Content uploaded by Gustavo Juan Franklin Loa Canales
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gustavo Juan Franklin Loa Canales on Nov 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
Paper N°002824
Registration Code: S-A02696
TECHNICAL-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE USE OF SEISMIC
ISOLATION IN A PERUVIAN OFFICE BUILDING
G. Loa(1), J. Muñoz(2)
(1) Contracted professor, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, loa.gustavo@pucp.pe
(2) Principal professor, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, amunoz@pucp.pe
Abstract
The current Peruvian Seismic Code specifies that hospital buildings, located in most dangerous zones, must be
projected as seismically isolated buildings. This requirement has been discussed by Peruvian engineers on whether
Seismic Isolation Technology is the unique way to reduce structural and non-structural damage, and if its
implementation cost can be justifiable in the building lifetime.
The objective is this paper is to evaluate if cost and implementation requirements of seismic isolation technology can be
justified with the reduction of expected losses for future seismic events in building lifetime of 50-75 years.
This paper evaluates a mid-high-rise office building. This building was proposed in two types of structural system:
seismically non-isolated building (RC Structural Wall System); and seismically isolated building (with lead-rubber
bearing LRB isolator devices). Both structural systems were designed following Peruvian Seismic Code for seismic
analysis, RC Peruvian Code for RC element and ASCE 7 for the design of isolation devices.
Nonlinear behavior of RC beam, RC column, RC shear walls and isolation devices were modeled in tridimensional
model. Damage states are defined for these elements and related to fragility and consequences curves. Both systems
were evaluated to 8 levels of seismic intensity and 20 seismic records for each one, following Incremental Dynamic
Analysis and FEMA P-58 methodologies. Expected loss were estimated with PACT program considering all possible
local and global damage.
Expected Annual Loss is calculated for Seismically isolated and non-isolated building. Then Cost-Benefit was carried
comparing the Expected Losses in building lifetime with the implementation cost of this technology. It permitted to
evaluate the effectiveness of the seismic isolation system in the building lifetime, considering the probability of
occurrence of earthquake of different intensities.
Results indicate that implementation cost of Seismic Isolation Technology could be justifiable in the reduction of
expected losses in 10 years, and total benefit in building lifetime could be 3 times the implementation cost of this
technology.
Keywords: cost-benefit analysis, expected losses, seismic isolation
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
2
1. Introduction
Seismic Isolation Technology has theoretically proven to be highly effective mitigating building damage in
seismic events. However, in countries like United States and New Zealand its use has been limited to
important buildings such as hospitals or other essential buildings, seeking continuous functionality after a
severe earthquake [1]. The main reason for its limitation is its “high” initial cost compared to a conventional
building, although researches have demonstrated its benefit in seismic events [2, 3].
Theoretically, the use of Seismic Isolation Technology is justified when its post-seismic benefit in
reduction of expected losses is greater than its implementation cost. The Net Present Value (NPV) of a
building is defined as its initial cost decreased by its expected losses in future earthquakes. Researches [1]
obtained a positive NPV for the implementation of this technology, but also concluded that analysis is highly
sensitive to seismic zone, the details of structural design, the period of analysis, the return period of
earthquake and the unit costs of each zone.
Several researchers [4, 5, 6, 7, 8] have analyzed the expected financial losses in conventional and
isolated buildings and demonstrate that the expected benefit in the lifetime of isolated building is
significantly greater than the seismic isolation implementation cost. In addition, Terzic [9] applied FEMA P-
58 methodology [10] to estimate the cost and benefit in the lifetime of isolated buildings and found that the
equilibrium point for the investment occurs at a ratio between 3.4% and 4.9%, depending on the ductility of
the structure and the type of seismic isolation.
Currently, Seismic Isolation Technology has been commonly used in Peruvian Buildings like
Hospitals, Office and Apartments; and right now, there are already 50-100 seismic isolated buildings around
the country. This technology has been presented as an alternative to reduce structural and nonstructural
damage. Therefore, the current Peruvian Seismic Code [11] specified that essential building in most
dangerous zones must be projected with seismic isolation system. This study presents a study case of life
cycle analysis in order to understand the cost and benefits of a seismic isolated building over a conventional
building.
2. Conceptual framework and methodology
2.1. Methodology for cost-benefit analysis of buildings
(a) Assessment of Expected Losses in seismic events: The methodology to estimate expected losses
and decision variables of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) [12] is followed in this paper.
It is divided in four stages:
Hazard Analysis (|dλ(im)|): It is represented as the annual probability of occurrence, λ, of an intensity
value, im.
Structural Analysis (edp/im): Nonlinear Time History Analysis and the methodology of Incremental
Dynamic Analysis IDA [13] is used to estimate the seismic response, edp, for each seismic intensity, im.
Damage Analysis (dm/edp): It represents the damage measure for structural and non-structural
response, dm, according to the building seismic response, edp.
Loss analysis (dv/dm): It include repair cost, repair time or human losses. These losses are decision
variables, dv, which are estimated for each damage measure.
This methodology is represented by the equation Eq.1:
(1)
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
3
2.2. Time Based Assessment
Time-based assessment considers the occurrence probability of earthquakes of different intensities and
their damaged caused over in building lifetime. These results are necessary to calculate the Expected Annual
Loss (EAL), which can be estimated with expression presented in Eq.2 [12]:
(2)
where E[Loss|im] correspond to the expected direct monetary loss for a given IM.
Cutfield [1] simplified expressions in Eq. 3 to estimate Expected Losses (EL) in a lifetime, L, takes
into account the Expected Annual Loss (EAL) and the Discount Rate (DR).
(3)
2.3. Cost and Benefit of Seismic Isolation Technology
Implementation Cost (C) and Benefit (B) of the technology are presented in Eq.4 and Eq.5.
(4)
(5)
Where ELsnib and ELsib are the Expected Losses of seismically non-isolated and isolated building.
Csnib and Csib are their Implementation Cost. Technology’s effectiveness can be evaluated comparing its
Cost and its Benefit. Fig. 1 resumes the methodology followed in this paper.
Seismically Isolation Technology in Peruvian Buildings
Benefit (B) > Cost (C) then SIT is economically effective
Benefit (B) < Cost (C) then SIT isn’t economically effective
Seismically Non-Isolated Project
Expected Annual Loss, EALsnib Expected Annual Loss, EALsib
Cost (C) = Csnib - Csib
Hazard Analysis
P(IM)
IM: Intensity
Measure
Seismic Demand
P(EDP)
EDP: Engi.
Demand Para.
Damage Analysis
P(DM)
DM: Damage
Measure
Loss Analysis
P(DV)
DV: Decision
Variable
PBBE Methodology
Seismically Isolated Project
Expected Losses, ELsnib Expected Losses, ELsib
Benefit (B) = ELsnib - ELsib
Initial cost of
implementation
P(DV)
DV: Decision
Variable
Fig. 1 - Methodology for the evaluation of technical-economically use of Seismic Isolation
Technology in Peruvian Buildings
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
4
3. Application of methodology
3.1. Description of the building
Office building was proposed with two type of systems: RC Structural Wall System and Seismically Isolated
System. In the first structural system, RC Walls are responsible of more than 80% of total seismic force and
RC columns only resist gravity loads with very low seismic forces. In the second, the superstructure
corresponds to a frame structure, with elastomeric isolator devices on the level of the first basement and
sliders under the elevator box in the deepest story level. Table 1 presents characteristics of the building.
Table 1 - Building characteristics
Material
Office building
Concrete
4 basements (f’c 35 MPa)
7 superior levels (f’c 28 MPa)
1 roof (f’c 21 MPa)
Steel rebar
Yield fluency (fy) of 420 MPa
Structural
elements
dimensions
RC columns .70x.70m
RC beams .80m depth
RC walls of .30-.40m of thickness
Both buildings were designed according Peruvian Seismic and Reinforced concrete code [11, 14],
which are based on American codes ASCE 7-10 [15] and ACI 318-99 [16]. Peruvian codes are more exigent
because Shear Design Force is related to the non-effective stiffness of structural building. Fig. 2 presents
three-dimensional model of structural systems in ETABS model [17].
Fig. 2 - Office Building: (left) Structural Wall System; and (right) Seismically Isolated System.
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
5
3.2. Assessment of expected losses
(a) Hazard Analysis
Office building is located in Lima, one of the most dangerous seismic zones according to Peruvian
Seismic Code [11]. Resume of seismic risk studies [18] is presented in Fig. 3, which indicates a Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) of 0.48g for Lima in a rare earthquake correspond to 475-years period return.
Fig. 3 - Hazard Seismic Curve of Lima city.
(b) Structural Analysis
The structure was three-dimensionally modeled considering: RC columns and beams as frame
elements with inelastic behavior focused on hinges in the boundary zones; RC walls as shells with fiber
elements those have nonlinear properties; and slabs as membrane elements with the only function to transmit
loads. Hysteretic behavior of steel rebar and concrete was represented for Takeda model [19] and Concrete
model [17]. The analysis was realized with the PERFORM program [20].
Buildings are evaluated for eight intensities, represented by twenty Peruvian and Chilean seismic
records (see Table 2), those were made spectrum compatible with Peruvian Seismic Code.
Table 2 - Seismic Peruvian and Chilean records
Epicenter
Seismic
Record
Date
PGA (g)
Focal
Depth
(km)
Magnitude
Duration
(s.)
NS - EW
Perú - Lima
Lima
17/10/1966
0.27 - 0.18
30
8.1 Mw
66
Perú - Ancash
Huaraz
31/05/1970
0.11 - 0.10
64
7.9 Mw
45
Perú - Lima
Lima
03/10/1974
0.20 - 0.18
13
8.1 Mw
98
Chile - Valparaíso
Llolleo
22/02/1996
0.11 - 0.16
46
5.9 Ms
31
Chile - Coquimbo
Punitaqui
15/10/1997
0.29 - 0.37
56
7.1 Mw
105
Perú - Arequipa
Arequipa
23/06/2001
0.30 - 0.22
33
8.4 Mw
199
Chile - Tarapacá
Tarapacá
13/06/2005
0.53 - 0.73
108
7.8 Mw
252
Perú - San Martín
Moyobamba
25/09/2005
0.13 - 0.10
115
7.5 Mw
27
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
6
Perú - Ica
Pisco
15/08/2007
0.28 - 0.34
40
8.0 Mw
218
Chile -
Antofagasta
Tocopilla
15/11/2007
0.44 - 0.50
40
7.7 Mw
215
Chile -
Antofagasta
Tocopilla
16/12/2007
0.48 - 0.40
40
7.7 Mw
215
Chile - Biobío
Concepción
27/02/2010
0.50 - 0.32
30
8.8 Mw
180
Chile - Biobío
Angol
27/02/2010
0.89 - 0.52
30
8.8 Mw
180
Perú - Pucallpa
Pucallpa
24/08/2011
0.06 - 0.05
149
7.0 Mw
135
Perú - Arequipa
Arequipa
25/09/2013
0.04 - 0.03
30
6.9 Ml
150
Perú - Ica
Ica
15/03/2014
0.03 - 0.02
25
6.2 Ml
150
Chile - Iquique
Iquique
01/04/2014
0.57 - 0.41
39
8.2 Mw
141
Chile - Iquique
Moquegua
01/04/2014
0.05 - 0.03
39
8.2 Mw
141
Chile - Coquimbo
Coquimbo
16/09/2015
0.72 - 0.83
23
8.3 Mw
150
Chile - Chiloé
Chiloé
25/12/2016
0.35 - 0.27
35
7.6 Mw
159
c) Damage Analysis
Moment - rotation hinges (M-θ) were based on curvature analysis (following stress-strain relation of
unconfined concrete, confined concrete and steel rebar) of the section and the supposed length of plastic
hinge [21]. Mander [22] stress-strain relation for concrete was considered with a maximum strain of 0.005
and 0.02 for unconfined and confined concrete, respectively. A maximum deformation of 0.03 was
considered to take account the buckling and fracture of steel rebar [23, 24]. Shear behavior of RC elements
was represented using Shear–Curvature ductility model proposed by Priestley [25].
Moment curvature diagram permitted to link curvature to displacements and damage states of the
concrete and steel rebar [26]. Theorical moment capacity decreases after the buckling rebar or concrete core
failure. Theorical hinges of each element were compared with the nonlinear criteria, limits and damages
states of ASCE 41-13 [27] and FEMA P58 [28, 29].
(d) Assessment of expected losses
New libraries of consequences curves in FEMA P58 were created for structural and nonstructural
elements associating expected losses to typical Peruvian Times and Costs. PACT program from FEMA P58
was used to estimate repair cost of building for different intensities considering a total dispersion of 0.47 for
loss analysis, based on quality construction and the type of analysis. This project has considered only
expected losses in terms of repair costs of structural elements. The inclusion of non-structural elements and
machines requires a more detailed analysis, and in this paper, it is only approximated with a correlation
factor.
Hirakawa [30] evaluated the percentage of seismic losses for structural, non-structural components
and the contents of 210 buildings those were damaged by the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake. Their
results indicate that structural, non-structural elements and components represent 40%, 40% and 20% of the
total repair cost. In addition, Taghavi & Miranda [31] estimated that ratio for structural components in
retrofitting actions is only 18% for Office Buildings. In this paper, based on these results and according to
Peruvian experts, it has been considered that structural elements for Office Building only represent 25% of
the total building cost.
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
7
e) Dynamic response of isolated and non-isolated building
Fig. 4 and 5 show first and second level drift for buildings analyzed in this paper. Fig. 6 presents the
maximum acceleration in seismically non-isolated and isolated building
Fig. 4 - First and Second Level Drift for Non-Isolated Office.
Fig. 5 - First and Second Level Drift for Isolated Office.
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
8
Fig. 6 - Acceleration for different intensities: (left) Non-Isolated Office building; and (right) Isolated Office
building.
Results indicate the clear benefit of seismic isolation technology in the reduction of story drift and
floor acceleration against all seismic intensities. For a rare earthquake, seismically non-isolated and isolated
building reach a maximum drift of 8.0 ‰ and 3.5 ‰, respectively. Absolute acceleration is reduced from
approximately 1.5 g to 0.5g.
(f) Expected losses for seismic intensities
To estimate the expected losses in non-structural elements, it was used the same factor obtained from
expected losses in structural elements. It´s based on a similar reduction of displacement and absolute
acceleration with the use of Seismic Isolation Technology.
Table 3 presents buildings initial cost and their expected losses in a rare earthquake. In office
building, technology implementation cost is $168,663 (17.5% of superior levels structure and 4.4% of total
building cost). According to experts, implementation cost of seismically isolation technology may be around
4-6% to be effective.
Table 3 - Building Cost and Expected Loss for Rare Earthquake
Cost ($)
Non-isolated Office ($)
Isolated Office ($)
Basements structure
1,284,922
1,281,147
Superior levels Structure
961,599
895,062
Isolation Devices
-
235,200
Non-structural components
2,884,797
2,884,797
Building Cost
3,846,395
4,015,059
Expected Loss for Rare
Earthquake
682,600
98,320
18%
2%
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
9
For a rare earthquake, application of SIT in office building permitted to reduce expected losses from
18% to 2% (3.46 times the implementation cost of SIT). Fig. 7 shows the Expected Losses estimated for non-
isolated and isolated buildings in different seismic intensities. Expected losses in isolated building is already
2% building cost, a value related to the concept of Continue Functionality [32].
Fig. 7 – Expected losses of Office building.
3.3. Time Based Assessment
Fig. 8 presents the Expected Annual Loss of Office building with the two structural configurations.
EAL in buildings is reduced to 11% (from $23293 to $2658) with the use of SIT.
Fig. 8 - Reparation Cost for Office Building: (left) Non-isolated; and (right) Isolated.
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
10
3.4. Cost and Benefit of Seismic Isolation Technology
Some references [33, 34] indicate that Discount Rates for reparation actions ranges between 2% and
7%. Also, the current reference interest rate in Peru can be approximated to 4% [35, 36], value which is used
in this paper.
For Office Building, results indicate that Benefit will reach Implementation Cost in 8.1 years; and
also, in a lifetime of 50 years, Benefit will be 2.66 times its Implementation Cost. Table 4 presents Cost and
Benefit of SIT in Office building.
Table 4 - Cost and Benefit of Seismic Isolation Technology in the building
Cost and Benefit
Seismically Non-
isolated Office
(Cnsib)
Seismically
Isolated Office
(Cnsib)
Implementation cost
3,846,395
4,015,059
Benefit in 25 years
327,675
Benefit in 50 years
448,221
Benefit in 100 years
508,881
4. Conclusions
Expected loses of seismically non-isolated building, in a rare earthquake, are 18% of its building initial. It
indicates that Peruvian Seismic Code permits a good seismic performance according to American codes.
However, the confinement of RC structural walls should be studied because is one of the most important
factors to evaluate seismic damage in elements and a better detail of boundary zones could reduce expected
losses. Expected losses of seismically isolated building, in a rare earthquake, are approximately 2% of its
initial cost. Failure in both buildings will occur when the seismic displacement beats separation joint.
In a typical middle high office building, implementation cost of SIT could be quickly justified with its
benefit in the reduction of expected losses in 10 years. In a typical lifetime of 50 years, results indicate that
benefit will be much greater than its implementation cost.
This study demonstrates the high benefit of seismic isolation technology in the lifetime of common
building. It is suggested that Peruvian structural designers study the proposal of seismic isolation such a
common alternative in mid-rise buildings.
5. References
[1] Cutfield, M., Ryan, K., & Ma, Q. (2016). Comparative life cycle analysis of conventional and base-isolated
buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 32 (1), 323-343.
[2] Boroschek, R., & Iruretagoyena, A. (2006). Controlled overturning of unanchored rigid bodies. Earthquake
engineering & structural dynamics, 35 (6), 695-711.
[3] Moroni, M. O., Sarrazin, M., & Soto, P. (2012). Behavior of instrumented base-isolated structures during the 27
February 2010 Chile earthquake. Earthquake spectra, 28 (1_suppl1), 407-424.
[4] Bruno, S., & Valente, C. (2002). Comparative response analysis of conventional and innovative seismic protection
strategies. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 31 (5), 1067-1092.
[5] Hitoshi, S. U. W. A., & Matsutaro, S. (2005). A Comparison of Seismic Life-Cycle Costs on Earthquake resistant
buildings versus base isolated buildings. In The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference (pp. 2623-2631).
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
11
[6] Takahashi, Y., Masaki, N., Anahara, K., & Isoda, H. (2004, August). Life-cycle cost effectiveness of base-isolated
wooden house in seismically active region. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
[7] ZHANG, Y., YANG, Z. K., YAO, Q. F., & ZHANG, J. (2008). Life cycle cost analysis of isolated
structure. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology (Natural Science Edition), (5), 3.
[8] Mayes, R., Wetzel, N., Weaver, B., Tam, K., Parker, W., Brown, A., & Pietra, D. (2013). Performance based
design of buildings to assess damage and downtime and implement a rating system. Bulletin of the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering, 46(1), 40-55.
[9] Terzic, V., Merrifield, S. K., & Mahin, S. A. (2012). Lifecycle Cost Comparisons for Different Structural systems
designed for the same location Systems Designed for the Same Location. In 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
[10] FEMA. (2013a). FEMA P-58-1, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 - Methodology.
Retrieved July, 2013, from https://www.atcouncil.org/Projects/atc-58-project.html
[11] SENCICO. (2018). “Norma Técnica Peruana E.030 Diseño Sismorresistente”. Reglamento nacional de
edificaciones, Perú.
[12] Krawinkler, H., & Miranda, E. (2004). Performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthquake engineering: from
engineering seismology to performance-based engineering, 9, 1-9.
[13] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002): Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 31 (3), 491-514.1
[14] SENCICO. (2009). “Norma Técnica Peruana E.060 Concreto Armado”. Reglamento nacional de edificaciones,
Perú.
[15] American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (2010) ASCE/SEI 7–10 Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE, Reston, Virginia
[16] ACI Committee 318 (1999). Building code requirements for structural concrete:(ACI 318-99); and commentary
(ACI 318R-99). American Concrete Institute.
[17] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). ETABS User’s manual. Berkeley, California; December 1999;
www.csiberkeley.com
[18] SENCICO. (2016). Determinación de Peligro Sísmico en el País, available at
http://www.sencico.gob.pe/investigacion/publicaciones.php?id=492 (last accessed 14 June 2011).
[19] Takeda, T., Sozen, M. A., & Nielsen, N. N. (1970). Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes. Journal of the Structural Division, 96 (12), 2557-2573.
[20] PERFORM, C. (2011). 3D user manual (v5. 0.1). Berkeley. CA: Computer and Structures.
[21] Paulay, T., & Priestley, M. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings.
[22] Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J., & Park, R. (1988). Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of
structural engineering, 114(8), 1804-1826.
[23] Rodriguez, M. E., Botero, J. C., & Villa, J. (1999). Cyclic stress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel including effect
of buckling. Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(6), 605-612.
[24] Kim, S. H., & Koutromanos, I. (2016). Constitutive model for reinforcing steel under cyclic loading. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 142(12), 04016133.
[25] Priestley, M. N., Calvi, G. M., & Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS
press.
[26] Williams, M. S., & Sexsmith, R. G. (1995). Seismic damage indices for concrete structures: a state-of-the-art
review. Earthquake spectra, 11(2), 319-349.
[27] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE
41-13, Reston, VA.
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
12
[28] FEMA. (2013b). FEMA P-58-2, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 2 - Implementation
Guide. Retrieved July, 2013, from https://www.atcouncil.org/Projects/atc-58-project.html
[29] FEMA. (2013c). Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT) Version 2.9.65. Retrieved July, 2013, from
https://www.atcouncil.org/Projects/atc-58-project.html
[30] Hirakawa, N., & Kanda, J. (1997). Estimation of failure costs at various damage states. In Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting of Architectural Institute of Japan (Vol. 1, pp. 75-76).
[31] Taghavi, S., & Miranda, E. (2002). Seismic performance and loss assessment of nonstructural building
components. In Proceedings of 7th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (pp. 21-25).
[32] Almufti, I., & Willford, M. (2013). Resilience-based earthquake design (REDi) rating system, version 1.0. Arup
Group, London, United Kingdom.
[33] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1992. Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Hazardous Buildings - Volume 1: A user's manual, FEMA 227, Washington, D.C.
[34] Grimes, A. (2010). The economics of infrastructure investment: Beyond simple cost benefit analysis.
[35] Gestión. (2017). BCR redujo la tasa de interés de referencia a 3.50%. Gestión. https://gestion.pe/economia/bcr-
redujo-tasa-interes-referencia-3-50-143544.
[36] RPP. (2015). Índice de precios de materiales de construcción subió 2,76% en 2015. RPP
http://rpp.pe/economia/economia/indice-de-precios-de-materiales-de-construccion-subio-276-en-2015-noticia-
928154
.
8b-0028
The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 8b-0028 -
