Seismic loss estimation is an essential tool for assessing the performance and resilience of buildings exposed to seismic hazards. Numerous loss methodologies with varying fidelities exist, with each comprising different steps and requiring analysts to adopt certain modeling decisions and assumptions. This study compares three seismic loss estimation methods, namely FEMA P-58 component-, story loss function (SLF)-, and HAZUS assembly-based approaches, using a database of 621 steel special moment-resisting frame buildings with diverse designs and geometries. In addition, a set of sensitivity analyses are performed to evaluate the influence of key modeling decisions in fragility and loss assessment stages on different loss methodologies. These decisions include (1) intensity measure-engineering demand parameter (IM-EDP) formulation to derive fragility functions, (2) EDP proxy for fragility models within the assembly-based method, (3) characterization of demolition fragility, and (4) uncertainties in nonstructural component quantities. The results show that the assembly-based approach estimates lower median loss for short- to medium-rise buildings but higher estimates for taller ones, with significantly higher variability in losses for multi-story buildings compared to the component-based approach. In contrast, the SLF-based method yields slightly higher median loss for 1-story buildings but consistently lower estimates for multi-story buildings than the component-based approach. The sensitivity analysis highlights that the critical modeling decisions vary by the selected method. The assembly-based approach shows greater sensitivity to the choice of EDP proxy impacting the dispersion of losses. In contrast, uncertainties in nonstructural component quantities predominantly govern both the median and dispersion of losses for the component-based approach, and the selected IM-EDP formulation has the highest effect on SLF-based estimates.
BakerJWCornellCA (2008) Uncertainty propagation in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Structural Safety30(3): 236–252.
2.
CalviGMPinhoRMagenesGBommerJJRestrepo-VélezLFCrowleyH (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology43(3): 75–104.
3.
CookD (2025) Ned-Beta: Nonstructural Element Database (Version Beta) (NIST). U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://github.com/usnistgov/NED
CremenGBakerJW (2021) Variance-based sensitivity analyses and uncertainty quantification for FEMA P-58 consequence predictions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics50(3): 811–830.
6.
CrowleyHBommerJJPinhoRBirdJ (2005) The impact of epistemic uncertainty on an earthquake loss model. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34(14): 1653–1685.
7.
DyanatiMHuangQRokeD (2017) Sensitivity analysis of seismic performance assessment and consequent impacts on loss analysis. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15(11): 4751–4790.
8.
ErochkoJChristopoulosCTremblayRChoiH (2011) Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05. Journal of Structural Engineering 137(5): 589–599.
9.
EsteghamatiMZFarzampourA (2020) Probabilistic seismic performance and loss evaluation of a multi-story steel building equipped with butterfly-shaped fuses. Journal of Constructional Steel Research172: 106187.
10.
EsteghamatiMZFlintMM (2021) Developing data-driven surrogate models for holistic performance-based assessment of mid-rise frame buildings at early design. Engineering Structures245: 112971.
11.
EsteghamatiMZRodriguez-MarekAFlintMM (2023) A reliability-based decision support system for resilient and sustainable early design. In Resilient and Sustainable Buildings. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 177–228.
12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1999) HAZUS-MH: Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology. Washington, DC: Technical Manual.
13.
FEMA. FEMA P-58-1 (2012): Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Volume 1–Methodology. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
14.
FEMA, P-58-1 (2018) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Volume 1–Methodology. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
15.
FEMA, P-58-3 (2018) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Volume 3–Supporting Electronic Materials and Background Documentation, Third Edition. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
16.
FreddiFPadgettJEDall’AstaA (2017) Probabilistic seismic demand modeling of local level response parameters of an RC frame. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15: 1–23.
17.
FruchtESalamonARozelleJLeviTCalvoRAviravVBauschD (2021) Tsunami loss assessment based on Hazus approach–The Bat Galim, Israel, case study. Engineering Geology289: 106175.
18.
GentileRGalassoC (2021) Accounting for directivity-induced pulse-like ground motions in building portfolio loss assessment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering19(15): 6303–6328.
19.
GuanMEERIXBurtonMEERIHShokrabadiM (2021) A database of seismic designs, nonlinear models, and seismic responses for steel moment-resisting frame buildings. Earthquake Spectra37(2): 1199–1222.
20.
GuptaAKrawinklerH (1999) Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures (Report No.132). John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University.
21.
HAZUS-MH 2.1. (2015) Earthquake Model Technical Manual. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
22.
HwangSHLignosDG (2017) Earthquake-induced loss assessment of steel frame buildings with special moment frames designed in highly seismic regions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics46(13): 2141–2162.
23.
HwangSHJeonJSLeeK (2019) Evaluation of economic losses and collapse safety of steel moment frame buildings designed for risk categories II and IV. Engineering Structures201: 109830.
24.
IbarraLFKrawinklerH (2005) Global Collapse of Frame Structures Under Seismic Excitations. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
25.
IbarraLFMedinaRAKrawinklerH (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34(12): 1489–1511.
26.
IwataYSugimotoKKuwamuraH (2006) Reparability limit of steel structural buildings based on the actual data of the HyogokenNanbu earthquake. In: Wind and Seismic Effects: Proceedings of the 38th Joint Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, NIST Special Publication 1057, pp. 23–32.
27.
JalayerFCornellCA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics38(8): 951–972.
28.
Kijewski-CorreaTCetinerBZhongKWangCZsarnoczayAGuoYMcKennaF (2023) Validation of an augmented parcel approach for hurricane regional loss assessments. Natural Hazards Review24(3): 04023022.
29.
KircherCANassarAAKustuOHolmesWT (1997) Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra13(4): 663–682.
KrawinklerH (1978) Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames. Engineering Journal15(3): 82–91.
32.
LamprouAJiaGTaflanidisAA (2013) Life-cycle seismic loss estimation and global sensitivity analysis based on stochastic ground motion modeling. Engineering Structures54: 192–206.
33.
LignosD (2008) Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. Phd Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
34.
LignosDGKrawinklerH (2011) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Journal of Structural Engineering137(11): 1291–1302.
35.
McCormickJAburanoHIkenagaMNakashimaM (2008) Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements. In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 05-06-0071. Beijing, China.
36.
McKennaFFenvesGLScottMHJeremicB (2000) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
37.
MirandaE (2000) Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites. Journal of Structural Engineering126(10): 1150–1159.
O’ReillyGJMonteiroR (2019) Probabilistic models for structures with bilinear demand-intensity relationships. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics48(2): 253–268.
40.
O’ReillyGJShahnazaryanD (2024) On the utility of story loss functions for regional seismic vulnerability modeling and risk assessment. Earthquake Spectra40(3): 1933–1955.
41.
PapadopoulosANVamvatsikosDKazantziAK (2019) Development and application of FEMA P-58 compatible story loss functions. Earthquake Spectra35(1): 95–112.
42.
PorterKFarokhniaKVamvatsikosDChoI (2015) Guidelines for Component-Based Analytical Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings and Nonstructural Elements. Boulder, CO: Global Vulnerability Consortium.
43.
PorterKABeckJLShaikhutdinovRV (2002) Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthquake Spectra18(4): 719–743.
44.
RamirezCMMirandaE (2012) Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(11): 1477–1493.
45.
RamirezCMLielABMitrani-ReiserJHaseltonCBSpearADSteinerJMirandaE (2012) Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(11): 1455–1475.
46.
ScawthornCFloresPBlaisNSeligsonHTateEChangSLawrenceM (2006) HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation methodology. II. Damage and loss assessment. Natural Hazards Review7(2): 72–81.
47.
SchneiderPJSchauerBA (2006) HAZUS—Its development and its future. Natural Hazards Review7(2): 40–44.
48.
ShahnazaryanDO’ReillyGJ (2021) Integrating expected loss and collapse risk in performance-based seismic design of structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering19(2): 987–1025.
49.
ShahnazaryanDO’ReillyGJMonteiroR (2021) Story loss functions for seismic design and assessment: Development of tools and application. Earthquake Spectra37(4): 2813–2839.
50.
SilvaACastroJMMonteiroR (2020) Brace-to-frame connection modelling effects on seismic loss assessment of steel concentrically-braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research172: 106230.
51.
SilvaVAkkarSBakerJBazzurroPCastroJMCrowleyHVamvatsikosD (2019) Current challenges and future trends in analytical fragility and vulnerability modeling. Earthquake Spectra35(4): 1927–1952.
52.
TerzicVMerrifieldSKMahinSA (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. Lisbon, Portugal.
53.
TubaldiEFreddiFBarbatoM (2016) Probabilistic seismic demand model for pounding risk assessment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45(11): 1743–1758.
WelchDPSullivanTJCalviGM (2014) Developing direct displacement-based procedures for simplified loss assessment in performance-based earthquake engineering. Journal of Earthquake Engineering18(2): 290–322.
56.
WhitmanRVAnagnosTKircherCALagorioHJLawsonRSSchneiderP (1997) Development of a national earthquake loss estimation methodology. Earthquake Spectra13(4): 643–661.
57.
Zaker EsteghamatiM (2022) A holistic review of GM/IM selection methods from a structural performance-based perspective. Sustainability14(20): 12994.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
