Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Probabilistic fragility analysis parameterized by fundamental

response quantities
Seong-Hoon Jeong a,∗ , Amr S. Elnashai b,1
a Department of Architectural Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea
b Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

Received 12 September 2005; received in revised form 21 June 2006; accepted 23 June 2006
Available online 2 October 2006

Abstract

Analytical probabilistic fragility studies require extensive computer simulations to account for the randomness in both input motion and
response characteristics. In this study, an approach whereby a set of fragility relationships with known reliability is derived based on the
fundamental response quantities of stiffness, strength and ductility is presented. An exact solution for a generalized single degree of freedom
system is developed and employed to construct a Response Database of coefficients describing commonly used log-normal fragility relationships.
Once the fundamental response quantities of a wide range of structural systems are defined, the fragility relationships for various limit states can
be constructed without recourse to further simulation. The uncertainty associated with modeling simplifications is quantified by conducting
comparisons between the proposed approach and detailed multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) systems. Application examples are given to
demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed approach.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fragility analysis; Inelastic earthquake response; Damage assessment

1. Introduction Existing fragility curves can be classified into the four

The use of fragility curves, defined as a relationships
between ground shaking intensity and the probability of
reaching or exceeding a certain response level, for the
assessment of seismic losses is in increasing demand, both
for pre-earthquake disaster planning and post-earthquake
recovery and retrofitting programs. This is due to the
difficulties associated with analyzing individual structures and
the importance of obtaining a global view of anticipated
damage and effects of different interventions, before or after
an earthquake, respectively. Apart from the regional loss
assessment application of fragility curves, they are useful in
probabilistic assessment of damage to individual structures
taking into account response and input motion randomness.
∗ Corresponding address: Department of Architectural Engineering, Inha
University, 253 Yonghyun-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon, 402-751, Republic of
Korea. Tel.: +82 32 860 7580; fax: +82 32 866 4624.
E-mail addresses: jeong1@gmail.com (S.-H. Jeong), aelnash@uiuc.edu
(A.S. Elnashai).
1 1240 Newmark CE Lab. 205 North Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Tel.: +1 217 265 5497; fax: +1 217 265 8040.
generic groups of empirical, judgmental, analytical and hybrid,
according to whether the damage data used in their generation
derived mainly from observed post-earthquake surveys, expert
opinion, analytical simulations or combinations of these,
respectively. Empirical fragility curves are constructed based
on statistics of observed damage from past earthquakes. The
observational source is the most realistic as all practical
details of the exposed stock are taken into consideration
alongside soil–structure interaction effects, topography, site,
path and source characteristics. However, the empirical data
are highly specific to a particular situation and clustered in
the limited damage–low ground motion severity range due to
the infrequency of large magnitude earthquakes near densely
populated areas. Thus, the application of empirical fragility
curves is in general very limited. Further details on this type
of curves are given in Rossetto and Elnashai [1].
Judgment-based fragility assessment (e.g. ATC-13 [2] and
HAZUS [3]) depends on information from experts. This method
is not affected by the limitations regarding the quantity and
quality of structural damage statistics. Since the experts can

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.06.026
 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251
be asked to provide damage estimates for any number of
structural types, fragility assessments can be easily performed
to include all the factors affecting seismic response of
various structures. However, the reliability of the judgment-
based method is unquantifiable due to its dependence on the
individual experience of the experts consulted, and the regional
nature of the ensuing relationships.
Analytical fragility curves (e.g. [4–6]) adopt damage
distributions simulated from analyses of structural models
under increasing earthquake intensity as their statistical basis.
Extensive analyses usually result in a reduced bias and
increased reliability of the vulnerability estimate for different
structures compared to post-earthquake observations or the
expert opinion. However, elaborate modeling of architectural
finishes, infill walls, bearings and soil–structure interactions
still remain challenges that may significantly affect the analysis
results. Therefore, it is desirable to calibrate the analytical
curves with damage survey studies provided that appropriate
observational data are available. While the application of
analytical methods is generally limited by computation
effort, adopting simplified analytical models responds to this
shortcoming and allows conducting more simulations of wide
variations of structures.
Hybrid methods attempt to compensate for the scarcity
of observational data, subjectivity of judgmental data and
modeling deficiencies of analytical procedures by combining
data from different sources. Fragility analysis may be
performed primarily based on the expert opinion, and it also
incorporates limited observational data. Examples of the latter
are the seismic risk assessment methods in ATC-13 [2] and
ATC-40 [7]. The hybrid approach can be used to obtain more
reliable fragility curves by combining analytical assessment
with the observed structural damage data [8,9]. Analytical
simulations can be used to supplement the statistical response
information when the availability of observational data is
limited [10].
The various methods of fragility assessment differ in the
required resources and precision of the assessment results.
Therefore, the choice of a method should be made considering
the tradeoff between effort and precision which best fits the
application. The aim of the method proposed in this paper
is to provide a tool for the construction of fragility curves
with a reasonable precision level using a rapid procedure
that is mathematically sound. In order to overcome the
limited applicability of observational data and subjectivity in
damage estimation by expert opinion, an analytical platform is
employed.
2. Overview of the proposed method
Fragility curves may be derived analytically by simulations.
Even for a limited number of random variables and for modest
ranges of variation of these variables, the simulation effort
is very considerable, reaching several hundreds of thousands
of analyses. Every time the structure is replaced or modified,
repetition of the simulation is required. It is hereafter proposed
to parameterize the problem in such a manner that a generic set
1239
Fig. 1. Overall procedure of the parameterized fragility curves.
of fragility curves is derived. The parameters influencing the
shape of the functional representation of fragility are deemed
to be: (i) stiffness, closely related to serviceability limit state,
(ii) strength, closely related to damage control limit states and
(iii) ductility, closely related to collapse prevention. By using
the latter parameters with a Response Database which is a
collection of pre-run inelastic response analyses of structures
with a wide range of response parameters, the fragility curves
are directly obtained without the need for simulation, once
the fundamental response quantities of stiffness, strength and
ductility are known. This feature allows consideration of
various structural configurations in the decision-making for
earthquake mitigation strategies, by reducing the time and
effort in the derivation of fragility curves, while retaining their
probabilistic basis.
As depicted in Fig. 1, parameterized fragility curves are
derived in three main steps: (i) determination of response
parameters of the structure, (ii) response estimation using the
Response Database, the details of which are presented in the
following section, and (iii) construction of fragility curves with
various limit states.
It is noteworthy that the response estimation (step (ii)) can
be performed without considering the effect of ductility supply.
This is due to the fact that once the yield point is determined
by stiffness and strength the ultimate displacement capacity
does not affect the shape of the capacity curve which, in this
study, determines the response of a structure. Since the ultimate
displacement is defined as the product of ductility supply and
yield displacement, the effect of ductility supply is included
in determining the collapse limit state to derive fragility
curves.
3. Response parameters
In earthquake engineering, inelastic static procedures
(referred to in Applied Technology Council documents as
nonlinear static procedure — NSP) have been widely used
for the assessment of structures due to their simplicity and
efficiency. Modern seismic design and assessment guidance
documents, such as ATC-40 [7] and FEMA 273 [11],
incorporate NSPs for estimating the peak displacements
of multistory buildings. In the latter methods, the peak
displacement estimate is based on a first mode analogy of the
building in conjunction with an equivalent single degree of
freedom (ESDOF) system. The ESDOF system can be used
to estimate the response of multi-degree of freedom (MDOF)
1240 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251
Fig. 2. Bilinear force–displacement relationship and response parameters.
systems when the response is predominantly in a single mode.
Details of the ESDOF are given in the literature [12–15].
The NSP with the SDOF simplification has been considered
as a suitable method to estimate the maximum responses of
regular structures. The approach proposed in this paper also
employs the latter method. The primary force–displacement
relationship adopted in this study is represented in Fig. 2. The
stiffness of the unloading path is assumed to be the same as the
yield stiffness (k). The bilinear curve in Fig. 2 is defined by
three parameters: period (T ), strength ratio (SR) and post-to-
pre-yield stiffness ratio (α). The latter parameters do not entail
any unit conversion in various applications. The strength ratio
(SR) is defined as the ratio of lateral strength (P) to the total
weight (W ) of the structure.
The stiffness of a system is represented by the period T
and the strength is determined by SR. Ductility is calculated
by dividing the ultimate displacement (∆u ) by the yield
displacement (∆ y ). The definition of the ultimate displacement
is determined by the analyst according to the structure under
consideration and does not affect the proposed calculation
framework.
4. Demand estimation employing Response Databases
In the proposed method, the fragility curve is constructed
using parameterized structural response characteristics (T ,
SR, α and damping) and the Response Database (RD). The
structural response parameters are defined for the SDOF system
that is equivalent to the complex structure. The Response
Database is obtained from pre-run dynamic analysis results
for a range of structural response parameters. Simulation is
therefore no longer needed for a newly defined structural
system. The proposed methodology has conceptual analogy
with earthquake response spectra, because it (i) utilizes
simplified structural models (SDOF system), (ii) obtains the
maximum value of the response history and (iii) constructs
curves which replace dynamic response history analyses. The
reliability of the response estimate is always available and
reflecting it onto the obtained fragility curves is part of the
procedure.
4.1. Response Database
The structure of the Response Database is represented in
Fig. 3. The database is designed to store information on
maximum responses of a wide range of structures as statistical
parameters. This enables the analyst to construct fragility
curves by dealing with only two statistical parameters (mean
and standard deviation) instead of massive data from a large set
of dynamic response history analyses. Concurrently, the fidelity
of information is maintained because the cumulative normal or
log-normal distribution that is used to represent the probability
distribution of the maximum response depends on only the
mean and standard deviation of the response variable.
For a structure with known response parameters, a group
of maximum responses is obtained from dynamic analyses
under a set of ground motions. Based on the latter responses,
a set of means and standard deviations is calculated to be
the basic elements of the database. This process is repeated
for a range of earthquake intensities and structural response
parameters to construct the response matrix of a specific
earthquake scenario. The dimension of the response matrix can
be reduced by representing the mean and standard deviation
as functions of earthquake intensities. After this step, the
response matrix contains coefficients of regression functions
that represent the relationships between earthquake intensity
and statistical parameters (mean and standard deviation) of
the maximum displacement demand. Finally, the Response
Database is constructed by collecting the response matrices for
various earthquake scenarios and structural idealization types
such as the bilinear and the trilinear simplifications.
Computation time for the response estimation of inelastic
ESDOF systems with and without employing the Response
Database is compared in Fig. 4. The direct calculation without
using the Response Database needs hundreds of analyses
for constructing the fragility curves of a single structure.
For instance, to derive a set of fragility curves for one
of the reference structures in Fig. 9 using Record Set 1
(Section 5.1), the total number of analyses needed is 200 (10
records × 20 intensity levels) and each analysis consists of
3150 equilibrium steps (duration of a record/time interval of
the integration scheme = 31.5 s/0.01 s). When probabilistic
seismic assessment is performed for a large inventory of
 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251
Fig. 3. Structure of the Response Database.
Fig. 4. Comparison of the computation time.
structures and each of them has various combinations of
capacity changes due to retrofit, fragility analysis is required
for a huge number of structural configurations (No. of
structures × No. of capacity changes due to retrofit). In this
case, the computation time for the response estimation is
significant. Fig. 4 shows that the response estimation time
can be drastically reduced for a given earthquake scenario by
employing the Response Database. Even though the SDOF
system is employed, direct calculation (simulation) takes
19 000 times as much time as using the Response Database.
Therefore, instantaneous response estimation by the Response
Database is suggested especially for mitigation planning of
seismic risk for a large inventory of structures or optimization
of retrofit schemes where fragility assessment for a large
number of structural configurations is needed.
1241
Fig. 5. Force–displacement relationship of the example structure.
4.2. Response estimation
As an illustrative example, a generic structure with
an elastic-perfectly-plastic force–displacement relationship
(Fig. 5) is studied. The period and strength ratio of the structure
are 0.8 s and 0.13, respectively.
As indicated in Fig. 3, the means and standard deviations
of maximum displacement responses from a series of inelastic
dynamic response history analyses are collected and organized
in the Response Database. Each cell of the response database
contains six coefficients of a sixth order polynomial regression
function with intercept at zero (0, 0) and represents the mean or
standard deviation of the maximum displacements as a function
of earthquake intensity, as shown in Eq. (1).
y = a1 · x 6 + a2 · x 5 + a3 · x 4 + a4 · x 3 + a5 · x 2 + a6 · x. (1)
Here x is the earthquake intensity and y is the mean or
standard deviation of the response quantity.
1242 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251

(a) Mean and mean ± σ elastic demand.

(a) Mean of maximum displacement.

(b) Mean elastic and inelastic demand.

(b) Standard deviation (SD) of maximum

displacement.

Fig. 6. Mean and standard deviation of maximum displacement of the example

structure.

The response estimation results of the example structure

(Fig. 5) with 5% damping under Record Set 1 (Section 5.1)
are represented in Fig. 6. The mean (µ) and standard deviation
(c) Mean − σ elastic and inelastic demand.
(SD, σ ) of maximum responses are expressed as sixth order
polynomial functions of earthquake intensities (Eq. (1)).

4.3. Comparison with CSM

The estimates based on the Response Database are compared

with those by the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), one of
the most widely used NSPs in earthquake engineering. In the
CSM, the maximum displacement is estimated by locating the
intersection point of the capacity curve and demand spectra.
The latter are inelastic spectra in the acceleration–displacement
(or composite) response spectra (ADRS) format. Inelastic
spectra represent the modified response of an SDOF system
according to the level of inelasticity. In this study, constant
ductility spectra by inelastic dynamic analysis are employed for
the comparison because the latter method gives exact results of
maximum inelastic response of an SDOF system.
In order to obtain the mean and standard deviation of
maximum displacements by the CSM, the approach proposed
by Shinozuka [16] is employed. In the latter study, the mean
and mean ± σ (standard deviation) of maximum displacements
are obtained from the CSM with mean and mean ± σ demand
spectra, respectively. The latter spectra are developed by
plotting the mean and mean ± σ of the spectral acceleration
and displacement in the ADRS. The latter procedure requires
the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of spectral
(d) Mean + σ elastic and inelastic demand.
Fig. 7. Capacity–demand diagrams for the estimation of maximum responses
(PGA = 0.3g).
accelerations and displacements for a set of records with a
given earthquake intensity. Fig. 7(a) represents the mean and
mean ± σ (standard deviation) elastic demand spectra with
5% damping ratio (ξ ) for 0.3g peak ground acceleration (PGA)
level (Record Set 1).
Maximum inelastic displacements are obtained by plotting
constant ductility spectra. Appropriate ductility values are
determined by an iterative method where the ductility demand
of the intersection point is equal to the corresponding ductility
value of the constant ductility spectra. This method was
proposed by Chopra [17] to improve the accuracy of the
 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251
Fig. 8. Comparison of response estimation results by using the Response
Database (RD) and the CSM.
ATC-40 procedures. Estimation of mean and mean ± σ of
maximum displacements using the CSM for the example
structure in Section 4.2 above (T = 0.8 s and SR = 0.13)
is represented in Fig. 7(b), (c) and (d). In the latter figures,
the capacity curve overlaps with mean (or mean ± σ ) elastic
and inelastic demand spectra for 0.3g PGA. The inelastic
demand spectrum is developed by plotting the constant ductility
spectra in the ADRS format and represents modified responses
due to inelasticity. The above procedure should be repeated
for a range of earthquake intensities to develop fragility
curves.
The most accurate response estimation method of inelastic
SDOF systems is the inelastic dynamic response history
analysis which is the basis of the method proposed in this paper.
The CSM with constant ductility spectra and iterations has
the same accuracy as the inelastic dynamic analysis, provided
that the constant ductility spectra are directly computed
from the given set of records and the resolution of the
iteration is high. Therefore, response estimation results by
the proposed method and the CSM approach should be the
same, theoretically. However, it is noteworthy that the method
by Shinozuka [16] adopted a minor approximation to save
computation costs; it uses the CSM with mean and mean ± σ
constant ductility spectra to estimate the mean and standard
deviation of the responses for a given record set. To obtain more
accurate results, response calculation should be performed
with individual constant ductility spectra of each record. After
performing the latter procedure for all records in the given set,
the mean and standard variation of the response are calculated.
Therefore, small (sometimes negligible) differences may exist
between the response estimations by the proposed method and
Shinozuka’s method; the former should in general be more
accurate.
Comparison of calculations by the Response Database (RD)
and the CSM in Fig. 8 shows that the difference between the
two methods is small. Therefore, the parameterized fragility
method (PFM) instantly provides response estimates required
for fragility analysis with neither iterations nor repetitions. It
gives response estimates that are as accurate as (theoretically,
more accurate than) the use of inelastic composite spectra and
the capacity spectrum assessment approach.
1243
5. Effect of model simplification
In order to quantify the uncertainty of the response
estimation based on the PFM, probabilistic relationships
between analysis results based on the ESDOF and the detailed
MDOF systems are investigated.
5.1. Reference simulation
Dynamic response history analyses were performed for
detailed inelastic MDOF models of the reference structures.
The latter structures are selected to have limited irregularities
and their configurations are shown in Fig. 9. The bridge ‘CU’ is
a typical MSSS (multi-span simply supported) concrete girder
bridge with multi-column bents in the Central United States.
The bridge has three spans with a length of 15.01 m each,
constructed of eight AASHTO Type I girders. The bents consist
of a 1066.8 mm wide by 1219.2 mm deep reinforced concrete
bent beam supported by three circular RC columns of 914 mm
diameter.
Bridge ‘SM’ is the Collector–Distributor 36 of the Santa
Monica (I10) Freeway that forms part of a pair of off-ramps
from the eastbound carriageway on the I-10 freeway. The
analytical model is simplified from the original configuration
by replacing the wall pier with roller supports which release the
displacement of the deck only in the longitudinal direction [18].
The deck of the bridge consists of a three-celled box girder and
is supported by three single column bents, each of which have
circular cross-sections with 1219 mm diameter. The deck hinge
was modeled using a 3-D joint element allowing free rotations
in the longitudinal plane of the deck and about the vertical axis.
The bridge ‘HS’ is a part of the Hanshin Expressway route 3
(Kobe, Japan), consisting of an elevated approximately 18 m
wide viaduct supported on single-column bents. The piers
are RC circular sections of diameter 2300 mm for the left
pier, and 2500 mm for the middle and right piers. Three-
dimensional joint elements are used at the pier-deck connection,
with moment release about the vertical axis and longitudinal
displacement release where the movable bearings are allocated.
In the analytical models of the above bridges, live loads
are not accounted for to calculate the initial gravity load
and masses. Lumped masses are distributed at all pier–deck
connections and at three locations on all individual spans.
Five cubic inelastic elements were employed in each of the
piers, with shorter elements at the base and top and longer
elements towards the center. Such an arrangement allowed
potential plastic hinge zones to be accurately captured. A
viscous damping ratio of 3% is assumed for each of the
latter bridges. Detailed information on the respective reference
bridges is given in Neilson [19], Elnashai [18] and Lee [20].
Mid-rise RC frame buildings are designed in accordance
with a modern seismic code [21], split into two groups: sets
of four 12-story RC frames (Fig. 9(d)) and four 8-story RC
frame (Fig. 9(e)). Within each group, combination of two
design ground accelerations (0.15g and 0.3g) and three design
ductility classes (High, Medium and Low) lead to the four
cases of each set. In the analytical models of the buildings, the
1244 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251
(a) Bridge CU.
(b) Bridge SM.
(c) Bridge HS.
(d) 12-story RC frame.
Fig. 9. Layout of the reference structures.
ends of horizontal elements within the beam–column joints are
considered rigid. Shear spring connection elements are used to
represent the shear stiffness of the beam–column connection.
The effective slab width participating in beam deformation is
taken as the mean width plus 7% of the clear span of the
structural member on either side of the web. In addition to
the dead loads, 30% of the live loads are accounted for to
calculate the masses, while 100% of the live loads are used
for the initial gravity loads. Lumped masses are distributed
at three locations on all individual beams in addition to all
beam–column connections. Viscous damping is not included in
the models while hysteretic damping is considered by nonlinear
material modeling. Further details regarding the modeling are
given in Mwafy [22].
For analytical modeling of the above structures, use is
made of the ZEUS-NL [23]. This analysis platform is capable
of representing the spread of inelasticity within the member
cross-section and along the member length utilizing the fiber
approach. The accuracy of the program has been verified
(e) 8-story RC frame.
elsewhere; see e.g., [24,25]. The inelastic response of the cross-
section is assembled from contributions of individual fibers
for which inelastic cyclic material constitutive relationships
are employed. For concrete, a uniaxial constant confinement
concrete model [26] was chosen. For steel, the multi-surface
steel model [27] for cyclic plasticity is utilized.
The reference simulations of the detailed MDOF models
of the three reference bridges were carried out with six sets
of ground motions. Record Sets 1–3 are records simulating
earthquake events for the Lowlands soil profile (Holocene
deposit [28]) in the Memphis area, TN, USA and each of
them consists of ten synthetic records. The three sets of ground
motions employed are based on three scenario earthquakes;
large magnitude–short distance, medium magnitude–medium
distance and small magnitude–long distance. Details of the
generation of the latter sets of artificial records are given
in Drosos [29]. Record Sets 4 and 5 are medium-to-large-
magnitude small-distance (4.5 < Mw < 7, 10 km < R <
30 km) natural records in Japan and Western USA, respectively.
Record Set 6 consists of 35 major earthquakes around the
 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251
world. The list of the natural record sets (Record Sets 4–6) is
given in Appendix. The reference simulations of the eight RC
frames were performed with the three artificial record sets for
the Memphis area (Record Sets 1–3).
In order to obtain a wider spectrum of response data of the
reference structures, the ground motions are scaled to various
PGA levels, from 0.1 to 0.9g with a step of 0.1g. The numbers
of dynamic response history analyses using the detailed MDOF
models are 2295 (3 bridges × 85 records × 9 intensity levels)
for the reference bridges and 2160 (8 buildings × 30 records ×
9 intensity levels) for the mid-rise RC frame buildings.
5.2. Structural simplification
For transformation of the MDOF structure to the ESDOF
system, it is assumed that the response of the structure is
predominantly in the fundamental vibration mode. The capacity
curve of the MDOF system is obtained from pushover analysis
with lateral forces in proportion to the product of masses
and fundamental mode shape and it is transformed to the
force–displacement relationship of the ESDOF system. The
base shear (V ∗ ) and displacement (u ∗ ) of the ESDOF system
are the corresponding quantities (base shear, V ; displacement,
u) of the MDOF system divided by the modal participation
factor as
V ∗ = V /Γ and u ∗ = u/Γ . (2)
The modal participation factor (Γ ) is defined as
X .X
Γ = m i φi m i φi2 (3)
where m i is the mass assigned to DOF i and φi is the
displacement amplitude at DOF i of the fundamental mode
shape normalized to have a unit maximum amplitude. The mass
of the ESDOF (m ∗ ) system is calculated as follows:
X
m∗ = m i φi . (4)
Additional details on the ESDOF simplification are given
elsewhere [12–14].
The capacity curve of the ESDOF system is idealized
to the bilinear force–displacement relationship(Fig. 10) to
obtain the fundamental response parameters. While the
ESDOF simplification is an established procedure, the bilinear
representation needs engineering judgment. In this study, the
effective lateral stiffness is taken as the secant stiffness (K ∗ )
calculated at a base shear force equal to 60% of the yield
strength of the idealized structure, as shown in Fig. 10 [11].
The equal energy assumption is then employed to complete
the bilinear curve: the areas under the actual and the idealized
curves until the displacement at plastic mechanism (d p )
are approximately equal [21]. For a simpler procedure of
idealization, the plastic mechanism point is assumed to be at
2% drift ratio (u ∗ = 0.02H/Γ ) which is the Damage Control
displacement limit: the threshold between moderate and major
damage according to ATC-40 [7] and Zhong [30].
Based on the bilinear idealization of the force–displacement
relationship (Fig. 10), response parameters of the ESDOF
1245
Fig. 10. Bilinear idealization of the capacity curve.
system
√ can be obtained as follows: the period is T =
2π m ∗ /K ∗ , the strength ratio is SR = Vy∗ /(m ∗ · g) and the
post-yield stiffness is a K ∗ .
5.3. Maximum response evaluation by the ESDOF systems
The maximum displacement (u max ) of the MDOF system
can be estimated by the maximum response of the ESDOF
system as follows:
u max = Γ · u ∗max . (5)
Since the ESDOF approach is based on the assumption that
the deflected shape of the MDOF system is proportional to
a fixed shape throughout its response history, the maximum
displacement at DOF i(∆i ) is expressed as Eq. (6).
∆i = φi u max . (6)
For the building structure, the maximum interstory drift ratio,
δi , between story i and story i − 1 may be obtained by
δi = (∆i − ∆i−1 )/ h i (7)
where h i is the story height between story i and i − 1. The
maximum interstory drift ratio (δmax ) of the whole structure is
δmax = Max (δ1 , δ2 , . . . , δn ) (8)
where Max(·) is a function that returns the maximum of a set of
values and n is the total number of stories.
The reference structures are simplified to ESDOF systems
using the procedure in Section 5.2 and their response under the
given record sets (Section 5.1) are obtained from the Response
Database. The maximum displacement of the reference bridges
(Fig. 9(a), (b), (c)) and the maximum interstory drift ratio of
the RC frame buildings (Fig. 9(d), (e)) are estimated by Eqs. (5)
and (8), respectively. Each of the latter responses is compared to
the corresponding analysis result of the detailed MDOF system
to quantify the uncertainty of the response estimation by the
ESDOF system in the following section.
5.4. Probabilistic relationship between response estimations
by the ESDOF and MDOF systems
Since fragility analysis requires the predictive mean of
response quantities, the uncertainty due to the ESDOF
simplification is quantified by comparing the mean responses
of the reference structures (Fig. 9) estimated by the two
1246 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251

Table 1
Limit states
Structures Limit states References
LS1 — At least minor LS2 — Complete
Bridge ‘CU’ (µ∆ ) 1.0 2.6 Neilson, 2005 [19]
Bridge ‘SM’ (µ∆ ) 1.0 2.7 Elnashai et al.,
2005 [18]
Bridge ‘HS’ (µ∆ ) 1.0 3.2 Kawashima and Unjoh,
1997 [33]
Building ‘12H30’ (δ, %) 1.0 4.0 FEMA-356, 2000 [34]

and for buildings, the mean of maximum interstory drift ratio

may be obtained as follows.

δ̄max
MDOF
= 1.13 · δ̄max
ESDOF
. (10)
The mean responses of the MDOF systems (µ̄MDOF max , δ̄max )
MDOF

predicted by the above equations are used for fragility analysis

in this study. The respective uncertainties (standard error) in the
prediction of the MDOF mean responses of the bridges and the
(a) Reference bridges. buildings are 0.1 and 0.17, as shown in Fig. 11.

6. Derivation of fragility curves

6.1. Calculation of limit state probabilities

Three bridges (CU, SM, HS) and one building (12H30)

(b) Reference buildings.
Fig. 11. Relationships between the means of the maximum responses estimated
by the ESDOF and MDOF systems.
methods: ESDOF and detailed MDOF systems, as represented
in Fig. 11. For the bridges, the means of the maximum ductility
demand (µ̄max ) by the latter estimation methods are compared.
Each mean value is obtained for the individual record set
(Section 5.1) at a given intensity level. Thus, the number of
mean values for each estimation method (ESDOF or detailed
MDOF) is 162 (6 record sets × 3 structures × 9 intensity levels)
in the comparison (Fig. 11(a)). For the multi-story buildings,
mean estimates of the maximum interstory drift ratio (δ̄max )
by the ESDOF and detailed MDOF systems are compared and
the number of mean values for each estimation method is 216
(3 record sets × 8 structures × 9 intensity levels), as shown in
Fig. 11(b).
Based on the comparison in Fig. 11, to predict mean
responses of the detailed MDOF system based on the mean of
the ESDOF system responses, the following relationships are
suggested for structures with limited irregularities. For bridges,
the mean of maximum ductility demands can be estimated by
µ̄MDOF
max = 1.07 · µ̄ESDOF
max (9)
in Fig. 9 are selected for the reference derivation of fragility
curves. For each structure, two limit states corresponding to (i)
‘at least minor’ and (ii) ‘complete’ damage levels are defined, as
presented in Table 1. For the bridges, the limit state probability
of the pier damage is calculated for fragility analysis purposes.
The limit states of the ‘complete’ damage are determined by
previous research for the corresponding example structure.
The ultimate curvature ductility of the bridge ‘CU’ is 5.24
according to Neilson [19]. The latter value is determined
by Bayesian update to incorporate the information from the
physics-based approach [31] with the information from survey
results. The displacement ductility (µ∆ ) can be obtained by
the following equations [32] using the given curvature ductility
(µφ = 5.24).
µ∆ = 1 + 3(µφ − 1) · (l p /l) · [1 − 0.5(l p /l)] = 2.6 (11)
l p = 0.08l + 9db = 0.08 · 4.6 + 9 · 0.0254 = 0.6 (m). (12)
Here, l p and l are the plastic hinge length and the height
of the pier, respectively. The diameter of the longitudinal
reinforcement (db ) is 25.4 mm according to [19].
The failure of the pier of bridge ‘CU’ during the Northridge
earthquake (1994) in California was reproduced by pseudo-
dynamic testing of a 1/2 scale specimen in Elnashai et al. [18].
Based on the ductility demand where the pier failure was
observed in the latter test, the ultimate displacement ductility
of the pier of the bridge ‘CU’ is assumed to be 2.7.
The ultimate displacement ductility of bridge ‘HS’ is
determined based on the nonlinear analysis result by
Kawashima and Unjoh [33], where analytical studies were
performed to investigate the observed damage of typical piers
of the Hanshin Expressway Route 3.
 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251 1247

For the ultimate interstory drift of the building ‘12H30’, the

upper limit state of the ‘Collapse Prevention’ in the FEMA-
356 [34] is used. The latter performance level is defined as an
interstory drift ratio of 4% for RC frame buildings.
The probability of reaching or exceeding a limit state (LS)
at a given earthquake intensity (s) can be expressed as follows:
P (LS/s) = P [(dLS ≤ dmax )/s] = 1 − Φ (r ) (13)
where dLS and dmax are limit state capacity and maximum
demand, respectively. Assuming that the responses follow a
(a) Bridge CU.
log-normal distribution, the standard normal variate r can be
expressed as
ln dLS − λ D
r= q (14)
βLS
2 + β2
D

in which λ D is the mean of ln(dmax ) and can be expressed in

terms of the mean of the maximum response (d̄max ) and its
dispersion (β D ): λ D = ln(d̄max ) − 0.5β D
2.β
LS is the dispersion
of a limit state and is assumed to be 0.3 for the reference
derivation in this study. The dispersion of maximum demand
β D is obtained as the combination of uncertainties associated
(b) Bridge SM.
with demand estimation:
q
βD = ln 1 + (σr /d̄max )2 + ln 1 + (σc /d̄max )2 + ln 1 + (σm /d̄max )2 (15)

in which σr and σc are the standard deviations due to

randomness in earthquake records and material properties,
respectively. σm is the epistemic uncertainty due to the
simplification of a structural model and is assumed to be 0.1
for the bridges and 0.17 for the buildings, as discussed in
Section 5.4.

6.2. Effect of randomness in material properties

Based on the experimental studies of Bartlett [35] and
Mirza [36], the coefficient of variation of concrete compres-
sive strength and steel yield strength are taken as 18.6% and
10.7%, respectively. Assuming that the material properties fol-
low a normal distribution with the latter variations and the mean
values given in Fig. 9, 30 sets of concrete strength and steel
yield strength are randomly sampled for each of the example
bridges. Dynamic response history analyses were performed on
the three sets of MDOF models. Each set consists of 30 models
to represent the corresponding reference structure with 30 dif-
ferent material pairs. In order to estimate the effect of random-
ness in the material properties, the mean and standard deviation
of the maximum responses obtained from the latter analyses
are compared with those from the reference structures with de-
terministic mean material properties, as shown in Fig. 12. The
statistical parameters (mean µ, standard deviation σ ) based on
the mean material properties shows a very good agreement with
those of the structures with 30 random material samples. This
can be explained by the fact that the mean capacity of a structure
is only slightly affected by the material randomness which is an
unbiased normal distribution around the mean material prop-
erties and the effect of material randomness on the response
variation is overshadowed by the randomness in the earthquake
(c) Bridge HS.
Fig. 12. Comparison of statistical parameters of maximum responses estimated
by simulations with and without considering material randomness.
record set. The latter observation has been continually reported
in recent studies; see e.g. [37–39]. Therefore, the material un-
certainty (σc ) in Eq. (15) is ignored in this study.
6.3. Fragility curves
Using the proposed method, the fragility curves of the
selected reference structures under Record Set 1 are derived for
the two limit states in Table 1, as shown in Fig. 13. Based on
dynamic analysis of the detailed MDOF models, the probability
of maximum demand reaching or exceeding the limit states
is also calculated and plotted in Fig. 13. For the purpose of
comparison between fragility curves derived by the PFM and
the detailed MDOF systems, the uncertainty (σm ) due to the
structural simplification quantified in Section 5.4 is represented
as 90% confidence bounds (mean ± 1.645σm ) in deriving the
PFM fragility curves.
The agreement between the limit state probability estima-
tions by the Parameterized Fragility Method (PFM) and the
1248 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251

Table 2
Probabilistic performance targets

Description of probabilistic performance target Conditional limit state probability

T1 The probability of reaching or exceeding the LS 1 is less than 30% P1 = 0.3
T2 The probability of reaching or exceeding the LS 2 is less than 5% P2 = 0.05

(a) Bridge CU.

Fig. 14. Fragility contour.

6.4. Application to retrofitting options

Due to the high uncertainties of structural responses

(b) Bridge SM.
(c) Bridge HS.
(d) Building 12H30.
Fig. 13. Comparison of fragility curves.
detailed MDOF models are generally good and most of the
MDOF results are in the 90% confidence bounds which repre-
sent the simplification error (σm ). The latter results confirm that
the PFM is an accurate and efficient tool for deriving fragility
curves of structures with limited irregularities by trading off the
small uncertainty increase (σm = 0.1 ∼ 0.17 from Section 5.4)
for a very significant saving of computation time.
under earthquake loadings, it is desirable to use probabilistic
performance targets for decision making related to intervention
methods. As an illustrative example of the PFM applied to the
structural retrofit strategy, two retrofit targets of the reference
Bridge ‘CU’ are assumed as given in Table 2. The latter targets
are based on the limit states in Table 1 and determined for
Record Set 1 scaled to PGA of 0.55g which corresponds to the
earthquake intensity level of 2% probability of exceedance in
Memphis, TN area (as per USGS).
The contours of limit state probabilities for the above
performance targets are given in Fig. 14. The conditional limit
state probability (Pi ) in Table 2 can be represented as a function
of response parameters (T , SR) as follows:
Pi = P(LSi /s = 0.55g) = F(T, SR). (16)
The fragility contour is an inverse problem of the
conventional fragility assessment: finding structural parameters
with a given probability of exceedance. The inverse function,
(T, SR) = F −1 (Pi ), can be solved only by the Response
Database. Since the Response Database is a collection of pre-
analyzed responses for a wide range of structures, the response
estimation of structures entails only retrieving the relevant value
from the latter database. Thus, the contour chart (Fig. 14) which
needs estimation of limit state probabilities for all possible
response parameters (stiffness and strength) can be obtained
instantly.
While the as-built or retrofitted structure is shown as a point,
the performance target which is defined as the probability of
exceedance is represented as the contour line. If the point is to
the right of or above the contour line, the corresponding perfor-
mance target is satisfied. Using the fragility contours, engineers
can visualize various options to achieve the performance targets
and determine a retrofit method based on fundamental struc-
tural parameters. Fig. 14 shows that all performance targets in
 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251 1249

Table 2 can be met by increasing the stiffness to 68 kN/mm stiffness, strength and ductility of a structural system, a set of
(Opt #3), or by increasing the stiffness to 59 kN/mm and the probabilistic fragility curves is instantly available, the accuracy
strength ratio to 0.82. In order to satisfy performance target T2, of which is the same as closed-form ESDOF-based inelastic
a ductility-only intervention can be used and increasing the duc- simulation approaches and acceptably close to fragilities
tility to 4 (Opt #1) satisfies the retrofit objective. from detailed, fiber-based finite element analysis. Verification
examples are given for both buildings and bridges.
7. Advantages of the proposed method The implications of the success of the developed approach
are wide-ranging. For cases of selection between different
The parameterized fragility method (PFM) proposed in this retrofitting options, the parameterized fragility curves approach
paper is an efficient tool for rapidly deriving probabilistic gives rapid estimates of probabilities of various damage levels
fragility relationships with quantifiable levels of uncertainty. being inflicted onto the structures under consideration, given
By virtue of its instantaneous nature, the proposed method is only the stiffness, strength and ductility for each alternative
especially useful for practical application of analytical fragility retrofitting scheme. Additionally, the presented fragility
curves to the planning of seismic rehabilitation, and regional assessment method enables the analyst to practically investigate
earthquake mitigation where fast estimation of probabilities of the vulnerability of large numbers of different structural
reaching damage states for a large number of structural con- configurations instantly without simulation. Therefore, this
method blends very well with the Consequence-Based Risk
figurations and different mitigation measures is required. For
Management (CRM) approach of the Mid-America Earthquake
instance, seismic performance assessment of highway bridges
Center, where the fragility assessment for generic structural
requires instant fragility results for a large inventory of different
systems in a large region is sought.
structures as an essential component of transportation network
analysis [40]. The PFM responds to this identified need. Acknowledgements
While the NSP requires repetitions of ‘iteration and
response estimation’, as discussed in Section 4.3, the proposed The work presented above was undertaken as part of
method instantly provides response estimates required for the Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center research project
fragility analysis. The calculation speed is thousands of EE-1: Vulnerability Functions, which is under the Engineering
times faster than direct calculation of the SDOF system by Engines Thrust Area. The MAE Center is a National Science
simulation. Therefore, in the case of fragility assessment for Foundation Engineering Research Center (ERC), funded
very large and varied inventories of structures, the PFM is through contract reference NSF Award No. EEC-9701785.
an efficient substitute for conventional methods of fragility Finalization of the paper was supported by the Inha University.
analysis. By proving a method for instantaneous derivation
Appendix. List of earthquake records
of rigorous, analytical, probabilistic fragility curves with the
knowledge of only the stiffness, strength and ductility of the Record Set 4
system, the proposed method enables the use of probabilistic
fragility analysis without inhibition and concern about the Earthquake Station
computational effort required and leads to loss assessment that Kure, 2001 HRS019
has quantifiable uncertainty. Urahoro, 1999 HKD091
Kushkino, 1997 KGS010
8. Conclusions Sendai, 1997 KGS007
Yokota, 2000 SMN003
Derivation of probabilistic fragility curves for a class of Tsuwano, 1997 SMN014
Miyanojoh, 1997 KGS005
structures requires many analyses (tens or even hundreds
Okuchi, 1997 KGS003
of thousands), especially when a large number of random Miyazaki, 1996 MYZ013
variables is considered. These curves will then have to be Toride, 2005 IBR016
re-derived for different structural configurations as well as
for different repair and/or strengthening schemes. In this
Record Set 5
paper, a new analytical fragility assessment framework based
on characterizing a response database, parameterized by the Earthquake Station
fundamental quantities of stiffness, strength and ductility, Imperial Valley, 1979 Parachute Test site
is proposed. The Response Database contains polynomial Round Valley, 1984 Mcgee Creek surface
coefficients for structures with a wide range of stiffness and Chalfant,1986 Bishop Ladwp South st
strength. Therefore, with pre-determined stiffness, strength and Coalinaga, 1983 Parkfield - Cantua Creek school
a set of earthquake records, the database provides mean values Imperial Valley, 1979 Bonds Corner
and their associated standard deviation of inelastic response Livermore, 1980 San Ramon Kodad bldg.
quantities of the corresponding structure without the need for Lytle Creek, 1970 Wrightwood
Mammoth Lakes, 1980 Convict Creek
further analysis. The effect of ductility variation is included
Morgan Hill, 1984 Anderson dam downstream
in the limit state definition in the calculation of cumulative Northridge, 1994 El Monte - Fairview
conditional probabilities. Thus, once the user defines the
1250 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251

Record Set 6 [11] Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA-273: NEHRP guide-
lines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington(DC): FEMA;
Earthquake Station 1997.
Nahani CANADA, 1985 IVE [12] Saiidi M, Sozen MA. Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of RC structures.
Coyote Lake USA, 1979 SYS Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1981;107(5):937–53.
Coalinga USA, 1983 PVP [13] Fajfar P, Fischinger M. N2 — A method for non-linear seismic analysis
Gazli USSR, 1976 GAZ of regular structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on
Imperial Valley USA, 1979 E07 earthquake engineering. 1988.
Imperial Valley USA, 1979 E06 [14] Qi X, Moehle JP. Displacement design approach for reinforced concrete
Imperial Valley USA, 1979 BCR structures subjected to earthquakes. Berkeley (California): Earthquake
Imperial Valley USA, 1979 E08 Engineering Research Center; 1991.
Imperial Valley USA, 1979 E05 [15] Aschheim M, Black EF. Yield point spectra for seismic design and
Imperial Valley USA, 1979 EDA rehabilitation. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(2):317–35.
Kobe Japan, 1995 KOBJ [16] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK, Kim SH. Nonlinear static procedure
Kobe Japan, 1995 KPIA for fragility curve development. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE
Kobe Japan, 1995 KBU 2000;126(12):1287–95.
Loma Prieta USA, 1989 COR [17] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-demand-diagram methods for estimating
Loma Prieta USA, 1989 CAP seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDF systems. Berkeley
Loma Prieta USA, 1989 UCSCR (California): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 1999.
Loma Prieta USA, 1989 SAR [18] Elnashai AS, Spencer BF, Kuchma D, Kim S, Burdette N, Holub C et al.
Loma Prieta USA, 1989 WVLGF Analysis and distributed hybrid simulation of shear-sensitive rc bridges
Loma Prieta USA, 1989 WVLRF subjected to horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motion. In: 37th
Morgan Hill USA, 1984 G07 Annual meeting of the US-Japan panel on wind and seismic effects. 2005.
Morgan Hill USA, 1984 G06 [19] Neilson BG. Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in
Morgan Hill USA, 1984 G04 moderate seismic zones. Ph.D. thesis. Atlanta (GA): Georgia Institute of
Morgan Hill USA, 1984 G02 Technology; 2005.
Montenegro YUGOSLAVIA, 1979 UL0 [20] Lee D, Choi E, Zi G. Evaluation of earthquake deformation and
Managua NICARAGUA, 1972 VAV performance for rc bridge piers. Engineering Structures 2005;27(10):
Northridge USA, 1994 AFS 1451–64.
Northridge USA, 1994 NFS [21] Eurocode 8. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures.
Northridge USA, 1994 SRH European Pre-standard ENV 1998-1, 1-2 and 1-3, European Committee
San Fernando USA, 1971 PCD for Standardization. Bruxelles. 1994.
EL SALVADOR, 1986 IGN [22] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse
EL SALVADOR, 1986 CIG analysis of RC buildings. Engineering Structures 2001;23(5):407–24.
Tabas IRAN, 1978 TAB
[23] Elnashai AS, Papanikolau V, Lee D. ZeusNL — a system for inelastic
Whittier USA, 1987 GRV
analysis of structures. Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of
Whittier USA, 1987 GAR
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Program release Sep. 2002; 2002.
Whittier USA, 1987 BELL
[24] Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. Performance of composite steel/concrete
members under earthquake loading. Part I: Analytical model. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22(4):315–45.
References [25] Jeong SH, Elnashai AS. Analytical assessment of an irregular RC
frame for full-scale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing. Part I: Analytical model
[1] Rossetto T, Elnashai AS. Derivation of vulnerability functions for verification. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2005;9(1):95–128.
European-type RC structures based on observational data. Engineering [26] Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. Confined concrete model under cyclic
Structures 2003;25(10):1241–63. load. Materials and Structures 1997;30(197):139–47.
[2] Applied Technology Council. ATC-13: Earthquake damage evaluation [27] Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of material nonlinearities in
data for California. Redwood City (California): ATC; 1985. steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading. Earthquake
[3] National Institute of Building Sciences. Development of a standardized Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22(6):509–32.
earthquake loss estimation methodology. Washington(DC): FEMA; 1995. [28] Romero S, Rix GJ. Regional variations in near surface shear wave velocity
[4] Chryssanthopoulos MK, Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ. Probabilistic evaluation
in the greater Memphis area. Engineering Geology 2001;62(1–3):137–58.
of behaviour factors in EC8-designed R/C frames. Engineering Structures
[29] Drosos VA. Synthesis of earthquake ground motions for the new Madrid
2000;22(8):1028–41.
seismic zone. M.S. thesis. Atlanta (GA): Georgia Institute of Technology;
[5] Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS. Method for probabilistic evaluation of
2003.
seismic structural damage. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
[30] Zhong Q. Assessing the effectiveness of reducing seismic vulnerability by
1996;122(12):1459–67.
[6] Erberik MA, Elnashai AS. Fragility analysis of flat-slab structures. a program of bridge pier wrapping. Ph.D. thesis. Urbana (IL): University
Engineering Structures 2004;26(7):937–48. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2001.
[7] Applied Technology Council. ATC-40: Seismic evaluation and retrofit of [31] Hwang H, Jernigan JB, Lin YW. Evaluation of seismic damage to
concrete buildings. Redwood City (California): ATC; 1996. Memphis bridges and highway systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering
[8] Barbat AH, Moya FY, Canas JA. Damage scenarios simulation for 2000;5(4):322–30.
seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthquake Spectra 1996;12(3): [32] Priestley MJN, Park R. Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns
371–94. under seismic loading. ACI Structural Journal 1987;84(8):61–76.
[9] Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS. Bayesian updating of fragilities with [33] Kawashima K, Unjoh S. The damage of highway bridges in the 1995
application to RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1998; Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake and its impact on Japanese seismic design.
124(8):922–9. 1997;1(3):505–41.
[10] Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K. Development of seismic risk [34] Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA-356: Prestandard and
scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. Natural commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington(DC):
Hazards 1998;17(2):177–92. FEMA; 1999.
 S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1238–1251 1251

[35] Bartlett FM, MacGregor JG. Statistical analysis of the compressive
strength of concrete in structures. ACI Material Journal 1996;93(2):
158–68.
[36] Mirza SA, MacGregor JG. Variability of mechanical properties of
reinforcing bars. ASCE Journal of Structural Division 1979;105: (ST5).
[37] Wen YK, Ellingwood BR, Bracci J. Vulnerability function framework
for consequence-based engineering. MAE report 04-04. Mid-America
Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2004.
[38] Pinto PE, Giannini R, Franchin P. Seismic Reliability Analysis of
Structures. IUSS Press; 2004.
[39] Kwon OS, Elnashai AS. The effect of material and ground motion
uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structures.
Engineering Structures 2006;28(2):289–303.
[40] Kim YS, Elnashai AS, Spencer BF, Ukkusuri S, Waller ST. Seismic
performance assessment of highway networks. In: 8th National
conference on earthquake engineering. 2006.