Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

A Framework with reduced computational burden for Seismic Fragility

Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in High-Intensity
Seismic Zones
Muhammad Zain a, Muhammad Usman a, *, Syed Hassan Farooq b
a
School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Military College of Engineering (MCE), National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Risalpur, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current research is targeted to develop the analytical fragility relationships of reinforced concrete (RC)
Reinforced Concrete (RC) Buildings buildings in high-intensity seismic zones by considering the effects of higher structural modes to reduce the
Higher Modes computational effort. A new framework is presented in the study to assess the vulnerability in terms of the
Uncoupled Modal Response History Analysis
fragility relationships that can consider the modal response of individual modes in a building structure. The
(UMRHA)
Fragility curves
developed methodology considers the uncoupled modes of a structure employing a nonlinear single degree of
freedom structures and defines distinct limit states for each mode separately. By using the presented method­
ology, the response of higher modes can be incorporated in the fragility assessment. For elucidation, a two-story
reinforced concrete (RC) school building structure is selected from seismic zone 4 of Pakistan. In the first place,
its vulnerability is assessed by developing fragility relationships using dynamic response history analysis of full
three Dimensional nonlinear analytical models, subsequently, the fragility relationships are developed using the
presented methodology by considering the first two modes of the structure. Afterward, a comparison has been
made between the developed fragility curves from both of the methodologies. The results prove the effectiveness,
swiftness, and the simplicity of the established methodology for carrying out the vulnerability assessments
without compromising any accuracy. The developed framework reduces the computational time of one calcu­
lation cycle from 72 h for conventional methods to merely 4 h using a regular computer.

1. Introduction
Catastrophic repercussions arising from devastating earthquakes
have led to substantial research for determining the vulnerability of
structures to evaluate the seismic risk associated with the structural
failures so that life safety can be amply ensured [1–3]. Therefore,
seismic vulnerability evaluation through an earthquake damage model
is essentially vital for an accurate seismic risk assessment of structures
subjected to earthquake ground shaking of given intensities [4]. The
process of risk assessment also demands a significantly accurate esti­
mation of the seismic hazard. Outcomes from vulnerability assessments
can be conveniently employed for disaster preparedness, damage eval­
uations, and retrofitting for structural facilities [5,6].
Vulnerability information is usually projected out in terms of the
fragility relationships. Rossetto [7] produced the prevailing classifica­
tion of currently employed fragility relationships by categorizing them
into four distinct classes i.e. judgmental, empirical, analytical, and
hybrid. For judgmental relationships, expert opinion is used as the major
source for vulnerability assessment, while post-seismic surveys are
conducted for performance assessment of buildings to generate empir­
ical fragility relationships. Ruggieri et. al [8] proposed a “Rapid Visual
Screening Methodology” to visually assess the associated seismic risk of
RC schools in Southern Italy for prioritizing the vulnerable schools
demanding immediate intervention and sophisticated analysis, advo­
cating the use of judgmental fragility relationships. Similarly, Ruggieri
et. al [9], worked to establish the empirical fragility curves for masonry
churches, damaged during the 2003 Valle Scrivia Earthquake by
analyzing the statistical data collected in post-earthquake surveys,
almost 17 years ago and subsequently comparing it with the prevailing
condition of a subset of churches. Both of these methods i.e. judgmental
and empirical may contain biasness depending upon the level of an
expert’s judgment and the quality of surveys respectively, therefore, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.usman@nice.nust.edu.pk (M. Usman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.050
Received 6 November 2020; Received in revised form 16 May 2021; Accepted 16 June 2021
Available online 25 June 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Zain et al.
analytical relationships, produced using the nonlinear analytical simu­
lations, by far, are considered as most reliable with almost no biasness.
For instance, analytical fragility curves have been developed by [10] to
evaluate the impact of floor deformability (instead of assuming rigid
floors) on structural behavior and vulnerability during finite element
analysis of RC school buildings in Italy. On the other hand, hybrid
fragility relationships are produced by combining two or more of the
fragility classes [11]. In any process of vulnerability assessment,
involved uncertainties can be classified into two major categories i.e.
epistemic and aleatory [12]. From the viewpoint of seismic vulnerability
assessments, epistemic uncertainties cover the presence of opacity in the
structural capacity itself which is attributed to probable unwanted
variations of the material strengths during the construction process,
while the latter designates the uncertainties associated with the seismic
demands.
It has been found through the literature that material strengths may
be modeled as a random variable to account for such ambiguity;
nevertheless, Celik and Ellingwood [13], through extensive research
related to the evaluation of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties for
seismic vulnerability assessments of RC buildings, has concluded that
fragility relationships are not significantly different with those which
may be developed basing exclusively on the uncertainty related with the
seismic demand arising from ground motions. Thus it can be inferred
from the outcomes of previous research that variations in the seismic
demands are the major and the most significant source of the un­
certainties. Basing upon the discussed research by [13], the current work
exclusively considers the record-to-record variability as the major
source of uncertainty needed to be accounted for seismic vulnerability
and fragility assessments.
Fragility curves define a conditional probability of attaining or
exceeding a specific damage state, often known as the limit state (LS), at
a given intensity of earthquake shaking, represented by a specific In­
tensity Measure (IM). Qualitatively, the damage is any sort of unwanted
change in a system that can eventually influence structural behavior
[14]. Mathematically, a single fragility relationship can be written as
follows:
Pfragility = P[LS|IM = x ] (1)
The above equation represents the conditional probability of
exceeding a specific LS against the × value of an IM [15]. Thus it can be
inferred that probabilistic prediction of structural vulnerability can be
obtained for a set range and intensities of ground excitations. Different
researchers have proposed and employed different definitions for limit
states and intensity measures; the details are discussed in the impending
sections. The structural vulnerabilities are widely assessed in the form of
fragility relationships. Several researchers Karim and Yamazaki [16]
and Zhang et. al. [17] performed their researches to establish fragility
curves for highway bridges. Similarly, Chen and Chen [18], Stefanidou
[19], and Kim et. al. [20] further extended the research in bridges by
extending the fragility application on curved and skewed bridges. Babic
and Dolsek [21] developed the fragility functions for industrial precast
buildings using Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) as an indicator of
seismic intensity and concluded that non-structural elements were
largely vulnerable in the case of precast buildings which contain hori­
zontal panels. Nazari and Saatcioglu [22] assessed the seismic vulner­
ability of two-story and five-story shear wall buildings in Vancouver,
before and after the advent of domestic seismic codes, using non-linear
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) as explained by [23] with varying
intensities of earthquakes. Nazari and Saatcioglu [22] used spectral
acceleration (Sa), scaled at the first mode’s period, as an IM, and sub­
sequently used inter-story drift of the first floor to correlate the struc­
tural damage with considered limit states. Del Gaudio et. al. [24] used a
nonlinear static procedure and presented a simple methodology for
seismic fragility assessment of 250 reinforced concrete (RC) buildings,
subjected to the L’Aquila earthquake.
Similarly, experimental data for external and internal beam-column
3056
Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065
joints was employed by Romano et. al. [25] to propose a set of element
fragility for masonry infill walls, and eventually, a quantitative esti­
mation of indirect losses was provided depending upon the past Italian
earthquakes. Analogously, Gautam et. al. [26] developed empirical
fragility relationships for Nepali buildings, subjected to residential use.
O’Reilly et. al. [27] assessed the seismic vulnerability of school build­
ings in Italy as part of the national project targeted to assess seismic risk
and examined several schools to establish a database defining the con­
struction typology for a better comprehension of their contemporary
seismic vulnerability.
In the current study, a new methodology has been developed and
demonstrated to assess the seismic fragility for RC buildings in high-
intensity seismic zones. The established methodology is generic and
can be conveniently employed to assess the structural vulnerabilities of
all sorts of RC buildings, subjected to any kind of use. It differs from all
other fragility deriving methodologies presented in the past as no study
and research methodology has separately considered the effect of higher
modes while developing the seismic fragilities, and mostly remained
dependent upon the structural behavior on fundamental mode only. The
presented methodology inherently considers the effect of higher build­
ing modes in structural response and depends upon the Uncoupled
Modal Response History Analysis (UMRHA), developed by Chopra [28].
The proceeding section provides a brief of the UMRHA procedure.
It is pertinent to mention that underdeveloped and developing
countries still face a lack of research about the evaluation of prevailing
structural vulnerability against earthquakes, and the current study is
targeted to fill this gap by addressing the development of analytical
fragility curves for RC buildings in high-intensity seismic zones through
establishing an all-new methodology that reduces the computational
effort enormously without losing any significant accuracy. The proposed
methodology is presented in section 3. For demonstrating the applica­
tion of the established methodology, a school building is taken from the
seismic zone 4 of Pakistan as a case study, and the first two structural
modes have been considered to derive the fragility relationships,
considering more than 90 percent modal mass participation ratio,
cumulatively from both modes. Finally, the fragility curves are devel­
oped and presented for the considered case study by using the developed
methodology.
2. Conception of uncoupled modal response history analysis
(UMRHA) process
The UMRHA can be perceived as an enhancement in the traditional
modal analysis which attains the linear multi-degree-of-freedom intri­
cate dynamic response as a function of summation of structural response
contributions from a few independent structural modes. The response
characteristics arising from each mode are fundamentally alike the
response of SDOF structure, possessing analogous modal properties. The
analyses comprise the total number of modes which constitutes more
than 90% of the modal mass participation ratio. For an SDOF system,
subjected to a horizontal ground motion ẍ(t), the governing equation of
motion can be written as follows:
⎛ ⎞
Di , Ḋi ⎠
D̈i + 2ξi ωi Ḋi + Fsi ⎝ + ẍg (t) = 0 (2)
Li
Equation (2) can also be written as follows:
⎛ ⎞
Di , Ḋi ⎠
D̈i + 2ξi ωi Ḋi + Fsi ⎝ = − ẍg (t) (3)
Li
where;
Li is the product of Mi and Γi in which Mi = ϕTi Mϕi , containing the
product of the mass matrix and the modal components. ξi and ωi
represent modal damping ratio and the natural vibration frequency,
M. Zain et al.
respectively, of the considered mode i.e. the ith mode. Equation (3) is a
standard governing equation of motion for an inelastic SDOF structure.
( )
Nonlinear function, Fsi Ḋi , Di , must be known to evaluate the response
time history of Di (t). Thus, to determine the nonlinear function,
( )
Fsi Ḋi , Di , cyclic pushover analysis must be conducted individually for
each considered mode. The nexus between Di and the roof displacement,
represented by xir is approximately defined by the following equation;
xri
Di = (4)
(ϕri Γi )
where ϕri represents the associated value of ϕi coming at the roof. Fsi and
base shear, Vbi , relationship under this modal inertia force distribution
pattern can be obtained through;
Vbi Fsi
= (5)
Li Γi Li
Thus, the results are initially produced by developing a relationship
between cyclic base shear, Vbi , and the displacement of the roof, xir .
Subsequently, this relationship is converted into the requisite Fsi v/s Di
relationship. Afterward, a nonlinear hysteretic model can be employed
and adjusted to coincide with the previously attained force–deformation
relationship. Equation (3) can be used to calculate the response time
history of Fsi and Di with respect to time. The response of each SDOF
system, obtained by applying seismic loading, represents the response of
ith vibration mode which can be expressed by using the notion of ri (t).
Thus, the summation of responses from all the significant modes that
constitute up to or more than 90 percent of modal mass participation
ratio yields the cumulative response history, which can be mathemati­
cally expressed as follows;
∑
m
r(t) = ri (t) (6)
i=1
where m denotes the number of vibrational modes.
3. Methodology
The methodology starts from the selection of a reference building
structure or a typology of structure that could be a representative from a
stock of RC buildings. It is targeted to assess the structural vulnerability
of RC buildings by incorporating the structural response of the first two
modes. In the presented study, an RC school building from a high-
intensity seismic zone of Pakistan has been taken from the database
published in [6]. The database has a total of 19 RC school building
configurations. The schools in that area are highly susceptible to
earthquakes and severe damage has been previously observed during
the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. This study has selected the school
building with the highest number of students for the purpose to generate
information that can be valuable to save lives. However, the users of this
methodology may select other RC structures of varying characteristics i.
e. buildings having different structural configurations.
Conventionally, as described earlier, only fundamental modes are
considered for carrying out vulnerability assessments, but the proposed
methodology utilizes UMRHA to incorporate the response of higher
modes individually against seismic excitations.
The established methodology relies on IDA and requires performing
both monotonic and reversed cyclic pushover analyses before the
execution of nonlinear dynamic analyses. Following are the steps and
hierarchy of the methodology to evaluate the structural vulnerability of
RC building structures:
1. In step 1, the building category or the typology to be assessed is
selected or defined.
3057
Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065
2. In step 2, the modal analysis is conducted to determine the modal
time periods and other properties.
3. In step 3, static pushover (SPO) analysis is conducted in both
orthogonal directions of the structure to establish the weaker
direction of the considered structure type by observing the di­
rection that exhibits lower displacement capacity.
4. Afterward, SPO analysis is then again subsequently conducted for
higher vibrational modes of the weaker direction of the structure
in Step 4 so that F-D relationships for modes can be obtained and
further employed during the quantitative definitions of EDPs. The
number of modes to be taken into account is primarily dependent
upon the modal mass ratio. The modes that constitute 90% of the
modal mass participation should be, at least, considered.
5. In Step 5, cyclic SPO is conducted for each of the considered
modes to establish the mode-specific force–deformation (F-D)
relationships. The developed F-D relationships are then used as
input hysteresis for developing nonlinear SDOF systems, for each
considered mode separately, for fulfilling the requirements of the
UMRHA procedure.
6. In Step 6, the Intensity Measures (IMs) are defined or selected.
IMs define how the intensity of a seismic excitation is going to be
represented in analyses. For incremental scaling of IMs, a discrete
interval may be selected to enhance the intensity in each suc­
cessive iteration of analysis. This step then involves the selection
of ground motion(s) for subsequent analysis. The criterion for
ground motion selection includes the consideration of PGA,
magnitude, source-to-site distance, and soil properties.
7. Step 7 is optional in the proposed methodology. This step is tar­
geted to establish the adequacy of SDOF systems. 3D nonlinear
model and developed SDOF systems can be subjected to a similar
ground motion. If the cumulative response, obtained from the
SDOF systems following the UMRHA procedure matches without
losing any significant accuracy with the response of the 3D
model, the analyses may be continued by utilizing the SDOF
structures instead of the 3-dimensional analytical model. Thus
successive analyses shall not be computationally extensive, even
with the involvement of higher modes.
8. In step 8, the SDOF systems are then subjected to IDA for eval­
uating the structural response. This step can replace step number
7, depending upon the judgment of the practitioner.
9. Cumulative response from each of the developed SDOF systems is
computed in step 9 when the SDOF systems are subjected to
Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA). Such a response
can be obtained by using equation (6). At this step, it is appro­
priate to select a damage measure (DM) that could indicate and
relate the structural damage with the seismic excitations. Thus, in
Step 9, the damage measure, also known as Engineering Demand
Parameter (EDP) is also defined or selected whose threshold
values correspond with different qualitative definitions of limit
states. The DMs are usually considered in terms of displacement
or drift ratios.
10. Step 10 involves the definition of different Damage States, often
known as Limit States (LS) of the structure. Once defined, the
exact qualitative definitions of limit states are maintained for
each mode; however, the quantitative definitions for each of the
limit states in each mode may differ significantly. Discrete values
of EDP are thus used to correspond as thresholds for each of the
LS defined in this step.
11. In Step 11, the quantitative definitions of limit states, developed
in Step 9, are applied to the results of each mode separately so
that a clear insight on the contribution of each single mode to­
wards the structural vulnerability can be obtained.
12. In Step 12, post-processing of results is conducted by evaluating
the direct sampling probabilities of exceedance for each limit
state in all the modes collectively i.e. when an established limit
state is reached in any of the analyzed modes, an event is counted
M. Zain et al.
Fig. 1. The plan of considered a two-story school building.
in the sample to calculate probabilities. The probabilities are
essentially calculated for each intensity level and each limit state.
13. After the evaluation of probabilities, fragility curves are derived
in Step 13. The evaluated probabilities are fitted with lognormal
cumulative distribution whose parameters are derived from the
nonlinear curve fitting techniques. The Maximum Likelihood
Method (MLM) is used in this study to determine the median and
the slope of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) that
represents the fragility curves.
3.1. Comparison between a standard method and proposed methodology
This section of the paper elaborates a brief comparison between the
proposed methodology and a consolidated methodology, employed by
Chaulagain et. al. [29] that is based on static pushover to IDA (SPO2IDA)
tool. The tool provides a direct connection between the results obtained
from IDA and the nonlinear pushover curve. For a detailed elaboration
of SPO2IDA, the reader is referred to [29]-[30]. Both methodologies i.e.
conventional and proposed, begin with analytical structural modeling
followed by nonlinear static pushover analysis in both directions to
determine weaker axis for subsequent analysis, however; a conventional
methodology does not include subsequent nonlinear monotonic and
cyclic pushover analyses in higher modes along the weaker direction to
establish force–deformation relationships, separately for each
Table 1
X-Sectional details of structural elements.
Structural Component Type Name X-Section
Beams FB-1, FB-2, FB-3
Columns FC-1
FC-2
3058
Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065
considered mode. The proposed methodology considers not only the
nonlinear force–deformation behavior of higher modes but also estab­
lishes separate quantitative limit states for each mode separately, thus
providing better insight to modal contribution toward structural seismic
vulnerability. After static pushover analysis, a conventional methodol­
ogy includes IDA of a nonlinear 3-dimensional analytical model,
requiring extensive computational effort, whereas, proposed method­
ology allows the development of nonlinear SDOF systems for IDA, for
each mode separately following UMRHA procedure, thus substantially
diminishing the computational burden. A conventional methodology
may allow the development of an SDOF system for IDA, but that system
is developed using the stiffness and modal characteristics of funda­
mental mode only, thus not truly representing the adequate structural
behavior and resulting seismic vulnerability. After IDA on required
modal SDOF systems, a combined deformation-based structural
response can be achieved by combining the desegregated results ob­
tained from the analysis of SDOF systems. Furthermore, the proposed
methodology allows the application of qualitative limit states on
different modes separately in accordance with their respective nonlinear
static behavior. It is pertinent to mention that the application of quali­
tative limit states to higher modes discreetly is a unique feature of the
proposed methodology. In a conventional methodology, conditional
probabilities for different limit states are calculated normally depending
upon the results of fundamental mode only, while with the proposed
methodology, separate sampling probabilities can be calculated for each
mode employing modal SDOF systems. This feature enables a practi­
tioner to develop fragility curves in two ways i.e. combined fragility
curves portraying the contribution of higher modes along with funda­
mental mode, and separate fragility curves for each mode to evaluate
each of the considered mode’s contributions towards increasing the
probabilities of exceedances for discreet limit states. Subsequent sec­
tions elaborate on the systematic application of the proposed
methodology.
4. Structural modelling
For the demonstration of the proposed methodology, as described
earlier, a case study of a two-story school building from seismic zone 4 of
Pakistan has been taken. The building height is 6 m (m), with a 3 m story
height, and the covered area for a single floor is 341 square meters (m2).
4.1. Modelling criteria and strategies adopted
It is imperative to mention that observed RC buildings in the
considered area are only low-rise, typically ranging from 1 to 3 stories
only; therefore, for the current scenario, only the response of the first
two modes are considered, conditional that they collectively attain a
modal mass participation ratio of more than 90 percent in the consid­
ered direction. A full 3-dimensional nonlinear analytical model has been
developed using CSI Perform 3D V 7.0 as the software package contains
all the vital tools for nonlinear modeling. This work suggests the use of
nonlinear inelastic fibers for modeling the columns and beams.
Nonlinear fiber elements are effective in capturing the composite
M. Zain et al. Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065

Table 2 analysis has been conducted to evaluate the vibrational time periods of
Modal properties of case study building. different modes and to determine the modal mass participation ratio.
Mode Time Frequency Modal mass Cumulative Modal This helps in the selection of modes to be considered in subsequent
No. period (Cycle/sec) participation mass participation analysis. Only those modes are considered which make 90 percent of
(sec) ratio ratio cumulative modal mass participation ratio during modal analysis. For
1 0.27 3.70 0.8344 0.8344 the considered building typology, the first two modes in x-direction have
2 0.15 6.67 0.0821 0.9165 been considered for conducting the analysis. The first mode provided 83
percent, while the second mode contributed around 8 percent of the
modal mass participation ratio. Table 2 provides a brief of modal
behavior by separating the steel and concrete fibers. Furthermore, the
properties for the case study building. Table 2 includes the time period
concrete fibers can be further separated into confined and unconfined
of the first two modes that constitute more than 90 percent of the modal
categories, and consequently, modeling of composite sections can be
mass participation ratio. The cumulative modal mass participation ratio
effectively executed [31–33]. Through the use of fiber sections, strains
has been provided for the considered modes in the last column of
can be directly monitored during analysis. In the current study, rein­
Table 2.
forcing bars and concrete were discreetly modeled using separate
Afterward, monotonic nonlinear static analyses have been conducted
respective fibers for each material, for all structural components except
in both orthogonal directions of structure to determine the weaker di­
slabs, which were kept linear. By employing fibers during modeling, the
rection. It had been found that the X-direction was more vulnerable.
stress–strain relationship of constitutive materials can be directly
Thus, X-direction had eventually been selected to pursue further ana­
incorporated and monitored during analysis in CSI Perform 3D software
lyses. Cyclic pushover analysis was then conducted to develop the hys­
package, and furthermore, unconfined and confined fibers can be
teretic behavior of the whole structure in the first two modes separately.
discreetly accounted for in the analytical model, and thus, composite
A cyclic SPO is imperative for every considered mode for identifying the
properties can also be accounted for, if needed. Concrete’s compressive ( )
strength i.e. 21 megapascals (MPa), has been taken by performing non- nonlinear function, Fsi Ḋi , Di . Fig. 2 shows the hysteretic relationship
destructive testing in the field, the steel strength has been adopted from
i.e. the cyclic pushover behavior of the fundamental mode of the
the design documents which state the reinforcements as Grade 40 i.e.
considered building. Consequently, each force–deformation relation­
275 MPa, which is also easily available in the domestic market. During
ship, developed through cyclic SPO analysis, was assigned to individual
the nonlinear structural analysis, the strains in the concrete and steel
SDOF systems to complete the UMRHA framework.
fibers were monitored using the stress–strain relationship of materials.
Eventually, response verification was conducted to identify the
Fig. 1 shows the typical plan of the building into consideration. In
effectiveness and accuracy of the UMRHA procedure to capture the
Fig. 1, “FB” is used to designate floor beams, and “FC” represents the
structural response. Since the current paper is associated with the
nomenclature for floor columns. The typical floor area, as described
vulnerability assessment, so a deformation-based response indicator has
earlier, is approximately 341 m2., while the typical story height is 3 m.
been chosen for response verification. The details are given under the
Table 1 contains the X-Sectional details of structural elements i.e.
forthcoming section. Afterward, with the help of monotonic pushover
columns and beams along with the reinforcing details. As stated earlier,
analysis, the limit states are defined separately in the first two modes of
all the columns and beams were modeled nonlinear by using fiber ele­
the considered structural typology, and then the intensity measures are
ments so that strains in the concrete and steel can be monitored. Slabs
taken from the existing literature so that seismic intensity can be
were modeled as linear elastic elements in the 3-dimensional analytical
correlated with the structural damage. Before defining limit states and
model.
intensity measures, uncertainty considerations have been accounted for
in this study. The details are discussed in a separate section after the
5. Application of proposed methodology
proceeding one.
After the completion of analytical structural modeling, modal

Fig. 2. Cyclic pushover behavior in the fundamental mode of the considered school building.

3059
M. Zain et al. Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065

Table 3 further consideration of the effect of soil layers, the shear wave velocity,
Selected Natural Ground Motion Histories. Vs30, in the upper 30 m of soil strata, has been kept between 175 and
Sr. Earthquake Year Rrup Mag. PGA Vs30 (m/ 350 m/sec for the selection of ground motions. It is pertinent to mention
No. Name (km) (g) sec) that this shear wave velocity corresponds with the soil type Sd. Table 3
1 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 24.96 7.62 0.137 235.13 shows the ground motions which have been selected for carrying out the
2 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 16.04 7.62 0.273 233.14 vulnerability assessment. The magnitudes, shear wave velocity, and
3 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 25.43 7.62 0.1448 297.86 distance to rupture are given in the same table.
4 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 17.11 7.62 0.165 272.67
5 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 11.57 7.62 0.1918 212.72
6 Chuetsu-oki 2007 29.45 6.8 0.176 334.0
5.1.2. Selection and scaling of intensity measures (IM)
Japan Numerous intensity measures (IMs) have been previously employed
7 Gazli USSR 1976 5.47 6.8 0.864 259.58 by the researchers. The fundamental purpose is to relate the seismic
8 Iwate_ Japan 2008 8.43 6.9 0.2194 279.36 motion intensity with the structural damage, thus, the defined or
9 Iwate_ Japan 2008 16.67 6.9 0.2057 349.0
selected IMs must be well correlated with the damages a structure may
10 Kashmir 2005 26.00 7.60 0.2517 223.04
Earthquake experience. Fikri et. al [35] and Kim [36] used PGA as the IM. PGA is a
11 Loma Prieta 1989 24.57 6.93 0.1695 239.69 conventional IM that is easily understandable by normal people who do
12 Loma Prieta 1989 9.30 6.93 0.331 347.9 not possess any specific technical knowledge; however, it is believed
13 Montenegro 1979 5.76 7.1 0.2928 318.73 that PGA does not adequately represent the nexus between structural
Yugoslavia
14 Niigata Japan 2004 12.81 6.63 0.4764 274.17
damage and earthquake intensity as it does not explicitly cover the
15 Northridge-01 1994 8.65 6.69 0.345 297.71 structural properties and remain limited to the acceleration experienced
16 Northridge-01 1994 12.50 6.69 0.309 326.47 by the ground rather than the structure itself. In this context, spectral
17 San Fernando 1971 22.77 6.61 0.225 316.46 acceleration (Sa) is believed to be a better IM and has been widely used
18 Spitak Armenia 1988 23.99 6.77 0.20 343.53
in research by scaling at the fundamental period of structures. Examples
19 St Elias Alaska 1979 26.45 7.54 0.1759 306.37
20 Tabas Iran 1978 28.79 7.35 0.106 324.57 can be found in [37–40]. Similarly, Bojórquez et. al. [40] and Omine et.
al. [41] used Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) as an IM.
An investigation has been performed by Pejovica and Jankovic [42]
5.1. Ground motion selection and development of SDOF systems to evaluate the significance of different IMs. Their research concluded
that PGA resulted in the greatest dispersion in results, while spectral
Two SDOF systems have been developed and assigned with the acceleration, spectral velocity (Sv), and spectral displacement (Sd), all
produced hysteretic relationship to represent each of the two modes. scaled at the fundamental period (T1), proved to be better and equally
Each SDOF system is characterized by the time period and the force­ efficient intensity measures.
–deformation hysteretic characteristics of modes. At this point, it is The present study considers the PGA and Sa, both as IMs, but because
imperative to select an IM and the damage indicator or the EDP, so that of the involvement of the 2nd mode along with the fundamental mode,
SDOF systems can be subjected to established IMs and corresponding the scaling of Sa has been separately conducted for both of the modes.
damage can be assessed with the help of EDP for subsequent response All the IMs have been scaled simply with a fixed range starting from
verification as mentioned in Step 7. In the present study, global drift is 0.20 g to 1.4 g, with an increment of 0.20 g for each successive iteration.
used as a damage measure whose details are given in section 7.0, while The scaling of spectral accelerations has been done separately for
the selection of IMs is given hereafter. considered modes. For the analyzing SDOF system, representing the 1st
mode, the Sa has been scaled at the fundamental period of the consid­
5.1.1. Selection of ground motions ered structure. For the SDOF system, associated with the 2nd mode,
As described in the introduction section, the variations in the seismic spectral acceleration has been scaled at the time period of the second
demands are the major and the most significant source of the un­ mode determined by analyzing the 3-dimensional model. Since the time
certainties, need to be accounted for seismic vulnerability and fragility period for the second mode is small, it is believed that the scaling of
assessments. This fact is mainly attributed to the inherent variabilities spectral acceleration at the 2nd mode’s period would help in deter­
and the variations involved in the ground motions as each ground mo­ mining the structural response against the high-frequency seismic mo­
tion possesses stochastically different characteristics from the other one, tion. The fragility relationships are produced considering the cumulative
and depending upon such distinctive intrinsic properties, different sorts behavior of the first two modes against all the scaled levels of spectral
of ground motions may pose severely damaging effects in any structure. acceleration Sa (T1, T2). The results obtained by SDOF structures,
In the presented study, 20 natural ground motions have been meticu­ considering the first two modes, and the results obtained by a full 3-
lously selected so that a broader variety of variation in seismic loading dimensional nonlinear model, considering the fundamental mode
characteristics can be considered as the features of the originative only, have been eventually compared in the form of fragility
source, soil conditions at the originating source, and then at the selected relationships.
site, and path attenuations, all play their vital roles in further enhancing
the uncertainties. In the current research, ground motions are selected 5.2. SDOF analysis and response verification
from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Ground Mo­
tion Database, NGA-West2 [34]. The NGA-West2 is a database that For modeling and analyses of SDOF systems, a tool, Interactive
contains numerous natural ground motion histories in active tectonic Interface for Incremental Dynamic Analysis Procedure (IIIDAP) V 1.2,
regions that result in shallow crustal earthquakes. The database provides developed by McGill University [43] has been used. The modeling pa­
excellent controlling parameters for ground motion selection, ranging rameters for SDOF systems are calculated according to the UMRHA re­
from fault-type to shear wave velocity. Source to site distance, magni­ quirements and the procedure and recommendations, mentioned in
tude, and the shear wave velocity Vs, in the upper 30 m of soil strata [43].
have been considered in the current work as the controlling parameters IIIDAP is capable of handling IDA with a discrete level of increments
for selecting the ground motions. Thus, only the large magnitude in each successive iteration of analysis and contains predefined sets of
earthquakes i.e. 6.50 up until 8.0, are selected, and source to site dis­ far-field and near-field ground motions. The software also contains the
tance has been kept between 0 and 30 km (Km) only so that any random provision to incorporate a user-defined set of ground motions. In the
variation, attributed to site-specific soil layers and path attenuation ef­ current study, pre-defined sets of ground motions in IIIDAP have not
fects can be adequately taken into account for both near and far sites. For been utilized, and separate ground motions are selected for analyses.

3060
M. Zain et al.
Fig. 3. Comparison of global drift, obtained from SDOF Systems (UMRHA) and 3-dimensional analytical model (NLRHA).
Before performing IDA, response verification has been conducted under
step no. 7 for the demonstration purpose to compare the results obtained
from the full nonlinear 3-dimensional model, and the SDOF structures.
Displacement history has been plotted and compared with the responses
from both of the sources i.e. 3-dimensional model and SDOF systems by
subjecting all of them to the same ground motion history. Fig. 3 depicts
the comparison of results obtained in terms of the percentage of global
drift when the 3-dimensional model and SDOF Systems were separately
subjected to the same ground motion history of Tabas, Iran. The SDOF
responses have been cumulatively computed by following the UMRHA
procedure, as described in section 2.
The comparison of responses from UMRHA of SDOF systems and
NLRHA of a 3-dimensional analytical system corroborates the signifi­
cance and the accuracy of the UMRHA procedure. The response history
for the considered building, evaluated through NLRHA, judiciously
matches with the one computed through the UMRHA procedure, and the
observed divergences or the disagreements between both of the response
histories are trivial and insufficient, as can be observed in Fig. 3.
Therefore, seismic vulnerability assessment could be conveniently car­
ried out using the SDOF systems, developed for the particularly
considered building, by subjecting them to IDA in accordance with the
proposed methodology.
5.3. Definition of damage-indicator and limit states
Limit States (LS), also known as damage states, are vital components
of vulnerability assessment processes for designating different levels of
damage a structure may experience against the earthquakes during its
service. Limit states can be defined qualitatively, as well as quantita­
tively. The qualitative definitions usually rely upon the descriptive
damage of a structure without any mathematical consideration and
definitions of local or global responses. Examples for qualitative limit
states can be found in [44]. Whereas, quantitative definitions are
discrete and are usually characterized by numerical values of some
structural damage indicator, also known as Engineering Demand
Parameter (EDP). Conventionally, the qualitative descriptions of limit
states are transformed into associated quantitative definitions through
the damage indicator or the EDP. Thus, prior to defining the limit states,
it is imperative to select or define a damage indicator so that quantita­
tive limit states can be physically related to structural damage. Once the
damage indicator has been set or selected, different limit states of a
structure can be conveniently defined by considering different threshold
values of the damage indicator.
Damage indicator, or the EDP, may be defined at the global level, as
well as at the local level. Strain levels in construction materials i.e.
concrete and steel were used as damage indicators by Crowley et. al.
[45] to define limit states. Members’ flexural strength upon the yielding
of reinforcing steel, and 3% inter-story drifts were used as damage-
indicators for defining limit state 1 (LS1), and limit state 2 (LS2)
respectively by Casotto et. al. [46] and eventually related their flexural
collapse limit state, LS2, with the loss of support of the beam. Xu et. al.
[47] employed the global damage indicator i.e. the peak inter-story drift
ratio, along with the local material-based and the component-based
3061
Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065
damage indicators. Sarkar and Lipika [48] used top story displace­
ment as the damage indicator for correlating with five damage states,
ranging from slight damage to destruction. Federal Emergency Man­
agement Agency (FEMA) 356 [49] has established three limit states, also
known as performance levels, i.e. Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety,
and Collapse Prevention, with an inter-story drift ratio of 1%, 2%, and
4% respectively, as the damage-indicators to correlate with these per­
formance levels. Mamun and Saatcioglu [50] also used the global drift
ratio for evaluating the vulnerability of building stock in Vancouver,
Canada against three FEMA 356 limit states; however, for the CP limit
state, their mathematical threshold value was different and was defined
as the median of maximum deformation-based response, achieved by
conducting IDA. Global Drift ratio has also been employed as a damage
indicator to set threshold limits for conducting fragility analysis for
Turkish low-rise buildings against three damage states, ranging from
slight damage to near the collapse of the buildings by Erberik [51].
Since the current study is primarily related to the assessment of the
vulnerability of a low-rise RC building, it would be practical to define
limit states depending upon the global response instead of the member-
based response. Thus, as described earlier in the section, the current
study employs a global drift ratio as the damage indicator to correlate
with three distinctively defined limit states of the considered school
building.
Serviceability Limit State (LS1), Damage Control Limit State (LS2),
and Collapse Prevention Limit State (LS3) have been defined as the limit
states in this study to derive the fragility relationships for the considered
school building, by considering the contribution from the 2nd mode
along with the fundamental mode. The 1st yield of longitudinal steel
reinforcement in the structure characterizes the Serviceability Limit
State. Generally, the formation of the first plastic hinge symbolizes the
attainment of first limit states, but as described earlier, the current
nonlinear model has been developed by using the nonlinear fiber ele­
ments, so the LS1 in this study principally relates with the reaching of
yielding strain in a structural component of the considered case study.
On the other hand, the Damage Control Limit State, LS2, is simulta­
neously governed by the deformational and strength characteristics of
the structure and is taken as 75% of the Collapse Prevention Limit State,
LS3. The Collapse Prevention Limit State has been defined by Erberik
[51] as the smaller of 75% of ultimate deformation, or the value at the
capacity curve for which the structural strength drops by more than 20%
relative to its maximum strength.
As the current research considers the effect of the first two modes
separately, so it is required that limit states must be defined separately in
mathematical terms for each mode, though the qualitative description
for each limit state would remain the same for both of the considered
modes. The threshold values for considered limit states cannot be readily
taken from the prevailing researches as previous researches have
remained dependent upon the fundamental mode only, whereas, the
current research considers the contribution of the 2nd mode in the
vulnerability assessment along with the fundamental mode. Thus, for
setting the mathematical thresholds to each of the considered limit
states in terms of the global response i.e. global drift, the capacity curves
in the first two modes have been utilized. The qualitative definitions of
M. Zain et al. Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065

Table 4 relative to defined structural limit states, thus, such curves depict the
Threshold limits of global drifts for considered limit states in considered modes. graphical representation for the probability of attaining or exceeding
Mode Limit State (in terms of global drift %) specific limit states for a given seismic intensity. After obtaining struc­
No. Serviceability Limit Damage Control Collapse Prevention tural responses, the prescribed limit state definitions are applied to
State (LS1) Limit State (LS2) Limit State (LS3) check the performance levels of the building, and eventually, the
1 0.35 0.66 0.89 probabilities are calculated for the considered building to attain a spe­
2 0.096 0.26 0.348 cific limit state against the considered seismic intensity. Once a
computed value of damage-indicator crosses threshold values for
different limit states, an event is considered as counted within the whole
LS1, LS2, and LS3, have been applied separately to each capacity curve,
sample which comprises all the ground motions at specifically discrete
and corresponding drifts have been selected to correspond with the limit
seismic intensities.
states. Table 4 shows the mathematical threshold limits for considered
Since the presented research also includes the effect of the 2nd mode,
limit states in each mode separately. The research performed by Erberik
the probability is calculated considering the effect of fundamental and
[51] considered low-rise buildings of the Turkish region, and their
2nd mode cumulatively when the threshold value of damage-indicator
values for the LS1 (with the same qualitative definition) were approxi­
approaches or exceeds specifically defined limits for different limit
mately similar to those established in this study for the 1st mode.
states in any of the modes i.e. first or second. Such a process for calcu­
However, the current research also incorporates the effect of the 2nd
lating the probabilities at each seismic intensity level is performed
mode, therefore, separate mathematical threshold values are also
repetitively. In the current study, the analytical fragility curves have
established for evaluating the structural response in the 2nd mode as
been developed by following the conventional procedure i.e. using a 3D
well, and then subsequently, for developing the fragility curves.
nonlinear model with the consideration of fundamental mode only, and
also with the presented methodology that separately considers the effect
6. Fragility assessment
of the 2nd mode along with the fundamental mode. Subsequently, a
comparison is made between the fragility relationships obtained
Fragility curves probabilistically characterize the seismic demands
through both of the processes.

Fig. 4. (a) Fragility curves developed through proposed methodology, using PGA (g) as an IM (b) Fragility curves developed through UMRHA, using Sa (g) @ T1 &
T2 as an IM.

3062
M. Zain et al. Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065

Depending upon the literature, it is commonly observed that such
attained probabilities are fitted using the lognormal cumulative distri­
butions functions through statistical regression processes, thus from the
viewpoint of convenience and a general understanding of the technical
community, the lognormal distribution is also assumed to present the
structural vulnerability of considered building, as indicated by the
following equation;
( )
lnIM − λc
P(LS|IM) = ϕ (7)
βc
The first part of the equation (7), P(LS|IM), indicates the conditional
probability of attaining or surpassing a certain LS, given an explicit
value of IM, whereas, ϕ, is indicative of a standard cumulative distri­
bution function (CDF). λc and βc are the controlling parameters for CDF.
For the best fit, it is essential to determine their optimized values,
therefore, the Maximum Likelihood Method (MLM) is utilized to attain
the most likely values for the median, λc , and slope of the curve, βc . MLM
has been used by several researchers and is considered one of the most
suitable methods to establish optimized values of these parameters
[52–54]. The following equation describes the optimization of
lognormal CDF’s parameters which have been obtained through MLM;

∑m { ( ) ( ) ( ( ))}
nj ln(IM i /λc ) ( ) ln(IM i /λc )
{λc , βc } = argmaxλc ,βc ln + zj lnϕ + nj − zj ln 1 − ϕ (8)
j=1
zj βc βc

Fig. 5. Comparison between fragility curves developed through the proposed methodology (considering two modes), and 3-dimensional nonlinear model
(considering conventional methodology - fundamental mode only) against IMs in terms of PGA (g) and Sa (g) @ T1 & T2 (Fig. 5 (a) & (b) respectively).

3063
M. Zain et al.
where m corresponds with the number of IM levels, nj is the total number
of ground motions at a specific discrete seismic motion intensity, and zj
specifies the number of achieving a specific performance level or a limit
state out of the total ground motions. In equation (8), λc and βc also
represent the median and slope of the curve respectively, while ϕ, is
indicative of a CDF. The argmaxλc ,βc represents an algorithm to find the
maximum values of median and slope of the CDF for the best fit.
The developed fragility relationships by using the UMRHA procedure
through SDOF analyses that consider the influence of the 2nd mode
along with the fundamental mode are shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 shows a
comparison between the fragility curves developed by analyzing a 3-
dimensional nonlinear model, considering the fundamental mode
only, and the curves which have been developed using UMRHA
considering the contribution from the second mode along with the first
mode.
In Fig. 5 (a), when PGA is considered as an IM, the probability of
exceedance of LS1 at the seismic intensity of 0.60 g remains around 74%
when only 1st mode is considered; while with the incorporation of the
2nd mode according to the proposed methodology, the probability in­
creases up to 85%. Similarly, for LS2, the probability of exceedance is
18% when only the fundamental mode is considered, while it jumps to
approximately 30% when the 2nd mode is incorporated in the fragility
development process. An analogous interpretation can be extended to
LS3 and to Fig. 5 (b). Thus obtained results amply suggest that the
probabilities of exceedances of being in an LS increase when the effect of
the 2nd mode is considered in the fragility development process,
corroborating the significance of the presented methodology.
7. Conclusion
In this study, fragility curves are produced for a specific RC building,
which has been subjected to use as a school. A new methodology is
presented to probabilistically develop the analytical fragility curves.
Conventional methodologies consider mostly the contribution of the
fundamental mode only while neglecting the effect of higher modes.
Furthermore, the quantitative damage thresholds are usually defined by
depending upon the fundamental mode only, while the proposed
methodology allows the quantitative definitions of EDPs to be separately
applied on higher modes. The proposed methodology conveniently
considers the effect of higher modes by decoupling the structural
vibrational modes during the development of fragility curves, thus the
contribution of an individual mode towards structural seismic vulnera­
bility can also be evaluated using the proposed methodology. The modal
decomposition is being executed according to the procedures of
UMRHA, and subsequently, SDOF systems have been utilized to pursue
analyses. Conventionally, the damage limit states are dependent upon
the fundamental mode only, however, the presented methodology al­
lows the different mathematical definition of limit states for different
modes. Such decoupling of modes for vulnerability assessment is
anticipated to be more efficient as it permits to obtain an articulate
estimation of structural behavior considering the response of more than
one mode. Apart from that, the presented methodology takes into ac­
count the hysteretic behavior instead of relying only upon monotonic
loading, thus allowing to encapsulate the actual structural stiffness
degradation properties.
The obtained fragility relationships through the established meth­
odology, which takes into account the first two modes considering the
cumulative 90% modal mass participation ratio, have eventually been
compared with the fragility relationships attained by analyzing a 3-
dimensional nonlinear analytical model subjected to same ground mo­
tions with analogous scaled levels but considering fundamental mode
only. The comparison depicts the significance of established methodol­
ogy by enhancing the structural vulnerability when the second mode
plays its part. The obtained probabilities for LS1 received the most sig­
nificant contribution rendered by the second mode, however, the LS3
mostly remained dependent upon the behavior of the fundamental
3064
Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065
mode. Because of the relatively low modal mass participation ratio of
the 2nd mode, an enormous increase in probabilities for all the limit
states could not be observed; however, a clear insight of each mode’s
contribution towards structural vulnerability has been obtained by using
the presented methodology. Since the presented methodology considers
the nonlinear analysis of representative SDOF structures for different
modes, the computational effort in comparison with the full 3-dimen­
sional nonlinear analyses is extremely low with almost no loss of accu­
racy, and instead of days-long nonlinear structural analyses, the
structural vulnerability can be assessed in few hours including the post-
processing of results. The fragility relationships developed by analyzing
the 3-Dimensional structure took almost 72 h on a core i7, 6th genera­
tion computer with 8 gigabytes of RAM, while with the utilization of the
proposed methodology, the fragility curves were developed in less than
5 h on the same computer.
The assessment of the contribution of higher modes towards struc­
tural vulnerability specifically becomes important when high-rise
structures are considered, as higher modes in all such structures sub­
stantially contribute higher percentages of modal mass participation
ratios. The presented methodology can readily be adopted for low-rise
and mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings in all the regions of the
globe. It would prove to be more effective for mid-rise and high-rise
buildings because of the greater modal mass participation ratios of
higher modes, and thus, the individual modal contribution towards
structural vulnerability would possibly be assessed more amply. The
curves developed using the presented methodology can be further in­
tegrated with the hazard curve of any respective area to evaluate the
total risk involved in a region so that better disaster preparedness and
mitigation plans can be devised.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Zain M, Usman M, Farooq SH, Hanif A. Progressive structural capacity loss
assessment—A framework for modern reinforced concrete buildings. PLoS ONE
2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208149.
[2] Memon, Shazim Ali, Muhammad Zain, Dichuan Zhang, Sardar Kashif Ur Rehman,
Muhammad Usman, and Deuckhang Lee. “Emerging trends in the growth of
structural systems for tall buildings.” Journal of Structural Integrity and
Maintenance 5, no. 3 (2020): 155-170.
[3] Tanveer, Muhammad, Muhammad Usman, Imdad Ullah Khan, Shakil Ahmad, Asad
Hanif, and Syed Hassan Farooq. “Application of tuned liquid column ball damper
(TLCBD) for improved vibration control performance of multi-storey structure.”
PloS one 14, no. 10 (2019): e0224436.
[4] Zain M, Anwar N, Najam F. A, Mehmood T. Seismic fragility Assessment of
reinforced concrete High-Rise buildings using the uncoupled modal response
history analysis (UMRHA). International Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Reykjavik, Iceland, 2017.
[5] Leung Su R. K, Lee C. L. Development of seismic fragility curves for low-rise
masonry infilled reinforced concrete buildings by a coefficient-based method.
Earthquake Eng Eng Vibrat 2013;12:319-332.
[6] Zain M, Usman M, S. H. Farooq, Mehmood T. Seismic vulnerability assessment of
school buildings in seismic zone 4 of Pakistan. Adv Civil Eng 2019;14 Pages-2019.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5808256.
[7] Rossetto T, Elnashai A. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC
structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 2003;25:1241–63.
[8] Ruggieri S, Perrone D, Leone M, Uva G, Aiello MA. A prioritization RVS
methodology for the seismic risk assessment of RC school buildings. Int J Disaster
Risk Reduct 2020;51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101807.
[9] Ruggieri S, Tosto C, Rosati G, Uva G, Ferro GA. Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of
Masonry Churches in Piemonte after 2003 Valle Scrivia Earthquake: Post-event
Screening and Situation 17 Years Later. International Journal of. Architectural
Heritage 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2020.1841366.
[10] Ruggieri S, Porco F, Uva G. A practical approach for estimating the floor
deformability in existing RC buildings: evaluation of the effects in the structural
response and seismic fragility. Bull Earthq Eng 2019;18:2083–113.
[11] Ji J, Elnashai AS, Kuchma DA. An analytical framework for seismic fragility
analysis of RC high-rise buildings. Eng Struct 2007;29:3197–209.
M. Zain et al.
[12] Kennedy RP. Risk based seismic design criteria. Journal of Nuclear Engineering
and Design 1999;192:117–35.
[13] Celik OC, Ellingwood BR. Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete
frames – Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Struct Saf 2010;32(1):1–12.
[14] Ali A, Sandhu TY, Usman M. Ambient vibration testing of a pedestrian bridge using
low-cost accelerometers for SHM applications. Smart Cities 2019;2:20–30.
[15] Ji J, Elnashai AS, Kuchma DA. Seismic fragility relationships of reinforced concrete
high-rise buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2009;18:
259–77.
[16] Karim KR, Yamazaki F. A simplified method of constructing fragility curves for
highway bridges. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2003;32:1603–26.
[17] Zhang J, Huo Y, Brandenberg S. J, Kashighandi P. Fragility functions of different
bridge types subject to seismic shaking and lateral spreading. The 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, China; 2008.
[18] Chen L, Chen S. Earthquake Fragility Assessment of Curved and Skewed Bridges in
Mountain West Region. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Colorado State University; 2016.16-312.
[19] Stefanidou SP. Software for Bridge-Specific Fragility Analysis. MOJ Civil Eng 2017;
3(5):00081. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojce.2017.03.00081.
[20] Kim H, Sim SH, Lee J, Lee YJ, Kim JM. Flood fragility analysis for bridges with
multiple failure modes. Adv Mechan Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1687814017696415.
[21] Babic A, Dolsek M. Seismic fragility functions of industrial precast building classes.
Eng Struct 2016;118:357–70.
[22] Nazari YR, Saatcioglu M. Seismic vulnerability assessment of concrete shear wall
buildings through fragility analysis. Journal of Building Engineering 2017;12:
202–9.
[23] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2002;31(3):491–514.
[24] Del Gaudio C, Ricci P, Verderame GM, Manfredi G. Urban-scale seismic fragility
assessment of RC buildings subjected to L’Aquila earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng 2017;96:49–63.
[25] Romano F, Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Zucconi M, Ferracuti B. Comparative seismic
loss analysis of an existing non-ductile RC building based on element fragility
functions proposals. Eng Struct 2018:707–23.
[26] Gautam D, Fabbrocino G, Magistris FS. Derive empirical fragility functions for
Nepali residential buildings. Eng Struct 2018;171:617–28.
[27] O’Reilly GJ, Perrone D, Fox M, Monteiro R, Filiatrault A. Seismic assessment and
loss estimation of existing school buildings in Italy. Eng Struct 2018;168:142–62.
[28] Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2001.
[29] Chaulagain H, Rodrigues Silva V, Spacone E, Varum H. Earthquake loss estimation
for the Kathmandu Valley. Bulletin of Earthquke. Engineering 2016;14:59–88.
[30] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity
of oscillators with multilinear static pushovers through Incremental Dynamic
Analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 200;35(9):1097-1117.
[31] Xuewei C, Xiaolei H, Fan L, Shuang W. Fiber Element Based Elastic-Plastic Analysis
Procedure and Engineering Application. Procedia Eng 2011;14:1807–15.
[32] Khan, Bilal Lal, Hassan Farooq, Muhammad Usman, Faheem Butt, Abdul Qudoos
Khan, and Asad Hanif. “Effect of soil–structure interaction on a masonry structure
under train-induced vibrations.” Proceed Institut Civil Eng-Struct Build 172, no. 12
(2019): 922-934.
[33] Khan Rizwan, Farooq Syed Hassan, Usman Muhammad. Blast loading response of
reinforced concrete panels externally reinforced with steel strips. Infrastructures
2019;4(3):54.
3065
Structures 33 (2021) 3055–3065
[34] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center. PEER Ground Motion
Database, NGA-West2. Web-link: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/.
[35] Fikri R, Dizhur D, Walsh K, Ingham J. Seismic performance of Reinforced Concrete
Frame with Masonry Infill buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand
earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0476-8.
[36] Kim JJ. Development of Empirical Fragility Curves in Earthquake Engineering
considering Nonspecific Damage Information. Adv Civil Eng 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2018/6209137.
[37] Tarfan S, Banazadeh M, Esteghamati MZ. Probabilistic seismic assessment of non-
ductile RC buildings retrofitted using pre-tensioned aramid fiber reinforced
polymer belts. Compos Struct 2019;208:865–78.
[38] Ercolino M, Bellotti D, Magliulo G, Nascimbene R. Vulnerability analysis of
industrial RC precast buildings designed according to modern seismic codes. Eng
Struct 2018;158:67–78.
[39] Guan X, Burton H, Moradi S. Seismic performance of a self-centering steel moment
frame building: From component-level modeling to economic loss assessment.
J Constr Steel Res 2018;150:129–40.
[40] Bojórquez E, Salazar AR, Lozoya HER, Dimas JIV, Iervolino I. Evaluation of Seismic
Fragility of Steel Frames Using Vector-Valued IMs. In: 14th European Conference
on Earthquake Engineering; 2010. p. 3622–9.
[41] Omine H, Hayashi T, Yashiro H, Fukushima S. Seismic risk analysis method using
both PGA and PGV. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2008.
[42] Pejovica J, Jankovic S. Selection of Ground Motion Intensity Measure for
Reinforced Concrete Structure. Procedia Eng 2015;117:588–95.
[43] Lignos DG. Theory and Example Applications Manual for Interactive interface for
incremental dynamic analysis procedure (IIIDAP) using deteriorating single degree
of freedom systems. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill University; 2014.
[44] Department of Homeland Security. Technical and User’s Manual for HAZUS – MH
2.1. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Washington D.C.
[45] Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ. A Probabilistic Displacement-based Vulnerability
Assessment Procedure for Earthquake Loss Estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 2004;2:
173–219.
[46] Casotto C, Silva V, Crowley H, Nascimbene R, Pinho R. Seismic fragility of Italian
RC precast industrial structures. Eng Struct 2015;94:122–36.
[47] Xu C, Deng J, Peng S, Li C. Seismic fragility analysis of steel reinforced concrete
frame structures based on different engineering demand parameters. J Build Eng
2018;20:736–49.
[48] Sarkar A, Lipika Halder L. Analytical Fragility Function for Seismic Damage
Evaluation of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in High Seismic Zone. Procedia Eng
2016;144:1348–55.
[49] Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-356; 2000.
[50] Mamun A. A, Saatcioglu M. Fragility curves for seismic vulnerability assessment of
reinforced concrete frame buildings in Canada. 16th World Conference on
Earthquake, 16WCEE; 2017.
[51] Erberik MA. Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC
buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 2008;30:1360–74.
[52] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK, Kim SH. Nonlinear Static Procedure for Fragility
Curve Development. J Eng Mech 2000;126:1287–95.
[53] Baker JW. Efficient Analytical Fragility Function Fitting Using Dynamic Structural
Analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2015;31:579–99.
[54] Dang CT, Le TP, Ray P. A novel method based on maximum likelihood estimation
for the construction of seismic fragility curves using numerical simulations.
Comptes Rendus Mécanique 2017;345(10):678–89.