Seismic risk management of insurance losses using extreme value theory and copula - Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems - page 765

5.0 5.0

V S30 = 200 (m/s) V S30 = 200 (m/s)

4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1. 0 1. 0

House 1
House 2

House 3
House 4

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Maximum inter-story drift ratio
(a)

0.08 0.1 0.0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Maximum inter-story drift ratio
(b)

0.08 0.1

28.2 Incremental dynamic analysis curves of the four UBC-SAWS
models: (a) Houses 1 and 2, and (b) Houses 3 and 4.

events). This method takes into account inter-period correlation of spectral
acceleration ordinates for different earthquake types individually; such con-
sideration is of importance when record scaling is involved for nonlinear
dynamic analysis (Luco and Bazzurro, 2007; PEER, 2009). To show the
impact of different shear-wall types, incremental dynamic analysis curves
for Houses 1 to 4 are compared in Fig. 28.2 (solid lines are median curves,
while broken lines are 16th/84th percentile curves). The seismic perfor-
mance of the four UBC-SAWS models, as expected, can be ranked as House
1 > House 2 > House 3 > House 4. The results, as shown in Fig. 28.2, are
then used to develop the probability distribution of the maximum inter-
story drift ratio given spectral acceleration at 0.3 s by interpolating the
empirical probability distribution function.
For seismic capacity modelling, reasonable estimates of D Y and D C in
terms of maximum inter-story drift ratio can be found in FEMA/NIBS
(2003) and Onur et al. (2006). Both D Y and D C are considered to be log-
normally distributed. It is noteworthy that there exists signifi cant uncer-
tainty in the estimation of the collapse/ultimate capacity of wood-frame
structures. In shake-table experiments, structures tested by White and
Ventura (2006) did not collapse after experiencing the maximum inter-story
drift ratio of 0.08-0.09, while Isoda et al. (2007) reported that structural
collapse generally occurs after experiencing the maximum inter-story drift
ratio of 0.15-0.20. Another relevant issue is that severely damaged but not-
collapsed structures may be demolished in the rehabilitation process,
because of infeasible repair operations from technical and economic view-
points. By taking these situations into account, for Houses 1 to 4, a few cases