 15th World
Conf. Earthq. Eng., vol. 1, p. 10, 2012.
[7] G. P. Cimellaro, A. M. Reinhorn, and M. Bruneau, “Framework for analytical quantification of disaster
resilience,” Eng. Struct., vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 3639–3649, 2010.
[8] H. V Burton, G. Deierlein, D. Lallemant, and Y. Singh, “Measuring the Impact of Enhanced Building
Performance on the Seismic Resilience of a 2 Residential Community,” Earthq. Spectra, 2017.
[9] G. M. Calvi and R. Pinho, “Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past
30 years,” ISET J. {…}, vol. 43, no. 472, pp. 75–104, 2006.
[10] D. D’Ayala et al., “Guidelines for Analytical Vulnerability Assessment - Low/Mid-Rise,” GEM Tech. Rep.,
vol. 8, p. 162, 2013.
[11] D. D’Ayala and E. Kishali, “Analytically derived fragility curves for unreinforced masonry buildings in
urban contexts,” 15th World Conf. Earthq. Eng. Lisboa, Port., no. Fajfar, 2012.
[12] L. E. Yamin, A. Hurtado, R. Rincon, J. F. Dorado, and J. C. Reyes, “Probabilistic seismic vulnerability
assessment of buildings in terms of economic losses,” Eng. Struct., vol. 138, pp. 308–323, 2017.
[13] L. E. Yamin, F. Ghesquiere, M. Ordaz, and O. Cardona, Modelación probabilista para la gestión del riesgo
de desastre. El caso de Bogotá, Colombia. Bogotá. Banco Mundial y Universidad de los Andes. 2013.
[14] L. E. Yamin, A. I. Hurtado, A. H. Barbat, and O. D. Cardona, “Seismic and wind vulnerability assessment
for the GAR-13 global risk assessment,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 10, no. PB, pp. 452–460, 2014.
[15] M. C. Comerio, “Estimating downtime in loss modeling,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 349–365,
2006.
[16] L. Yamin, A. Hurtado, R. Rincon, A. H. Barbat, and J. Reyes, “Use of Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis in the
Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings,” Second Eur. Conf. Earthq. Eng. Seismol., pp. 1–9, 2014.
[17] Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings - methodology,”
Fema P-58-1, vol. 1, no. September, p. 278, 2012.
[18] A. P. Garcia, “Probabilistic seismic resilience evaluation for building systems,” Universidad de los Andes,
2017.
[19] L. E. Yamin, A. Hurtado, and R. Rincon, “Controlling parameters in the assessment of the seismic
vulnerability of buildings,” 16th World Conf. Earthq. - WCEE, 2017.
[20] C. M. Ramirez and E. Miranda, “Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation,”
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 2012.
[21] H. Aroquipa, R. Rincon, and R. Fernandez, “Evaluation of alternatives of incremental seismic reinforcement
for school buildings characteristics in Perú,” 2017.
[22] O. A. Lopez, J. J. Hernandez, G. Del Re, J. Puig, and L. Espinosa, “Reducing seismic risk of school
buildings in Venezuela,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 771–790, 2007.
[23] R. Fernandez, “Benefit-cost functions for seismic retrofitting optimal selection,” Universidad de los Andes,
2017.
[24] N. Analysis, “User Guide PERFORM-3D ,” no. June, 2011.
[25] American Society of Civil Engineers and Structural Engineering Institute, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
existing buildings - ASCE 41-13. 2013.
[26] American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE/SEI 7-10). Reston, Virginia, 2010.
[27] NTE E.080, “Reglamento nacional de construcciones norma técnica de edificacion nte e.080,” 2000.
[28] University of California Berkeley, “Pacific Earthquake Engineering Reaserch Center - PEER,” 2017. .
[29] R. Rincon, L. Yamin, and A. Becerra, “Seismic Risk Assessment of Public Schools and Prioritization
Strategy for Risk Mitigation,” vol. 16th World, p. 12, 2017.

View publication stats