Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fragility based evaluation of different code based assessment approaches for the performance estimation of existing buildings

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seismic performance of existing buildings constructed before modern seismic design codes is one of the important problems of earthquake prone countries. Increasing life and economic losses after strong earthquakes shows the necessity of seismic performance assessment studies and methods. Therefore, in this study assessment methods recommended by different seismic codes were investigated and probabilistically assessed by comparing the fragility curves of existing low- to mid-rise RC structures. Building performances were determined according to TEC-2007, TBEC-2018, EC8/3 and ASCE 41-17. Eight different occupied buildings, classified according to construction dates (old and new) and story numbers (3 to 6), were selected and investigated by using these codes. At first, building capacity curves and damage limits, defined by the different code methods, were determined via pushover analyses. Structures were then subjected to more than 300 real strong ground motion (GM) records employing nonlinear dynamic analysis and fragility curves were obtained. Static analysis results showed that strength, stiffness and deformation capacity of new buildings are significantly higher than old ones according to all seismic codes considered and it is observed that TBEC-2018 gives the most conservative capacity estimations with respect to others. Comparison of fragility curves indicated that damage probabilities of TBEC-2018 and EC8/3 are higher than other seismic codes and this situation is valid for all story number and building age classes. In most cases TBEC-2018 and TEC-2007 results represent the upper and lower bounds of damage probabilities. It was also found that building age is the most effective parameter that affect the fragilities of existing buildings. Distribution of fragility curves imply that different code methods can give significantly different damage estimations under identical seismic demand levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37

Similar content being viewed by others

8. References

  • Akkar S, Ozen O (2005) Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands for SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct D 37:1411–1433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE 41-17 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA

  • Basone F, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Muscolino F (2017) Incremental dynamic based fragility assessment of reinforced concrete structures: stationary vs. non-stationary artificial ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 103:105–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgin H (2013) Fragility-based assessment of public buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 56:1283–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BISPEC (2012) Interactive software for the computation of unidirectional and bidirectional nonlinear earthquake spectra, version 2.20 (Help Manual). Earthquake Solutions

  • CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization

  • CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. CEN, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization

  • Di Trapani F, Malavisi M (2019) Seismic fragility assessment of infilled frames subject to mainshock/aftershock sequences using a double incremental dynamic analysis approach. Bull Earthq Eng 17(1):211–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dogangun A (2004) Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingol Earthquake in Turkey. Eng Struct 26(6):841–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erberik MA (2008) Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 30:1360–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fardis MN (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings based on EN-Eurocode 8. Springer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (US) (2017) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: A handbook. Government Printing Office

  • Gulay FG, Tezcan S, Bal IE (2008) Binaların deprem guvenligi konusunda gelistirilen P25 puanlama yönteminin kalibrasyonu ve pilot bölge uygulaması”, TUBITAK MAG Arastırma Projesi, Turkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastırma Kurumu, Proje No: 106M278

  • Inel M, Bilgin H, Özmen HB (2008) Performance of mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings during recent earthquakes in Turkey. Teknik Dergi/technical J Turkish Chamber Civil Eng 19(1):4319–4331

    Google Scholar 

  • Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design (2010) SAP2000, “Integrated finite element and design of structures analysis reference manual”. Berkeley: Computers and Structures Inc, California, USA

  • Isık E, Harirchian E, Bilgin H, Jadhav K (2021) The effect of material strength and discontinuity in RC structures according to different site-specific design spectra. Res Eng Struct Mater. https://doi.org/10.17515/resm2021.273st0303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JBDPA (2005) Standard for seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Guidelines for seismic retrofit of existing reinforced concrete buildings, and technical manual for seismic evaluation and seismic retrofit of existing reinforced concrete buildings, 200. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association

  • JBDPA (2017) Standard for evaluation of seismic capacity of existing reinforced concrete buildings, 300 Tokyo, Japan: Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association

  • Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G (2010) Fragility curves for reinforced concrete buildings in Greece. Struct Infrastruct Eng Maint Manag Life-Cycle Design Perform 6:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MBIE (2017) The Seismic assessment of existing buildings, technical guidelines for engineering assessments. The New Zealand Government

  • Ozcebe G, Ramirez J, Wasti TS, Yakut A (2004) 1 May 2003 Bingol earthquake. Engineering Report, http://www.seru.metu.edu.tr/archives/databases/Bingol Database; Publication no:2004/1

  • Ozmen HB (2021) A view on how to mitigate earthquake damages in Turkey from a civil engineering perspective. Res Eng Struct Mater 7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.7515/resm2020.231ea1113ed

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanci M, Senel SM (2019) Correlation of earthquake intensity measures and spectral displacement demands in building type structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 121:306–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanci M, Kalkan A, Senel SM (2016a) Investigation of shear effects on the capacity and demand estimation of RC buildings. Struct Eng Mech 60(6):1021–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanci M, Senel SM, Kalkan A (2016b) Assessment of one story existing precast industrial buildings in Turkey based on fragility curves. Bull Earthq Eng 15:271–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter K (2021) A Beginner’s Guide to Fragility, Vulnerability, and Risk. University of Colorado Boulder. https://www.sparisk.com/pubs/Porter-beginnersguide.pdf. Accessed 09 June 2021

  • Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant DN (2013) Existing empirical fragility and vulnerability functions: compendium and guide for selection. GEM technical report 2013-X, GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy

  • Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN (1982) Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI Struct J 79(1):13–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Sezen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ, Mosalam KM (2003) Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng Struct 25(1):103–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (2011) Human casualties in earthquakes progress in modelling and mitigation. United Kingdom, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sucuoglu H, Yazgan U (2003) Simple survey procedures for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. In Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings (pp. 97–118). Springer, Dordrecht

  • TBEC 2018 (2018) Turkey earthquake building regulations. Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Turkey, Ankara

  • TEC 1998 (1998) Specifications for structures to be built in seismic zones. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement of Turkey, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • TEC 2007 (2007) Specification for buildings to be built in seismic zones. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement of Turkey, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Yakut A, Gulkan P, Bakır BS, Yılmaz MT (2005) Re-examination of damage distribution in Adapazarı: structural considerations. Eng Struct 27(7):990–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Pamukkale University, 20160, Pamukkale, Turkey

    Cigdem Cirak Karakas & Sevket Murat Senel

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Arel University, 34537, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Palanci

Authors
  1. Cigdem Cirak Karakas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Palanci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sevket Murat Senel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sevket Murat Senel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest with others and third parties about this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A

Appendix A

See Tables

Table 4 Parameters of PGV (PGA) fragility curves for IO
Full size table

4,

Table 5 Parameters of PGV (PGA) fragility curves for LS
Full size table

5,

Table 6 Parameters of PGV (PGA) fragility curves for CP
Full size table

6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cirak Karakas, C., Palanci, M. & Senel, S.M. Fragility based evaluation of different code based assessment approaches for the performance estimation of existing buildings. Bull Earthquake Eng 20, 1685–1716 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01292-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01292-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation