Evaluation of the Adjustment of the Collapse Capacity by Epsilon in the FEMA P‐695 Methodology

ABSTRACT The FEMA P‐695 document proposed a methodology to evaluate if a structure meets an acceptable probability of collapse at the MCE. It includes a modification of the median collapse capacity to account for differences in the spectral shape of ground motions expected at a site at the target hazard level of interest to that of the records used in the analyses. This modification is done as a function of the parameter epsilon, defined as the number of standard deviations by which the spectral acceleration ordinate computed from a record differs from that estimated by a ground motion model. This study evaluates this adjustment by using seven moment‐resisting frame buildings when subjected to 269 recorded ground motions. Consistent with previous studies, ground motion intensities triggering collapse exhibit an increasing trend as epsilon increases. By using Next‐Generation Intensity Measures, it is shown that this trend is primarily produced by characteristics of the ground motions other than epsilon. Results indicate that once these are accounted for by using intensity measures that are better correlated with collapse, the effects of epsilon on collapse capacity are small. Therefore, it is concluded that the collapse capacity adjustment currently proposed in the FEMA P695 methodology is not recommended.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Published
2026-03-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.70169
Primary Topic
Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of the Adjustment of the Collapse Capacity by Epsilon in the FEMA P‐695 Methodology

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
article

Evaluation of the Adjustment of the Collapse Capacity by Epsilon in the FEMA P‐695 Methodology

article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT The FEMA P‐695 document proposed a methodology to evaluate if a structure meets an acceptable probability of collapse at the MCE. It includes a modification of the median collapse capacity to account for differences in the spectral shape of ground motions expected at a site at the target hazard level of interest to that of the records used in the analyses. This modification is done as a function of the parameter epsilon, defined as the number of standard deviations by which the spectral acceleration ordinate computed from a record differs from that estimated by a ground motion model. This study evaluates this adjustment by using seven moment‐resisting frame buildings when subjected to 269 recorded ground motions. Consistent with previous studies, ground motion intensities triggering collapse exhibit an increasing trend as epsilon increases. By using Next‐Generation Intensity Measures, it is shown that this trend is primarily produced by characteristics of the ground motions other than epsilon. Results indicate that once these are accounted for by using intensity measures that are better correlated with collapse, the effects of epsilon on collapse capacity are small. Therefore, it is concluded that the collapse capacity adjustment currently proposed in the FEMA P695 methodology is not recommended.

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (US), Universidad Panamericana (GT), Universidad Panamericana (MX)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.