Seismic Fragility Assessment of Reinforced Concrete High-Rise Buildings Using the Uncoupled Modal Response History Analysis (UMRHA)

  • Muhammad Zain
  • Naveed AnwarEmail author
  • Fawad Ahmed Najam
  • Tahir Mehmood
Conference paper
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 47)


In this study, a simplified approach for the analytical development of fragility curves of high-rise RC buildings is presented. It is based on an approximate modal decomposition procedure known as the Uncoupled Modal Response History Analysis (UMRHA). Using an example of a 55-story case study building, the fragility relationships are developed using the presented approach. Fifteen earthquake ground motions (categorized into 3 groups corresponding to combinations of small or large magnitude and source-to-site distances) are considered for this example. These ground motion histories are scaled for 3 intensity measures (peak ground acceleration, spectral acceleration at 0.2 s and spectral acceleration at 1 s) varying from 0.25 to 2 g. The presented approach resulted in a significant reduction of computational time compared to the detailed Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) procedure, and can be applied to assess the seismic vulnerability of complex-natured, higher mode-dominating tall reinforced concrete buildings.


Seismic risk assessment UMRHA NLRHA Fragility relationships High-rise RC buildings 


  1. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (1994) Seismic hazard analysis of nonlinear structures. I: methodology. J Struct Eng 120(11):3320–3344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bournonville M, Dahnke J, Darwin D (2004) Statistical analysis of the mechanical properties and weight of reinforcing bars. University of Kansas ReportGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr AJ (2004) Ruaumoko – inelastic dynamic analysis program. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  4. Chopra AK (2007) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  5. Elnashai A, Borzi B, Vlachos S (2004) Deformation-based vulnerability functions for RC bridges. Struct Eng Mech 17(2):215–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghobarah A, Aly N, El-Attar M (1998) Seismic reliability assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 2(4):569–592Google Scholar
  7. Gruenwald J (2008) Risk-based structural design: Designing for future aircraft. AE 440 Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  8. Guneyisi EM, Altay G (2008) Seismic fragility assessment of effectiveness of viscous dampers in RC buildings under scenario earthquakes. Struct Saf 30(5):461–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hazus (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology technical and user manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hueste MBD, Chompreda P, Trejo D, Cline DB, Keating PB (2004) Mechanical properties of high-strength concrete for prestressed members. ACI Struct J 101(4)Google Scholar
  11. Hwang H, Huo J (1996) Simulation of earthquake acceleration time histories. Center for Earthquake Research and Information, The University of Memphis, Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  12. Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Ji J, Elnashai AS, Kuchma DA (2007) An analytical framework for seismic fragility analysis of RC high-rise buildings. Eng Struct 29(12):3197–3209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ji J, Elnashai AS, Kuchma DA (2009) Seismic fragility relationships of reinforced concrete high-rise buildings. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 18(3):259–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kinali K, Ellingwood BR (2007) Seismic fragility assessment of steel frames for consequence-based engineering: a case study for Memphis. Eng Struct 29(6):1115–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kircher CA, Nassar AA, Kustu O, Holmes WT (1997) Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra 13(4):663–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. PEER (2010) Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings, PEER Report No. 2010/05. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  18. Powell G (2000) Perform-3D CSI. User manual and User guide. CSI Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Sewell RT (1989) Damage effectiveness of earthquake ground motion: characterizations based on the performance of structures and equipment. PhD thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK, Kim SH (2000a) Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development. J Eng Mech 126(12):1287–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000b) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech 126(12):1224–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Singhal A, Kiremidjian A (1997) A method for earthquake motion-damage relationships with application to reinforced concrete frames. NCEER-97-0008Google Scholar
  23. Smyth AW, Altay G, Deodatis G, Erdik M, Franco G, Gulkan P, Kunreuther H, Lus H, Mete E, Seeber N (2004) Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake damage mitigation: evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey. Earthquake Spectra 20(1):171–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wen Y, Ellingwood B, Veneziano D, Bracci J (2003) Uncertainty modeling in earthquake engineering. Mid-America earthquake center project FD-2 reportGoogle Scholar
  25. Wen Y, Ellingwood B, Bracci JM (2004) Vulnerability function framework for consequence-based engineering. MAE Center Project DS-4 Report, April 28, 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammad Zain
    • 1
  • Naveed Anwar
    • 2
    Email author
  • Fawad Ahmed Najam
    • 1
  • Tahir Mehmood
    • 3
  1. 1.NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE)National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)IslamabadPakistan
  2. 2.Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)BangkokThailand
  3. 3.COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT)Wah CanttPakistan

Personalised recommendations