Fragility Curves of Regular and Irregular Moment-Resisting Concrete and Steel Frames

  • Fadzli Mohamed Nazri
  • Chee Ghuan Tan
  • Siti Nur Aqilah Saruddin
Technical note


This study presents the fragility curves of regular and irregular moment-resisting frames using different heights, materials, and ground motion records. The concrete and steel frames used in this study differed in terms of height, namely, 3, 6, and 9 stories. Each type of frame was designed based on Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 3 with the aid of Eurocode 8 for earthquake loading. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) was conducted for the three selected ground motion records using SAP2000 software as the main tool. The IDA curves were compared to the five levels of the limit state of FEMA 356: operational phase (OP), immediate occupancy, damage control, life safety, and collapse prevention (CP). Based on the analysis of fragility curves, irregular frames exhibited a higher probability of reaching OP and CP levels compared with regular frames.


Regular frame Irregular frame Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) Limit state Fragility curve 



This study was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (6071321) and Research Fund Assistance from the University of Malaya (BK057-2015).


  1. 1.
    BSI (2004b) Eurocode 8: design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures: Part 1-1, general rules—seismic actions and general requirements for structures. London: British Standards InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Varadharajan S, Sehgal V, Saini B (2015) Fundamental time period of RC setback buildings. Concr Res Lett 5(4):901–935Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thachampuram SJ (2014) Development of fragility curves for an RC frame. Phd thesis. Department Of Civil Engineering National Institute Of Technology, Rourkela, 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Habibi A, Asadi K (2016) Development of drift-based damage index for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames with setback. Int J Civ Eng 15(4):487–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK (2004) Seismic response of vertically irregular frames: response history and modal pushover analyses. J Struct Eng 130(8):1177–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xue Q, Chia-Wei W, Cheng-Chung C, Kuo-Ching C (2008) The draft code for performance-based seismic design of buildings in Taiwan. Eng Struct 30(6):1535–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibrahim YE, El-Shami MM (2011) Seismic fragility curves for mid-rise reinforced concrete frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. IES J Part A Civ Struct Eng 4(4):213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Pacific earthquake engineering research center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hwang HH, Huo J-R (1994) Generation of hazard-consistent fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 13(5):345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H-K, Kim S-H (2000) Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development. J Eng Mech 126(12):1287–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bai J-W, Gardoni P, Hueste MBD (2011) Story-specific demand models and seismic fragility estimates for multi-story buildings. Struct Saf 33(1):96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCrum DP, Amato G, Suhail R (2016) Development of seismic fragility functions for a moment resisting reinforced concrete framed structure. Open Constr Build Technol J 10:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    BSI (2004a) Eurocode 2: design of concrete structure—part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. London: British Standards InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    BSI (2005) Eurocode 3: design of steel structures: part 1-1, general rules and rules for building. London: British Standards InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Najafi LH, Tehranizadeh M (2015) Ground motion selection and scaling in practice. Period Polytech Civil Eng 59:233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Pinho R, Sousa R (2014) Evaluation of analytical methodologies used to derive vulnerability functions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(2):181–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nazri FM, Pang YK (2014) Seismic performance of moment resisting steel frame subjected to earthquake excitations. Front Struct Civ Eng 8(1):19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirçil MS, Polat Z (2006) Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings. Eng Struct 28(9):1335–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fadzli Mohamed Nazri
    • 1
  • Chee Ghuan Tan
    • 2
  • Siti Nur Aqilah Saruddin
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringEngineering Campus, Universiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations