Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 513–545 | Cite as

Definition of fragility curves through nonlinear static analyses: procedure and application to a mixed masonry-RC building stock

  • Jelena Milosevic
  • Serena Cattari
  • Rita BentoEmail author
S.I. : 10th IMC conference


Seismic risk analyses at large scale represents a fundamental support to effective mitigation policies. Evaluating fragility curves able to capture the huge variety of existing buildings is one key point of this analysis. Within this context, this paper proposes a procedure for the evaluation of the fragility curves that aims to limit the computational effort without losing the reliability of the achieved results. This is reached through the execution of a limited number of nonlinear static procedures based on the use of the sensitivity analysis carried out according to the simplified star design with central point approach. The main strength of the procedure is the ability to explicitly quantify the various contributions of uncertainty to the dispersion, associated to those on the structural capacity (taking into account both aleatory and epistemic sources) and on the seismic input. As known, the adoption of a nonlinear static approach for the seismic assessment implies various assumptions, such as the load pattern applied, the criteria adopted to compare the capacity and the demand, and the definition of the damage levels. All these issues potentially affect the reliability of the final fragility curves, which are defined through a proper combination of such various options or they can be selected based on the ones more representative of the expected behaviour of the class. To improve this aspect, the evidences from nonlinear dynamic analyses are used. The feasibility and effectiveness of the procedure is duly demonstrated in this paper through its application to a building stock typology, consisting of existing mixed masonry-reinforced concrete structures, representative of one of the largest portions of the existing residential buildings in Lisbon. The attention is focused only to the global in-plane behaviour by adopting as modelling approach the equivalent frame method, that has been proven particularly efficient and accurate enough in representing the nonlinear behaviour of the examined structures.


Fragility curves Nonlinear static analyses Sensitivity analyses Nonlinear dynamic analyses Mixed masonry-reinforced concrete structures ‘Placa’ buildings 



This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) (Grant No. SFRH/BD/102713/2014).


  1. 3Muri Program, S.T.A.DATA s.r.l., release 5.0.4Google Scholar
  2. Anthoine A, Magonette G, Magenes G (1995) Shear-compression testing and analysis of brick masonry walls 1995. In: Proceedings of 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, WienGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo M, Macedo L, Marques M, Castro JM (2016) Code-based record selection methods for seismic performance assessment of buildings. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45:129–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asteris P, Chronopoulos M, Chrysostomou C, Varum H, Plevris V, Kyriakides N, Silva V (2014) Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry structural systems. J Eng Struct 62–63:118–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltzopoulos G, Baraschino R, Iervolino I, Vamvatsikos D (2017) SPO2FRAG: software for seismic fragility assessment based on static pushover. J Bull Earthq Eng 15:4399–4425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N (2008) Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: application to Barcelona. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:851–865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbat AH, Carreño ML, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Cardona OD, Murulanda MC (2010) Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation methods for urban areas. A review with application to a pilot area. J Struct Infrastruct Eng 6:17–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernardini A (2004) Classi macrosismiche di vulnerabilita` degli edifici in area veneto-friulana 2004. In: Atti del XI Congresso Nazionale ‘‘L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia’’, Genova (in Italian) Google Scholar
  9. Bernardini A, Gori R, Modena C (1990) An application of coupled analysis models and experimental knowledge for seismic vulnerability analysis of masonry buildings. In: Koridze A (ed) 3:161–180 Engineering aspects of earthquake phenomena. Omega Scientific, OxonGoogle Scholar
  10. Beyer K, Dazio A (2012) Quasi static cyclic tests on masonry spandrels. J Earthq Spectra 28(3):907–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blandon CA, Priestley MJN (2005) Equivalent viscous damping equations for direct displacement based design. J Earthq Eng 9(Special Issue 2):257–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borzi B, Crowley H, Pinho R (2008) Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment (SP-BELA) method for masonry buildings. J Archit Herit 2:353–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bracchi S, Rota M, Magenes G, Penna A (2016) Seismic assessment of masonry buildings accounting for limited knowledge on materials by Bayesian updating. J Bull Earthq Eng 14(8):2273–2297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bramerini F, Di Pasquale G, Orsini A, Pugliese A, Romeo R, Sabetta F (1995) Rischio sismico del territorio italiano. Proposta per una metodologia e risultati preliminari 1995. Rapporto tecnico del Servizio Sismico Nazionale SSN/RT/95/01, Roma (in Italian)Google Scholar
  15. Calvi GM (1999) A Displacement-Based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes of buildings. J Earthq Eng 3(3):411–438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2013a) Masonry structures. In: Sullivan T, Calvi GM (eds) Developments in the field of displacement based seismic assessment. IUSS Press (PAVIA) and EUCENTRE, New York, p 524 (pp 151–200). ISBN 978-88-6198-090-7Google Scholar
  17. Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2013b) Seismic assessment of mixed masonry-reinforced concrete buildings by non-linear static analyses. J Earthq Struct 4(3):241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cattari S, Chioccariello A, Degée H, Doneaux C, Lagomarsino S, Mordant C (2014) Seismic assessment of masonry buildings from shaking table tests and nonlinear dynamic simulations by the Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD). In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (ECEES), Istanbul, 25–29 AugGoogle Scholar
  19. Cattari S, Lagomarsino S, Bosiljkov V, D’Ayala D (2015) Sensitivity analysis for setting up the investigation protocol and defining proper confidence factors for masonry buildings. J Bull Earthq Eng 13:129–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cattari S, Camilletti D, Magenes G, Manzini C, Morandi P, Spacone E, Camata G, Marano C, Calio I, Cannizzaro F, Occhipinti G, Panto B, Calderoni B, Cordasco A, Sandoli A (2018) A comparative study on a 2-storey benchmark case study through nonlinear seismic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, 18–21 June 2018, Thessaloniki (GR)Google Scholar
  21. Cattari S, Sivori D, Brunelli A, Sica S, Piro A, de Silva F, Parisi F, Silvestri F (2019) Soil–structure interaction effects on the dynamic behaviour of a masonry school damaged by the 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquake sequence. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering (VII ICEGE), Rome, June 17–20Google Scholar
  22. CEN (1992) Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Bruxelles; 2004Google Scholar
  23. CEN (2010) Eurocódigo 8: projecto de estruturas para resistência aos sismos—parte 1: Regras gerais, acções sísmicas e regras para edifícios (EC8-1) 2010; Norma Portuguesa. NP EN 1998-1 2010. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. CEN Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN1998-1:2004, Comité Européen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. CNR-DT 212/2013 (2014) Guide for the probabilistic assessment of the seismic safety of existing buildings. National research council, RomeGoogle Scholar
  26. Colombi M, Borzi B, Crowley H, Onida M, Meroni F, Pinho R (2008) Deriving vulnerability curves using Italian earthquake damage data. J Bull Earthq Eng 6:485–504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. D’Ayala D (2005) Force and displacement based vulnerability assessment for traditional buildings. J Bull Earthq Eng 3:235–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. D’Ayala D, Lagomarsino S (2015) Perfomance-based assessment of cultural heritage assets: outcomes of the European FP7 PERPETUATE project. J Bull Earthq Eng 13:5–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. D’Ayala D, Meslem A (2013) Sensitivity of analytical fragility functions to capacity-related parameters. GEM technical report 2013-X. GEM Foundation, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  30. D’Ayala D, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. J Bull Earthq Eng 9:81–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. D’Ayala D, Speranza E (2002) An integrated procedure for the assessment of seismic vulnerability of historic buildings. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. de Silva F, Piro A, Brunelli A, Cattari S, Parisi F, Sica S, Silvestri F (2019) On the Soil–structure interaction in the seismic response of a monitored masonry school building struck by the 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquake. In: Proceedings of COMPDYN conference 2019, Crete, 24–26 JuneGoogle Scholar
  33. Del Gaudio C, De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2017) Empirical fragility curves from damage data on RC buildings after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. J Bull Earthq Eng 15(4):1425–1450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dolce M, Kappos A, Masi A, Penelis G, Vona M (2006) Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. J Eng Struct 28:357–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dolsek M (2009) Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(6):805–825. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Douglas J, Seyedi DM, Ulrich T, Modaressi H, Foerster E, Pitilakis K, Pitilakis D, Karatzetzou A, Gazetas G, Garini E, Loli M (2015) Evaluation of the seismic hazard for the assessment of historical elements at risk: description of input and selection of intensity measures. J Bull Earthq Eng 13:49–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ferreira TM, Vicente R, da Silva JARM, Varum H, Costa A (2013) Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical urban centers: case study of the old city center in Seixal, Portugal. J Bull Earthq Eng 11:1753–1773. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ferrito T, Milosevic J, Bento R (2016) Seismic vulnerability assessment of a mixed masonry-RC building aggregate by linear and nonlinear analyses. J Bull Earthq Eng 14:2299–2327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fiorentino G, Forte A, Pagano E, Sabetta F, Baggio C, Lavorato D, Nuti C, Santini S (2018) Damage patterns in the town of Amatrice after August 24th, 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. J Bull Earthq Eng 16:1399–1423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D (2010) Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):141–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Frankie T, Gencturk B, Elnashai A (2013) Simulation-based fragility relationships for unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng 139(3):400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Freeman SA (1998) The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference of earthquake engineering, ParisGoogle Scholar
  43. Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S (2004) A macroseismic model for the vulnerability assessment of buildings. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  44. Glaister S, Pinho R (2003) Development of a simplified deformation-based method for seismic vulnerability assessment. J Earthq Eng 7:107–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Graziotti F, Magenes G, Penna A (2012) Experimental cyclic behaviour of stone masonry spandrels. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  46. GRUC (1944) General regulation of urban construction, direction of urbanization and construction services, 5th edn, City Hall (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  47. Guerrini G, Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2017) Improved evaluation of inelastic displacement demands for short period masonry structures. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1411–1430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Haddad J, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2019) Use of the model parameter sensitivity analysis for the probabilistic-based seismic assessment of existing buildings. J Bull Earthq Eng 17:1983–2009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. HAZUS (1999): Earthquake loss estimation methodology. Technical and user manuals (1999); 1–3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Kappos A, Papanikolaou V (2016) Nonlinear dynamic analysis of masonry buildings and definition of seismic damage states. J Open Constr Build Technol 10:192–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. J Bull Earthq Eng 4:391–413. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2013) Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: observational and mechanical approaches for application in urban areas. In: Gueguen P (ed) Seismic vulnerability of structures. Wiley, Berlin, pp 1–62 (Chapter 1). ISBN 978-1-84821-524-5Google Scholar
  53. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2014a) Fragility functions of masonry buildings. In: Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia AM (eds) SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk: elements at seismic risk, geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht, p 420. 5), pp 111–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2014b) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. J Bull Earthq 13(1):13–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) Seismic performance of historical masonry structures through pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. In: Ansal A (ed) Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 39. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  56. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability assessment of current buildings. J Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. J Eng Struct 56:1787–1799. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lagomarsino S, Camilletti D, Cattari S, Marino S (2018) Seismic assessment of existing irregular masonry buildings by nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. In: Pitilakis K (ed) Recent advances in earthquake engineering in Europe. ECEE 2018. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 46. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  59. Lamego P, Lourenço P, Sousa M (2017) Seismic vulnerability and risk analysis of the old building stock at urban scale: application to a neighborhood in Lisbon. J Bull Earthq Eng 15:2901–2937. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Magenes G, Penna A, Senaldi I, Rota M, Galasco A (2014) Shaking table test of a strengthened full-scale stone masonry building with flexible diaphragms. J Archit Herit Conserv Anal Restor 8(3):349–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maio R, Tsionis G (2016) Seismic fragility curves for the European building stock: review and evaluation of existing fragility curves. EUR 27635 EN.
  62. Maio R, Estêvão JMC, Ferreira T, Vicente R (2017) The seismic performance of stone masonry buildings in Faial island and the relevance of implementing effective seismic strengthening policies. J Eng Struct 141:41–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Marino S, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2018) Use of nonlinear static procedures for irregular URM buildings in literature and codes. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, 18–21 June 2018, Thessaloniki (GR)Google Scholar
  64. Marino S, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S, Dizhur D, Ingham JM (2019) Post-earthquake damage simulation of two colonial unreinforced clay brick masonry buildings using the equivalent frame approach. J Struct 19:212–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Milosevic J, Cattari S, Bento R (2018) Sensitivity analyses of seismic performance of ancient mixed masonry-RC buildings in Lisbon. J Mason Res Innov 3(2):108–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mouroux P, Le Brun B (2006) Presentation of RISK-UE project. J Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):323–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Myers R, Montgomery D, Anderson-Cook C (2009) Response surface methodology. Process and product optimization using designed experiments, 3rd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  68. NTC (2008) Italian code for structural design (Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni—NTC) D.M. 14/1/2008, Official Bulletin No. 29 of February 4, 2008 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  69. Oliveira CS, Navarro M (2010) Fundamental periods of vibration of RC buildings in Portugal from in situ experimental and numerical techniques. J Bull Earthg Eng 8:609–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Oropeza M, Michel C, Lestuzzi P (2010) A simplified analytical methodology for fragility curves estimation in existing buildings. In: Proceedings of 14th European conference on earthquake engineering, OhridGoogle Scholar
  71. Pagnini LC, Vicente RS, Lagomarsino S, Varum H (2011) A mechanical model for the seismic vulnerability assessment of old masonry buildings. J Earthq Struct 2(1):25–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Penelis G, Kappos A, Stylianidis K (2003) Assessment of the seismic vulnerability of unreinforced masonry buildings. Trans Built Environ 66. WIT Press. ISSN 1743-3509
  73. Pinto PE, Giannini R, Franchini P (2004) Seismic reliability analysis of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia. ISBN 88-7358-017-3Google Scholar
  74. Pitilakis K, Pitilakis D, Riga E, Anastasiadis A, Karatzetzou A, Douglas J, Seyedi D, Negulescu C, Ulrich T, Gazetas G, Loli M (2011) Definition of demand spectra and other intensity measures for different soil categories and site condition. Deliverable D13, perpetuate projectGoogle Scholar
  75. Restrepo-Vélez LF, Magenes G (2004) Simplified procedure for the seismic risk assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  76. Rossi M, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2015) Performance-based assessment of the Great Mosque of Algiers. J Bull Earthq Eng 13:369–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rosti A, Rota M, Penna A (2018) Damage classification and derivation of damage probability matrices from L’Aquila (2009) post-earthquake survey data. J Bull Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia CL (2008) Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(10–11):933–947. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2010) A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on stochastic nonlinear analyses. J Eng Struct 32:1312–1323. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Simões A, Bento R, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2014) Seismic performance-based assessment of ‘‘Gaioleiro’’ buildings’. J Eng Struct 80:486–500. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sionti E (2016) Nonlinear seismic assessment and retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings. Dissertation, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  82. Sorrentino L, Cattari S, da Porto F, Magenes G, Penna A (2018) Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes. J Bull Earthg Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tomaževic M, Weiss P, Velechovsky T (1991) The influence of rigidity of floors on the seismic behaviour of old stone—masonry buildings. Eur Earthq Eng 3:28–41Google Scholar
  84. Tondelli M, Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2012) Evaluation of uncertainties in the seismic assessment of existing masonry buildings. J Earthq Eng 16(Supp 1):36–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Turnsek V, Sheppard P (1980) The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the international research conference on earthquake engineering, Skopje, p 517Google Scholar
  86. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2006) Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1097–1117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CERIS, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering (DICCA)University of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations