Assessment on combined effects of multiple engineering demand parameters (MEDP) contributing on the shape of fragility curve

  • Arjun SilEmail author
  • Dawa Zangmu Sherpa
  • Pritam Hait
Research Article


There is saying that earthquakes do not kill people however, the structures do, therefore, the earthquake mitigation becomes vital for the structure located in the earthquake-prone region. One such tool for the risk investigation is fragility analysis. It shows the probability of exceedance (POE) of certain damage level at particular intensity measures (IM). The method at first used for the nuclear power plants in 1984 and from 1990 its utilization was connected in building too. In the present work, the four story reinforced concrete (RC) framed residential building with different bay ratios such as 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00 considered. The Non-Linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) carried out and the inelastic behavior of the building is captured in the form of damage measures such as maximum inter-story drift ratio (MIDR), roof displacement (Δ), and the joint rotation (Ѳ). The two types of fragility curves has been obtained such as (1) considering the effects of only MIDR, and (2) considering the combined effects of MIDR, Δ, and Ѳ. However, past work by researchers is mostly dealing with the former type of fragility assessment. While for later type of fragility curve, limited work has been done. This paper presents the effects of the bay ratio (plan aspect ratio) in the fragility curve. It concluded that, combining the effects of response parameters has tremendous effect on the shape of the fragility curve and its effect must be considered in the study of fragility analysis.


Fragility curve Displacement Risk EDPs Bay ratio IM 



  1. 1.
    Kennedy RP, Ravindra MK (1984) Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies. Nucl Eng Des 79(1):47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hwang BHHM, Jaw J (1990) Probabilistic damage analysis of structures. J Struct Eng 116(7):1992–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hwang HH, Huo J-R (1994) Generation of hazard-consistent fragility curves for seismic loss estimation studies. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 13(5):345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech 126(12):1224–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R (2007) Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 23(2):471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ioannou I, Douglas J, Rossetto T (2015) Assessing the impact of ground-motion variability and uncertainty on empirical fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borele SV, Datta D (2015) Damage assessment of structural system using fragility curves. J Civ Eng Environ Technol 2(11):72–76Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korkmaz K (2008) Evaluation of seismic fragility analyses. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Réveillère A, Gehl P, Seyedi D, Modaressi H (2012) Development of seismic fragility curves for damaged reinforced concrete structures. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frankie TM, Gencturk B, Elnashai AS (2012) Simulation-based fragility relationships for unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng 139(3):400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mosalam KM, Ayala G, White RN, Roth C (1997) Seismic fragility of LRC frames with and without masonry infill walls. J Earthq Eng 1(4):693–720Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farsangi EN, Rezvani FH, Talebi M, Hashemi SAH (2014) seismic risk analysis of steel-MRFs by means of fragility curves in high seismic zones. Adv Struct Eng 17(9):1227–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seyedi D, Gehl P, Douglas J, Davenne L, Mezher N, Ghavamian S (2010) Development of seismic fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings by means of nonlinear time-history analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(1):91–108Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vona M (2014) Fragility curves of existing RC buildings based on specific structural performance levels. Open J Civ Eng 4(2):120–134CrossRefGoogle 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.
    Billah AHMM, Alam MS (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review. Structure and infrastructure engineering. Taylor and Francis, DidcotGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colapietro D, Netti A, Fiore A, Fatiguso F, Marano GC (2014) On the definition of seismic recovery interventions in r.c. buildings by non-linear static and incremental dynamic analyses. Int J Mech 8(October):216–222Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hancilar U, Çaktö E, Erdik M, Franco GE, Deodatis G (2014) Earthquake vulnerability of school buildings: probabilistic structural fragility analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 67:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lin K, Li Y, Lu X, Guan H (2017) Effects of seismic and progressive collapse designs on the vulnerability of RC frame structures. J Perform Constr Facil 31(1):4016079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS (1996) Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage by Ajay Singhal! and Anne S. Kiremidjian 1. J Struct Eng 122(12):1459–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirçil MS, Polat Z (2006) Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings. Eng Struct 28(9):1335–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Kumar SSBS, Rao GVR, Raju PM (2016) Seismic fragility analysis of regular and setback RCC frames—a few hypothetical case studies. Asian J Civ Eng 17(5):551–569Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Erberik MA, Elnashai AS (2004) Fragility analysis of flat-slab structures. Eng Struct 26(7):937–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zentner I, Gündel M, Bonfils N (2017) Fragility analysis methods: review of existing approaches and application. Nucl Eng Des 323:245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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(Suppl 1: M2):42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ellingwood BR, Rosowsky DV, Pang W (2008) Performance of light-frame wood residential construction subjected to earthquakes in regions of moderate seismicity. J Struct Eng 134(8):1353–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kwon OS, Elnashai A (2006) The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure. Eng Struct 28(2):289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ay BÖ, Akkar S (2014) Evaluation of a recently proposed record selection and scaling procedure for low-rise to mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings and its use for probabilistic risk assessment studies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(6):889–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uniform Building Code (1997) Uniform building code. In: American Association of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 2, 545Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ, Chryssanthopoulos MK (1999) Seismic reliability of RC frames with uncertain drift and member capacity. J Struct Eng 125(9):1038–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reyes JC, Kalkan E (2012) How many records should be used in an ASCE/SEI-7 ground motion scaling procedure? Earthq Spectra 28(3):1223–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10):1193–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang Y, Rosowsky DV (2014) Effects of earthquake ground motion selection and scaling method on performance-based engineering of wood-frame structures. J Struct Eng 140(11):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kumar A (2004) Software for generation of spectrum compatible time history. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, 1–6Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB (2004) The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng 8(1):43–91Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Samanta A, Pandey P (2018) Effects of ground motion modification methods and ground motion duration on seismic performance of a 15-storied building. J Build Eng 15(January 2017):14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Akkar S, Sucuoǧlu H, Yakut A (2005) Displacement-based fragility functions for low- and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 21(4):901–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kafali C, Grigoriu M (2007) Seismic fragility analysis: application to simple linear and nonlinear systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(June):1885–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sudret B, Mai CV (2013) Computing seismic fragility curves using polynomial chaos expansions. In: 11th International conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR 2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sil A, Longmailai T (2017) Drift reliability assessment of a four storey residential building under seismic loading considering multiple factors. J Inst Eng (India) Ser A. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sil A, Gourab D, Pritam H (2019) Characteristics of FBD and DDBD techniques for SMRF buildings designed for seismic zone-V in India. J Build Pathol Rehabil. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNIT SilcharAssamIndia

Personalised recommendations