Over the last two decades, the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) framework developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center has gained the attention of researchers and practitioners worldwide. This framework was originally focused on quantifying the seismic risk of individual structures. However, with the advent of the “seismic resilience” concept, broader definitions of stakeholders and performance metrics on a regional scale are desirable. In this context, we present a formalized extension of the PEER PBEE framework for its use in groups of structures spatially distributed over a region, herein referred to as RPBEE framework. As an example, we use the RPBEE framework for computing the total number of damaged structures, the expected total economic loss, and the probability distribution of total economic losses within a region. We highlight differences with the original PEER framework and challenges arising from the implementation of the new RPBEE framework for future research and adoption, along with potential ways to overcome them.
AbrahamsonNA (1988) Statistical properties of peak ground accelerations recorded by the SMART 1 array. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America78(1): 26–41.
2.
AkkarSDMirandaE (2005) Statistical evaluation of approximate methods for estimating maximum deformation demands on existing structures. Journal of Structural Engineering131(1): 160–172.
3.
AldeaSHeresiPPasténC (2022) Within-event spatial correlation of peak ground acceleration and spectral pseudo-acceleration ordinates in the Chilean subduction zone. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics51(11): 2575–2590.
4.
AnagnosTRojahnCKiremidjianAS (1995) NCEER-ATC joint study on fragility of buildings. Technical Report NCEER-95-0003, January. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
5.
ASCE/SEI (2016) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16, March. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
6.
AslaniH (2005) Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings. Technical Report No. 157, June. Stanford, CA: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University.
7.
AslaniHMirandaE (2004) Component-level and system-level sensitivity study for earthquake loss estimation, Paper No. 107. In: Proceedings, 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada: Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, 1–6 August.
8.
ATC (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Report No. ATC-1, July. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
9.
ATC (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report No. FEMA 273, October. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
10.
ATC (2018) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Report No. FEMA P-58-1, Second Edition, December. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
11.
BakerJWCornellCA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34(10): 1193–1217.
12.
BasözNKiremidjianAS (1996) Risk assessment for highway transportation systems. Technical Report No. 118, January. Stanford, CA: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University.
13.
BasözNKiremidjianAS (1999) Development of empirical fragility curves for bridges. In: Proceedings, 5th US Conference on Life line Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, WA, 12–14 August 1999, pp. 693–702. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
14.
BazzurroPCornellCA (2002) Vector-valued probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (VPSHA). In: Proceedings 7th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Boston, MA, 21–25 July.
15.
BenjaminJRCornellCA (1970) Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
BooreDMGibbsJFJoynerWBTinsleyJCPontiDJ (2003) Estimated ground motion from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake at the site of interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard bridge collapse, West Los Angeles, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93(6): 2737–2751.
17.
BradleyBALeeDS (2010) Component correlations in structure-specific seismic loss estimation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics39(3): 237–258.
18.
BruneauMChangSEEguchiRTLeeGCO’RourkeTDReinhornAMShinozukaMTierneyKWallaceWAVon WinterfeldtD (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra19(4): 733–752.
19.
BurtonHDeierleinGGLallemantDLinT (2016) Framework for incorporating probabilistic building performance in the assessment of community seismic resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering142(8): C4015007.
20.
ChangCHTungYKYangJC (1994) Monte Carlo simulation for correlated variables with marginal distributions. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering120(3): 313–331.
21.
ChenLH (1975) Poisson approximation for dependent trials. The Annals of Probability3(3): 534–545.
22.
ChenSXLiuJS (1997) Statistical applications of the Poisson-binomial and conditional Bernoulli distributions. Statistica Sinica7: 875–892.
23.
CimellaroGPReinhornAMBruneauM (2010) Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Engineering Structures32(11): 3639–3649.
24.
CimellaroGPVillaOBruneauM (2015) Resilience-based design of natural gas distribution networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems21(1): 05014005.
25.
ConwayRWMaxwellWL (1962) A queuing model with state dependent service rates. Journal of Industrial Engineering12(2): 132–136.
26.
CornellCAKrawinklerH (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News3(2): 1–4.
27.
CutterSLBurtonCGEmrichCT (2010) Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management7(1): Article51.
28.
DávalosHMirandaE (2019a) Evaluation of bias on the probability of collapse from amplitude scaling using spectral-shape-matched records. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics48(8): 970–986.
29.
DávalosHMirandaE (2019b) Evaluation of the scaling factor bias influence on the probability of collapse using Sa(T1) as the intensity measure. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 679–702.
30.
DávalosHMirandaE (2019c) Filtered incremental velocity: A novel approach in intensity measures for seismic collapse estimation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics48(12): 1384–1405.
31.
DecòABocchiniPFrangopolDM (2013) A probabilistic approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(10): 1469–1487.
32.
DeierleinGGKrawinklerHCornellCA (2003) A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering, Paper No. 140. In: Proceedings, 7th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 13–15 February.
33.
EadsLMirandaELignosDG (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics44(12): 2057–2073.
34.
EsmailiOLudwigLGZareianF (2018) An applied method for general regional seismic loss assessment—with a case study in Los Angeles County. Journal of Earthquake Engineering22(9): 1569–1589.
35.
FajfarP (2002) Structural analysis in earthquake engineering—A breakthrough of simplified non-linear methods, Paper 843. In: Proceedings, 12th European Conference in Earthquake Engineering, London, 9–13 September. Elsevier.
36.
FernándezMWilliamsS (2010) Closed-form expression for the Poisson-binomial probability density function. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems46(2): 803–817.
37.
GodaKAtkinsonGM (2010) Intraevent spatial correlation of ground-motion parameters using SK-net data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(6): 3055–3067.
38.
GodaKHongHP (2008) Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98(1): 354–365.
39.
HeresiPMirandaE (2019) Uncertainty in intraevent spatial correlation of elastic pseudo-acceleration spectral ordinates. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17(3): 1099–1115.
40.
HeresiPMirandaE (2021) Fragility curves and methodology for estimating post-earthquake occupancy of wood-frame single-family houses on a regional scale. Journal of Structural Engineering147(5): 04021039.
41.
HeresiPMirandaE (2022a) Evaluation of relative seismic performance between one- and two-story houses. Journal of Earthquake Engineering26(2): 857–886.
HerrndorfN (1984) A functional central limit theorem for weakly dependent sequences of random variables. The Annals of Probability12(1): 141–153.
44.
HoeffdingW (1956) On the distribution of the number of successes in independent trials. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics27(3): 713–721.
45.
HoeffdingWRobbinsH (1948) The central limit theorem for dependent random variables. Duke Mathematical Journal15(3): 773–780.
46.
JayaramNBakerJW (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics38(15): 1687–1708.
47.
KhalooARKhosraviH (2013) Modified fish-bone model: A simplified MDOF model for simulation of seismic responses of moment resisting frames. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering55: 195–210.
48.
KiremidjianASMooreJFanYYYazlaliOBasözNWilliamsM (2007) Seismic risk assessment of transportation network systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering11(3): 371–382.
49.
KrawinklerH (2002) A general approach to seismic performance assessment. In: Proceedings, international conference on advances and new challenges in earthquake engineering research, ICANCEER 2002, Hong Kong, China, 19–20 August. New York: Springer.
50.
KrawinklerHDeierleinGG (2014) Challenges towards achieving earthquake resilience through performance-based earthquake engineering. In: FischingerM (ed.) Performance-based seismic engineering: Vision for an earthquake resilient society. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, Vol 32. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 3–23.
51.
KrawinklerHMirandaE (2004) Performance-based earthquake engineering. In: BozorgniaYBerteroVV (eds) Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-based Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 3–23.
LeeRKiremidjianAS (2007) Uncertainty and correlation for loss assessment of spatially distributed systems. Earthquake Spectra23(4): 753–770.
54.
LignosDGKoliosDMirandaE (2010) Fragility assessment of reduced beam section moment connections. Journal of Structural Engineering136(9): 1140–1150.
55.
LiuPLDer KiureghianA (1986) Multivariate distribution models with prescribed marginals and covariances. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics1(2): 105–112.
56.
LothCBakerJW (2013) A spatial cross-correlation model of spectral accelerations at multiple periods. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(3): 397–417.
57.
LucoNBazzurroP (2007) Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses?Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics36(13): 1813–1835.
58.
McLeishDL (1974) Dependent central limit theorems and invariance principles. The Annals of Probability2(4): 620–628.
MarafiNABermanJWEberhardMO (2016) Ductility-dependent intensity measure that accounts for ground- motion spectral shape and duration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45(4): 653–672.
61.
MarkhvidaMCeferinoLBakerJW (2018) Modeling spatially correlated spectral accelerations at multiple periods using principal component analysis and geostatistics. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics47(5): 1107–1123.
62.
MielerMStojadinovicBBudnitzRComerioMCMahinSA (2015) A framework for linking community-resilience goals to specific performance targets for the built environment. Earthquake Spectra31(3): 1267–1283.
63.
MillerMK (2014) Seismic risk assessment of complex transportation networks. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
64.
MirandaE (1997) Estimation of maximum interstory drift demands in displacement-based design. In: FajfarPKrawinklerH (eds) Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes. Rotterdam: Balkema.
65.
MirandaE (1999) Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands in multistory buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering125(4): 417–425.
66.
MirandaETaghaviS (2005) Approximate floor acceleration demands in multistory buildings. I: Formulation. Journal of Structural Engineering131(2): 203–211.
67.
MirandaEAslaniHTaghaviS (2004) Assessment of seismic performance in terms of economic losses. In: FajfarPKrawinklerH (eds) Performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER Report 2004/05, University of California, Berkeley, CA, pp. 149–160.
68.
MoehleJPDeierleinGG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering, Paper No. 679. In: Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada: Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, 1–6 August.
69.
NakashimaMOgawaKInoueK (2002) Generic frame model for simulation of earthquake responses of steel moment frames. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics31(3): 671–692.
70.
ParzenE (1960) Modern Probability Theory and Its Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
71.
PEER (2017) Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings. PEER Report 2017/06 Version 2.03, May. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California.
72.
RamirezCMMirandaE (2009) Building-specific loss estimation methods & tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering. Technical Report No. 171, May. Stanford, CA: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University.
73.
RamirezCMMirandaE (2012) Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(11): 1477–1493.
74.
RubinsteinRY (1981) Simulation and the Monte-Carlo Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
75.
SarabandiPPachakisDKingSAKiremidjianAS (2004) Empirical fragility functions from recent earthquakes, Paper No. 1211. In: Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada: Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, 1–6 August.
76.
SEAOC (1995) Vision 2000—Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Sacramento, CA: Structural Engineers Association of California.
77.
ShmueliGMinkaTPKadaneJBBorleSBoatwrightP (2005) A useful distribution for fitting discrete data: Revival of the Conway-Maxwell-Poisson distribution. Applied Statistics54(1): 127–142.
78.
SinghalAKiremidjianAS (1997) A method for earthquake motion-damage relationships with application to reinforced concrete frames. Technical Report NCEER-97-0008, September. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
79.
SinghalAKiremidjianAS (1998) Bayesian updating of fragilities with application to RC Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering124(8): 922–929.
80.
SokolovVWenzelF (2013) Spatial correlation of ground motions in estimating seismic hazards to civil infrastructure. In: TesfamariamSGodaK (eds) Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, pp. 57–78.
81.
SPUR (2012) Safe enough to stay. SPUR Report 01/2012, February. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, Shelter-in-Place Task Force.
82.
StergiouEKiremidjianAS (2006) Treatment of uncertainties in seismic risk analysis of transportation systems. Technical Report No. 154, January. Stanford, CA: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University.
