Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

Seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings with setback

irregularity
Mohamed Mouhine ⇑, Elmokhtar Hilali
Laboratory of Materials, Mechanics, and Civil Engineering, National School of Applied Sciences (ENSA), Ibn Zohr University, 80000 Agadir, Morocco

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aims to perform a fragility analysis of RC buildings subjected to seismic loading. For this pur-
Received 18 March 2021 pose, the curves of fragility are developed for 20 building models with different setback values. Using a
Revised 30 April 2021 finite element calculation program, nonlinear static analyses are performed. The outcomes indicate that
Accepted 2 May 2021
the performance of building structures is highly affected due to the setback. Also, the seismic fragility is
Available online xxxx
more pronounced when setback passes from level 1 to level 4. The fragility analysis shows that, for a set-
back value equal to 50%, the difference between the probability of damage, when the setback passes from
Keywords:
the bottom of the structure to level 4, is 12.19%, 30.85%, 37.03%, and 41.16% for a slight, moderate, severe,
Seismic vulnerability
RC buildings
and complete state of damage, respectively. Moreover, the structures with a setback on the fourth floor
Setback irregularity exhibit poor seismic performance, and therefore, a high probability of damage.
Nonlinear static analysis Ó 2021 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
Fragility curves versity. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction should be investigated. This necessity has prompted substantial

Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with vertical geometric
irregularity (setback) are increasingly used in the modern design
of multi-storey buildings especially due to their serviceability
and aesthetic reasons [1,2,3]. However, these types of structures
show a high vulnerability during an earthquake event.
Recently, many countries across the world have been experi-
enced terrible losses due to earthquake events. Despite research
advances in the seismic engineering field and on design code
methodologies, a considerable part of economic and human losses
due to earthquakes derives from the defective seismic behavior of
buildings.
Indeed, the vulnerability of buildings to earthquakes, which
may be described as the sensitivity of the structure to damage
caused by ground shaking of a given severity [4], becomes more
significant, particularly in buildings with vertical geometric irregu-
larity. Therefore, the seismic response of these types of structures
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mohamed.mouhine@edu.uiz.ac.ma (M. Mouhine).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
work to develop methodologies for deriving fragility relationships,
which are practical for assessing the degree of damage attained in a
structure under a spectrum of seismic intensities.
In recent years, several scientists have examined the effect of
vertical geometric irregularity on the behavior of RC buildings
using the fragility curves concept resulted in both static and
dynamic analyses. In this regard, S. Ruggieri et G. Uva [5] investi-
gated the local and global performances of 8 RC low-rise building
models, including 7 models with irregularity in-plan, using nonlin-
ear static analysis. They concluded that the spatial variability of
seismic motion affects the seismic response of building structures.
Additionally, Men J. J. et al. [6] studied the seismic fragility of a ver-
tically irregular RC frame structure. The researchers reported that
the structural performance levels and seismic intensity influence
the fragility curves of this kind of structure. Also, Kassem et al.
[7] conducted a study on the seismic behavior of RC buildings with
a setback. The curves of fragility were developed through a series
of dynamic analyses to compute the probability of damage to the
buildings under earthquake action. The researchers proved that
regular frames have a low probability compared to irregular ones,
and therefore the building configuration affects its seismic perfor-
mance and shall be considered in the seismic design of the build-
ings. Likewise, Nazri et al. [8] investigated the vulnerability of
frames designed based on Eurocode and Malaysian building code.
In their study, different models with vertical geometric irregularity
were considered and dynamic analyses were performed. The

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.05.001
2090-4479/Ó 2021 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: M. Mouhine and E. Hilali, Seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings with setback irregularity, Ain Shams Engineering
Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.05.001
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali
outcomes, based on fragility analysis, indicate that setback frames
are more vulnerable and exhibit a higher probability of reaching
collapse level compared to regular frames. Furthermore, in a study
by Kumar et al. [9] the analysis of the seismic fragility of RC frames
with setbacks was conducted. They evaluated the vulnerability of
different frames based on their probability of damage. Also, a per-
formance study was carried out by the researchers incorporating
shear walls as a corrective measure for irregular frames. They con-
cluded that the masonry infills improve the behavior of vertical
geometric irregular frames. Moreover, Ayub et al. [10] assessed
the seismic vulnerability of deficient midrise RC structures with a
setback. The researchers considered six models with different set-
back configurations. Nonlinear static analyses are performed and
then vulnerability curves are derived. From their study, it was con-
cluded that the setback frames suffer a brittle failure after excee-
dance of moderate damage state and the buildings are more
vulnerable when the irregularity is located in the lower level. In
another numerical study, Praveen Oggu and Gopikrishna K. [11]
assessed the vulnerability of three-dimensional RC buildings
designed conforming to the Indian Standard code and subjected
to repeated earthquakes. They investigate the seismic response,
in terms of maximum horizontal displacement and maximum
inter-story drift ratio (IDR), of four mid-rise RC building models,
including three models with a setback in different levels. they
reported that the probability of collapse, vulnerability, is more pro-
nounced in the case of seismic sequence. M. S. Azad et al. [12]
investigated the effect of a setback on the seismic response of con-
crete buildings. Fragility analyses have been carried out using non-
linear static analysis. The researchers reported that setbacks have
significant effects on the seismic capacity of structures. Besides,
Fahimeh Shojaei and Behrouz Behnam [13] evaluated the seismic
vulnerability of low-rise irregular RC structures using a nonlinear
dynamic procedure. They stated that a structure with a setback
suffers more damage than the regular one. On the other hand, S.
Ruggieri et al. [14] evaluated the fragility class and the seismic
safety of 15 RC structures, with plan irregularities, located in the
province of Foggia, Italy. For this purpose, the researchers adopted
two probabilistic frugal methodologies based on static and
dynamic approaches. According to their results, both approaches
were revealed to be reliable alternatives for assessing the seismic
vulnerability of RC structures. Also, S. Ruggieri et al. [15] quantified
the variation in structural capacity and seismic fragility of two
reinforced concrete buildings, with one model having an irregular
shape in plan, by considering the floor deformability. They
reported that the type of diaphragm significantly influences the
probability of structural damage. However, the effect of setback
percentage and its location on the seismic vulnerability of RC
buildings has not been studied extensively, and the research work
carried out in this regard remains limited. This consequence is
therefore the main motivation for the present study.
In the current study, numerical investigations, on the damage
state of RC building structures with vertical geometric irregularity,
will be presented. Nonlinear static analyses have been conducted
using a finite element calculation code to simulate the seismic
behavior of the buildings. Fragility curves were developed to quan-
tify the probability of damage to the structures. The research paper
purposes basically at:

Investigation of the effect of the setback value on the capacity of
the building and its seismic performances.

Evaluating the impact of the setback location on the fragility of
reinforced concrete buildings.
To achieve this objective, several models of an irregular building
are studied as illustrated in Fig. 1. The set of the building configu-
rations considered differ in the setback value, which is the ratio
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
between the reduction of the floor and the longitudinal plan
dimension of the building, as well as its location within the
structure.
2. Structural vulnerability assessment
2.1. Buildings description and modeling
In this research study, different configurations of six-storey
moment-resisting RC buildings are considered, as shown in
Fig. 1. These models correspond to mid-rise residential buildings
that represent most of the building configurations present in the
selected locality of Agadir city, Morocco, classified as a zone with
high seismic risk according to [16]. All selected models have six
floors with a total height of 18 m, i.e. a floor height of 3 m. These
buildings have an identical total plan dimension of 20 m  15 m
with 5 bays in the lengthwise direction and 3 bays in the trans-
verse direction. More detailed information about element dimen-
sions and reinforcement is given in Table 1. The selected
buildings are modeled as three-dimensional configurations using
a finite element calculation code [17]. The modeling of these struc-
tures involves the modeling of different components such as col-
umns, beams, slabs, infill walls, joint conditions, and boundary
conditions. Beams and columns were simulated using frame ele-
ments. Slabs are modeled as rectangular shell area elements with
four nodes. The boundary conditions at the base are defined by
assuming that the bottom ends of the ground storey columns were
supposed to be fixed to represent the boundary condition as an
embedded base [18]. Structural components, beams, and columns
are designed following the strong-column weak-beam concept
[19]. According to [20], considering the strong-column weak-
beam criterion reduces significantly the probability of collapse,
particularly in the case of mid-rise buildings. The nonlinearities
for various structural elements are taken into account by defining
plastic hinges at the extremities of the columns and beams as
described in [21,22,23]. The application of the hinges in beams
and columns is taken into account by considering the interaction
of biaxial bending moments with axial force and bending
moments, respectively. In this paper, the floors have 0.15 m of
thickness, assumed to be rigid and support in addition to their
self-weight, live loads (LL) of 2:5 KN=m2 and dead loads (DL) of
1:5 KN=m2 , including the weight of the infill walls, uniformly
applied to the beams. The structure weight is taken into account
using the combination DL þ 0:2LL according to [16]. For materials
used in structural design, the concrete is of class C25/30 with a
characteristic compressive strength f ck ¼ 25 MPa, the tensile
2=3
strength is given by the following formula : f ctm ¼ 0:30ðf ck Þ ,
and the elasticity modulus of concrete is given by the following
0:3
equation : Ecm ¼ 2ðf cm =10Þ [24]. The yield strength for reinforce-
ment bars is f yk ¼ 400 MPa, and the modulus of elasticity is
Es ¼ 210000 MPa. The bar spacing follows the constructive dispo-
sitions mentioned in [16,25]. These construction models are built
on a soil type (S3) as per [16]. All building models have a level of
ductility that allows the structure to enter the inelastic domain
during seismic motion with reasonable protection against prema-
ture failure. Furthermore, to focus on the effect of the setback
irregularity, all structural elements were designed to have the
same sections for all levels to avoid any mass or stiffness variations
along the height of the building. Also, bays width remains variable.
According to [26] the variation in the width of the bays does not
have an extensive impact on the displacement of the structure.
In order to reach the aim of this paper, it has been considered a
set of ideal building models with setback irregularity value
exceeds, for some cases, the limits recommended by the building
codes. The purpose of selecting these configurations is to anticipate
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. Different structural configurations of the building investigated in this study: X-Z plan view.

2 0 13
1 Sd
P½dsi =Sd ¼ U4 ln@  A5 ð1Þ
Table 1 bdsi Sddsi
Elements dimension and its reinforcement.

Element type Cross-section (mm) Reinforcement (mm)
Beam 200  400 Top
3T10
Column 400  400 8T16
the seismic behavior and vulnerability of this kind of buildings to
enhance the design methodologies prescribed in the building
codes.
2.2. Fragility curves construction
The fragility curves represent the probability that the engineer-
ing demand parameter, d, of a structure exceeds a particular dam-
age state, dsi , as a function of a parameter quantifying the intensity
measure. In the present paper, the parameter defining the intensity
measure is the spectral displacement, Sd, as shown in Fig. 2. The
fragility curves are lognormal functions characterized by two
 in Table 3. After that, the damage probability is calculated using Eq.
parameters, the mean displacement Sddsi , and the standard devia-
tion bdsi . Therefore, for a particular state of damage dsi , the curve
of fragility is described by the ensuing function [27,28,29,30,31]:
where U - the standard cumulative distribution function.

Bottom The thresholds Sddsi are expressed in terms of yield and ultimate
3T14 value of the structure displacement derived from the bilinear rep-
resentation of the curves of capacity, as shown in Fig. 3. Table 2
presents the formulas adopted to compute the damage state
thresholds according to [31]. The results are given in Table 3.
The methodology used in this study for deriving fragility curves
based on pushover analysis is shown in Fig. 4. In this procedure,
after selecting the required seismic design level, the studied build-
ing models are modeled using a finite element calculation program
[17]. These models are then analyzed using the nonlinear static
method to determine the capacity and performance of each struc-
ture. The resulting capacity curves are then transformed into bilin-
ear curves as shown in Fig. 3. At this step, the displacement and
acceleration corresponding to the elastic and ultimate points are

determined to calculate the damage state thresholds Sddsi and stan-
dard deviation bdsi , The values of these parameters are summarized
(1). Using this approach, the curves of fragility are generated.
Finally, for each building model, the matrices of damage probabil-
ity are computed by introducing the displacement corresponding
3
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Concept of fragility curve (Park et al. 2009) [32].

Fig. 3. Bilinear curve representation.

to the point of performance within the corresponding fragility

curves [28].

Table 2
Damage state thresholds.

Damage state Damage state thresholds


Slight
Sdds 1 ¼ 0:7  Dy

Moderate
Sdds2 ¼ Dy
Severe   
Sdds3 ¼ Dy þ 0:25 Du  Dy

Complete
Sdds 4 ¼ Du
Fig. 4. Flowchart of fragility curve development procedure.

4
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Damage state thresholds and standard deviation parameters.

Building model Damage state thresholds Standard deviation

   
bds1 bds2 bds3 bds4
Sdds1 Sdds2 Sdds3 Sdds4

S1  1 4.2273 6.0390 11.4086 27.5175 0.35616 0.47298 0.70663 0.90829

S1  2 4.0842 5.8346 10.8670 25.9650 0.35451 0.46873 0.69718 0.89648
S1  3 4.6829 6.6899 10.7932 23.1031 0.33676 0.42309 0.59575 0.76968
S1  4 4.5790 6.5414 10.6521 22.9841 0.33797 0.42620 0.60266 0.77833
S1  5 4.1105 5.8722 10.1025 22.7935 0.34494 0.44412 0.64250 0.82812
S2  1 4.2204 6.0291 11.3429 27.2843 0.35568 0.47175 0.70389 0.90486
S2  2 3.9445 5.6350 10.3820 24.6228 0.35323 0.46544 0.68987 0.88734
S2  3 4.0997 5.8567 10.0323 22.5589 0.34440 0.44274 0.63942 0.82427
S2  4 3.6870 5.2671 9.6911 22.9631 0.35307 0.46503 0.68896 0.88620
S2  5 3.3603 4.8004 8.4641 19.4551 0.34796 0.45189 0.65976 0.84970
S3  1 4.0758 5.8225 11.0976 26.9230 0.35719 0.47563 0.71250 0.91563
S3  2 3.9412 5.6303 10.2249 24.0087 0.35152 0.46105 0.68010 0.87513
S3  3 3.9040 5.5772 9.5135 21.3225 0.34388 0.44139 0.63643 0.82054
S3  4 3.6009 5.1441 9.2598 21.6070 0.35046 0.45833 0.67407 0.86758
S3  5 3.2257 4.6081 8.2619 19.2234 0.34998 0.45710 0.67133 0.86416
S4  1 4.0013 5.7162 11.0004 26.8531 0.35830 0.47847 0.71883 0.92354
S4  2 3.9255 5.6079 9.8647 22.6349 0.34767 0.45116 0.65813 0.84766
S4  3 3.5357 5.0510 9.2135 21.7011 0.35204 0.46240 0.68311 0.87889
S4  4 3.5312 5.0445 9.1313 21.3918 0.35113 0.46005 0.67788 0.87235
S4  5 3.3813 4.8304 8.7714 20.5942 0.35151 0.46101 0.68003 0.87504

Table 4
Yield and ultimate capacity for reinforced concrete buildings considered in this paper.

Building class Yield capacity Ultimate capacity

Dy ðcmÞ Ay ðgÞ Du ðcmÞ Au ðgÞ

S1  1 6.0390 0.0923 27.5175 0.1184

S1 2 5.8346 0.0977 25.9652 0.1279
S1 3 6.6899 0.1062 23.1031 0.1455
S1 4 6.5414 0.1257 22.9841 0.1586
S1 5 5.8722 0.1480 22.7935 0.1892
S2  1 6.0291 0.0976 27.2843 0.1232
S2 2 5.6350 0.1006 24.6228 0.1198
S2 3 5.8567 0.1089 22.5589 0.1424
S2 4 5.2671 0.1202 22.9631 0.1539
S2  5 4.8004 0.1380 19.4551 0.1660
S3  1 5.8225 0.0973 26.9230 0.1249
S3 2 5.6303 0.0985 24.0087 0.1132
S3 3 5.5772 0.1052 21.3225 0.1289
S3 4 5.1441 0.1141 21.6070 0.1307
S3 5 4.6081 0.1229 19.2234 0.1452
S4 1 5.7162 0.0956 26.8531 0.1253
S4 2 5.6079 0.0948 22.6349 0.1067
S4 3 5.0510 0.0937 21.7011 0.1239
S4 4 5.0445 0.1027 21.3918 0.1227
S4 5 4.8304 0.1088 20.5942 0.1297

3. Results and discussion 0.50

S1
3.1. Building capacity analysis
S2
0.45
Setback value

Nonlinear static (NLS) analyses are carried out using a modal S3

load pattern, as the participating mass exceeds 75% [23]. The anal- S4
yses have been executed assuming the control node coincident
0.40
with the node in the corner of the last story. According to [5] the
most practical results are given when the control node is farthest
from the centers of mass and stiffness. The NLS analyses permitted
to establish the curves of the capacity of each building model and, 0.35
from these curves, spectra of capacity were generated [22]. Table 4
presents the ultimate and yield capacity values used to define the
bilinear capacity spectra for the modeled RC buildings. 0.30
From the results mentioned in Table 4, it is highly remarkable 5 6 7 8 9 10
that the increase of setback value has a great influence on the ulti-
mate capacity of the buildings. A significant reduction of 17.16%, Displacement (cm)
28.69%, 28.60%, and 23.30% is observed for various models S1, S2,
Fig. 5. Setback – Displacement relationship for a vertical geometric irregularity at
S3, and S4 respectively when setback value S=L (where S is the floor different locations.

5
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

0.2 0.2
Spectral acceleration (g)

Spectral acceleration (g)

0.16 0.16

0.12 0.12

0.08 0.08
S1-1 S1-2
S2-1 S2-2
0.04 S3-1 0.04 S3-2
S4-1 S4-2
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Spectral displacement (mm) Spectral displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
0.2 0.2
Spectral acceleration (g)

Spectral acceleration (g)

0.16 0.16

0.12 0.12

0.08 0.08 S1-4

S1-3 S2-4
S2-3 S3-4
0.04 S3-3 0.04
S4-4
S4-3
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Spectral displacement (mm) Spectral displacement (mm)
(c) (d)
0.2
Spectral acceleration (g)

0.16

0.12

0.08 S1-5
S2-5
0.04 S3-5
S4-5

0
0 100 200 300
Spectral displacement (mm)
(e)
Fig. 6. Capacity curves of studied building models.

reduction and L is the longitudinal plan dimension of the building)
passes from 10% to 50% of longitudinal plan dimension.
Furthermore, Fig. 5 illustrates the influence of setback value on
the performance of RC buildings with vertical geometric irregular-
ity at different levels. It can be seen that the displacement corre-
sponding to the performance point decreases as the setback
value increases. This affirmation can be justified through the
capacity curves given in Fig. 6. It is very noticeable that the setback
has a significant influence on the capacity of the structure. This
reduction in seismic performance can be explained by the fact that
setback affects the capacity of inelastic deformation of the struc-
ture during an earthquake and consequently the ductility of the
6
structure will be reduced resulting in a substantial release of
energy that could cause damage to the building components.
3.2. Effect of setback location on seismic vulnerability
At this stage, an investigation of the effect of vertical geometric
irregularity (Setback) location on the structural vulnerability of RC
buildings will be shown. For this reason, the analysis of seismic fra-
gility of six-storey building frames is conducted and the curves of
fragility were developed and compared as illustrated in Figs. 7, 8, 9,
and 10, and then the probability of exceeding a state of damage for
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Slight Damage Moderate Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage

Severe Damage Complete Damage Severe Damage Complete Damage
1 1
0.9 0.9

Probability of exceedance
Probability of exceedance

0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm) Sd (cm)
(a) (b)
Slight Damage Moderate Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Severe Damage Complete Damage Severe Damage Complete Damage
1 1
0.9 0.9

Probability of exceedance
Probability of exceedance

0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm) Sd (cm)
(c) (d)
Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Severe Damage Complete Damage
1
0.9
Probability of exceedance

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm)
(e)
Fig. 7. Fragility curves of S 1  i models: (a) forS 1  1, (b) forS 1  2, (c) forS 1  3, (d) forS 1  4, and (e) forS 1  5.

each building class is computed thereafter and the outcomes are In the same way, for a complete damage state, the probability of
summarized in Table 5. the structure is collapsed or at imminent risk of collapse due to
It is remarkable that for a setback value of 50%, the probability brittle fracture of nonductile frame elements or loss of frame sta-
of occurrence of cracks, due to flexural or shear stresses, in some bility, increases significantly to reach a value of 41.16% when the
beams and columns near or within the joints increases by 12.19% setback passes from level 1 to level 4.
when the setback is passed from level 1 (the bottom of the struc- For regular structures, these differences in seismic performance
ture) to level 4. The effect of the setback location on seismic vul- tend to decrease. When the setback value is, for example, equal to
nerability is more pronounced in the case of a moderate damage 20%, it can be noted that the discrepancies in terms of probability
condition, where the probability of damage increases by 30.85%. of damage do not exceed 0.94%, 3.18%, and 14.82% for a state of

7
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Slight Damage Moderate Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage

Severe Damage Complete Damage Severe Damage Complete Damage
1 1
0.9 0.9

Probability of exceedance
Probability of exceedance

0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm) Sd (cm)
(a) (b)
Slight Damage Moderate Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Severe Damage Complete Damage Severe Damage Complete Damage

1 1
0.9 0.9
Probability of exceedance

Probability of exceedance
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm) Sd (cm)
(c) (d)
Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Severe Damage Complete Damage
1
Probability of exceedance

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm)
(e)
Fig. 8. Fragility curves of S 2  i models: (a) forS 2  1, (b) forS 2  2, (c) forS 2  3, (d) forS 2  4, and (e) forS 2  5.

slight, moderate, and complete damage, respectively. It is also S3  i,S2  i, and S1  i models. The probability of exceeding a state
observed, from Fig. 11, that overall the S4  i models, where of damage of the S3  i, S2  i, and S1  i structures declines more
i ¼ 2; 3; 4; 5, show poor seismic performance over the gradually from the slight to the complete damage states. For the

8
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Slight Damage Moderate Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage

Severe Damage Complete Damage Severe Damage Complete Damage
1 1
0.9 0.9

Probability of exceedance
Probability of exceedance

0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm) Sd (cm)
(a) (b)
Slight Damage Moderate Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Severe Damage Complete Damage Severe Damage Complete Damage
1 1
Probability of exceedance

0.9 0.9

Probability of exceedance
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm) Sd (cm)
(c) (d)
Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Severe Damage Complete Damage
1
0.9
Probability of exceedance

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm)
(e)
Fig. 9. Fragility curves of S 3  imodels: (a) forS 3  1, (b) forS 3  2, (c) forS 3  3, (d) forS 3  4, and (e) forS 3  5.

9
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Slight Damage Moderate Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage

Severe Damage Complete Damage Severe Damage Complete Damage
1 1
0.9 0.9

Probability of exceedance
Probability of exceedance

0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm) Sd (cm)
(a) (b)
Slight Damage Moderate Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Severe Damage Complete Damage Severe Damage Complete Damage
1 1
0.9
Probability of exceedance

Probability of exceedance
0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm) Sd (cm)
(c) (d)
Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Severe Damage Complete Damage
1
0.9
Probability of exceedance

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd (cm)
(e)
Fig. 10. Fragility curves of S 4  i models: (a) forS 4  1, (b) forS 4  2, (c) forS 4  3, (d) forS 4  4, and (e) forS 4  5.

10
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5
Damage probability matrices for regular and irregular reinforced concrete buildings.

Building class Probability of exceeding limit states

Slight damage Moderate damage Severe damage Complete damage
S1 1 0.9523 0.6956 0.2895 0.0812
S1 2 0.9503 0.6846 0.2861 0.0770
S1 3 0.9593 0.7048 0.3381 0.0950
S1 4 0.8736 0.5316 0.2277 0.0590
S1 5 0.8399 0.4866 0.1918 0.0499
S2 1 0.9435 0.6644 0.2704 0.0747
S2 2 0.9525 0.6958 0.3018 0.0814
S2 3 0.9413 0.6644 0.2974 0.0814
S2 4 0.9390 0.6576 0.2750 0.0770
S2 5 0.9275 0.6307 0.2681 0.0724
S3 1 0.9413 0.6756 0.2726 0.0769
S3 2 0.9503 0.6891 0.2974 0.0837
S3 3 0.9503 0.6868 0.3086 0.0837
S3 4 0.9503 0.6846 0.2929 0.0814
S3 5 0.9503 0.6914 0.2951 0.0814
S4 1 0.9435 0.6689 0.2682 0.0747
S4 2 0.9593 0.7071 0.3156 0.0904
S4 3 0.9728 0.7587 0.3448 0.0994
S4 4 0.9638 0.7273 0.3268 0.0904
S4 5 0.9565 0.7037 0.3046 0.0848

setback value of 40% and 50%, the case S4 structure (i.e., S4  4 and
S4  5) shows high seismic vulnerability.
4. Conclusions and future developments
In this research paper, the structural vulnerability of RC build-
ings with vertical geometric irregularity under the action of earth-
quakes is investigated. A procedure is described for deriving
fragility curves using nonlinear static analysis. According to the
above results, the main conclusions are as follows:
(i) The building capacity is a function of vertical geometric
irregularity. When the setback value increases, the struc-
tural fragility of RC buildings also increases (i.e., the building
capacity decreases).
(ii) The vertical geometric irregularity value significantly affects
the performance of the RC building structures. As the set-
back value increases, the inelastic deformation capacity is
more affected.
(iii) The vertical geometric irregularity location has a significant
impact on the vulnerability of the RC building structures.
The (S4  i) structures exhibit poor seismic performance
and consequently a high probability of damage.
In addition, from the results obtained, it is important to empha-
size that the structural capacity of mid-rise reinforced concrete
buildings is significantly reduced when the vertical geometric
irregularity passes from the bottom of the structure to the upper
levels. This reduction in capacity is more pronounced when the
setback value exceeds the limit recommended by the seismic
design codes. This consequence is justified through the fragility
curves, it is observed that the probabilities of exceedance vary sig-
nificantly when the setback index is greater than or equal to 30%
and this trend is valid regardless of the damage state considered.
Moreover, these results indicate the need to improve the construc-
tive provisions recommended by the current design codes, by pro-
ceeding to the reinforcement of the zones close to the setback
where the stresses are generally concentrated, to allow the struc-
tural elements to have sufficient ductility to dissipate the energy
brought by the earthquake while keeping the structural integrity
of the constructions.
Finally, to improve the investigation of the seismic vulnerability
of buildings in the presence of setback, it is necessary to renovate
the existing assessment methodologies by providing additional
indices that take into account the setback as well as its location
in the selection of drift ratios used to define the median values of
structural damage.
Considering that the sample studied is still limited, the conclu-
sions of this paper cannot be generalized to all cases of irregular
buildings. For this reason, the future objectives of this work will
consist of extending the same procedure to assess the seismic vul-
nerability of reinforced concrete buildings by considering the influ-
ence of a combination of parameters such as geometry, variation of
mass, and stiffness in plan and elevation.

11
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

1 1
S1- 2 S1- 5
Probability of exceedance

Probability of exceedance
0.8 S2- 2 0.8 S2- 5
S3- 2 S3- 5
0.6 S4- 2 0.6 S4- 5

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
Slight Moderate Severe Complete Slight Moderate Severe Complete
Damage state Damage state
(a) (d)
1
S1- 3 Fig. 11 (continued)
Probability of exceedance

0.8 S2- 3
S3- 3
0.6 S4- 3 Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

0.4 cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
0.2
References
0
[1] Sarkar P, Prasad AM, Menon D. Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped
Slight Moderate Severe Complete building frames. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2175–82.
[2] Gerasimidis S, Bisbos CD, Baniotopoulos CC. Vertical geometric irregularity
Damage state assessment of steel frames on robustness and disproportionate collapse. J
Constr Steel Res 2012;74:76–89.
(b) [3] Panagiotis GA, Constantinos CR, Filippos F, Alkis F, Athanasios KT. Fundamental
period of infilled RC frame structures with vertical irregularity. Struct Eng
1 Mech 2017;61(5):663–74.
S1- 4 [4] Lang K. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Buildings, Doctoral of
Probability of exceedance

Technical Sciences, Department of Structural Engineering, Dissertation ETH

0.8 S2- 4 No. 14446, Imperial College, London, 2002.
[5] Ruggieri S, Uva G. Accounting for the spatial variability of seismic motion in
S3- 4 the pushover analysis of regular and irregular RC buildings in the New Italian
S4- 4 Building Code. Buildings 2020;10(10):177.
0.6 [6] Men JJ, Zhou Q, Shi QX. Fragility analysis method for vertically irregular
reinforced concrete frame structures. Key Eng Mater 2008;400–402:587–92.
[7] Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Wei LJ, Tan C, Shahidan S, Zuki SSM. Seismic fragility
0.4 assessment for moment-resisting concrete frame with setback under repeated
earthquakes. Asian J Civ Eng 2019.
[8] Nazri FM, Tan C, Saruddin SNA. Fragility curves of regular and irregular
moment-resisting concrete and steel frames. Int J Civ Eng 2018;16:917–27.
0.2 [9] Kumar SSBS, Rao GVR, Raju PM. Seismic fragility analysis of regular and
setback RCC frames – A few hypothetical case studies. Asian J Civ Eng 2016;17
(5):551–69.
0 [10] Ayub MA, Rizwan M, Waheed A. Damage assessment of deficient reinforced
Slight Moderate Severe Complete concrete setback structures. Proc Instit Civ Eng - Struct Build 171 (9) (2018)
696–704.
Damage state [11] Oggu Praveen, Gopikrishna K. Assessment of three-dimensional RC moment-
resisting frames under repeated earthquakes. Structures 26 (2020) 6–23.
[12] Azad MS, et al. Effect of setback percentages in vertically irregular concrete
(c) buildings on response to earthquake. Proceedings of International Conference
on Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering 07-09 February, Bangladesh;
Fig. 11. Influence of setback location on the seismic vulnerability of RC buildings : 2019.
(a) for S=L ¼ 20 %, (b) forS=L ¼ 30 %, (c) forS=L ¼ 40 %, and (d) forS=L ¼ 50 %. [13] Shojaei F, Behnam B. Seismic vulnerability assessment of low-rise irregular
reinforced concrete structures using cumulative damage index. Adv Concr
Constr 2017;5(4):407–22.

12
M. Mouhine and E. Hilali Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

[14] Ruggieri S, Porco F, Uva G, Vamvatsikos D. Two frugal options to assess class [30] Taliakula P, Prasad VA. Seismic fragility analysis of regular and vertical setback
fragility and seismic safety for low-rise reinforced concrete school buildings in R/C frame buildings. Int J Eng Res Appl 2015;5(11):120–32.
Southern Italy. Bull Earthq Eng 2021;19:1415–39. [31] Milutinovic ZV, Trendafiloski GS. Risk-UE project: An advanced approach to
[15] Ruggieri S, Porco F, Uva G. A practical approach for estimating the floor earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns.
deformability in existing RC buildings: evaluation of the effects in the Contract: EVK4-CT-2000-00014, WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings,
structural response and seismic fragility. Bull Earthq Eng 2020;18:2083–113. Brussels, Belgium; 2003.
[16] RPS2000. Seismic Building Regulations. Ministry of National Territory [32] Park J, Towashiraporn P, Craig JI, Goodno BJ. Seismic fragility analysis of low-
Planning, Urbanism, Housing, and Urban Policy. Technical Department of rise unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 2009;31(1):125–37.
Housing, Kingdom of Morocco; 2011.
[17] SAP2000. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic
analysis reference manual. Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California,
USA; 2011. Mohamed Mouhine graduated as a civil engineer from
[18] Ghosh R, Debbarma R. Performance evaluation of setback buildings with open the faculty of sciences, Cadi Ayyad University, Morocco,
ground storey on plain and sloping ground under earthquake loadings and in 2018. Currently, he is a Ph.D. student at the MMGC
mitigation of failure. Int J Adv Struct Eng 2017;9:97–110. laboratory (ENSA), Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco.
[19] Fujii K. Assessment of pushover-based method to a building with bidirectional He intervenes at the same time as a temporary professor
setback. Earthq Struct 2016;11(3):421–43. at the National School of Applied Sciences (ENSA) and
[20] Surana M, Singh Y, Lang DH. Effect of strong-column weak-beam design the Specialized Institute of Public Works (ISTP) in Aga-
provision on the seismic fragility of RC frame buildings. Int J Adv Struct Eng dir, Morocco.
2018;10:131–41.
[21] Inel M, Ozmen HB. Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of
reinforced concrete buildings. Eng Struct 2006;28(11):1494–502.
[22] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings. Volume 1, Redwood City, USA; 1996.
[23] Uva G, Porco F, Fiore A, Ruggieri S. Effects in conventional nonlinear static
analysis: evaluation of control node position. Structures 2018;13:178–92.
[24] EC2, European Committee for Standardization, EN-1992-1-1, Eurocode 2.
Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Elmokhtar Hilali received a Ph.D. degree in Material
Brussels; 2004. Sciences in 1999 from the faculty of sciences, Ibn Zohr
[25] EC8, European Committee for Standardization, EN-1998-1, Eurocode 8. Design University, Morocco. He is the head of the Department
of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions, of Civil Engineering and Mechanics at the National
and Rules for Buildings, Brussels; 2004. School of Applied Sciences (ENSA) of Agadir, Morocco.
[26] Varadharajan S, Sehgal VK, Saini B. Determination of inelastic seismic At present, he is the Deputy Director of the High School
demands of RC moment resisting setback frames. Arch Civ Mech Eng of Education and Formation (ESEF) of Agadir, Ibn Zohr
2013;13(3):370–93. University. His research interests include Materials and
[27] HAZUS MR4, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology: Earthquake Model.
Civil Engineering, Mechanics Engineering, and Con-
Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response
densed Matter Physics.
Directorate, FEMA, Washington D.C; 2003.
[28] Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N. Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas
using the capacity spectrum method: Application to Barcelona. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2008;28(10–11):851–65.
[29] Remki M, Kibboua A, Benouar D, Kehila F. Seismic fragility evaluation of
existing RC frame and URM buildings in Algeria. Int J Civ Eng 2018;16:845–56.

13