Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS AND SEISMIC

PERFORMANCE OF PERUVIAN THIN RC
WALL BUILDINGS

L. G. Quiroz1 and Y. Maruyama2

ABSTRACT

In this study, an analytical approach was adopted to construct fragility functions for mid-rise
Peruvian buildings with thin RC walls. Thin RC walls are the main structural components that
support vertical and lateral loads. This structural system is typically used in Lima, Peru since
1998. The main characteristics of these structural components are the use of electro-welded wire
mesh as main reinforcement instead of conventional bars and its thin thickness. The geometrical
model of mid-rise building was constructed based on the result of statistical analysis of real
buildings. The numerical model was defined based on the results of experiments. A series of
non-linear dynamic response analyses was performed using ground motion records during the
2010 Maule, Chile earthquake. The damage ratios were estimated with respect to four damage
states, and the fragility functions were obtained assuming that the damage ratios follow
lognormal distributions. Finally, a weighted mean damage state was estimated to evaluate the
performance of the structures. The results show that the use of electrowelded wire mesh is
acceptable in terms of seismic performance because the buildings will perform appropriately
according to the Peruvian seismic design standard.

1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Urban Environment Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University, Japan
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Urban Environment Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University,
Japan

Quiroz LG, Maruyama Y. Fragility functions and seismic performance of Peruvian thin RC wall buildings.
Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

Fragility functions and Seismic Performance of Peruvian Thin RC Wall

Buildings

L. G. Quiroz1 and Y. Maruyama2

ABSTRACT

In this study, an analytical approach was adopted to construct fragility functions for mid-rise
Peruvian buildings with thin RC walls. Thin RC walls are the main structural components that
support vertical and lateral loads. This structural system is typically used in Lima, Peru since
1998. The main characteristics of these structural components are the use of electro-welded wire
mesh as main reinforcement instead of conventional bars and its thin thickness. The geometrical
model of mid-rise building was constructed based on the result of statistical analysis of real
buildings. The numerical model was defined based on the results of experiments. A series of non-
linear dynamic response analyses was performed using ground motion records during the 2010
Maule, Chile earthquake. The damage ratios were estimated with respect to four damage states,
and the fragility functions were obtained assuming that the damage ratios follow lognormal
distributions. Finally, a weighted mean damage state was estimated to evaluate the performance of
the structures. The results show that the use of electrowelded wire mesh is acceptable in terms of
seismic performance because the buildings will perform appropriately according to the Peruvian
seismic design standard.

Introduction

The study of seismic performance of structural systems during earthquakes is a matter of

research in countries located in seismic-prone regions. One approach to evaluate the seismic
performance is through fragility functions. Fragility functions describe the conditional
probability of a certain damage state for a given intensity. Every study follows a similar
flowchart during the process of seismic performance estimation using fragility functions:
definition or selection of numerical model, definition of intensity measures, structural responses,
damage estimation, statistical analysis, construction of fragility functions and finally analysis of
results. Jaw and Hwang [1] introduced the fragility functions, and Nocevski [2] developed
empirical and analytical fragility functions. Similar approaches to construct fragility functions
are presented by Karim and Yamazaki [3] and others. The fragility functions can be developed
based on analytical, empirical, expert’s opinion and combinational approaches. They are widely
used to evaluate the damage in buildings [4], bridges [3], expressway embankments [5], and

1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Urban Environment Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University, Japan
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Urban Environment Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University,
Japan

Quiroz LG, Maruyama Y. Fragility functions and seismic performance of Peruvian thin RC wall buildings.
Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
other types of structures [6].
During the last big earthquake that hit Latin America in 2010 in Chile (Maule
earthquake), some buildings, whose vertical and lateral resistance systems were thin walls,
suffered from severe damage and in some cases collapsed [7]. In Lima City, since 1998 many
similar buildings have been built, and the number of these buildings has been increasing over the
years. The last big earthquake that hit Lima city occurred in 1974, therefore, it is unknown the
actual behavior of these buildings during an earthquake and the loss associated with their fails.
The objective of this study is to construct analytical fragility functions and evaluate the
seismic performance of mid-rise Peruvian buildings with thin RC walls located in Lima. The
response characteristics of the thin RC walls were evaluated in the previous study [8]. These
walls were regarded as the prototype of those used in low-rise and mid-rise buildings in Lima,
Peru. The numerical model of a mid-rise building was constructed considering a multi-degree-of-
freedom system and macro models that represent the overall behavior of the RC elements. A
series of non-linear dynamic response analyses is carried out using ground motion records during
the Maule earthquake. Regression analyses between the damage ratios of the buildings and the
ground motion indices are performed to construct fragility functions. Finally, using the fragility
functions, the seismic performance of the mid-rise building is evaluated for the three hazard
levels.

Numerical Model of Buildings

Galvez et al. [9] defined the main characteristics of Peruvian mid-rise buildings with thin RC
walls based of statistical analysis of existing buildings. Using these findings, the typical
structural properties were defined as follows: the number of stories is five; the height of story is
2500 mm; five thin RC walls are considered in the structural axis; the length of the walls is 2700
mm; the thickness of the walls is 100 mm; the thickness of the concrete slab is 120 mm and its
width is 3100 mm. The walls present the edge reinforcement consisted of conventional rebar. In
case of main reinforcement, they presented electrowelded wire mesh, which is made of non-
ductile material. A single layer of main reinforcement is used in both directions.

Slab Slab
Reinforcement Reinforcement

Edge
Reinforcement
Main
Reinforcement
Main
Reinforcement

Dowels Foundation Dowels

Reinforcement

Figure 1. Numerical model and general characteristics of a wall.

 Table 1. Distribution of reinforcement in the walls of the two models.

Main reinforcement in Edge

Model h and v Dowels
walls Reinforcement
B-MQE188 QE188 0.188% QE84/188
3 #4
B-MQE257 QE257 0.257% QE84/257

Figure 1 shows a general view of the numerical model and general characteristics of a wall. For
dynamic analysis, masses in each floor are lumped at the slab wall joints. The red and blue
circles indicate the locations of nonlinearity of elements and the black circles symbolize the
lumped masses on the floors. Table 1 shows the distribution of reinforcement in the walls for the
two models considered in the analysis. The main difference between the two models is the
amount of main reinforcement.
The walls on building B-MQE188 has the main reinforcement called QE188, which is
formed by wires of 6 mm in the horizontal and vertical direction spaced at 150 mm. In case of
walls of building B-MQE257, the main reinforcement consists of mesh QE257, which is formed
by wires of 7 mm in the horizontal and vertical directions spaced at 150 mm. The use of
electrowelded wire mesh as the main reinforcement can save work and time, and reduce the cost
of construction.
The randomness of the structural characteristics has not been considered. The uncertainty
in the capacity of the structural element was reduced by selecting material strengths based on the
experiments and appropriate inelastic models. The following material properties were considered
for the concrete and reinforcement based on the experiment [8]. The compression strength of
concrete was set to be 17.16 MPa. In case of the conventional reinforcement, the yielding stress
was set to be 450 MPa with an associated strain of 0.002. As for the electro-welded wire mesh,
the yield strain was 0.0035 with a yield stress of approximately 485 MPa. The main difference
between these two types of reinforcement is the strain at the maximum strength. The strain of
conventional reinforcement is 4.5 times larger than that of electro-welded wire mesh.
The numerical model represents the effects of non-linearity of walls considering the
concentrated springs idealized by a trilinear backbone curve and hysteretic rules. The bearing
characteristics of a cross-section are given through the moment-curvature relationship. The three-
parametric model proposed by Park et al. [10], which is based on a tri-linear curve, was adopted.
The three parameters ,  , and  were estimated in the previous study [8].
To predict the hysteretic curve of the prototypes, the nonlinear behaviors of materials
should be modeled numerically. In case of concrete, unconfined concrete is assumed because the
thickness of the walls is small. The Kent and Park model was considered in this study [11]. The
tensile strength of concrete was neglected. The ultimate strain was set to be 0.0035 and the other
parameters have been estimated using the expressions of Kent and Park. For reinforcement, the
uniaxial behavior of conventional reinforcement and electro-welded wire mesh is modeled by the
trilinear model. The behavior is considered to be the same for compressive and tensile stresses.
The building is assumed as a residential facility, founded in firm soil. In the estimation of
the mass of the structure, the gravity loads were considered as distributed dead load from
concrete slab weight (2870 N/m2), non-structural partitions (1000 N/m2), and floor finishing
(1000 N/m2). The total dead weight is 4870 N/m2 plus the structure selfweight. The live load was
considered as 2500N/m2 for all stories except for the top were the live load is 1000 N/m 2.
Table 2. Definition of damage states with respect to the interstory drift proposed by Ghobarah
[13].

Damage state Interstory Drift Limit (%)

No damage (ND) 0.0 – 0.1
Light (L) 0.1 – 0.2
Moderate (M) 0.2 – 0.4
Severe (S) 0.4 – 0.8
Collapse (C) > 0.8

Performing the eigenvalue analysis, the five natural periods of the structure are 0.231, 0.057,
0.026, 0.016 and 0.013 s, respectively with mass participation factors 71.92%, 17.62%, 6.80%,
2.80% and 0.86%. The natural vibration period seemed reasonable for mid-rise thin RC wall
buildings.

Definition of Damage Index and Damage States

In order to construct the seismic fragility functions, it is necessary to define the structural
damage index and states. Many approaches have been used to define damage indices, e.g. one of
those approaches considers three categories: non-cumulative, cumulative and combined damage
indices. The structural parameters related to the categories mentioned before are the maximum
deformation, hysteric behavior, and deformation/energy absorption. The first category has the
advantage of simplicity in estimation process. Typical structural responses used in that category
are interstory drifts and displacement ductility ratios.
Because the damage to structure is related to local deformations, the interstory drift can
be used to show different damage states. The interstory drift is calculated as the ratio between the
relative displacement of a story and the height of the story. It is possible to find many interstory
drift limits for walls (e.g. [12], [13] and [14]).
In the present study, the maximum interstory drift among at the all stories is considered
as damage index and the definition of damage states by Ghobarah [13] was employed because
the interstory drifts associated with the damage states are close to those observed during the
experiments [15]. Table 2 shows the definition of damage states proposed by Ghobarah based on
the amount of maximum interstory drift.

Ground Motion Records

A way to overcome the uncertainty related to the ground motions is considering various records
that reflect the seismicity of a specific place. Unfortunately, the number of ground motion
records to evaluate structural performance is scarce in case of Lima. For the present study, a
dataset of ground motion records during the 2010 Maule earthquake compiled by The University
of Chile is employed. The moment magnitude of this event was 8.8. The Maule earthquake and
the major Peruvian earthquake, present the same origin that is associated to the process of
subduction between the Nazca and South American plates. The dataset consists of nineteen
acceleration time histories, and each record has two horizontal components and one vertical
component. The horizontal components of the acceleration records are applied to the numerical
model. Table 3 presents the seismic indices of the ground motion records.
Figure 2 shows the acceleration response spectra for the Maule earthquake records, which
are normalized to have the PGA of 1g, with the damping ratio of 5%. The thick line shows the
mean amplitude. As can be observed, there is a large variation in the spectral shape and this can
be caused by many factors such as soil conditions and source-to-site distance. The periods show
large variations, and it depends on the associated site condition.

Construction of Fragility Functions

To determine the structural response of the buildings, IDARC2D [16], a macro-element program,
was used. IDARC2D has been extensively validated against laboratory testing of structural
systems and components types, and it is used for the inelastic static and dynamic response
analysis of RC structures.

Table 3. Seismic indices of the 2010 Maule earthquake records.

Parameter Units Range of values

Peak ground acceleration (PGA) (cm/s2) [ 73.35 - 913.26 ]
Peak ground velocity (PGV) (cm/s) [ 5.78 - 58.7 ]
Acceleration RMS (cm/s2) [ 11.6 - 92.68 ]
Velocity RMS (cm/s) [ 1.26 - 13.01 ]
Arias Intensity (AI) (m/s) [ 0.16 - 19.87 ]
Acceleration Spectrum Intensity (ASI) (cm/s) [ 56.63 - 734.61 ]
Velocity Spectrum Intensity (VSI) (cm) [ 31.88 - 388.52 ]
Period (s) [ 0.22 - 1 ]

4
Sa (g)

0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Period (s)

Figure 2. Acceleration response spectra (normalized to have the PGA of 1g) with 5% damping
ratio for the Maule earthquake records.
 No damage Light Moderate Severe Collapse No damage Light Moderate Severe Collapse
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25

Count
Count

20 20
15 15
10 10

5 5

0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800
0
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800
0

PGA (cm/s )
2
PGA (cm/s2)

Figure 3. Number of occurrences of each damage state under the Maule earthquake records for
the buildings B-MQE188 (left) and B-MQE257 (right).

The non-linear dynamic analysis is carried out considering a combination of the Newmark-Beta
integration method and the pseudo-force method. In the numerical analysis, the values for time
increment step, damping value and damping type are 0.005 s, 5% and Rayleigh damping,
respectively.
The fragility functions can be constructed with respect to different ground motion
indices, e.g. PGA, PGV, AI, Sa(T1, 5%), duration time, etc. Some of them can be obtained
directly from the records (PGA) and others need a processing of the record (PGV, AI, Sa(T1,
5%)). In the present study, PGA was selected as the ground motion index because this parameter
presented a better correlation with the interstory drift than others (e.g. PGV, HI) and also because
of its simplicity to estimate. The damage ratio for each damage state under a certain excitation
level is obtained. Based on these results, fragility functions for the buildings are constructed
assuming a lognormal distribution [17].
The cumulative probability PR of occurrence of the damage equal or higher than a
damage state is given by Eq. 1

 ln Y   
PR     (1)
  

where  is the standard cumulative normal distribution, Y is the ground motion index (PGA), 
and  are the mean and standard deviation of ln Y. These two parameters of the distribution are
obtained by the least-squares method on a lognormal probability paper.
The values of PGA for all records were scaled to have different excitation levels. Hence,
the PGA for the records was scaled from 25 cm/s2 to three times its original PGA with the
interval of 25 cm/s2. The limitation in scaling of a record is set to be three times of its original
PGA [18]. The scaled records were applied to the numerical model to obtain the damage index
(maximum interstory drift). Using the damage index, the number of occurrence for each damage
state was estimated under each excitation level. Finally, the damage ratio was obtained for every
damage state. Figure 3 shows the number of occurrences of each damage state under different
excitation levels for the buildings B-MQE188 and B-MQE257. Table 4 shows the parameters of
fragility functions for the buildings.
The fragility functions obtained for the buildings B-MQE188 and B-MQE257 are
presented in Figure 4. As can be observed, the reduction in the amount of main reinforcement
does not change drastically the fragility functions in case of light and moderate damage. The
probability of a severe damage or collapse increase when the amount of main reinforcement is
reduced and the increment are higher in the last damage state.

Evaluation of Seismic Performance

In order to evaluate the probability of being in each damage state, it is important to evaluate
representative values of ground motion intensity. In the work of Silva [19], the three levels of
peak ground accelerations are presented: a frequent earthquake (0.2 g), a rare earthquake (0.4 g),
and a very rare earthquake (0.5 g), with return periods of 50, 475, and 970 years, respectively.
Based on the fragility functions presented before, the probability of being in each damage
state at each specified hazard level is obtained. Table 5 shows the comparison for the buildings
B-MQE188 and B-MQE257.

Table 4. Parameters of fragility functions for the Peruvian buildings with thin RC walls.

Damage state
Building DS > Light DS > Moderate DS > Severe DS = Collapse
       
B-MQE188 5.41 0.27 6.08 0.23 6.33 0.30 6.46 0.33
B-MQE257 5.39 0.29 6.09 0.26 6.41 0.22 6.58 0.23

1.0 1.0
DS > L DS > L
DS > M DS > M
0.8 DS > S 0.8 DS > S
DS = C DS = C
P[DS > DSi, PGA]
P[DS > DSi, PGA]

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
PGA (cm/s2) 2
PGA (cm/s )

Figure 4. Comparison of the fragility functions for buildings B-MQE188 (left) and B-
MQE257EP (right) constructed by this study.
Table 5. Comparison of probability of each damage state for the three levels of ground motion
intensity.

PGA
Damage
B-MQE188 B-MQE257
State
0.2 g 0.4 g 0.5 g 0.2 g 0.4 g 0.5 g
No Damage 69.1% 2.0% 0.2% 64.9% 2.1% 0.2%
Light Damage 30.9% 66.5% 30.6% 35.0% 65.1% 33.3%
Moderate Damage 0.0% 20.1% 36.9% 0.1% 30.2% 49.0%
Severe Damage 0.0% 4.4% 10.8% 0.0% 2.2% 12.4%
Collapse 0.0% 7.1% 21.4% 0.0% 0.5% 5.0%

Figure 5. Weighted mean damage for buildings B-MQE188 and B-MQE257 under the three
levels of ground motion intensity (0.2 g, 0.4 g, and 0.5 g).

According to Table 5, it is observed that in case of frequent earthquake, the probability is around
67% in no damage and 33% in light damage level in average for both buildings. For a rare
earthquake, which corresponds to the design level motion, both buildings present a 2% of
probability of no damage, the probability of light and moderate damage in case of building B-
MQE188 is approximately 87% and for building B–MQE257 is approximately 95%.
Approximately 0.5% and 7% probabilities for collapse are estimated for the buildings B-
MQE257 and B-MQE188. The increment of the probability is resulted from the decrease of the
main reinforcement. In case of a very rare earthquake, the probability of light, moderate and
severe damage states is 74% for building B-MQE188 and 95% for building B-MQE257.
Finally, a weighted mean damage state Dm [20] was calculated by Eq. 2

1 4
Dm     DSi PDSi  (2)
 4 i  0
where DSi takes the values 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the damage states i considered in the analysis, and
P[DSi] are the corresponding probabilities. It can be considered that Dm is close to the most
likely damage state of a structure. Figure 5 shows the discrete values for Dm for the three levels
of intensity (0.2 g, 0.4 g, and 0.5 g).
It can be considered that a structure may be irreparable in case the mean damage is more
than 60% [21]. It was found that the buildings would suffer from a mean damage of 8% in case
of frequent earthquake and 35% in average in case of rare earthquake. Hence, it is interpreted
that the buildings will suffer a reparable damage. The good performance of the buildings could
be related to the use of unconfined boundary reinforcement (edge reinforcement). Similar
improvement of behavior has been observed in tunnel-form buildings (e.g. Kalkan and Yuksel
[22]).

Conclusions

The use of fragility functions is a useful tool to estimate the structural performance in a certain
type of structures due to the effects of future events. In the present study, the fragility functions
for mid-rise Peruvian buildings with thin RC walls constructed in Lima were developed and they
are used to evaluate the seismic performance. The PGA was selected as a seismic index, and the
four damage states were defined with respect to the interstory drift. The following conclusions
can be drawn:
The buildings B-MQE257 and B-MQE188 were analyzed to consider the variation in the
amount of electrowelded wire mesh as main reinforcement. Both buildings showed similar
probability for light and moderate damage states. In case of severe and collapse damage states,
the probability of damage increases when the amount of main reinforcement is reduced. The
buildings behave in light and no damage under the frequent earthquake. For the rare earthquake,
the buildings behave in moderate, light and no damage (more than 88%). The probability of
collapse is below than 7% for the building B-MQE188 and almost 0% for the building B-
MQE257.
In case of rare earthquake, the mean damage is 35% and for the very rare earthquake is
51% in average. Considering the ATC-21 (2001), the estimation of the weighted mean damage
shows that both buildings will show a reparable damage.
The results show that the use of electrowelded wire mesh is acceptable in terms of
seismic performance because the buildings will perform appropriately according to the Peruvian
seismic design standard.

References

1. Jaw JW, Hwang HM. Seismic fragility analysis of shear wall structures. Technical Report NCEER-88-0009.
State University of New York at Buffalo, 1988
2. Nocevski NK. Definition of empirical and theoretical models for assessment of vulnerability level in high rise
buildings. Doctoral thesis. IZIIS, Skopje, 1993.
3. Karim KR, Yamazaki F. Effect of earthquake ground motions on fragility curves of highway bridge piers based
on numerical simulation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001; Vol. 30(12): 1839–1856.
4. Jovanoska ED. Fragility curves for reinforced concrete structures in Skopje (Macedonia) region. Soil Dynamic
and Earthquake Engineering 2000; Vol. 19(6): 455–66.
5. Maruyama Y, Yamazaki F, Mizuno K, Tsuchiya Y, Yogai H. Fragility curves for expressway embankments
 based on damage datasets after recent earthquakes in Japan. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2010;
Vol. 30:11, 58–67.
6. Chiou JS, Chiang CH, Yang HH, Hsu SH. Developing fragility curves for a pile-supported wharf. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2011; Vol. 31: 830–840.
7. EERI. The Mw 8.8 Chile Earthquake of February 27, 2010. Special Earthquake Report – June, 2010.
8. Quiroz L, Maruyama Y, Zavala C. Cyclic behavior of thin RC Peruvian shear walls: Full-scale experimental
investigation and numerical simulation. Engineering Structures 2013; Vol. 52: 153–167.
9. Gálvez V, Burgos M, Ortiz A. Proposal of reduction factor for seismic forces in structural systems composed by
walls reinforced with electro-welded wire mesh and ductile bars, Lima, Peru, 2008. (In Spanish)
10. Park YJ, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK. IDARC Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame-Shear-
Wall Structures. Technical Report NCEER-87-0008, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1987.
11. Kent DC, Park RR. Flexural members with confined concrete. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1971;
Vol. 97(7): 1969-1990.
12. Farrar C, Reed J, Salmon M. Failure modes of low-rise shear walls. Journal of Energy Engineering 1993;
Vol.119: 119–138.
13. Ghobarah A. On drift limits associated with different damage levels. Bled Conference, Slovenia, 2004.
14. Carrillo J, Alcocer SM. Acceptance limits for performance-based seismic design of RC walls for low-rise
housing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2012; Vol. 41(15): 2273–2288.
15. Zavala C. Test on walls and a one-floor house reinforced with electro-wire mesh UNICO/FORSA/PRODAC,
Research report. Japan-Peru Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and Disaster Mitigation. Lima, Peru,
2004. (In Spanish).
16. Reinhorn AM, Roh H, Sivaselvan M, Kunnath SK, Valles RE, Madan A, Li C, Lobo R, Park YJ. IDARC2D
Version 7.0: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of Structures. Technical Report MCEER-09-0006,
State University of New York at Buffalo, 2009.
17. Mehanny SSF, El Howary HA. Assessment of RC moment frame buildings in moderate seismic zones:
Evaluation of Egyptian seismic code implications and system configuration effects. Engineering Structures
2010; Vol. 32: 2394–2406.
18. Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. Journal
Earthquake Engineering 2004; 8(4): 1–50.
19. Silva H. Application of probabilistic methodology for damage estimation of mid-rise RC building in Lima.
Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No 10-0004. 9p, 2008.
20. Barbat AH, Carreño ML, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Cardona OD, Marulanda MC. Seismic vulnerability and risk
evaluation methods for urban areas. A review with application to a pilot area. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance 2010; Vol. 6, Nos. 1–2: 17–38.
21. ATC–21. Rapid Visual Screening of Seismically Hazardous Buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood
City, CA, 2001.
22. Kalkan E, Yuksel B. Pros and Cons of RC Tunnel Form (Box-type) Buildings. The Structural Design of Tall
and Special Buildings 2008; Vol. 17(3): 601-617.