PSI - Issue 78

Gianrocco Mucedero et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1959–1966

1964

Fig. 3. Total (direct and indirect losses) and indirect losses normalised by the reconstruction cost.

4. Existing building The collapse fragility and loss assessment procedures for the existing case-study building follow the same methodology adopted for the new buildings, with minor adjustments. Ten return periods were considered: 30, 45 (SLO), 75 (SLD), 100, 200, 475, 712 (SLV), 975, 1463 (SLC), and 2475 years, and for each 20 pairs of ground motion records were selected. The MSA results were used to derive collapse fragility curves, which were later inflated using the epistemic uncertainty (β MDL ) sets suggested by O’Reilly and Sullivan (2018) and Mucedero et al. (2022) for the retrofitting and as-built scenarios, respectively, to account for the uncertainty involved in the estimation of the fragility parameters. The obtained collapse fragility curves are depicted in Fig. 4(a).

(a)

(b)

(c) (d) Fig. 4. (a) Collapse fragility and EAL for the different retrofitting alternatives. Median downtime (in days) for (c) functional recovery (FR) and (d) re-occupancy (RO) states, for different return periods.